< 15 April	17 April >

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 Chikka. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:39, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Mendiola[edit]

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

I don't think there are any "independent" sources about him. They all seem to be interviews or sources about the company, Chikka. The author of this article made no edits outside these two subjects. I am not nominating Chikka for deletion because I think it meets GNG. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 23:25, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 00:47, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 00:47, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 00:48, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:38, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable as either an academic or a businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:40, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to main Chikka page where individual is mentioned. Mallardsfan19 (talk) 21:53, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chikka: Per nomination. The said company is more notable than the owner. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 06:12, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Failed to find any major coverage. Consider Redirect to Chikka - The9Man ^(Talk) 09:39, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:37, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oil Junction, California[edit]

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

A rail junction that goes at least as far back as 1906, it was where the "Oil City Branch" of the SP headed east from the main line. Somewhat later a subdivision was built directly on top of it; personally I wouldn't want a rail line running right though the neighborhood, but there it is. References to it are mostly about routine rail things; I see no sign that it was ever considered a community of its own. Mangoe (talk) 23:07, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 23:25, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 23:25, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG, no evidence that this was ever anything more than a rail junction. –dlthewave ☎ 01:49, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:NGEO, a rail siding only as this article brings out. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:35, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not meeting notability requirements of WP:GNG and WP:NGEO - The9Man ^(Talk) 09:41, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is to keep with one editor suggesting tags for improvement. Appropriate tags have been placed. (non-admin closure) Sulfurboy (talk) 00:02, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of Jeypore[edit]

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

This article is based on unreliable sources from the Raj era. Please see [1] and this noticeboard discussion for the problems with British Raj sources. They should generally not be used, and certainly whole articles should never be based on them. RexxS (talk) 22:20, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. RexxS (talk) 22:20, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RexxS (talk) 22:20, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Before: I can find nothing but passing mentions of "the little kingdom of Jeypore" using online searches. There is a trail that points to Orissa Historical Research Journal, 1992, B. Schnepel, "Origin and Consolidation of the Kingdom of Jeypore", but there is no sign of that article anywhere that I can find, so I still see a lack of reliable secondary sources giving significant coverage of the topic. --RexxS (talk) 22:38, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello sir, The erstwhile kingdom of jeypore is of a great significance to the people of the particular place. Till the coastal city of Vizagapatnam you can see the name and noble social works of the dynasty. The 25th king donated lands to keep the Andhra University running, there is a statue there in his honour. We are only using wikipedia as a medium to inform people about the history which is often lost in oblivion if not preserved. And I believe wikipedia should be the same. Its a platform for information and I am generously sharing information. I understand there are not a lot of articles about the kingdom due to the obscurity in the region during the British Raj. But now there are attempts that are being made to preserve such history. I am a journalist myself and I have seen so many articles on princely states and estates but none of them are questioned or proposed for deletion. Kindly, go through my article and let me know if you think there is something that must be edited. But please its a humble request that you dont delete this page as I have worked for months, day and night, researching and writing this article.

And there are informations from both pre Raj era and post Raj era. If you have problems with raj era then i can delete the post raj era material. But the information is based on Kumar Vidyadhar Singh's book Nandapur the forsaken kingdom, he was a learned writer, he researched through the royal geneological books for information.

Kind Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeyporeRajMahal (talk • contribs) 23:31, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand, JeyporeRajMahal: we don't want you to delete post-raj material (in so far as there is any); that's the kind of material Indian historical articles want. Post-Raj sources, i. e. more modern sources, are the best, especially academic ones. KSB Singh's book Nandapur A Forsaken Kingdom is from 1938, which means it's a Raj era book and should not be used. A really old book like The Fifth Annual Report from the Select Committee on the Affairs of the East India Company, from 1866, has even greater problems. Did you go to the links I and RexxS have offered, [2] and [3] for a detailed explanation of the many problems with Raj era sources? Pre-Raj sources are older still and it's very rarely they can be used. Could you please follow those links, now provided for the third time? Oh, and Delete. Bishonen | tålk 00:22, 17 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Delete in its current state This article appears to be a good faith effort (though likely with some COI issues) and the subject may be notable. However, the current version is deeply problematic because of the sources it relies on. In particular, the main two sources used are:
- The aristocracy of southern India (1903), which is an outright hagiographical work. Its section on the then king of Jeypore begins:
  His Highness the Maharajah, Sri Sri Sri Vikraima Deo, Azem, Mahalrajah, Yujadud Dowla, Mahabat Assar, Yedal Yemeenay, Salatnut, Samsamay, Killapathay, Islam Sri Jhadkhand Badusha, Maharajah of Jeypore, of the Solar Race, the possessor of a hilly tract, in the Vizagapatam District, is naturally mild and pacific like his father, possesses a quick apprehension and extensive capacity, evinces talents for business, and is no less distinguished for sobriety and decorum of deportment than for literary acquirements...
- Nandapur: A Forsaken Kingdom (1939), which is an effort to reconstruct the medieval era history of the Sankara dynasty's rule by an author who, as the book's introduction notes, is "a scion of a Raj-family which once held independent authority in the Orissa Gadjaths; and he has now become a distinguished member of the present Jeypore, the old Nandapur, Maharaja family by marriage. His second son Sree Ramakrishna Deoas Yuvaraja of Jeypore, will,..., carry forward the Jeypore line into the new Self-governing Federated India."

Thus, even if one discounts their antiquity and obscure publishers, neither of these works are reliable independent sources that one can build an encyclopedic article upon; and, while they are of potential value as primary material to a scholar studying the area's history, they cannot and should not be read uncritically or used as sources on wikipedia . The remaining cited sources in the current version of the article, only support some of its peripheral content.

Searching for sources myself, I didn't find a ton (beware of false hits related to Kingdom of Jaipur in Western India) but there seems to be enough out there indicating that the subject itself may be notable and that a proper encyclopedic article would read very differently from what we currently have. For anyone interested in undertaking that work, perhaps the place to start would be The Jungle Kings: Ethnohistorical Aspects of Politics and Ritual in Orissa (see review). Abecedare (talk) 00:03, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have deleted more material that used Raj sources. Now what is left is the geneological table and a few current and post 1947 details. Please do check and let me know if its still up for deletion.
And most of the princely state wiki pages are using Raj sources, I hope I see them deleted in the near future if thats your policy.
this is an article published by the official government website of Odisha state in India. link http://magazines.odisha.gov.in/Orissareview/2013/jun/engpdf/70-72.pdf
is this relevant at all ??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeyporeRajMahal (talk • contribs)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument. Official government websites are dubious, academic sources are preferred. Please sign your posts with five tildes, ~~~~ , so we know who's speaking. Bishonen | tålk 04:21, 17 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Four tildes (which was probably meant here) would be better, because it provides your user name and a time stamp. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:38, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

doi:10.2307/3034233 is a 22-page academic paper published in 1995 about this kingdom, and "KANAK DURGA AND DASHERA IN JEYPORE - A HISTORICAL REVIEW" at [4] is a 7-page paper published by the Odisha State Museum in 2016. There are probably more sources found by this search but I don't have the inclination to read through them now. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:23, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources that I gave above confirm that this was at one time an independent state, and for even longer was semi-independent. The source described as "dubious" by Bishonen as being on a government website is written by a reader in history at Vikram Dev College, Jeypore, and the journal seems to have a reasonably independent editorship (took me a long time to load), so it is not too dubious. These sources also contain plenty of information, so, if the current article has problems, it can be rewritten on their basis. Notability is an attribute of an article subject, not the current state of an article. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:38, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with the previous commmenter. As per WP:CONTN, "if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability." There definitly needs to be improvement to the article (at times is seems like closer to a geneology than history of a kingdom), there are many reliable, independent academic sources on the subject itself. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Therefore, even if there are problems with the sourcing of the current article it is still notable enough to be an article (albeit one that requires significant revisions and review). Zoozaz1 (talk) 18:51, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the existence of sources this is not fake, and passes WP:GNG. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:05, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but tag for improvement This is a horrid article, mostly about the present titular princes. However that is not a reason for deletion, but for improvement. If their UK equivalents are anything to go by, local history periodicals are a reliable source, but not necessarily Internet-accessible. In one case, we have it on a state government website, which is entitled to as much respect as one from (say) Michigan. This is not from a parish council (which might be untrustworthy). Nevertheless, the article needs a vast amount of work; for example, the map is actually labelled Northern Madras: it may show the princely state, but not obviously. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:33, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in the basis of sources found by Phil Bridger and Zoozaz 1. Mccapra (talk) 00:44, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Coverage in reliable sources is pretty much borderline. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:36, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Smoke Dawg[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, WP:MUSICBIO and WP:VICTIM. There was trivial coverage of his musical career both before and after his death. Specifically, this biography fails WP:MUSICBIO criteria #4: "has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour". The concert tour Smoke Dawg participated in was not his tour; it was Drake's tour, and Smoke Dawg is not even mentioned on the Drake Wikipedia article. The first AfD discussion was a month after Smoke Dawg's death, and the additions to the article since then are merely memorials. The Youtube documentary, Remember Me, Toronto, produced by a non-notable musician, received trivial coverage and included just a few archival clips of Smoke Dawg. This person is notable for one event--his murder--and Wikipedia is not a memorial. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:48, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:48, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:48, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:48, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He passes WP:MUSICBIO 1. Please also refer to the notes made in the contested speedy deletion on the talk page. He has had a posthumous album released which received significant coverage by Exclaim!, and he has also had enough coverage by reliable sources before and after his death. TwinTurbo (talk) 12:21, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per my previous comments. His posthumous "releases" are just other people basically sampling his music and the one release hasn't charted. There is no significant coverage of his work, just memorials about his death. Praxidicae (talk) 12:36, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

His posthumous album was unreleased tracks that he was working on before he passed away, not samples. What sources have you read that says this? And only 12 of the 48 sources used are about the death of Smoke Dawg. TwinTurbo (talk) 14:06, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So what part of WP:NALBUM does it meet? Praxidicae (talk) 14:53, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did not create an album page for it to meet this, but there is enough coverage online on the album to give the rapper enough credibility. Mustafa the Poet, the filmmaker of Remember Me, Toronto is notable having been a songwriter on a grammy award winnign album, hence I believe he is a notable filmmaker. TwinTurbo (talk) 16:04, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but that is simply incorrect. My question is: what would make the album notable under WP:NALBUM? If you cannot answer, then that is proof that Smoke Dawg is not notable. Praxidicae (talk) 16:25, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He meets number 1, The album has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works that was covered by Exclaim!, Complex, HotNewHipHop, and Vice (magazine). TwinTurbo (talk) 16:34, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Care to provide those links? This exclaim piece isn't about Smoke Dawg or his album, it's a 3 word passing mention, Complex source says nothing about the album or Smoke Dawg, this HNH piece says nothing about the posthumous album or the subject and it's the same for the rest. So please feel free to point out which sources are reviews of his album. Praxidicae (talk) 17:03, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bro these ones are notable coverage on the album: complex, [exclaim, HNHH,— Preceding unsigned comment added by TwinTurbo (talk • contribs)

First of all, I'm not your "bro". Second of all, this is not a review of his work, it's of his brothers. this is basically a memorial. Praxidicae (talk) 15:51, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aplogoies for referring to you as my "bro", It was said in a manner which meant no offence, I take it back you are not my bro. 👎 In regards to the HNHH article, that is how they review albums as you can see editors rating "VERY HOTTTTT" is equivalent of 5 stars. Just cos the article say RIP Smoke Dawg doesn't mean its a memorial. Complex article shows that there is reliable secondary sources which cover the album which you claim doesn't. Don't disregard the exclaim review as well which you also said wasn't a review of the album, because it is. TwinTurbo (talk) 16:04, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am sympathetic to Smoke Dawg's story, but the nominator's use of WP:VICTIM is most relevant. That guideline also links to WP:BIO1E, stating that Wikipedia should not have an article on a person who only ever received coverage for a single event, if that person would be totally low-profile otherwise. This is key for Smoke Dawg because his music received just about no significant and reliable media coverage on its own terms, and all that can be found are the typical social media and self-promotional sites. Therefore he was a non-notable musician. All of his media coverage, including in several reliable sources, is about his untimely death, so unfortunately WP:BIO1E kicks in. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:12, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He has numours coverage on his works, not just his death. He even has a documentary by Noisey which was recorded in 2017. TwinTurbo (talk) 16:31, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable artist and many good references. In worse case, where this page is deleted after discussion, many of the info could be added to special section in Halal Gang page and this page becomes a redirect. werldwayd (talk) 16:27, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:SINGER 1. numerous reliable articles on him, 4. (of course it was Drake's tour but he was on it nonetheless), 11. has been placed in rotation on OVO Sound Radio. He also meets WP:NALBUM 1, was the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works that was covered by Exclaim!, Complex, HotNewHipHop, and Vice (magazine). He really is a notable artist, you go to Toronto Im sure everyone there has heard of him, he has over millions of streams as well as millions of views on YouTube. The reason for previous delete was most likely a case of WP:TOOSOON, he has since had more coverage and posthumous releases since then on his music. Can I advise the people adamant on deleting this article to actually read the sources included in the article? TwinTurbo (talk) 16:43, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can I advise the people adamant on deleting this article to actually read the sources included in the article? Sure, if we can advise you to read the same sources after you've read the relevant guidelines and policies related to significant coverage. Your argument fails because none of the sources you're talking about are reviews of the subjects albums. WP:ILIKEIT isn't a good enough reason to keep something and neither is "Everyone in Toronto knows him!" Praxidicae (talk) 17:06, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I am wrong but I'm sure this is a review of the subjects album TwinTurbo (talk) 18:31, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Majority of the sources online are about the subject's death. With the exception of this, none of his other music releases charted or were critically reviewed. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 18:34, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Only 12 are about his death, These are a few of thesources that are not on his death but his career: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4], ^[5], ^[6], ^[7], ^[8] TwinTurbo (talk) 19:01, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

@TwinTurbo: Those sources you mentioned here are press releases about the subject's music and are not about the subject himself. Exclaim's review of his album is a credible source no doubt; however, has other reliable publications reviewed his music? As it currently stands, one credible review is not sufficient to warrant a separate article. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 21:15, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they are, as above Praxidicae claims that there isn't enough coverage on his studio album to meet WP:NALBUM. The provision of these sources show that his album passes part 1 of WP:NALBUM. There is additional coverage on the subject himself regarding his music (not just his death). TwinTurbo (talk) 21:24, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP If the album gets coverage to prove its notable, than the musician who created it is notable. WP:ENTERTAINER References like this [5] confirm his notability. Dream Focus 00:38, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dream Focus: This is not true. Notability cannot be inherited. Just because an album is "notable" doesn't mean the subject automatically is. BTW, the Vice source you linked here is not about the album and definitely not enough to warrant a separate article about Smoke Dawg. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 00:50, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me. WP:MUSICBIO is the relevant subject specific guideline. Search for the word "album" and take a read. Also it doesn't matter if most of the coverage was for him after he got shot, that's still coverage they wouldn't give to someone who wasn't considered notable. Dream Focus 00:59, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Exclaim! is a reliable source. Smoke Dawg's solo singles "Count It Up" and "Trap House, ... produced endless energy. Now (newspaper) puts him on their list of Toronto musicians to watch in 2017. Have you looked through all the references found? Dream Focus 01:08, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Exclaim! is a reliable source no doubt, but is that enough to warrant a separate article? Majority of the sources in the article are about the subject's death. Apart from one reliable review of his album, none of his other music releases were discussed in reliable sources. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 01:22, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is enough content to have an article. And of course if its about him or his work then it warrants its own article. Meets the general notability guidelines just for https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/d3xdmz/noisey-meets-smoke-dawg and https://exclaim.ca/music/article/smoke_dawg-struggle_before_glory Dream Focus 01:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per TwinTurbo. Smoke Dawg also passes WP:MUSICBIO 4., as he headlined a concert in London in February 2017. Although some people may not like the fact that his posthumous album received critical acclaim in Exclaim!, that still adds to his overall notability since the first AfD discussion. Blackjays1 (talk) 03:10, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article has undergone significant improvements and a minimum of 8 more references have been added to the article since it was nominated for deletion. TwinTurbo (talk) 03:21, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep per TwinTurbo, Dream & WP:HEY. Also, even if the nom was right about the Dawg failing WP:MUSICBIOcriteria #4, that's irrelevant as the guideline clearly states the musician only needs to pass one of them, and Smoke Dawg obviously passes #1. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:20, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:SINGER. Inexpiable (talk) 18:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please note that User:TwinTurbo has canvassed several editors, including User:Olisaiuer [6]; User:Blackjays1 [7]; User:Inexpiable [8]; User:DavidLeeLambert [9]; and User:Werldwayd [10]. Four of these editors voted "keep" at the article's first AfD, except User:Olisaiuer, who did not participate. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:49, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry TwinTurbo (talk) 22:53, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:31, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pink Guy (music collection)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM, if indeed it is an album. This looks like it was created as a college assignment project, so I'm sure it was done in good faith, but I just don't see how this is in any way notable. It's a collection of songs uploaded to the artist's YouTube channel, and briefly available to download from the artist's YouTube channel, and that's it. Unsurprisingly, almost every reference is to the artist's YouTube channels. The interview from Complex mentions a song or two, but not this entire collection... it refers mostly to Pink Season instead. I can't see how a redirect is useful, because there's no guarantee that people will use "music collection" as a search term; Pink Guy (album) is a much more likely search term and that already exists as a redirect to Joji (musician). I don't think a merge is appropriate either in order to "keep the history", because it's almost all sourced to the artist's YouTube channel, so there's no reliable sources involved. Richard3120 (talk) 21:38, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 21:38, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 21:38, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 21:39, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 21:39, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 21:39, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 21:40, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It's not an album, but more of a list of Pink Guy's songs. Nothing notable about the list. Some of those can be added to Joji's discography page. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 14:35, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I completely agree with the nominator. This is not an album that was released, nor is it any sort of stand-alone item that can be described in an encyclopedic fashion. It's just a stream of songs self-uploaded to YouTube. Individual songs can be listed as appropriate at the artist's article at Joji (musician). ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:53, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The article's subject does not meet the notability guidelines for a standalone page. aboideau^talk 14:41, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Sulfurboy (talk) 22:14, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dorothy West (actress)[edit]

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

The article only has iMDb as a source, which is not reliable. In my search for more information on her I can across a lot more unreliable stuff, and lots of false posities. One example was a celebrity life non-source that included a photo of the writer of the same name with her death information. I found a British Film Institute article (somewhat sourced to IMDB itself) that included a 1931 photo of a Dorothy West connected with a film by a female director and described as playing herself. It was just a caption description though, and nothing clearly connected that person with the silent film actress who had not performed at that point in over 15 years. West lived to be 79 but we only have any information anywhere I could find on her during 8 years of her life. She lived 64 years after her last apparance in a film. The only real source I could find was a film industry trade publication from 1916 with a plot synopsis for one of her films that mentioned her as having the role in the film. Nothing I came up with would count as the substantive, 3rd party secondary sources indepdent of the subject we need to pass GNG. While she was the lead actress in a few films, considering these films were often 15 minutes I do not think we can adequately apply a rule developed in an age of 1 hour plus long films and TV shows to show that the few films she stared in are enough. If you look through he listed filmography she often shows up at the bottom of the cast list with bit parts. John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:27, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:53, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:54, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:55, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:55, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"While she was the lead actress in a few films, considering these films were often 15 minutes I do not think we can adequately apply a rule developed in an age of 1 hour plus long films and TV shows to show that the few films she stared in are enough." What????? Are you suggesting we hold an article to a different standard because the woman worked 100 years ago in the first years of film? --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 11:27, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am suggesting that we consider the meaning behind the standards we have. Significant roles in 3 films when they average one and a half hours or more means a lot more than in 3 films when they are much shorter. All the more so if the film articles themselves are only sourced to IMDb. Beyond this, the underlying problem that this article presented when I found it was being sourced only to IMDb. IMDb is not reliable, and we should not have articles sourced only to it. Considering we pretty much write off all 1-episode TV appearances as not significant, I do think we need a bit more skepticism about some film appearances.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:22, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We have no separate (double) standard for silent films, do we? Consider that some of the films she was in are preserved by the Library of Congress and were reviewed by the press. They have as much clout as the longer, more modern films to which you refer. It's ok that you are not a silent film enthusiast -- I wouldn't say I am -- but equating a D.W. Griffith film with an episode of a television show doesn't work. If you want to pursue your idea that short silent films are less worthy and get notability policy changed, this isn't the place to do it. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 12:38, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Again, a bit of WP:BEFORE work here finds this, this and [11], along with multiple mentions in the Biographical Dictionary of Silent Film Western Actors and Actresses. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:06, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the most insulting comment I have seen. I did a lot of background search as documented above. The fact that there are other more notable people with this name made this difficult. A search for "Dorothy West" and actress showed up a lot of mentions of people appearing in films based on novels by the writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:05, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Try "Dorothy West" and "silent film" instead. And to be fair, a lot of your prod/deletion work in this area does appear to lack any WP:BEFORE work, such these recent examples: one, two. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:56, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I mentioned that first source Lugnuts gave in his links. I am unconvinced that the caption is of a picture of this Dorothy West. Is that woman 48? That is how old this Doroty West was in 1931. Also it is just a caption, not really even a passing mention.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:07, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The "Alie and Well and Living on Martha's Vinyard source shows that I am the one who did the before, not Lugnuts. That is not about this Dorothy West. How do I know. 1-This Dorothy West died in 1980. 2-That is most explicitly about the African-American writer, not the Euro-American actress. So of those first three sources we have only one that is for sure about this actress (there is no evidence that the 1931 photo is of this person) and even then it is focused on the director way more than the actress. It is most about one film, maybe it would count towards GNG, but we cannot pass GNG on that source alone.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:11, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The biographical dictionary link does not work for me, so I cannot say if it is workable. However the fact that Lugnuts provides as a source an article about a totally different person shows that he did not in fact examine any of the sources he threw out in any detail. One passing analysis of a silent film someone starred in is not enough to create notability, and that is all we really have, because we have no evidence connecting the 1931 photo to this actress, this is not an uncommon name, and a caption to a photo is not the type of indepth article needed to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:14, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm on it. According to her LoC authority file, she's mentioned (briefly or extensively I do not know) in this book ... --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 20:20, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm going to work on the article. I have a lot of hits in Newspapers.com and other places to look as well. I see the discussion has been going on for a few days and it looks like it would be extended for at least another week. Please do extend if a "no consensus" or "keep" is not reached. Thank you. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 20:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping with this. Maybe Lambert would like to explain his canvassing with this post, and the one about Dorthy West directly above it? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:57, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The communication there about Dorothy West was done before any nomination, so it is in no way canvassing. The post there linked to is something I have not nominated. It is perfectly acceptable to communicate with others about issues concerning articles. On the other hand I am still waiting for Lugnuts to admitted one of those articles he linked to is about a different Dorothy West and so has no bearing on this discussion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:14, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When I wrote the post about West I had still not decided to nominate the article. If Lugnuts had any respectability he would strike the reference to the false 1988 article link and admit that only one of the offered sources at the time he could link to this person.12:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

The post I linked to, albeit titled "Fay Lemport" was made by you five days after this AfD started. So if Lambert had any respectability, you would strike out your comment where you tell a straight out lie. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:08, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am working on the HEY factor. Stay tuned. In the meantime, please, let's all chill out (myself included). Early 1900s entertainment BEFORE work is not straightforward. @Johnpacklambert: take a look at the article now and tell us what you think. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 12:27, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Only when Lugnuts admits he was totally and completely wrong in claiming the 1988 article in any way, sahpe, means or form related to this actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:50, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Johnpacklambert: Are you saying you won't chill until then or that you won't look at the article until then? DiamondRemley39 (talk) 12:54, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - I might do both. I am just frustrated that I went through the long process of evaluating the actual sources, pointed out there was a writer who should not be confused with the actress, and then had a source related to the writer thrown at me in a very rude way.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:56, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment She is probably the same as this Dorothy West, as an article talked about her in motion pictures said she was a Broadway actress, but I am not quite at 100% on it, so I am not going to add it at this time. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 17:20, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as meets WP:GNG now because WP:HEY. I found reliable secondary sources, including one article that is just about her, and reviews of a couple of the films she was in that comment on her performance. I'm going to try to get other sources, including an obituary, but things like that may not be available due to stay at home orders. I have also read that she was a radio actress in the early 1930s and may look more into that in due time as well. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 17:20, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think the subject passes the notability guidelines quite comfortably. There has been some very good work done on the page by the above editors, so WP:HEY is relevant here. (Also, I don't think it matters that many of the films the subject appeared in were short films, given the time period.) Dflaw4 (talk) 10:52, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Sulfurboy (talk) 22:14, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond the Permafrost[edit]

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

No evidence that it meets WP:NALBUMS Tknifton (talk) 20:17, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:57, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I even found some reliable sources which talk about the song: [12], [13], [14], [15] and [16]. The said sources, including most of the ones stated in the article, make the article good enough to pass WP:NALBUM. My vote stands. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 05:38, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Blabbermouth.net seems like a reliable source. So does the newspaper article at [17] Dream Focus 00:44, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Clusterfuck. This catastrophically huge nomination is so big that XfDcloser is having a seizure whilst trying to close it. No prejudice against speedy renomination individually or in smaller batches. As the removal of the AfD templates can't be done automatically by XfDcloser, I have asked the nominator to do it - no one else should have to spend their time cleaning up this mess. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:28, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mayoral elections[edit]

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chula Vista mayoral elections (an ongoing AfD), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2004 Mesa mayoral election, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 Fontana mayoral election; these are all non-notable elections that mainly show the results and nothing else. It might be better to merge some of this information to other articles. Wow (talk) 20:03, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Wow (talk) 20:12, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:59, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:00, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Oakland, Sacramento, San Francisco, Oklahoma City as major cities likely to have further coverage. Delete or Redirect others to List of mayors of Boise, Idaho, List of mayors of St. Petersburg, Florida, List of mayors of Spokane, San_Bernardino,_California#Mayors etc. Largely bulk-created using only primary source of results without discussion or significant coverage for notability; we are not Ballotpedia or OurCampaigns. Per WP:NOPAGE, can be covered in main articles/lists until separate page is warranted but data only does not justify standalone articles for small cities and suburbs with local-only news coverage. Reywas92^Talk 21:01, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:05, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:06, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:06, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:06, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:06, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:06, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:06, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:07, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:09, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:12, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:12, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:12, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Speedy Keep per WP:TRAINWRECK and WP:NOTCLEANUP. The nomination proposes merger not deletion and doesn't seem to have done any detailed work on the specifics of each case. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:42, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Listing more articles to determine if they should be deleted, starting with Hartford. --Wow (talk) 22:06, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- In other words, "we need a bigger trainwreck"? SecretName101 (talk) 22:22, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good lord, you indeed made it even more of a trainwreck.SecretName101 (talk) 22:24, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep This is a clusterfuck. I count 271 articles you nominated in one AfD, even though these cities are not the same. It's a TRAINWRECK. Nominate one city at a time. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:49, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Wow (talk) 22:57, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Wow (talk) 22:57, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Wow (talk) 22:57, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Wow (talk) 22:57, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Wow (talk) 22:57, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia-related deletion discussions. Wow (talk) 22:57, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. Wow (talk) 22:57, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Wow (talk) 22:57, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. Wow (talk) 22:57, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Wow (talk) 22:57, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. Wow (talk) 22:57, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Wow (talk) 22:57, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Wow (talk) 22:57, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Too many to properly evaluate. These weren't mass created and are sufficiently different that they need to be broken down a bit more (arbitrarily, maybe a limit of 10 per nom). If you think the article format itself is flawed, you may want to consider an WP:RFC instead, but it's almost certainly going to result in "handle on a case by case basis, with no presumption of notability". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:57, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep per WP:TRAINWRECK. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:00, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Does not appear a sufficient Wikipedia:BEFORE has been conducted.Djflem (talk) 02:06, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is the second instance of poor judgement being practiced by Wow relating to election articles this week. Creating this particularly jaw-dropping mess of a trainwreck comes right after Wow removed transparent images that were being used to regulate the width of candidates on the infoboxes of hundreds of election articles, accrediting these actions to what amounted to a GROSS misinterpretation of a centralized discussion. It was time consuming on my part to undue all of that. Wow, please practice due-diligence before undertaking actions that prove a massive waste of other users' valuable time. As was just stated, you practiced none of Wikipedia:BEFORE and also created massive trainwreck that, of course, was never going to result in anything productive. This is not how we undertake deletions. SecretName101 (talk) 02:40, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep -- While I would tend to agree with the nominator for a decent number of these articles, comparing Green Bay to Sacramento to South Bend is too much of a leap for me. -- Dolotta (talk) 14:02, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Snow procedural keep It is unreasonable to expect a consensus out of such a granular-level nomination--one editor counted 271 nominations from multiple cities and jurisdictions. I appreciate the editor making a WP:BOLD nomination yet I hope that rather than piling more on to this one that a more controlled approach is taken. Heck, I might want to delete all of them... but in smaller, easier to manage bundles please.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:31, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep due to ridiculously large number of articles nominated. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:33, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep Not a fan of these mass nominations. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 17:04, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major issues with mass nominations aside--there are far too many articles included here to properly evaluate--most of these are for mayoral elections in major American cities, making them fairly notable. It may be worthwhile to consider consolidation by city, at least for some of the smaller ones (outside of the 125-150 largest?), but I see no need to delete, especially en masse. ALPolitico (talk) 13:31, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep. Too many articles to evaluate this properly. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:25, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There may be notable reasons to keep many (or some) of the articles. And, much of the content may be able to be merged into other articles. In general, though, I believe that mayoral campaigns, properly covered by reliable, independent news sources should have the presumption of notability by meeting WP:GNG. --Enos733 (talk) 15:53, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep There are to many disparate articles of differing levels of quality and detail to be handled as a mass AfD. Some of these are reasonable candidates for deletion but many aren't. A more thorough review per WP:BEFORE and a split by city may be the best way to proceed. Alansohn (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep. This is unreasonable, bordering on abusive. There's no way we as a community can debate this in any way. Nominate again the worst offenders, and let's go from there. FWIW, I would keep the Buffalo articles, so don't bother re-nominating them. Bearian (talk) 03:06, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep. Some of these might be salvageable, some might not, but with this many articles batched at once there's no easy way to tell one way or the other. One city = one batch. Bearcat (talk) 04:11, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — There are also a ton of articles on gubernatorial elections which were created as substance-free WP:NOTSTATS violations and have remained that way. By dwelling on a particular office and not another, are we once again pushing an artificial pecking order? RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 08:48, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep: It's impractical to assess several hundred articles together like this. Even spending a minute skimming over each article would take around 4 hours, non-stop. These need to be nominated individually or in much smaller groups that only cover one city each. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 10:41, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep - WHOAAAAAAAAAAAA! JESUS CHRIST! Did you even check any of these, or are you just learning to bundle? 🌺Kori🌺 - (@) 06:18, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep Worth keeping procedurally, but also want to note most of these I would probably !vote keep on, if not merging them into a "Mayoral elections in Cityburg." It may actually be worth an RfC if you plan to nominate these individually, to determine where the line is. SportingFlyer T·C 20:45, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:31, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EnergyTeachers.org[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This organization might fail WP:NONPROFIT. Computer165 (talk) 20:07, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:15, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:15, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:15, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unquestionably fails NONPROFIT, and no evidence of any significant press coverage. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:04, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of WP:SIGCOV. It looks interesting, but I don't see how it passes WP:GNG, since admittedly half of its members come from two adjoining states. Please ping me if you find anything else. Bearian (talk) 03:03, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no discernable independent coverage in reliable sources. Fails GNG. Also, this Wikipedia article appears to have been posted for promotional purposes. It seems like advertising for the organization. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion or advertising per WP:PROMO ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:14, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Promotional article with no no reliable sources. Many of the sources are primary or passing mentions. 🌺Kori🌺 - (@) 18:39, 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 merge to Minecraft server. Sandstein 18:57, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MinecraftOnline[edit]

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

non notable server Praxidicae (talk) 18:46, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Minecraft server, and add a section for it under Minecraft server#Notable servers. GamesRadar is the only independent source here (other than the YouTube videos). Fails WP:NWEB. — Melofors T C 19:36, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the only source, it's not a notable server and thus shouldn't be merged. This is just fancruft. Praxidicae (talk) 19:44, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's also two smaller sources shown here on Google News. I feel that it's notable enough to have a section on Minecraft server rather than a whole article.— Melofors T C 21:27, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"having results in Google news" does not equate to sources existing. Praxidicae (talk) 18:43, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I personally support this having a section in the article Minecraft server this really seems like players/users of this server creating a Wikipedia article and ignoring notability requirements, I do not believe it has enough notability for having an article. Simply being the oldest known public Minecraft server does not make it notable enough for it's own article. Considering that it is not a "well known" server, and only has about 40 users at peak times, it should NOT have it's own article. 1 Great Username (talk) 22:08, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:06, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support for Merge with Minecraft server, and add a section for it under Minecraft server#Notable servers. Same reasons as above. JamesHSmith6789 (talk) 23:49, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that it fails notability due to a lack of sources no longer seems valid now. Sources now include Celebs Pulse and oldest.org, and I'm sure that Melofors is aware of their credibility seeming that he edited the 2b2t page.

Also, to address 1 Great Username's points, the server is extremely popular and "well known". Videos on it accumulate millions of views from some of the top YouTube minecraft channels:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtFaCL5v7io

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IlJsazPu0I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCHrFu9GRvw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BjZIzagevE

The thing is, 1 Great Username was right that a player created the wiki page. I wished he had not because the page he created is poorly sourced, and even more poorly worded. Someone else could have done, and still could do, a much better job.

I think with some polish, minecraftonline.com definitely warrants its own page. I mean it's the oldest server on the best selling game of all time. I'm biased because I happen to be a player on the server, but I think my prior sentence speaks for itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlphaAlex115 (talk • contribs)

@AlphaAlex115: The reason 2b2t warrants an article is that it has several dedicated articles from notable sources. Other than one notable article by GamesRadar, MinecraftOnline is only mentioned on oldest.org and CelebsPulse, both of which are just mentions on lists. Also, oldest.org is unreliable and was removed from the 2b2t article. — Melofors T C 18:19, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per JamesHSmith6789. —{ Cryptic Canadian } 00:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like the article belongs here. Videos were made covering the topic, the server was featured on various sites. A very old Minecraft multiplayer map, one of the very first servers still operating to this very day. Here are some of the YouTube videos with more than 100k views

- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtFaCL5v7io (Mines) - 5.2M

Less notable examples:

- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UbQalxqBdw (Cibergun►Play) - 73k - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNjISlFUfK4 (Kendal) - 87k

Server featured in videos:

- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6lu2xlowFg (FitMC) - 1M - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3dQH0qQdc4 (AntVenom) - 260k - A lot more videos not worth mentioning.

Also, I found this minecraftforum topic

https://www.minecraftforum.net/forums/servers-java-edition/pc-servers/686142-minecraft-online-worlds-oldest-server http://minecraftonline.com/map/#/-354/64/390/-5/Freedonia%20-%20overworld/Day

-Unspectrogram 04/17/2020 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unspectrogram (talk • contribs)

@Unspectrogram: @AlphaAlex115: A handful of YouTube links and forum threads do not establish notability on their own. You should acquaint yourselves with Wikipedia's core content policies. Dumping a pile of self-published sources into an AfD as counter-evidence gives a strong impression that this is a promotional article. —{ Cryptic Canadian } 05:38, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think that's fair Cryptic. I also linked to other sources such as Celebs Pulse and oldest.org (in addition to gamesradar). There's likely more sources - and no doubt some could be gotten off 2b2t's page, but I'm lazy. In any event, it's not just YouTube. The YouTube videos with millions of views were just linked to counter 1 Great Username's point.

Also, I already said I was a player there. I'm not really interested in advertising the server - I just think it deserves its own page. Accusing me of trying to promote the server seems a tad harsh, and kind of irrelevant to the points I originally raised.-AlphaAlex115

@AlphaAlex115: "Celebs Pulse" appears to be a content farm. Gamesradar is the only other secondary source I see on the article, which isn't enough to justify an article of this length. If the server deserves its own article, then why does the article rely 90% on primary sources? If the article isn't trying to be promotional, why would we need five different headings listing the server rules? Moderation strategies?

"Do not grief. Do not cheat. Do not spam." "Players usually get a warning for the first time they break a rule, repeating the action can get the player banned." - Like every other competently ran game server?

In its current state, this article is almost certainly going to the heap. Wikipedia doesn't grant exemptions for "laziness." You are free to edit the article to address these problems if you want to save it, but simply dismissing the problems isn't going to help it. —{ Cryptic Canadian } 22:32, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yea Cryptic I agree. In its current state, it's garbage. And as I said before, I'm lazy. It's a shame, but to the heap it goes I guess. -AlphaAlex115

Merge with Minecraft server. There is not much to look into this otherwise we will be having more articles in future which barely need any attention. Azuredivay (talk) 23:27, 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 keep. Sandstein 18:57, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Curious George Takes a Job[edit]

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

No evidence it passes WP:NBOOKS or WP:GNG.Tknifton (talk) 18:11, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages because no evidence they pass WP:NBOOKS or GNG:

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 April 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:28, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Plot detail is excessive, but this specific book article is reliably sourced and passes WP:NBOOKS. Caro7200 (talk) 18:34, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- What are your views on the others nominated? Tknifton (talk) 20:46, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Caro7200:. Tknifton (talk) 20:48, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:07, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:NBOOKS. Even has reviews from the major trade publications. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 20:41, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- What are your views on the others nominated? Tknifton (talk) 20:46, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @DiamondRemley39:. Tknifton (talk) 20:48, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - They're all for sure keeps, @Tknifton:... or I'm that monkey's uncle! DiamondRemley39 (talk) 22:13, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Tknifton:, did you complete any WP:BEFORE? If so, where? When I Google the title and "review," the Kirkus Review is among the first results. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 23:02, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep per WP:NEXIST: The Curious George books have been popular since the 1940s; there are lots of reviews that make these easily pass WP:NBOOK. I've found contemporary New York Times and Chicago Tribune reviews for them. For example:
- Curious George Takes a Job review, New York Times (Sept 21, 1947)
- Curious George Takes a Job review, Chicago Tribune (Nov 2, 1947)
- Curious George Rides a Bike review, New York Times (Oct 12, 1952)
- Curious George Rides a Bike review, Chicago Tribune (Nov 16, 1952)

And that's not even touching the many newspaper and magazine articles about the Curious George series. These sources aren't currently being used on the page, but WP:NEXIST says that the subject's notability is based on the existence of reliable sources that can be used to improve the article. It's pretty obvious that sources exist for Curious George books. — Toughpigs (talk) 21:00, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, speedy close. And until the nom can come up with a rational explanation of how reviews in multiple trade publications and a feature in the New Yorker don't constitute "evidence of notability", they should stay away from AFD until repentance takes hold. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 23:19, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Sufficiently notable and well-sourced. Woerich (talk) 03:28, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NBOOKS and WP:GNG, Curious George Takes a Job article listed multiple reviews prior to nomination so why is it here? This is another bundled afd that highlights the problems with doing so, for example lets look at Curious George Rides a Bike, a quick basic gsearch ("Curious George Rides A Bike book reviews") brings up multiple reviews in the 1st few pages: a Kirkus starred review here, Books for Keeps review here, there is even a recent (sept 2019) child's review here that although not reliable does reflect the impact that this title still has after over 60 years. Also, this Washington Post article, as well as having a review of Curious George Gets a Medal within it (Ding!:)) mentions "By the end of the 20th century, over 25 million copies of George’s seven volumes had been printed" bringing the 1st 7 titles into the realm of the bestseller, another criteria of nbook. in conclusion ("thank goodness for that.:)), a special plea for afd nominators pllleeeeeezzzzze carry out WP:BEFORE, especially for bundles, prior to nominating. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:10, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the previous two comments. I wish detailed explanation of WP:BEFORE completed were required in AfD. Too many of us are putting out fires set by those who won't complete it when we could be doing more constructive things. These nominations are borderline disruptive IMO. @Tknifton:, please respond to our comments. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 14:46, 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 Speedy keep as the ip nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 19:34, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EnergyTeachers.org[edit]

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

This website might fail WP:NONPROFIT. Completing nomination on behalf of User:5.153.218.57.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:20, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:20, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:20, 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. Sandstein 18:56, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Larray[edit]

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

Subject of article is a very non notable internet “YouTube & Tiktok star” who doesn’t have in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources hence falls short of WP:GNG. Subject also falls short of WP:ENT, WP:BASIC & WP:ANYBIO. Celestina007 (talk) 17:56, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:56, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:56, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:56, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:56, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not finding any coverage in RS. Citrivescence (talk) 23:04, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Same reason as Citrivescence. Hughesdarren (talk) 03:29, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable YouTuber.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:49, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; the are sources about this person, but they are of a trivial Gen Z nature, e.g. "Larray has x followers" or "Larray is 21 years old and is a part of Hype House". There is simply no claim to notability, nor is there SIGCOV to justify a biography. PK650 (talk) 23:09, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete this has all the hallmarks of paid for spam - including several fake black hat seo sources. Praxidicae (talk) 14:13, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:56, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Rolling Stone Top 200 number-one albums of 2019[edit]

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

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Rolling Stone Top 200 number-one albums of 2020. Per this discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Record_charts, the Rolling Stone chart has been deemed a WP:BADCHART due to faulty methodology. Since that chart has been deemed unreliable, this article becomes a copy of magazine trivia, and a non-notable topic. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:18, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:18, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:18, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's no evidence that Rolling Stone charts have become viable or are considered authoritative to any degree in the music industry. The methodology just isn't there and I don't think there's been major coverage of this as any sort of standard. Toa Nidhiki05 17:38, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable: a google book search turned up an old "Rolling Stone's Top 200 All-Time Rock Albums" list, but nothing about the album chart.[18] —Ojorojo (talk) 18:07, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my comment on the similar AFD and the consensus on WP:CHART that this chart cannot be used in Wikipedia album articles. Bluesatellite (talk) 01:27, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Of no use now that the chart is a deprecated chart. AshMusique (talk) 17:34, 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. Sandstein 18:55, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah Elizabeth (musician)[edit]

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

The musician does not pass WP:GNG since there are no third party sources covering her. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:14, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:14, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:14, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:14, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. She might have been "up and coming" in 2015, but she doesn't appear to have made the big-time. The website for her management company is currently not in use, so it looks as if her career must have fizzled out. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 18:43, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:43, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:50, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:50, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO and has not been discussed in reliable secondary sources. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 17:42, 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. Sandstein 18:55, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ike Bishop Okoronkwo[edit]

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG, WP:POLITICIAN and WP:ANYBIO. He is the CEO of a non-notable record label. None of the references cited in the article are independent of him. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 17:09, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 17:09, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 17:09, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 17:09, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 17:09, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Fails general notability guidelines & falls short of WP:NPOL. I can’t seem to find any evidence of true notability. Celestina007 (talk) 17:25, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It fails WP:POLITICIAN and also he is the CEO of an unnotable record label. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 17:07, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:55, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Irewole Samuel Oni[edit]

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. The article does not cite any sources. A Google search of the subject doesn't show independent coverage of him. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 16:54, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 16:54, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 16:54, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 16:54, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — I can’t see WP:SINGER satisfied neither does a before I just conducted show subject of article satisfying general notability guidelines either.Celestina007 (talk) 16:59, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — fails WP:SINGER. Wareon (talk) 05:19, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:55, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Flayslane Silva[edit]

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

Subject of article is a non notable singer who falls short of WP:MUSICBIO. Celestina007 (talk) 16:47, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:47, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:47, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:47, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:47, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:47, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet inclusion guidelines for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:42, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is incomplete and the sources are not valid. Iranwikimanage (talk) 11:39, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:55, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lanre Olusola[edit]

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR and WP:ANYBIO. Some of the references cited in the article are not about him. The ones that are actually about him are not independent of him. A Google search of the subject doesn't show him having in-depth coverage. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 16:47, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 16:47, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 16:47, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 16:47, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Falls short of WP:AUTHOR & general notability guidelines. A before shows no evidence of notability in any way.Celestina007 (talk) 16:54, 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 speedy delete (G5, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/علي أبو عمر). MER-C 20:04, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Nuri Turkoglu[edit]

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

Despite the excessive ref bombing, a before shows subject of the article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources hence falling short of WP:GNG. Furthermore I do not see WP:NACTOR being satisfied. Celestina007 (talk) 16:35, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:35, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:35, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:35, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:35, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:44, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. That's possibly the worst example of linkbombing I've ever encountered on Wikipedia. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 18:50, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: WP:NACTOR may be made out, with the subject's long-running role in Payitaht: Abdülhamid, his film appearances and his recurring roles in other TV series—but I am in no way able to evaluate the sources provided in the article. I think input from someone who can read the Turkish sources would be of benefit here. Dflaw4 (talk) 01:46, 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. Sandstein 18:55, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oroville Junction, California[edit]

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

The junction for the Oroville line of the Sacramento Northern, big surprise. It has been abandoned for decades and mostly shows up in railroad-related hits, including a long series of those referring to the place for some other reasona nd describing it as this junction. The area also seems to have been referred to as "Tres Vias", but I'm not finding substantial references to that either. GMaps claims and old enough topos show a "Floral School", but the building is long gone, and according to this obituary the school closed in 1949, and it was "near Tres Vias". I'm just not seeing any evidence of a community here, and the rail junction doesn't appear notable. Mangoe (talk) 16:30, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:41, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:41, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sign of a settlement or anything notable here. The rail junction may have been used as a landmark but hasn't received enough coverage to meet GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 01:59, 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. Sandstein 18:54, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keren Hanan[edit]

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

Notability fail. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:16, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete fails, WP:GNG, WP:NARTIST and WP:MUSICIAN. Theroadislong (talk) 16:19, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable individual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:01, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wholly non-notable. Sulfurboy (talk) 14:36, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability. - The9Man ^(Talk) 09:48, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:53, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ntia ntia[edit]

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

Subject of article is a non notable Christian preacher who falls short of WP:RELPEOPLE, has no in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources so invariably falls short of WP:GNG. A BEFORE shows a few hits here & there but definitely are not reliable sources. Celestina007 (talk) 16:12, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:12, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:12, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:12, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:12, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:12, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. A Google search of him doesn't show him being discussed in reliable sources. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 16:34, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails on many accounts, most notably (pun intended) lack of notability. And why does this keep popping up again and again? Looks to me like a promo, more than anything. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:56, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- he is covered on on believersportal.com, the nation online, vanguard, wetin happen magazine, as well as critical coverage in brandfaces. He appears to be closely linked with the governor of his area. Epiphyllumlover (talk) 19:59, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Epiphyllumlover: The sources you provided here are both unreliable and not independent of the subject. Believersportal, Wetinhappen (a blog) and brandfaces are not reliable sources. The Nation sources is about a convention; Ntia is only mentioned in the source. The Vanguard source is also not about Ntia; he is only quoted briefly in the source. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 22:43, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But if I keep his article from being deleted he will give me a Lexus.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 00:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

lol. He seems like a generous guy. Regardless of the outcome of this AFD discussion, I believe he should give you a Lexus for trying to save the article from deletion. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 03:11, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Epiphyllumlover, omg! How am I just seeing this. I haven’t had a good laugh in a minute LMAOOO. Celestina007 (talk) 17:59, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He appears to have founded an church, but it doesn't appear notable and a google search doesn't seem to reveal much. 2601:197:800:C0D0:6D64:A233:7A64:CE87 (talk) 17:58, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG, Lexuses or not. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:35, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:53, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2005 West of Scotland Cup Final[edit]

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

Final match of minor, local football competition, well below any professional level. There is nothing about this particular match that would make it more than ordinarily significant, and the only source is a WP:ROUTINE match report. Jellyman (talk) 16:11, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:45, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:45, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:45, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:49, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:49, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 17:24, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The brief Daily Record match report is not enough to establish this particular cup final as significant. No evidence provided or found that the match was notable; while no doubt a memorable day for Troon F.C., the listing of the match in the table at West_of_Scotland_Junior_Cup#Finals is sufficient. AllyD (talk) 19:18, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or at most redirect to West of Scotland Junior Cup. Giant Snowman 12:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it may have been a good match, but this does not make it notable. West of Scotland Cup finals do not in themselves meet notability requirements, so I do not see any reason for keeping this. Dunarc (talk) 22:56, 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. Sandstein 18:53, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Veniqa[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSOFT. A WP:BEFORE search returns "a hair inhibitor that has been sold under the Veniqa brand from Bristol Myers Squibb" but no software. Cabayi (talk) 16:06, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification (for the benefit of the sockpuppets) - if a search returns a typo for the hair inhibitor VANIQA and nothing for the software VENIQA it proves the point that the software is not notable. Thanks for biting the bait here. It provided helpful evidence for the sock puppet investigation. Cabayi (talk) 19:59, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 16:06, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 16:06, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 16:06, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete vanity spam by the creator of veniqa. Praxidicae (talk) 16:28, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
grounds for deletion unsubstantiated The Hair inhibitor brand being mentioned is VANIQA, this wiki page is for VENIQA. A simple google search should clarify the confusion. Torycontrolla (talk) 16:28, 16 April 2020 (UTC)— Torycontrolla (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Action for deletion has no base I have not made any edits to Veniqa but I have used the product and it is a new product in Nepali market. VAniqa, on the other hand, has to do with BMS company. So, VEniqa and VAniqa are mutually exclusive. Please remove the deletion action as the original cause does not justify the reason for deletion.Nepal e reviewer (talk) 17:14, 16 April 2020 (UTC) — Nepal e reviewer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
delete - concur with Praxidicae, vanity cruft, no SIGCOV to be found. And to the oppose !vote above, I did that simple Google search, and I did indeed find the hair product (mis?)spelled as Veniqa in several places. Regardless, no significant coverage of the software + page creator appears to be undisclosed COI as one of the founders creffett (talk) 17:15, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Proof : Veniqa: https://www.veniqa.com/ and Vaniqa: http://www.vaniqa.com/ . I cannot provide any more proof than this because at this point, people are not reasoning. Admin, please review the websites and google yourself before just deleting this page. Nepal e reviewer (talk) 17:24, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment user:Nepal e reviewer and user:Torycontrolla have been blocked as a result of this Sockpuppet review, which identified them as probable socks of Anton503 who is a major contributor to the page in question. DELETE (and probably salt) ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 19:01, 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. Sandstein 18:52, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Otto Poon Lok-to[edit]

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

Per WP:EXIST this is an un-encyclopedic article merely listing the existence of a gentleman who was noted in one local news event about building an illegal swimming pool, and that was only covered because his wife was a notable politician. He also made the news for an expensive divorce ([19]) but these minor stories do not rise above the trivial. None of the requirements for "well known" and "widely recognized" at WP:ANYBIO are met. And since he received coverage due to the connection with his wife, WP:NOTINHERITED applies as well. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:38, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:38, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:51, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I need time to search and read news article or did any technical paper existed. Poon is the former president/chairman of HKIE thus not sure are there any publication that have in-depth coverage about him. Matthew hk (talk) 04:19, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, on one side WP:NOTINHERITED should be considered to reject the claim of notability as a husband of someone else. But it seem his previous divorce, became a landmark case Kan Lai Kwan v Poon Lok To Otto and HSBC International Trustee Limited which have article that publish by Oxford Publishing Limited to cover it. The criminal case of illegal addition and alteration of Poon /Cheng's house also attracted a lot of news coverage in Chinese language media in HK. Matthew hk (talk) 04:28, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As an author, i could only find one and only one article authored by him in IEE Review in Vol.34 (8) (doi:10.1049/ir:19880117). [20] (Not sure it is false negative on my uni search system to show one and only one or not) Matthew hk (talk) 04:32, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, another not sure peer reviewed article is written by him: doi:10.11821/xb1997S1014. It seem i can't dig further for any thing in-depth biographical coverage. He may worth to have an entry in wikidata, but not in en-wiki due to lack of GNG coverage. Matthew hk (talk) 00:35, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:53, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 23:42, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Nominator - Although I am obviously in favor of deleting the article, no sources describe this gentleman as an "academic", making the last vote and the latest stub-sorting notice rather nonsensical. He remains non-notable as an engineer who has written some technical papers, and happens to be married to someone who is often in the news. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:47, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Musician notability not met Nosebagbear (talk) 16:04, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yaw Osei-Owusu[edit]

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. The references cited in the article are either unreliable or inaccessible. A Google search of the subject does not show him being discussed in reliable sources. His only claim to notability is winning an award that doesn't appear to be notable. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 15:28, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 15:28, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 15:28, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 15:28, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 15:29, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 15:29, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:12, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Total fail of WP:MUSICBIO. No touring, no contracts, no singles, no albums, no Grammy, no coverage. Totally run of the mill. If this were 2008, we could understand a fan writing this, but it's 2020, and everybody knows that not every musician gets a free page hosted on Wikipedia. Bearian (talk) 14:25, 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 delete. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:33, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Rolling Stone Top 200 number-one albums of 2020[edit]

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

Per this discussion over at Wikipedia_talk:Record_charts, a consensus was reached that the chart is a WP:BADCHART due to a dubious chart methodology which does not pass both logic and validity tests. The consensus did not question the publication/publisher but rather the chart itself. Given the consensus on the chart, this page is now not a notable topic. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 14:57, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 14:57, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:26, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, per discussion. Caro7200 (talk) 15:05, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no evidence that Rolling Stone charts have become viable or are considered authoritative to any degree in the music industry. The methodology just isn't there and I don't think there's been major coverage of this as any sort of standard. Toa Nidhiki05 15:08, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable: a google book search turned up an old "Rolling Stone's Top 200 All-Time Rock Albums" list, but nothing about the album chart.[21] The companion List of Rolling Stone Top 200 number-one albums of 2019 should be deleted as well. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:16, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Per Ojorojo's suggestion, I have AfD'ed List of Rolling Stone Top 200 number-one albums of 2019 under the same rationale that LilUnique1 used here. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:20, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Since the Rolling Stone chart has been deemed unreliable, this article becomes a copy of non-notable magazine trivia. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:21, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Why would we need to make and update a list-article, when its content is not even used anywhere else on Wikipedia due to WP:BADCHART. Rolling Stone is still a highly reputable magazine for music journalism, but not for charts. Bluesatellite (talk) 01:25, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Of no use now that the chart is a deprecated chart. AshMusique (talk) 17:33, 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. Consensus article does not meet NCORP. Any undeletion, del rev etc consideration should note the copyright violation Nosebagbear (talk) 16:06, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SHIELD - Autonomous Risk Intelligence[edit]

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

no meaningful coverage - all I can find are basic biz announcements and PR about their name change. Praxidicae (talk) 14:54, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:03, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:03, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The opening paragraph is a copyright violation from the bottom paragraph on this page on their website. Not a single reference meets the criteria for establishing notability. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion nor a directory service. Topic fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:09, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete HighKing is right about the copyvio from the subject's website - that could be fixed of course, and isn't a reason to delete, but it is indicative of possible UPE, and I'm not seeing sourcing sufficient for an NCORP pass: better just to delete the whole article. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:27, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:21, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pendar Akbari[edit]

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

Non notable actor falling short of WP: NACTOR & has no in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources hence falling short of GNG also. A before just shows his Instagram page. Celestina007 (talk) 13:50, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:50, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:50, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:50, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No results in news or books. Results in regular search are iMDB page and social network pages etc none of those contribute to establish notability. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 14:58, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:33, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The subject's three credits at IMDb do not seem to meet the notability criteria for actors. There are other roles listed in the article, most of which I am unable to verify due to lack of sourcing. I haven't been able to find any sources that would satisfy WP:GNG, either. If, however, someone is able to locate some Persian sources, I will happily update my vote. Dflaw4 (talk) 01:24, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom: a non-notable actor. The page was created by the meatpuppet of an Iranian film company (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bidelirania) so there's probably a Conflict of Interest as well. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 15:19, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per nom, not notable enough for wikipedia, maybe in the future! Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 11:09, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:55, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, without prejudice against resubmission. Due to the prior vandalism this is a rather odd submission. We have deletes, but their reasoning is predicated on the "at-submission" status of the article. I considered both a relist and a no-consensus result, but I felt that that would actually be falsely weighing the policy in play. It would also be hindering actual consideration. There were also dedicated Keep !votes on the current (and original) nature of the content and a request for a new AfD.

As such, I'm going to close this as a keep, but if an individual wants to renominate they are free to do so immediately. Anyone who does so should either post here or ping every participant of this AfD. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:13, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Treger[edit]

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

Not notable, no references Fuddle (talk) 13:17, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Fuddle (talk) 13:17, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, joke article. Caro7200 (talk) 13:36, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:49, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete yes a joke. Mccapra (talk) 13:51, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:A7, no claim of significance. No sources as well. -- LuK3 (Talk) 14:22, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
More info: The page used to represent a different person: [22], changed by a new user. Revert and block user? Fuddle (talk)
Hallo, I wrote this page about an american violinist. Now it's about a different person (vandalism?). You don't need to delete this page, you can only come back to my version. --Etup45 (talk) 16:51, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close and revert vandalism. Although the actual subject of the article may fail GNG as well, that should be discussed on its own merits in a new AfD, not based on some vandal's work. Smartyllama (talk) 18:14, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Close, but no Tregar.~~ I've reverted the vandalism and restored the violist/professor. Delete that persion or redirect to Henryk Wieniawski Violin Competition#1962. I found one New York Times article,[23] (alas behind a paywall), but that's about it, so WP:BIO isn't satisfied. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:24, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the violinist per Zingarese. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:32, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is completely inappropriate to be discussing two different people in the same AfD as if they are one. Let's do this the right way - speedily close this, and Clarityfiend can immediately renominate if they so choose, or just be bold and create a redirect. Smartyllama (talk) 12:14, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close One NY Times article and that's about it? That is a lie...there are literally more than TEN pages of results in the NY Times alone of articles about him or where he is mentioned. Also as the winner of a major music competition (the Wieniawski), meets WP:MUSICBIO #9. To Fuddle, please be careful next time. It is your responsibility to make sure the article you are nominating is not a vandalized version that has gone unnoticed. People who participate in these discussions usually won't check that. It's also utterly disgraceful and speaks volumes about the current state of this wonderful project that this act of vandalism was allowed to stay up for 3 days. Zingarese talk · contribs 15:23, 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 keep. Various policy issues were raises in this, including whether it met WP:LISTN, WP:TRIVIA, whether TRIVIA was relevant for determining the actual retention of content, along with WP:SALAT which notes that a list may creatable but too broad to have value. In favour of retention was that there are sufficient sources to met LISTN requirements, and there is a certain degree of scope limitation.

Ultimately, the sourcing/NLIST reasoning had a sufficient majority, even factoring in at least 2 "weak keep" !votes to demonstrate a consensus for retention. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:21, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of longest gaps between studio albums[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unsourced trivia. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:57, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:57, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:07, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - In the first AfD for this article there were some compelling "keep" votes with the rationale that there could be sources for the list, but here I am going to have to agree with the nominator. In addition to the WP:TRIVIA standard, see also WP:SALAT which says "some (list) topics are trivial, non-encyclopedic, or not related to human knowledge." Whenever an act takes an unusually long time between albums, it can be described at their own article, but there is little to be gained by comparing various artists in a list article like this as if notable patterns could be analyzed. I'll also point out that this list misses The Sonics at 48 years between original studio albums. Just sayin'. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:06, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Isn't information about gaps between musical releases otherwise covered in the article 'development hell'? CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:54, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, I'd agree it was pure trivia but the list at least sets a minimum limit of 10 years and (with the exception of Stars in Battledress) only includes gaps involving at least one notable album. About sources, are we talking about sources for the release dates of both albums or sources that explicitly mention the gaps? Victão Lopes ^Fala! 16:23, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Victor Lopes, Many of the albums listed on that page are redlinks: How is that the only one that is non-notable? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:53, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Koavf, I meant only one gap involves two non-notable albums. All the others have at least one blue link. Victão Lopes ^Fala! 19:07, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not really relevant on Wikipedia. MetalDiablo666 (talk) 17:36, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination does not have a valid reason to delete as the link to WP:TRIVIA is bogus – that's a quite different issue. The guideline that is actually relevant is WP:LISTN and this page passes it – see Music Times or Official Charts Andrew🐉(talk) 18:36, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep When they mention an album they do mention how long its been since the band last released one. This is a notable thing. Perfectly valid list article. Dream Focus 19:40, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dream Focus, When writing about albums, we also write about the date they are released. Would List of albums released on April 21 also be a valid article? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:49, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unrelated. The date anything is done is mentioned. There are list articles listing the bestselling albums of certain years though: Lists of albums. Mentioning its been 20 years since the last album was released by a band, that's far more notable a fact. You have to use common sense in these sorts of things. Dream Focus 20:24, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I do apologize for saying three years ago that I’d try to improve it, but not having that done yet. But it remains to be a notable subject, covered by reliable sources, and with a finite (not indiscriminate) scope, consisting of a list made entirely out of notable subject items. Sergecross73 msg me 20:30, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A very weak Keep - A single source in the article, and little evidence provided of WP:NLIST thus far. I'm seeing some listicles and borderline sources around that might be sufficient, but it's all rather thin. Here's the best of what I can find: Billboard, maybe relevant CoS, Paste, Loudwire, maybe a bit more if we wrap in the concept of "comeback album"? Eh. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:09, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lots of blue links. Also per WP:LISTN we keep lists that aide in navigation or provide information. Lightburst (talk) 20:49, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It was agreed in the previous AfD to keep it. But, I believe it's mandatory for the list to have sources at most. The sources stated above make the list good enough to pass WP:LISTN. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 06:45, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:35, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mannaf Rabby[edit]

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY BlameRuiner (talk) 08:31, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 09:44, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 09:44, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: He appears to meet NFOOTY#2 as Chittagong are in the BPL, and that's on the list at WP:NOTFPL. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 09:44, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Struck, it is on the list but of not fully-professional leagues... ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 09:48, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:12, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:12, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:20, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GiantSnowman. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 20:27, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:51, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:25, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Nehal[edit]

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY --BlameRuiner (talk) 08:32, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:15, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:15, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:15, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:16, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:21, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 20:26, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:57, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per the nominator. HawkAussie (talk) 01:58, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:25, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of X Factor (Polish season 2) finalists[edit]

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

The lists of finalists are already available on the seasons' article. Majority of the names do not satisfy the WP:BLP requirements by assuming they have inherited notability just from being finalists. If they are notable, then they should have their own articles (as a few already do). The sourcing in both these articles are low level as well. Ajf773 (talk) 08:17, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:17, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:17, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:17, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see why we need a list of short bios of non-notable people in this format. Names can be mentioned in the main article, their short bios are not encyclopedic. It's a form of WP:FANCRUFT IMHO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:29, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is already a consensus formed from at least 4-5 recent AfDs which resulted in the deletion of all Big Brother seasonal lists. I'll point to my arguments there. --Gonnym (talk) 18:55, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:25, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ashutosh Kumar[edit]

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

I just declined a WP:A7 speedy deletion request for this article, as it does assert importance, but I don't think the subject meets WP:GNG. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:42, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:42, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:42, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete possibly may hope for political notability someday, but not yet. DGG ( talk ) 08:26, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable activist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:16, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources that are not primary just have brief mentions of the subject. Not enough to pass WP:BIO or WP:BLP. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 09:25, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:22, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Oracle (Sweet Valley)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I don't think there are enough sources out there to build this into an article by itself. It concerns a fictional newspaper from a book, which could be reasonably (and probably has been) covered in the individual wiki pages for these books. Very few newspapers from works of fiction would be notable enough to warrant their own page IMO and I don't feel this comes close. Allenthalben (talk) 07:01, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:07, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article fails GNG, as it is completely unsourced, and WP:PLOT, as it is written from an entirely in-universe point of view. A BEFORE search found nothing that could even contribute to notability, and the title is too generic to be a redirect. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:33, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the fact that this sourceless article has existed for 14 years is a blemish on Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:15, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject is not notable and article has been unsourced since November 2006. 🌺Kori🌺 - (@) 04:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn by nominator. the wub "?!" 00:12, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chom Dong[edit]

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

Private housing estate which has not been the subject of any significant third-party coverage, thus failing the GNG. Paul_012 (talk) 06:53, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Paul_012 (talk) 06:53, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Upon closer inspection, it's the same structure as historical royal villa of Queen Rambaibarni, so should at least notable in that aspect. I'm withdrawing the nomination. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:00, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Sulfurboy (talk) 06:53, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Miller-Keane Encyclopedia & Dictionary of Medicine, Nursing, and Allied Health[edit]

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

Nothing indicates WP:NBOOK notability. Gotitbro (talk) 06:52, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Gotitbro (talk) 06:52, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Gotitbro (talk) 06:52, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Gotitbro (talk) 06:52, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(books)#cite_note-textbooks-7 ,this Encyclopedia does not appear to be notable as a book, especially due to the fact that it isn't sufficiently important/groundbreaking to the medical field. Also, especially with the previous rule for determining the notability of books, it specifically excludes reference books, which this is- therefore even if some educational institutions use it as a resource, it should still be deleted. Stickymatch 16:08, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article meets WP:NBOOK, specifically WP:BOOKCRIT #1. I have updated the article to include book reviews from five different medical journals. MarkZusab (talk) 14:07, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. seems an important and serious book, used as a ref in anatomical articles.Walidou47 (talk) 17:11, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of the sources added by MarkZusab. Mccapra (talk) 00:54, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - All the sources are reliable. 🌺Kori🌺 - (@) 05:07, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:51, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lullwater (band)[edit]

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

Cross-referenced with the Wikiproject Albums source guide, the citations provided for this article are largely unreliable. The sources not actually listed as unreliable do not inspire confidence with their About Us pages or site design. There's a link to Paste Magazine, but it's to its Noise Trade section which is promotional and not independent of the subject. The provided Billboard citation does not mention the subject, or support the claim it's attached to for that matter.

All told, we're a ways away from WP:GNG and WP:NBAND has not been met. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 06:18, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 06:18, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 06:18, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 06:18, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guys....I've done my best to follow all the rules established by Wikipedia with help from several editors. My sources are from true music publications, music writers and music publications that follow current artist. I've even show two main criteria for meeting a musical band - Lullwater has had rotation on Siruis Radio Channel and had charted on Billboards Secondary Market most added rock song in the week of 10/5/19. Granted, this is not the Rolling Stones or the Foo Fighters with #1 singles and album sales on Billboards top charts, but it is an upcoming band that is making a living by touring an supporting other major artist while trying to get more popular every day. Just because they are not a major player yet in the music world, I think they should still be able to be recognized by Wikipedia as a working band trying their best to succeed. The fact that they can be found on a Wikipedia search would lend credit to their hard work - it is not considered promotional in any way as far as I'm concerned. Thanks for listening. Lullwaterfan (talk) 21:28, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The issue isn't that your attempt to write the article is promotional, but rather that there's insufficient coverage in reliable sources to comply with Wikipedia's verification policies. The standards for musical journalism are fairly low in practice: I'm willing to accept pretty much any coverage as long as its written by a professional publication with a publicized editorial masthead and bylines, and isn't blatantly promotional in its copy. I don't think that the provided sources meet this standard. If the band is up and coming as you say, WP:TOOSOON may apply. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:46, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Granted, they have not been covered by Rolling Stone magazine or MTV, but those are not the only music business publications out there. Lullwater is only "up and coming" because they haven't yet broken through to be a headlining band in today's music industry. But, they have a long (since 2007) and solid reputation as a quality opening act for such top tier musical acts as Passafire, RA, Amaranthe , Butcher Babies, Theory of a Deadman , Candlebox, Gin Blossoms, Collective Soul, Daughtry. I'm just a fan that would like to see a great band be represented on Wikipedia so others can learn about them. I've not included any promotional garbage that makes my article appear like a commercial for the band. Only facts! How can I show you all these articles and interviews about the band and bands like these that have almost zero information on them are on Wikipedia?? Examples: 2:54, InCrest, Yuck_(band), Fangclub, My_Ticket_Home. Lullwater's music can be found on iTunes, Spotify and Pandora. What more must they do to show they are an established act that has just not made it to the top tier of acts yet ???? Lullwaterfan (talk) 23:06, 16 April 2020 (UTC) [reply]

What more must they do to show they are an established act that has just not made it to the top tier of acts yet find me three full reviews of their albums or concerts in professional publications that clearly identify their writers and editors and I'll gladly withdraw this nomination. Regarding those other articles, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:14, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the following Album reviews and concert reviews and see if they meet your criteria. Once again, these are not Rolling Stone, but they are publications that cover rock music concerts and albums. I'm throwing a bunch at you, not to prove a point, only to hopefully show you something that will convince you that Lullwater is getting press while on the road. Thanks for considering these ... https://www.nationalrockreview.com/album-reviews/lullwater-by-lullwater https://crypticrock.com/lullwater-revival-album-review/ https://www.mnprmagazine.com/blacktop-mojo-otherwise-crusens-peoria-il/ https://musicinjection.com.au/2019/01/23/lullwater-refuses-to-be-still/ http://mayhemrockstarmagazine.us/lullwater-releases-visualizer-for-dark-divided/ https://www.tattoo.com/blog/lullwater-release-highly-anticipated-lp-voodoo/ https://ventsmagazine.com/2019/03/18/lullwater-release-new-music-video-for-empty-chamber/ https://digitalbeatmag.com/album-review-lullwaters-voodoo-out-february-22-2019/ https://ignitemusicmag.com/2014/04/20/lullwater-freebird-live-the-new-grunge-with-a-southern-flare/ http://momentsinsound.com/a-lasting-impression-lullwater-at-house-of-blues-in-chicago/ http://www.chicagonow.com/chicagoland-concert-event-review/2017/08/triple-play-concert-series-round-three-collective-souls/#image/7 https://indiebandguru.com/lullwater-voodoo/ https://crypticrock.com/lullwater-revival-album-review/ https://www.bleachbangs.com/lullwater-to-release-voodoo-album-on-february-22nd/

I looked at the first, third, and fourth article and they were all PR pieces, and I can tell from the purple links that you reposted several articles that I already reviewed as citations in the article (which is why I skipped #2, a source that is literally listed as unreliable at the source guide for album reviews). I'm not wasting any more of my time on this. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:01, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your nasty note to me - "don't waste my time" - and I realize I'm not going to convince you of anything. I gave it a good try. Thanks for listening. I'll take my chances with Wikipedia:Deletion_review. Lullwaterfan (talk) 01:51, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NBAND and any WP:SIGCOV that could be used to establish WP:GNG comes from PRs, primary or otherwise unreliable sources. Sulfurboy (talk) 06:23, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm inclined to agree with the nom's analysis of the sources. There are obvious PR-rehashes, and there are fan reviews in UGC publications, but I'm not finding any significant coverage in a proper independent RS. I can't see a way for this to pass either GNG or NBAND. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:55, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:23, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jurassic Galaxy[edit]

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

The article contains copy paste material. Please find the CopyVios report. Insignificant coverage in reliable secondary sources. None of their other films have standalone Wikipedia pages. Amkgp (talk) 05:51, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Amkgp (talk) 05:51, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - After doing a bit of searching, it appears as if this obscure film has gotten only a smattering of attention even from within the film community of those who like these sorts of pictures. The situation seems clear-cut. It's simply not notable, and deletion is the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:49, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage in reliable sources. I did find a couple of blog reviews (mostly explaining how laughably bad the film is) but nothing sufficient to meet the criteria of WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. Pichpich (talk) 21:16, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NFILM. Insignificant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Comatmebro (talk) 00:09, 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. Per the comments, no prejudice against recreation of a solid article with sources. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:41, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Smooth Operator (bull)[edit]

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

Article about an individual animal (bucking bull) that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. Amkgp (talk) 05:28, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:29, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice against recreation: The easiest solution now that an AFD has been open might be for Uricarrillo94 to tag the page with ((db-g7)) (the stub makes a claim that means that A7 can't be used). There will be an article that should survive in mainspace, but Dawnleelynn is working on her draft in userspace (ref Talk:List of Professional Bull Riders Champions#International champions). ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 09:29, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Amkgp, so Uricarrillo94 probably does not know how to do the deletion with the code. At any rate, he's working with me on my userdraft article now, so definitely delete this article in mainspace as it is premature. dawnleelynn^(talk) 16:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As per consensus, I am tagging the article ((db-g7)) with a link to this discussion. Thank you. Amkgp (talk) 16:32, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:41, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

French tickler (disambiguation)[edit]

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

This doesn't seem to be a necessary disambiguation page. There's the main entry, two things that are claimed to have this phrase sometimes referred to them (obscure slang), a trivia bit about a wrestler, and a fictional character in an animated porno with this name. I don't think this is needed. Hog Farm (talk) 04:57, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 04:57, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I cleaned up the entries that failed MOS:DABMENTION, and the remaining use (the film character) can be handled with a redirect hatnote on the base article. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:31, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @JHunterJ: Except there isn't a base article at this capitalisation: the primary redirect French tickler targets Condom where the term isn't actually mentioned. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:53, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  making Condom the base article at the moment. The redirect can be discussed for deletion at RfD. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:12, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. PointComm (talk) 15:52, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There's nothing (left) to disambiguate. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:53, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:05, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

La Banda de Sen[edit]

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

The article has only two references. One leads to nowhere. The other is a brief article in a not-so "reliable" media outlet. I don't see any coverage in-depth about this artist and I can't see how this article meets WP:GNG or WP:SINGER. It seems more a case of WP:SOAPBOX to me. SirEdimon (talk) 04:52, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. SirEdimon (talk) 04:52, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:57, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Kingsif (talk) 05:11, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable singer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:48, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the entry was deleted in the Spanish Wikipedia back in 2009 for being promotional. This appears to be a translation of said article. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:58, 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. Later votes reflect evidence of notability presented over the course of the discussion, and are therefore weighed more heavily than early votes prior to this development. BD2412 T 01:07, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Win[edit]

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

~~I can find no third-party coverage of this person at all.~~ The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:44, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:44, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:A7 Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 04:45, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:51, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~I am not opposed to speedy - I originally tagged it as that and then backtracked because I'm rusty at AfD.~~ The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:18, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:28, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - We can hurry this up or decide not to, but the outcome of the page being deleted will end up being the same. She's not notable. That's it. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:00, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:49, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:49, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:49, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:51, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actress and model. I worry so many of these deletions are for articles on non-Americans when we have so many articles on American actresses and actors sourced only to IMDb.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:20, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't speak for the broader process, but I found this article via patrolling new images on Commons (all three images are up for speedy deletion as likely copyright violations on that project). The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:06, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep OMFG really?! she is one of the most successful singers in Myanmar. If you don't believe me, then wikipedia editors from Myanmar can ask to give a witness (but It is only a few active on english wikipedia). For now, although I agree the article is not well-written and needs some big improvements, but she has significant coverages and reliable sources to justify keeping. see [24] [25] [26] [27], or passing mentions in english sources [28], [29] [30], "Union Minister for Information, artistes discuss development of music industry with representatives from music industry", "two celebrities, Chit Thu Wai and Rebecca Win, were appointed women’s ambassadors for Myanmar to raise awareness for gender equality and women’s rights". The dearth of English sources notwithstanding, the amount of Myanmar news coverage easily establishes her notability per the WP:GNG. Moreover, she has participates as a judge on major televised singing competition “Eain Mat Sone Yar” (“Where dreams meet” or "Dream Encounters" အိပ်မက်ဆုံရာ) like Myanmar Idol. In fact, "only the most successful singers and music legends are invited to participate as the judges in major singing contest". She is also a judge on "Myanmar's Got Talent" (source). How much do you need? "KoKoChitChit" (talk) 22:30, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Note, she is not successful as an actress but she is a very famous singer in my country. I have added reliable sources and significant information to the article. It was very easy to find information in reliable sources on her work and there is sufficient evidence that she meets WP:GNG and WP:MBIO. More work is needed to bring this article up to better standards though. Thanks 37.111.43.38 (talk) 07:48, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note: I've already vote on above. Please close this discussion slowly because Burmese editors no longer active on en-wiki. I've just found significant fact "She performed in the opening and closing ceremonies of the 2013 Southeast Asian Games" (source), and added to the article. There is now no justification whatsoever for this article to be deleted. 37.111.43.38 (talk) 18:22, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:HEY as the article has been significantly improved with the addition of references to multiple reliable sources such as national newspapers including the Mayanamar Times that show that the subject is a notable singer and television performer who passses WP:BASIC and therefore deseves an article here, in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 23:01, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AFD shouldn't be cleanup, but sometimes it turns out that way. Nicely done on improvements. StarM 00:00, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn It's clear that this person meets the notability guideline. I'm withdrawing the deletion nomination. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:49, 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) b uidhe 15:36, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dentsply Sirona[edit]

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

This dental company fails WP:NCORP notability standards. All the sources in the article are primary and trivial. Plus, nothing comes up in a Google search about them except for trivial stuff like stock price news. Adamant1 (talk) 05:17, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:37, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:37, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:37, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:38, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:38, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:38, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Has reliable sources and significant coverage. It cites articles like Globe Newswire, Wall Street Journal, and New York Times. Koridas (Speak) 04:46, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Has reliable sources, significant coverage and a lengthy history. Wall Street Journal, and New York Times are independent enough. NEW i added citations from British Dental Journal, US National Library of Medicine, Iranian Endotonic Journal. The company provides an essential service, it was part of the Nasdaq 100 and likely will be AGAIN Grmike (talk) 00:46, 15 April 2020 (UTC)GRMIKE[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 02:17, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the word DENTSPLY only refers to this company; it gives nearly 5 MILLION results in google. There are citations given in the article from dental medical journals. the company has even opened its own dental school with both a facility and an online presence. The dental industry doesn't generate as much excitement as other industries, that doesn't make it less relevant. notability should not even be a question given that Dentsply is one of if not the biggest dental companies in the USA. independent sources include Wall Street Journal, New York Times, the British Dental Journal, US National Library of Medicine, Iranian Endotonic Journal. The company provides an essential service, it was part of the Nasdaq 100 and likely will be again.Grmike (talk) 02:59, 16 April 2020 (UTC)grmike[reply]
Speedy keep. The subject is a very well-known dental company that is strongly covered by reliable sources, even more of which have been added since nomination. Woerich (talk) 02:38, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Sulfurboy (talk) 07:19, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Melick[edit]

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

Notability is questionable. Dont seem to find much sources about his work or achievement online. Roy17 (talk) 19:35, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Roy17 (talk) 19:35, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:50, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an oral history of the subject is a primary source. Wikipedia is supposed to be based on secondary not primary sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:17, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as exercising WP:AGF in the article there are listed reliable sources offline newspaper articles directly about him such as The Japan Times, Nevada State Journal, Reno Evening Gazette and others which is enough to pass WP:GNG in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:57, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I found a brief mention of him in Texas Monthly. Although all of the sources cited in the article are offline sources, it appears that they were published by reputable media outlets (Billboard, Reno Evening Gazette, The Japan Times, etc). I'm not sure if all of these sources are independent of the subject but based on their titles, it looks like refs 4 through 7 might be independent of the subject. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 16:05, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The scope and breadth of the sourcing meets the general notability guideline based on the references already in the article. Alansohn (talk) 01:41, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 02:11, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm assuming the newspaper refs are legit. Though the article should be trimmed substantially to focus on sourced content. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:11, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keepappears to met GNG. Djflem (talk) 17:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per the comments I made earlier. Some of the article's sources are notable and appear to be independent of the subject. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 21:04, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:03, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vicki Davis[edit]

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

A non notable actor, no evidence of substantial secondary sources online. Inappropriately sourced using just IMDB since 2008. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 18:18, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 18:18, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 18:18, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 18:18, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 18:18, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 18:18, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 18:18, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:24, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Keep~~ Weak Delete: Just conceivably the subject's roles in Maybe It's Me (TV series) and Odd Man Out (American TV series) pass the WP:NACTOR threshold, although the shows themselves don't seem all that notable—however, finding sources is very difficult. Her name seems to be quite common, which doesn't help matters. This not-very-good source which provides nothing more than a passing mention may be referring to the subject, but I'm not sure: https://www.celebdirtylaundry.com/2018/general-hospital-spoilers-gh-star-takes-on-brand-new-role-exciting-project-brings-big-drama/. Hopefully others will find some sources; otherwise I will likely downgrade my vote. Dflaw4 (talk) 10:55, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no where near enough sourcing to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:40, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — J947 ^{(user | cont | ess)}, at 22:01, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 02:11, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Updating my vote above: I've done a more discriminating search at newspapers.com, but all the coverage I've found is pretty minor. I see that no one else has had any luck sources-wise either. The subject only has a weak case for WP:NACTOR, too, as I opined above, so I'm downgrading my vote to "Weak Delete". Dflaw4 (talk) 01:10, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A problem is the subject (a BLP) lacks significant coverage in reliable sources to support a stand alone article. This article joins approximately 1100 others where IMDb is used as a source but is inappropriate. We end up with a pseudo biography (one paragraph) that contains one or more embedded lists of entertainment credits. Wikipedia is not a listing of all things entertainment nor an advertising venue for IMDb. Otr500 (talk) 06:29, 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. BD2412 T 00:57, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Hossein Mohammadi[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to be notable, but rather a normal footballer with little or no coverage in sources. I couldn't find anything about them in different sources, and the article does not indicate why its subject is notable. Ahmad^talk 01:39, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Ahmad^talk 01:39, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Ahmad^talk 01:39, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Ahmad^talk 01:39, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:51, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't verify that he meets NFOOTBALL (Soccerway has an incomplete career and does not show any notability) and even if he does he appears to fail GNG which is far more important. Giant Snowman 10:48, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If we required footballers to actually have multiple reliable sources of coverage, we would probably cut out 25,000 biographies of living people in one fell swope and significantly reduced the number of articles that say nothing substantive about their subjects. We need to of course do the same to cricketeers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:13, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Merge would've been best, but the parent article at Atrak Bojnourd F.C. also fails notability. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk)
Delete - As per nom, notability not asserted. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 11:12, 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 WP:SNOW keep, with direction to appropriately reorganize and/or split the list. BD2412 T 00:50, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of critics[edit]

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

Taking to AFD after a PROD notice was removed for no discernible reason. This WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of critics doesn't appear to have any criteria aside from being a critic (may have been cherry-picked on some subjective basis) and would be ridiculously long if every critic was included here. Overall, it's just listcruft and we don't need lists of every type of thing imaginable, and I don't see how this could be feasibly managed. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:37, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:35, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:35, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:35, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:36, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:37, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:39, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:41, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:46, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:50, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I actually see this as being a bit useful! I learned a thing or two reading it, so it is useful in terms of human knowledge. There has been some discussion at various AfDs about the notability of curators and critics, and this might be helpful in terms of making their role more plain. It could do without the big image at the top though. Sending a neutral ping to @Vexations, Theredproject, Freshacconci, Melcous, and Theroadislong: for their esteemed opinions.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:51, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS: It might need to be broken down a bit into List of art critics (ah, I see that already exists), List of television critics and so on.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:54, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be fine with breaking this down into subpages. Those would give more clear-cut criteria and be easier to manage. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:00, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ThatMontrealIP, I don't think lists like this are particularly useful because it is so easy to generate them on Wikidata instead (https://w.wiki/MzD took me less than a minute), but, if someone wants to do maintain one, that's well within policy to have one. This particular list fails to meet the definition of listcruft. It is not indiscriminate, the subject Critic is notable, and it is easily verifiable. Guess that's a Keep. Vexations (talk) 11:36, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ThatMontrealIP, I honestly don't have strong opinions about lists(!) this one included. --Theredproject (talk) 00:27, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Room for improvement, but not indiscriminate. Notable critics are a reasonable topic for a list. I'm surprised the nominator thought this would be uncontroversial. pburka (talk) 03:50, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but reformat - This needs to be sorted out such that the main page is a list of lists. Compare 'lists of journalists'. See 'lists of writers' as well. All that said, I absolutely oppose deletion. We have established precedent for keeping articles structured as 'lists of [occupation]'. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:54, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily passes WP:LISTN – see this or that, for example. The nomination doesn't "see how this could be feasibly managed" but it seems to have been managing just fine for 16 years now. Our editing policy is to improve such pages, not delete them. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:23, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How long the page has been around for is irrelevant and that shouldn't be treated as a free pass. Also, with such a wide potential scope, it could easily become messy with unsourced entries and/or people only adding certain types of critics they feel are worth mentioning. Having subpages as other users suggested would avoid such issues. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:46, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename as lists of critics with links to standalone lists where they exist. For groupings that don't have such lists, it is easy enough to start an embedded list. For example, searching famous literary critics lends reliable sources that can be used here. Such embedded lists can be spun off whenever they seem a decent length. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:40, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you favoring the same idea as ThatMontrealIP and CoffeeWithMarkets by having its content split off into subpages? SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:46, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am, with the subpages being by the subcategories we see here (not by nationality, for example, as it isn't meaningful on that high of a level). I do want to set a standard, though, with sourcing. Like to have "base" lists of sourced critics to indicate to future editors that additions should be accompanied by sources. Of course that does not always happen, but I think it enables us to "clean out" unsourced additions routinely and link to them on the talk page (or better yet, try to source them). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:55, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to say that I'd be glad to contribute to that end, like with literary critics or dance critics. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:57, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. What we have now is just a comepletely unsourced article, and that doesn't help anything unlike what you've proposed. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:06, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blue linked lists that have no blp information do not need referencing, its just timewasting refbombing, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It sounds like people have ideas for ways to improve this article, in ways that will address some of the nominator's concerns. I think that the nomination has brought attention to the article, which is helpful. At a certain point, this transitions from a discussion about how to improve it, rather than whether it should be deleted. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:36, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but don't split for now. This is a article that doesn't need that for now. Maybe in the future when it gets unwieldy, but right now it just needs more notable critics added to it, with maybe some notes on how they are notable. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 22:12, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no split as this adequately covers the similar topics. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:58, 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.