The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:53, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of people with major depressive disorder[edit]

List of people with major depressive disorder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:BLP among other issues. I cannot see what use this list is. Why would it be encyclopedic to publish a list of people, both living and dead, with mental disorders? The majority of the list is composed of show business celebrities and sports figures. Many of the people on this list are living. This looks like tabloid fodder. — Maile (talk) 22:46, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — Maile (talk) 22:46, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The fact that the page is utterly distasteful is not a valid reason to remove it: but the fact that it's explicitly vague in its remit ("Some historical personalities are presumed to have had depression"), questionably-sourced and, per nom, inherently prone to breaching BLP guidelines, combined with the fact that it doesn't seem to serve any useful function, are all valid reasons to get rid of it. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 07:31, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete disgusting article we should not have. I care nothing for policy based reasons in this case. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 13:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, we have plenty of Category:Lists of people by medical condition and this would seem to be a significant one because of the substantial impact it can have on people's lives. The nominator and commenters above seem to assume that this is inherently negative, or done as an attack page ("distasteful", "tabloid fodder", etc.), but this reads like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. That assumption also seems ironically ignorant of the fact that this information has been increasingly published in reliable sources about notable people (and through self-disclosure by many such subjects) in order to counter the stigma attached to mental health issues. The utility of such a list is in providing examples of those with relevant experiences of the list topic, and that provides readers opportunities to research any further (WP:IJUSTDONTGETIT should fit in WP:ATAIDD somewhere). Every entry is sourced. If there are issues with a particular entry then examine those specifically rather than the WP:VAGUEWAVEs we see above to BLP. You don't get to delete something by throwing out dismissive, drive-by opinions that are clearly less based in actual work, research, and review of the content and cited sources than what the editors have put into it. postdlf (talk) 16:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But I do get to ivote on such a disgusting article. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 17:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And your "ivote" will get all the weight it's due. postdlf (talk) 01:54, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. But I can predict the future. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 07:01, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as it is implying a diagnosis in most cases. Looking at the (impressively compiled) references I see personal anecdotes about depression as well as bipolar disorder or anorexia etc., but I could not find one example specifically citing the subject diagnosis of major depressive disorder. LizardJr8 (talk) 20:59, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as pretty much everyone gets depressed sometime in their life. Alternatively, trim down to the people who are professionally diagnosed with the disorder. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• If I may comment here. If it were trimmed down to a verified list of people who were actually diagnosed with the illness ... there is nothing to prevent the "anybody can edit" practice of future edits adding back their favorite subject they personally think was depressed. And then we are back to Square One. — Maile (talk) 00:15, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:SUSCEPTIBLE. postdlf (talk) 01:54, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Note

• Astronaut Neil Armstrong made the list for not being a chatty guy before, during, or after the moon landing.
• Paul McCartney made the list for claiming to have been depressed about the breakup of the Beatles (same as their fans, I suppose) until wife Linda made him move forward with a new band.
• John Lennon made the list, but the source is a searchable book that never mentions the word depression
• Director Akira Kurosawa made the list, but the linked source gives no clue why
• Princess Diana had post-natal depression after her first childbirth, but somehow managed to get past it

This is just a random celebrity list of names.. Sourcing is often offline, or otherwise dead links. With a lot of, if not all of, the show biz celebrities showing as normal when their career is going good, and in a funk when they are in a career lull. — Maile (talk) 22:40, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree it's very important that, when significant to the life of a person who is notable enough to receive an article here, this is a concept that should be mentioned. However I just don't see how a list like this contributes constructively in any way. I think it is very ripe for (as mentioned above) both people added misleadingly, and also for a list of people to whom this disorder is important (which is likely to be many), but who conversely are either not defined by depression (also likely to be many) or not really that significant to depression the topic. Additionally there is likely to be a massive cultural bias as some cultures are likely to have groups or histories that are open or emphasise this element, whereas other cultures may downplay this element or have a tendency for it not to be disclosed. I cannot get past these points and think it is better just to delete this article for these reasons, and mention depression within the relevant people's biographies.--Tom (LT) (talk) 02:33, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is modern day "outing" to be honest. If people with depression or PTSD discuss it in open, public manner, then it goes in their article. I understand that we are trying to remove the stigma from mental illness, but this is a personal choice. It's also akin to having an article called People with Psoriasis. Let's be kind! ZeusBeard2018 (talk) 17:25, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete These lists by condition are majorly problematic. If it is notable to the person and signicant to them in some way, we can mention it in their article. Lists invite trivial mentioning. Beyond this, classifying mental health issues is notoriously a changing process. I am 39 and I was classed as falling into a mental health category that no longer exists, and I was about 25 when I was so classed. Things get even worse when we start doing retroactive classisifcations of people. If this is significant and defining to the person, put it in an article. Lists like this invite non-significant inclusions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we must keep this we should limit it to people diagnosed as such during their life time by a competent medical professional. We should ban in post morten diagnosis and anything that is not an actual diagnosis of the condition in question. The fact that even with the page warning we have not had these rules abided by suggests that there is not a reason to keep this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Per nom. a vague subject that violates WP:BLP. Alex-h (talk) 10:05, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, this is a magnet for BLP issues. Discuss in context on the subject's article when relevant. (t · c) buidhe 03:03, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 03:06, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lunar module[edit]

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

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

LK (spacecraft) is never referred to as a lunar module, thus this should be redirected back to lunar module Sam-2727 (talk) 23:46, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Sam-2727 (talk) 23:46, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• comment. The nomination is unclear. Are you proposing redirecting Lunar module to its only operational example to date, the Apollo Lunar Module? "Lunar Module" was that craft's most commonly used name during the Apollo era. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I am confused too. LM was called a Lunar module, while the proposed LK Russian was called a Lunar Lander, but that nom is just being pedantic, as they are one in the same? With a new lander/module on the way should this page just be renamed as List of.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 07:41, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge - no compelling argument for deletion. There does seem to be a fair bit of overlap between Lander (spacecraft), Lunar module, Lunar lander, and List of crewed lunar lander designs, and as such I don't know if the difference between Lunar module and Lunar lander is really enough to suggest separate articles. Chris857 (talk) 06:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Article may require a tidy up to ensure that there isn't excessive overlap with other articles but there is no compelling reason for deletion. I think we can all agreed that an article on types of transport which will land people on the moon is notable and there are likely to be multiple variations on such transports which warrants a separate article to the only successful module to date.Tracland (talk) 11:50, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This is needed as is to present both sides of the 1960s space race in one article, and with another vehicle of this type coming up there will be a greater need. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 02:58, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep per WP:CSK#1. I suggest merging lunar lander to this article, as lunar lander is a type of lunar module. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 13:17, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• redirect to Apollo Lunar Module which is the one nearly everyone really means when they just say "lunar module". The unfinished Russian craft had an equivalent purpose and followed similar design principles (one guesses out of not reinventing the wheel) but really this whole discussion of lunar landers in general is really a piece of lunar orbit rendezvous amplified with speculation about how future lunar missions might choose to address similar issues. At any rate, we don't need a disambig page; at most we need a hatnote on the LM article. Mangoe (talk) 14:17, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge Vehicles landing astronauts or cosmonauts on the moon is very notable and historical. Just need to be sure it's in the right place so that readers can find the full history quickly and easily! ZeusBeard2018 (talk) 17:27, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Mangoe. The Russian vehicle isn't named lunar module, nor are any of the vehicles in later American programs, so no merger. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:39, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Article needs some more work and information, but is encyclopedic. Alex-h (talk) 10:11, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The question is whether this is original research by synthesis. Numerically, we have 11 delete/merge and 7 keep opinions. That's no consensus so far. In terms of arguments, I think the "keep" side has the substantially stronger ones: Czar has provided numerous references in support of their view that this is not something made up by Wikipedians, but discussed as a topic in reliable sources. The subsequent "delete" opinions do not engage with these sources, e.g. to attempt to show that the "reckoning" discussed in these sources is something other than the "reckoning" discussed in this article. Instead, almost all merely assert original research without further arguments. That's not much more than a pure vote under these circumstances, and accordingly I must give it very little weight. As such, I am of the view that, going by strength of argument, rough consensus is to keep the article (possibly bordering on no consensus, but the outcome would be the same). This does not prevent editors, of course, from agreeing to rename the article if this is deemed necessary. Sandstein 07:06, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 United States racial injustice reckoning[edit]

2020 United States racial injustice reckoning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The entire premise for the article is synthesis and original research. It's not a thing discussed in the sources. We have articles covering the things that are discussed within the sources: George Floyd protests, Black Lives Matter and Removal of Confederate monuments and memorials. Bacondrum (talk) 21:29, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 July 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.Bacondrum (talk) 21:43, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bacondrum (talk) 21:43, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Bacondrum (talk) 21:43, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. —valereee (talk) 18:20, 4 July 2020 (UTC) —valereee (talk) 18:20, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (nominator) - Article is OR and synth. Legitimate content already covered elsewhere. Bacondrum (talk) 21:54, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete per nom - Honestly it could probably be PRODed, but as it is, I'll vote delete here. Jdcomix (talk) 21:56, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge into George Floyd protests or Black Lives Matter with a view to spinning it off later as appropriate, although I think it doesn't actually fit into either as well as it does its own topic. I'm not sure what the nom means when they say it's not a thing discussed in the sources, as literally every source I've added has discussed it at length. Most have it in the title. Maybe we're talking past one another. Maybe it's that we don't have the right title pinned down. But multiple, multiple sources are discussing. —valereee (talk) 22:21, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The longer I think about this, the more I'm convinced that the reason people are supporting this AfD is because the sources aren't all using the exact same term, like 'Arab Spring'. That doesn't make this not a thing. We can argue about the name later, but let's not get confused about what represents OR or synth. This phenomenon is neither. Multiple, multiple sources have commented on it. I am puzzled by the delete !votes here. How many June/July 2020 articles TITLED some combination of America/US + race/racial + reckon(ing) do we need before we say, "Hey, this appears to be a thing"? —valereee (talk) 17:29, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The talk page already went into independent notability.

The subject of these articles is not the George Floyd protests or Black Lives Matter or Removal of Confederate memorials. It is a variously defined cultural reckoning/fallout/backlash (by no single name) that is widely accepted to be in progress, especially within the United States but extending globally. There has been no justification to back up the above claims of "OR and synth"—the article paraphrases the crux of the above sources, namely the wider cultural trend they describe. The Floyd protests are obviously influential here but the sources quite clearly most often describe the many dozens (hundreds?) of company/building name changes, job resignations, canceled programming, and the like as responding to "changing times" than demands from the Floyd protests. Again, as I preemptively said on the talk page, this phenomenon hasn't been named, hence the current, generic title. Totally open to changing it but think this is way more neutral than titling it some pithy variant of cancel culture. When the article is fully expanded, it should cover an overview of cultural changes that have occurred in the wave following the George Floyd protests. Happy to add additional sources, if needed, as there are plenty more. czar 07:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you googled "reckoning" and "race" and simply combined all the material you found in multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. That is original research and synthesis. I do hope America is reckoning with its racism, but the subject here is a synthesis of articles more suited to building existing articles about actual things like BLM, George Floyd protests and statue removals etc. It's nothing personal, it's just a really obvious case of original research. Bacondrum (talk) 01:33, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"an overview of cultural changes that have occurred in the wave following the George Floyd protests" belongs in the George Floyd protests article. Bacondrum (talk) 01:36, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, that wasn't my method. Please read the articles or I can provide quotes if you prefer. They describe what I said they describe—a unique phenomenon extending but separate from the protests. What conclusion does the article make that has not been stated by the sources? Everything in the article is sourced to the letter. It's fine to summarize this article within the respective section of the protests article (in summary style), but there is plenty more sourced than would properly fit within the protest article alone, hence the split. czar 02:17, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I shouldn't make assumptions about your method. I read the articles and I can't see the conclusions made in the article being explicitly stated by any of the sources. Bacondrum (talk) 02:48, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bacondrum, let's leave aside the 'conclusions made in the article'; that's not a reason to delete. It's a reason to fix. The question here is whether this is a thing or not. If it's a thing, we should fix it. If it's not a thing, that's a reason to delete. —valereee (talk) 17:24, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We can't "leave aside the 'conclusions made in the article'" that are not made in the cited sources, that's exactly what synthesis is: combining reliably sourced statements in a way that makes or suggests a new conclusion not supported by any one of the sources. Sorry. I found these really handy when learning about synth WP:ORIGINAL WP:SYNTHNOT Bacondrum (talk) 23:31, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Czar I agree with your first statement and I have proposed the use of the name "Cancel culture" since there is not a common name, as you say. Unfortunately, at this point people such as Bacondrum say there are no reliable sources for my observation, only opinion pieces. Sometimes following the rules of Wikipedia gets in the way of achieving what should be its goals.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting into WP:competenceisrequired territory here. Cancel culture? What else are we going to draw into this synthesis? It's synth-a-geddon!! Why not draw in Jeffrey Epstein and the death of Michael Jackson, we could have a subsection on bubbles the chimpanzee, and fentanyl, why not? I'm sure there's some connection to be made, we could make a YouTube video about it. Bacondrum (talk) 09:38, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant was that if we need to strip out something in the the article that represents synth, fine. That is not an argument for deletion of a notable topic. The mere presence of problematic content is not a reason for deletion. And I found WP:DTR really handy when learning not to be condescending to people. —valereee (talk) 18:14, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If we strip out the parts of the the article that are synth there would be nothing left. Sorry if I was condescending. I just couldn't help but be a little cynical once we started trying to draw more subjects into this synthisis, like cancel culture...where in any of the sources used is this 2020 United States racial injustice reckoning or cancel culture discussed? Almost all claims made are a synthesis. This really is a 100% synth article. Regarding templates, I linked those two for you as you clearly had not read them or chose to ignore them "let's leave aside the 'conclusions made in the article'; that's not a reason to delete." is antithetical to the guideline and a direct contradiction of the first sentence of the guideline on WP:SYNTH "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source." which makes it clear that what you were arguing for there is to ignore the original research guidelines - so I thought you might want to read the relevant guideline. But hey, lets tone it down, I'm a big fan of AGF and CIVIL. No hard feelings. Bacondrum (talk) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is badgering and it responds to a claim of condescension with more condescension. Please stop. I've also now asked multiple times for any examples of synthesis/conclusions not made within the sources and have received none, while I have showed dozens of sources whose primary subject is a cultural reckoning with race. And yet you repeat the same claim. Please take any such examples to the talk page so they can be addressed. czar 21:59, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bacondrum, you say no hard feelings after you, for the second time, question my good faith and accuse me of choosing to ignore policy? —valereee (talk) 11:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chill out mate. Bacondrum (talk) 12:33, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to George Floyd protests. The content of the article as it is now looks like it's been derived from a "Reactions" section and therefore seems more suited as such. Love of Corey (talk) 09:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This article adds next to nothing new to the topic. It feels like a copy and paste student paper influenced by the "Reactions" section. It's also poorly tied together from its sources. The bottom line is: the main articles already describe very well how the death of George Floyd re-opened discussions and feelings towards racial relations in the United States. This page is entirely redundant. Songwaters (talk) 01:23, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. OR and synth.— Crumpled Fire • contribs • 02:20, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Or maybe merge as a sub section, or something like that, in another article. It does make sense for this to be removed, but at the same time, we're not sure how the year can go or if more relating to a "racial reckoning" and not necessarily (although highly unliking) relating or directly linked to George Floyd can happed. but for now, maybe it's better if it is just merged, and remade if something does end up occurring that of relevance. SnowingCrystals (talk) 06:23, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• DELETE I agree this is original research and WP:synth violations. Anything related to the protest can be in that article. Dream Focus 18:48, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. KidAd (talk) 20:24, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• delete/merge - This is Synth-city. There may be some useful refs in here, but otherwise we are making our own conclusions. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:59, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/merge. Where else will we find the concept of "Erasing history"? If there is another article on that general practice, which has been going on since at least 2015, merge the content there, but these recent actions are a big deal. There has been action before, but never on this scale.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:58, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are two articles regarding the knocking down of statues (I assume by "erasing history" you mean knocking down confederate statues and the like?) in general terms this is called Iconoclasm and regarding the specific issue you are referring to there's a Removal of Confederate monuments and memorials article. Where else will we find the concept of "Erasing history" is no reason to keep an OR and synth article. Bacondrum (talk) 23:59, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say the article was acceptable on its own, but the concept has to be covered somewhere as it became much more serious after the George Floyd protests. On their own, removal of statues, name changes and other results of the protests deserve their own article somewhere but I am absolutely opposed to merging with anything specifically related to George Floyd.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:06, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You keep saying this "erasing history" "concept has to be covered somewhere", but it doesn't. Where are you sources? As for removal of statues "deserve their own article somewhere", I've directed you to that article a number of times now: Removal of Confederate monuments and memorials. Sorry if I seem curt, but you aren't listening. Bacondrum (talk) 21:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is one example of "erasing history", but it's not all of them. And yes, the concept has to be covered somewhere, because it is all over the news. That's the very definition of notable. It's just a matter of what articles cover it. If no reliable sources define "cancel culture" then I can't do anything about that, but somewhere on Wikipedia, the information should be presented somehow.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:38, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"If no reliable sources define "cancel culture" then I can't do anything about that, but somewhere on Wikipedia, the information should be presented somehow" first, "If no reliable sources" then no article, end of story, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia if it is not covered by reliable sources. But hooray, it is covered in reliable sources "somewhere on Wikipedia" and the information is "presented somehow", here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_shaming#Cancellation it may just not be as significant as you think it is. But if you think the subject deserves more attention, try expanding the section I've linked here, if there's enough material to expand the section sufficiently, we split it off into it's own article. Nothing stopping you improving that section with reliable sources. Bacondrum (talk) 21:55, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you can't expand something if it's about a different topic. As I've said before, that article is about online shaming, and all these unreliable sources are defining "Cancel culture" as something else. Right now there IS no appropriate article to expand and the sources aren't there yet.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:25, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then there's nothing more to be done. Drop it. Also, this is not the place to discuss cancel culture. We are here to discuss deleting or keeping the 2020 United States racial injustice reckoning article. Bacondrum (talk) 22:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was just an idea, since Czar said there was no name for what could be an expanded article based on what is in the article we are discussing.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Czar's excellent reasoning and sources. While I'm not sold on the term reckoning, there does seem to be a notable topic here. Having worked on the ever-expanding lists for changes, names changes, and removed monuments, I can tell you Wikipedia still lacks an article that adequately addresses these phenomena in prose. This is essentially a companion article to List of changes made due to the George Floyd protests. Historians who look back on this time period will frame it like this, and as demonstrated by the article's sourcing, some reliable sources already do. It is understandable that this is mistaken for SYNTH, as there are many parts here. Still, they all have a common origin and theme. Many references, both in the article and not yet there, tie these all together and describe them as a singular phenomenon. gobonobo ^{+ c} 08:54, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Worland, Justin (June 11, 2020). "America's Long Overdue Awakening to Systemic Racism". Time.
• Jones, Van (June 14, 2020). "Welcome to the 'Great Awakening'". CNN.

"Awakening can be painful. But in America, a reckoning is overdue."

• Harmon, Amy; Mandavilli, Apoorva; Maheshwari, Sapna; Kantor, Jodi (June 13, 2020). "From Cosmetics to NASCAR, Calls for Racial Justice Are Spreading". The New York Times.

"What started as a renewed push for police reform has now touched seemingly every aspect of American life."

"The feeling of a dam breaking has drawn analogies to the fall and winter of 2017, when sexual abuse allegations against Harvey Weinstein triggered a deluge of disturbing accounts..."

"there does seem to be a notable topic here" Great news, what is it? Where are the individual sources which explicitly cover this notable topic? If you can lay those on us we can improve the article and put this to bed. Otherwise it's WP:SYNTH. Also, it may be the case that "Historians who look back on this time period will frame it like this", but Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL, we do not know how this will be framed in the future. My guess is it will be remembered as the Black Lives Matter protests, but we are not here to advocate, guess or make our own conclusions using synthesis and original research. Bacondrum (talk) 21:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop bludgeoning this discussion. —valereee (talk) 12:24, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

make you a deal, I’ll stop contributing to the discussion when you do. Sound fair? I think you are being unreasonable. Stick to content, not other editors. Bacondrum (talk) 12:37, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's a big difference between contributing to a discussion and bludgeoning. I haven't gone after people aggressively to demand they justify their arguments to the point I'm personally convinced by them. For instance, just above you say "there does seem to be a notable topic here" Great news, what is it?. That's bludgeoning. —valereee (talk) 12:43, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

mate, you are just attacking me. Make a report to ANI, or leave me alone. Bacondrum (talk) 12:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The article covers changes in public opinion which currently are not covered in Reactions to the George Floyd protests. Reported changes in Merriam-Webster and suggested changes in phraseology have not been included either. The reported changes in consumer behavior and increase in sales of certain books do not seem to be covered either. Should these sections be merged to the "Reactions" article, or are there other articles which cover the current social climate in the United States? Dimadick (talk) 08:26, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Dimadick, I do think that if this article gets merged into Reactions, it'll need a new subsection under Domestic. I'm not sure it's great there; the Reactions page is much more focused on specific changes by specific actors rather than sweeping cultural changes. But that would be the most likely home for the topic. Which is fine; if it gets big enough it can be spun off, and perhaps by then there'll be enough agreement within media/academe on what, exactly, is going to be the 'Arab Spring' sort of term for what's happening so that it will not feel like synth to some. —valereee (talk) 12:23, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/merge per WP:SYNTH - many journalists and headline writers have used the phrase "reckoning" covering the reactions to the George Floyd protests, but atleast as I understand it, this could be due to pure chance or just because it's just apt word for similar pieces. For instance, columnists could also use a figurative phrase like "a tsunami of something" without it being an encyclopedic topic itself. --Pudeo (talk) 14:21, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is exactly WP:SYNTH. The title is also editorial like. Depending on what side of the issue you are on it is a "reckoning" or it is senseless destruction and rioting. That title alone makes me cringe. Lightburst (talk) 01:21, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Lightburst, just to clarify -- you do understand the article in question barely mentions the protests? It's strictly about public opinion and debate happening as a result of the protests/riots/violence/destruction. There's literally almost nothing about the (however you want to term them) in the article. There's been talk at the article talk about whether the title is the right one. Not trying to change your mind, just asking for clarification. —valereee (talk) 14:02, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• In addition to those already listed above, below are additional sources that treat this untitled "reckoning" as independently notable from the protests or reactions to the protests. To be crystal clear, the entirety of these articles are about not the protests but a shift in public perception/attitude and its fallout, though this shift has not been christened with a name. Most sources refer to or introduce it as a "reckoning" in their ledes as opposed to an "awakening", etc., but the article doesn't need to re-use the word "reckoning" repeatedly to demonstrate that the shift in public perception is its subject. The title is a matter for the talk page. The question is whether this topic is independently notable and these, together with the sources listed above, should show that this is an independent outgrowth from the protests and how it is described as such:

czar 05:37, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This is an encyclopedia. We could also locate sources to say this is a lawless bunch of malcontents destroying things and looting. Which one is true? Which one is encyclopedia worthy?
• Rob Smith: Floyd protesters vandalism shows 'stunning lack of knowledge of American history'
• Shattered storefronts and 'eat the rich' graffiti: Photos show the aftermath of destruction in luxury stores that were looted and vandalized during the protests Lightburst (talk) 20:29, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think anyone would seriously argue the independent notability of Vandalism during the George Floyd protests, especially based on those sources, unless it was a summary style split situation. In the sources I listed, the protests barely factor into their content, which is predominantly about a cultural moment, not a response to Floyd or even to the Floyd protests. czar 16:37, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Czar. The article title can be changed but I do not believe that the nom's claim that this article is SYNTH or original research is true. The article hews very closely to RS, including those listed by Czar above. Davey2116 (talk) 00:39, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per convincing arguments by CZAR. This is a significant social phenomenon (much wider than just the reaction to George Floyd protests), and there are multiple RS describing it as a single coherent topic. The exact title of the page can be changed in the future if needed. My very best wishes (talk) 00:50, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:33, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Allen Braden[edit]

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

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

Run-of-the-mill community-college teaching poet who received some minor nods for his work. Does not rise to the level of WP:CREATIVE. BD2412 T 20:47, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not notable as a poet or an academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:37, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:48, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:48, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, concur does not meet NACADEMIC nor GNG.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:26, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Not a notable poet, fails WP:NACADEMIC , Alex-h (talk) 10:25, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. Our standards and the publishing norms of the subject make it very difficult for poets to be notable and this is a case in point. I did find one reliably-published review of one book of poetry [1], which is more than usual, but still not enough for WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - there's so little information available that even the year if his birth is unknown or not verifiable. Bearian (talk) 21:40, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:33, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bijay Debbarma[edit]

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

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

No evidence of notability, reports of his death fall under WP:BLP1E.  GILO   A&E⇑  20:15, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:22, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:22, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 05:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails SOLDIER and GNG. Vici Vidi (talk) 07:43, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per all of the above Spiderone 06:25, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - soldier who died in an accident, and who won no major medals. Bearian (talk) 21:43, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:39, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mehdi Nassouli[edit]

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

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

This article is about a non-famous musician with very little press coverage and notability. James Richards (talk) 19:59, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello James, I am from Morocco and therefore know this singer (and other Moroccan singers) more than you do. The fact that you say this is a "non-famous" musician is actually not a fact, but your opinion, unless you can prove that fact.

Mehdi Nassouli participated in many international festivals (as stated in the article, for instance Womex, Mawazine, Rainforest, Essaouira Gnawa Festival), and appeared on Moroccan Official National TV, on Moroccan 2nd Official National TV and even on Lithuanian TV. It is definitely fine that you do not know him (nobody knows everything), but it is definitely not fine to state that he is nor known just because you don't know him. I hope that you understand the difference, and that next time you ask for more sources or references and people will be delighted to share their culture with you :) Thank you for understanding and have a good evening so far. Best regards. Anass Sedrati (talk) 21:18, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. James Richards (talk) 19:59, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. James Richards (talk) 19:59, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. James Richards (talk) 19:59, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. James Richards (talk) 19:59, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. James Richards (talk) 19:59, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment for now (leaning toward Delete) - The above exchange about whether or not the musician is famous, based on whether you have or have not heard of him, doesn't really get us anywhere. A possible WP:NEXIST oversight countered with the WP:ILIKEIT fallacy. What matters is the notability requirements at WP:SINGER. All of the sources added by the pro commenter above are mere announcements and reprints of press releases, which do not get past criterion #1. I can find no significant and reliable coverage in English. I am willing to hold off on an official vote if anyone can find and discuss reliable sources in other languages that I have missed. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 00:44, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear doomsdayer520, you might see that the singer we have talked about appeared on national televisions at several times, including Moroccan Official National TV, on Moroccan 2nd Official National TV and even Lithuanian TV. He is also notable for participating in many international festivals (as stated in the article, for instance Womex, Mawazine, Rainforest, Essaouira Gnawa Festival). The fact that there are no sources in English about the singer do not imply that he does not deserve an article in the English wikipedia, especially that English is not widely spoken in Morocco. Here for example you can see an article from the very known and reliable french newspaper Le Monde about Nassouli, where he is qualified as breathtaking. No to mention the extensive coverage he has in the national Moroccan level nationwide, in different Arabic speaking supports including Alyaoum 24, hitradio, MAP (the official state press agency), 2M Moroccan State TV and many others. I hope that it helps. Best regards. Anass Sedrati (talk) 17:27, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been removed from the list of Africa-related deletion discussions (Morocco is transcluded there anyway). 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:13, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:MUSICBIO - no Independent sources show evidence of touring outside of a small area (Morocco/Mali). Of course, if you find anything significant, please ping me. Bearian (talk) 21:48, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. With respect to the efforts of Anass Sedrati above, even acknowledging systemic bias, the subject of this article still does not appear to be notable enough for his own article. Considering the Arabic sources linked above, none of them meet the definition of significant coverage. The first couple of links even acknowledge that he's not receiving significant coverage in Moroccan media, and contain the artist's explanations as to why that might be. Either way, there's not enough material to write a comprehensive article that complies with the verifiability policy, because none of the sources (even in Arabic) appear to discuss his music or his impact on Moroccan culture or the music scene, etc. –Darkwind (talk) 08:54, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:33, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kristin Best[edit]

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

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

Working TV personality, but not on notable shows and meets no aspect of notability herself. Boleyn (talk) 18:54, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:01, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:01, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree - fails WP:GNG. Jmertel23 (talk) 21:56, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a local news article about local people making a TV show is not enough alone to justify having an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:33, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per John Pack Lambert. A local TV personality does not satisfy WP:GNG.Nika2020 (talk) 22:16, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Steffi Diliberto[edit]

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

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

Non notable DJ, No results for her on Google news[2], Cannot find any evidence of any notability, Fails NMUSIC & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 18:54, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:00, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:00, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:45, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable DJ.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:04, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Article includes no sources that would contribute to meeting GNG. Basic google search reveals no such sources exist. Samsmachado (talk) 18:21, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable. Nika2020 (talk) 22:10, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Her highest charting single was at number 20 in Spain, hardly an international success. Oaktree b (talk) 21:27, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to University of Dayton#Athletics. I chose #Athletics because that's where it is mentioned in the article. (non-admin closure)  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 00:53, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Victory (University of Dayton fight song)[edit]

Victory (University of Dayton fight song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Doesn't meet WP:NSONG or WP:GNG. It exists, but doesn't have in-depth coverage or long-term significance. Possibly worth a redirect to University of Dayton as an ATD. Boleyn (talk) 18:50, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:51, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to University of Dayton: Per nominator. It's best to discuss the song in the target article, if ever. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 08:29, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. FWIW, it's likely that the copyright has expired. Bearian (talk) 21:50, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Flaming Stars. –Darkwind (talk) 08:58, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Huck Whitney[edit]

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

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

Doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG independent of The Flaming Stars. Possibly worth a redirect to Flaming Stars as an ATD. Boleyn (talk) 18:39, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:41, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:41, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:54, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to the The Flaming Stars as not enough for a seperate article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:04, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. The only reliable source in the article is about his band, The Flaming Stars. Bearian (talk) 21:51, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Kia Asamiya. –Darkwind (talk) 09:03, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My Favorite Carrera[edit]

My Favorite Carrera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Notability not asserted - unreferenced (as is its Japanese equivalent) and in CAT:NN] for over 11 years. I've looked at whether this is just neglect but I couldn't find anything to suggest long-term significance or extensive coverage. Possible WP:ATDs are redirects to either Kia Asamiya or Weekly Playboy. Boleyn (talk) 18:36, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:39, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete article lacks any sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:00, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I found coverage on Natalie 1 but I'm not sure if this suffices for WP:GNG. lullabying (talk) 10:08, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Darkwind (talk) 09:06, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew McKeough[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Article consists only non WP:RS sources ~ Amkgp 💬 18:33, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 18:33, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 18:33, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Does not meet notability guidelines --James Richards (talk) 16:48, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Should we move this article to draft? I created this article because I'm trying to reduce a backlog for requested articles. Not all requested articles are notable enough (obviously), but I felt like this one would be. I apologize if that is not the case and propose we move this article to Draft space. Lara Vichnezka (talk) 05:14, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the sourcing is not enough to justify an article, nor are the roles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:40, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — Per Johnpacklambert’s rationale. Celestina007 (talk) 03:14, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non notable --Devokewater (talk) 21:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Updated sourcing and corrected original issues with Lara Vichnezka's skeleton of the page. 16johnsonk (talk) 16:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Added additional information after researching the topic that makes the article more appealing. The added sourcing can be cleaned up more, but it is in a pretty good phase for a basic article. 16johnsonk (talk) 16:47, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: The article is full of non reliable sources like IMDb, facebook and YouTube sources only. Completely fails WP:NACTOR. A deliberate attempt of WP:PROMOTION only ~ Amkgp 💬 04:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:TOOSOON. He is a young actor with short gigs on TV shows, almost all of which roles have had a single name. Bearian (talk) 21:53, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Darkwind (talk) 09:07, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of amusement rides based on anime and manga franchises[edit]

List of amusement rides based on anime and manga franchises (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This appears to be a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization. None of the list entries are blue-linked, and I don't think there's much potential for expansion. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 18:10, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 18:10, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 18:10, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Amusement parks-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 23:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - There are no sources that discuss the overall concept of "rides based on anime/manga franchises", nor are there any sources that discuss this particular grouping as a set, so it fails WP:LISTN. Additionally, as none of the items here have their own articles, it also fails as a navigational tool. Rorshacma (talk) 20:32, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Darkwind (talk) 09:08, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IPM CRSP[edit]

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

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

Lacks independent coverage and WP:GNG.

To start off, my training as a scientist is in integrated pest management, so I tried looking pretty hard for sources to improve the article cleaning up the COI issues. Even just googling the current name Integrated Pest Management Innovation Lab yields basically a few name drops, mostly from universities that have worked under the project. The most distanced ok source I could find was from the funding agency, but that's all run of the mill description any funding agency will do.

What I can find is that it seems that Virginia Tech hosts most of the collaboration, though it's shared among a few other universities. Simply having a funded collaboration and having a name for it doesn't warrant an article here though. There's nothing sourced to merge, and there doesn't appear to be an obvious redirect target, much less the current IPM CRSP being a likely search term anyways. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, it's just another project with its own primary sources and its own desire for publicity. Whether this is advertising or not, it's not a fit subject for an article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:23, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete Sounds interesting, obviously the article would need a lot of work even if it was found to be notable, but I'm saying delete simply due to a lack of actually independant sources (i.e. not from the funding agency for it, or any university working with it) reporting on it from what I can see. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:25, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:37, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cop Dog[edit]

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

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

Non notable, independent release with no known verifiable reviews. Donaldd23 (talk) 17:17, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 17:17, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 17:17, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not notable, and no good sources. --Lockley (talk) 01:30, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per above. Non-notable movie, no RS. It has an article on the French and the Malay Wikipedias as well but the sourcing is bad in both of them (in fact, the Malay article does not even contain any sources). Update I found this source which reviews the movie but I don't know if the "Dove Foundation" is a reliable source. The rest of the results are Amazon pages, movie databases and stuff where the words appear separately. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:57, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the Dove Foundation review is a reliable source but couldn't find anything else reliable, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:41, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:37, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Kasper[edit]

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

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

Not very notable Basketball Player Rathfelder (talk) 16:48, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 16:48, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:52, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:52, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails GNG and NCOLLATH. SportsGuy789 (talk) 06:51, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable as a filmmaker or as a basketball player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete He is not notable neither in basketball nor in film making. Nika2020 (talk) 22:21, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)

Race-reversed casting[edit]

Race-reversed casting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article does not warrant a main space; since subsequent productions do not use concept enough to credit Stewart with a ground-breaking invention. Content should be moved as a section in the WP page: Color-blind casting where it is referenced. The concept is debatable as it stands and warrants misunderstanding, personal opinion, and productions that use "non-traditional casting" but that do not fall under this precise and specific concept by Stewart. Not a "delete" proposal; but a content move for better reference and overall understanding Maineartists (talk) 14:41, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There is a difference between the two. Colour-blind casting is where skin colour is irrelevant in terms of casting wheras Photo negative casting (as this article was originally named) is where the colour of the characters are deliberately switched. If this isn't a delete proposal, it shouldn't be here. This should be at WP:MERGE with this proposal closed. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:44, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 July 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:42, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Maineartists: You still need to close this if you want to withdraw it as you said. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:43, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Meets GNG, is supported by suitable and relevant citations. - SchroCat (talk) 18:06, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Distinct from Colorado blind casting, and seems to pass GNG. Hog Farm (talk) 20:16, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:38, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eric S. Pistorius[edit]

Eric S. Pistorius (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the follwing discussions:
List of Politician-related deletion discussions, List of Illinois-related deletion discussions, and List of Law-related deletion discussions. Your input is appreciated.--Mpen320 (talk) 17:13, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Local politician that does not meet notability. Eric S. Pistorius does not appear to have ruled on any cases that meet Wikipedia:Notability from a Google News search. He is an elected judge whose constituency totals ~323,003 people. A map of the Circuit Courts in Illinois from the Illinois Blue Book 2019-2020 is here. This will be added to the politician and Illinois deletion sort lists. Mpen320 (talk) 16:34, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable judge. SportingFlyer T·C 18:02, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails NPOL because state circuit court is a subprovincial level post. Doesn't seem to meet GNG either. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:52, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No evidence of notability under WP:USCJN. BD2412 T 03:06, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Does not meet WP:JUDGE. LefcentrerightDiscuss 22:14, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete judges at this level are almost never notable, nothing suggests Pistorius might be an exception to that rule. That said, I am still surprised my article on Denise Posse-Blanco Lindberg has survived.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:24, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Being a judge at this level does not satisfy WP:JUDGE. Nika2020 (talk) 22:21, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as failing every single factor of my standards for notable lawyers. Bearian (talk) 21:56, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 20:23, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksey Kuznetsov (guitarist)[edit]

Aleksey Kuznetsov (guitarist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. The only source (Grove Music) that it contains is a database/dictionary of musicians, therefore it is not significant coverage (see also WP:NOT#DICT). P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 16:34, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 16:34, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 16:34, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 16:34, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Without looking, The Grove is the Bible for musicians. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:41, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I found this, and this. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:16, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I am looking for a stronger source, but available sources indicate that the subject was honoured as a People's Artist of Russia in 2001 (e.g. mentioned in this concert promotion, and this one in English) which would indicate WP:MUSICBIO criterion 7 is met. AllyD (talk) 17:09, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of him and I say that as a jazz guitarist myself with a very good knowledge of musicians! I wonder if there's more hits in Russian? Well it says "Among foreign musicians with whom Alexey Kuznetsov collaborated were many cult names: Duke Ellington, Dave Brubeck, Garry Burton, Steve Swallow, Pat Mettini, Herb Ellis, Tutts Thielemans, Rudolf Daszek, Russell Melone, Peter Leach, Oliver Gennon and others." . Now anybody who was good enough to work with those legendary musicians should be notable.† Encyclopædius 20:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. –Darkwind (talk) 09:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MyVu[edit]

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

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

It existed and won at least one non-notable award. It raised quite a bit of money. It desn't have the coverage or significance to meet WP:NOTABILITY however. Boleyn (talk) 15:32, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was merge to Newtown Historic District (Newtown, Pennsylvania). There is emerging consensus that this is an acceptable compromise between all sides of the debate. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:07, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Newtown Hardware House[edit]

Newtown Hardware House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Borderline. Is the longest-running business in its town and have a bad fire which would meet WP:1E at best. I don't feel this is enough to meet WP:NOTABILITY: it is a small-town shop that has been there a while and once burnt down. Boleyn (talk) 19:02, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:50, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:50, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as clearly non-notable. A relevant single-sentence description is already in Newtown, Bucks County, Pennsylvania. --Lockley (talk) 00:15, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Newtown, Bucks County, Pennsylvania#History (and add the picture there). Doesn't seem to be particularly notable outside of local coverage and somewhat more regional coverage and UPenn has their financial legers and some passing book mentions. However, the business doesn't seems to have gotten much coverage outside of local publications and just being old doesn't give a free pass to notability. Best, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:41, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Newtown Historic District (Newtown, Pennsylvania) based upon recent expansion and my rationale below. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:06, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Old places like this are treasures which should be appreciated rather than disparaged. This is especially the case in the US, where the tendency is to tear property down and rebuild rather than preserving it. I visited Tombstone last year and, while the place had a tendency to burn down too, it was wonderful to see so many places just as they were in the days of Wyatt Earp. The place in question is perhaps not so celebrated but it's not difficult to find more coverage such as this. Notability is a guideline which freely admits of exceptions and so there's plenty of wiggle room. Our policies include WP:ATD; WP:IMPERFECT; WP:NOTPAPER; WP:PRESERVE and these all indicate that we should keep this page for improvement rather than officiously deleting it. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:01, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The local newspaper in 2011 said it had been in business 142 years. https://www.inquirer.com/philly/news/local/20110423_Newtown_would_restore_creek_to_its_original_glory.html I don't see anything other than that. How large is the place? Did they never expand to other locations? Are there listed in any state historical registers? Dream Focus 16:56, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

151 years now. And as far as historic...Newtown's entire central business district was placed on the National Register of Historic Places. Lightburst (talk) 00:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Newtown, Bucks County, Pennsylvania#History, where it is already mentioned.Eddie891's comments are accurate - the only real coverage is in local & regional publications, and just being really old does not make a topic not subject to the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 20:13, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Newtown Historic District (Newtown, Pennsylvania). Per discussion below, this would be the better place to contain the information. Rorshacma (talk) 03:38, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep In 1969 the building was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in Bucks County, Pennsylvania See: Newtown Historic District (Newtown, Pennsylvania). The encyclopedia is better with entries like this one. Documenting a building that is 151 years old is a great practice. If I find time I will improve the references so that we WP:PRESERVE the entry. Lightburst (talk) 23:45, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm not sure when we started keeping articles just because they are X years old. As I sit here typing, I'm sitting in a house that is over 170 years old. Does that make it notable? Absolutely not- because there isn't coverage of it. The Newtown Historic District listing is a much better claim to notability, and that might be a better redirect target, but it's just one building of 230 and 82 additional farmhouses in the district, and it only gets a passing mention in the nomination form. I'll remind people that per NBUILDING states "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." (partially my emphasis). While Lighburst throws out that they might find coverage establishing notability, I haven't found anything of the sort. Anyways, the great thing about redirection is that it's easy enough to recreate the article should the reason arise. I'd expect better coverage than local publications and Andrew's source—that appears to be a random person's blog—to establish notability. Best wishes, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:08, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I agree that the clam that it is in the National Register of Historic Places is a bit misleading, because it, as an individual building, is not. The entire district, in which it is only a single building among many, is, but that already has an article. In fact, there are several individual buildings within the district that are also on the listing individually, but the Hardware House is not one of them. At best, the designation of the district means that it might be a better target for the Redirect, but does not really do anything for the independent notability of this one building. Rorshacma (talk) 16:37, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Eddie891: I have added quite a few sources and cleaned up the article. I would say the historic designation is reason enough to keep. Ask yourself, does it serve our readers to redirect or delete? I say no. WP:IAR Lightburst (talk) 02:07, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We do tend to give some weight to the age of a place. If it has been around for a long time, then it is naturally more likely to have attracted attention, especially from antiquarians, archaeologists and historians. But coverage may be more difficult to find because it will be in pre-Internet sources and so buried in paper archives and libraries. We should give the benefit of the doubt in such cases per WP:ITSACASTLE. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:45, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: @Rorshacma: Please take another look. I have added multiple newspapers like Bristol Bucks County Gazette and Doylestown Intelligencer. And there are many more with exist. I am slowly adding the sources from 151 years of newspapers. Thanks! Lightburst (talk) 20:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Those added sources run into the same problems mentioned a couple times above, though, in that they are purely local newspapers. There does not seem to be anything that shows any wider notability than within the local community. Rorshacma (talk) 20:31, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N and GNG only call for RS, not national, regional or international RS. Lightburst (talk) 21:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Perhaps a compromise here would be a Merge to Newtown Historic District (Newtown, Pennsylvania) (adding a new section)? The historic district is already sorely lacking content, the hardware article isn't so incredibly long that a merge is unreasonable, and this will allow us to keep the vast majority (all?) of the content in the context of which the building has the best claim for notability. I find it hard to support keeping the building as a stand alone article, as it doesn't seem to have much (any?) significance outside of the local area. Pinging the AFD participants for their opinions: @Lightburst, Rorshacma, Andrew Davidson, Dream Focus, and Lockley:. Best wishes, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I think the encyclopedia is better and our readers are served if we keep this historic building as a stand alone article. We have SIGCOV and there is much more per WP:NEXIST. Lightburst (talk) 02:40, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Newtown Historic District (Newtown, Pennsylvania). Several WP:ITSOLD buildings there, and some routine local news doesn't give it notability beyond that of the district as a whole. Reywas92^Talk 00:46, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:39, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ibraah[edit]

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

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

After a before search I just conducted prior nominating this article for deletion I observed that the subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources hence doesn’t satisfy our general notability criteria. He is briefly mentioned in passing when he releases a new musical single. Furthermore I don’t see any criterion from WP:MUSICBIO being satisfied. Celestina007 (talk) 15:27, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:27, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:27, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I edit conflicted with Celestina007 on placing the AfD nomination. New artist (2020) signed to a new (2019) 2-artist record label. Doesn't meet MUSICBIO or GNG.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 15:30, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Eostrix, haha that happens a lot. Celestina007 (talk) 15:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The singer has a PR team behind him that sends out short announcements about new songs to various media outlets that specialize in reprinting short press releases. I would not be surprised if that same team created this Wikipedia article as part of the publicity blitz. Unfortunately the singer is not yet eligible for Wikipedia per WP:NMUSICIAN and WP:SIGCOV. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:48, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - local musician, one of millions. No evidence of charting or touring. Bearian (talk) 22:02, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:54, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sitting Bull (band)[edit]

Sitting Bull (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Another non-notable band. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 14:56, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think this band is not notable. The article is sourced to Discogs and Prog Archives, none of them are reliable. I looked them up and I could not find anything besides the usual unreliable stuff like databases and blogs. Most of the results are not even about this band. I also looked up the album and all I found was databases, blogs, Youtube videos and retail sites. Like in the case of unreliable bands, there are some album reviews scattered here and there but those sites look like blogs to me. So no reliable sources whatsoever. The article has a notability tag on it since March 2020, and the band has no article on German Wikipedia either (I find that a bit strange since they have articles about almost every band in the world :) It also does not help that this is another of those bands who have a really basic name so adding keywords like "Germany", "German" or "progressive rock" (or searching with quotation marks) does not help either as the results are just the words scattered in different sites, or if they are about the band, they are blogs, databases and retail sites. So with all that said I think Sitting Bull is not a notable band. Update: I think the article of their sole album can go as well.GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 14:54, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 14:54, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 14:54, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:GARAGE. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 15:56, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Neighborhoods in Akron, Ohio#Spicertown. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 03:07, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spicertown[edit]

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

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

It is a grey area with neighbourhoods, but I don't think this meets WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 07:23, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:26, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:39, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, meets WP:NGEO, a historic district of Akron, Ohio (not sure why the nominator hasn't at least suggested a "merge/redirect" to that article) that is recognised by the city as a distinct neighborhood (see Spicertown Urban Renewal Area Eligibility Report and Urban Renewal Plan), a quick gsearch brings up numerous instances of Spicertown being a distinct settlement ie. Historical Gazetteer of the United States - "1811 Paul Williams builds cabin in what is now downtown Akron; settlement of Spicertown develops", Old Akron's One-Room School Houses - "Perhaps space was rented to provide temporary extra capacity for the Spicertown district .... The map on the opposite page shows the streets, prominent buildings, and the city limits as they were in 1870, after Spicertown was added,..", Lost Akron - "For the location, Akron residents chose a hilltop near Spicertown, the old settlement along present-day East Exchange Street.", Ohio: The Ohio Guide - "In 1811, Major Miner Spicer came from the East and began a farm in the section in which the University of Akron now Stands. Around his cabin soon grew a settlement generally known as Spicertown". Coolabahapple (talk) 04:41, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy redirect I have merged the page to Neighborhoods in Akron, Ohio#Spicertown. A quite small part of the official neighborhood of University Park [3] and history can be included there. No need for separate article, smaller neighborhoods in smaller cities are generally best covered together as in this article. Reywas92^Talk 04:49, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect. Not notable on it's own, but a reasonable search term. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:21, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 03:08, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mymensingh Power Station[edit]

Mymensingh Power Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Reviewed as a part of new article review process. No indication of wp:notability Not only was it not covered in the sources given, it was was not even mentioned in them. Mostly because this power station does not exist, it is a small proposed power station. Article was over 2 months old as of the date of AFD nomination North8000 (talk) 14:19, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:23, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article has already shifted to draft space due to its present form, not even the state to run an afd, but chance to develop it in a draftspace Majun e Baqi (talk) 20:02, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An editor moved this to draft space and discussed at my talk page and I agreed to help/advise there. So I think that this could use a speedy close, possibly with some housekeeping at the redirect which was left in main article space. North8000 (talk) 20:55, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep / withdrawn An editor added sources and edited the article. Added references and material (unlike before) says that it exists. I moved the article from draft space back into mainspace. North8000 (talk) 13:48, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Rebel Flesh. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 01:53, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Flesh (Doctor Who)[edit]

The Flesh (Doctor Who) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant English-language coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. (Btw, this has been incorrectly talk tagged as previously prodded; it hasn't been... but since DWho is a popular franchise, might as well discuss this here anyway) _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 14:36, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Redirect to The Rebel Flesh - From what I can gather, this was simply the antagonist of a two-episode story in Dr. Who, and the content of this article is merely a truncated summary of the plots of those two episodes. We already have articles on both of those episodes, which describes the plot in-depth, making this an unnecessary WP:SPINOUT. All sources on this antagonist are all in the context of its role in those episodes, and indicates no specific notability to it separate from those episodes. While I'm fine with this just being deleted, it could also be used as a Redirect to the article on the first episode it appeared in, if anyone thinks that might be useful. Rorshacma (talk) 23:02, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge anything usable to the episode article. Artw (talk) 23:06, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection, that can probably just be a Delete, since there's not much and there's little use for a redirect here. Artw (talk) 23:08, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Opinions are mostly split between keeping and merging, both of which can be done outside of this discussion. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:56, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Portable hole[edit]

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

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

This is a collection of trivia, with not a single reference present (or that I can find) that defines this concept, or collects this trivia for a list (WP:LISTN...). Many of the objects discussed are not called 'portable hole' but just function in a similar way (so, WP:SYNTH/OR). The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant English-language coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:05, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:05, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:05, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. I agree this has long been a magnet for unsourced trivia, and what sources there are, tend to be poor. I've gone through and removed the worst of that. I also added a bunch of external links, partly as a place holder for sources I didn't have time to research fully. Most of what you can find is related to the D&D magic item, but I think there's enough outside of that to justify keeping this around. The concept certainly seems to be real. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I added some more about non-fictional uses of the term. I know this is still not a well-written article. Maybe it should be recast as List of things called portable hole. Maybe this needs to be chopped down in size a bunch. But, there's no doubt this is a widely recognized term. That it's being used in a peer-reviewed scientific journal (even in a whimsical way) and in a world-class art museum, shows that it's an accepted part of the lexicon. We would be doing our readers a dis-service if typing "portable hole" in the wiki search box didn't bring them to a page that discussed the concept in some way. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:03, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources from a Google Scholar search, potentially useful: [4][5][6][7][8][9]. XOR'easter (talk) 19:31, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I can't really recommend this one being kept unless some sources that actually discuss the overall concept in some depth are found. Without that, the article is just a list of times similar objects have shown up in fiction, which borders on just being pure WP:TRIVIA. If no sources on the overall concept can be found, maybe this could have a light merge to The Hole Idea, which seems to have been the origin of this fictional oddity, in a kind of "Legacy" type section? Rorshacma (talk) 15:30, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Hole per BD2412 below. There is not a lot in reliable sources to build up a full article that goes beyond a list of trivia, but adding in the basic information to the section suggested would probably be the best fit for it. Rorshacma (talk) 16:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per failure of WP:GNG. WP:ITEXISTS is not a sufficient reason to keep an article. This is great for TVTropes, but Wikipedia is not TVTropes._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:30, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are 16 years of history of people working on improving this article, and granted it still needs work, this article has a place here. This concept is widely recognized as per RoySmith, and although I recommended this article for cleanup and possibly complete overhaul, this is a definite keep in my book. Timmccloud (talk) 18:21, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• delete. In addition to being collection of various trivia, it becomes a collection of unrelated things called "Portable hole". Staszek Lem (talk) 19:01, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. "It exists", "The article has been around for a long time", or "Readers might want to see it" are not valid keep arguments. The only valid keep argument is "There are a substantial number of reliable and independent sources which cover this subject in depth (not just mention it)". In this case, I cannot find any reason to believe that assertion is true. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:28, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I will add that I have read through the proposed references by XOR'easter. The first paper's abstract does not mention a portable hole at all, and generally the abstract will mention any topics the paper is to cover in any depth. The second mentions the subject only in passing. The third also does not even mention the subject in the summary. The fourth mentions it once in passing. I can't access the fifth, but it gives no indication of in-depth coverage. The sixth again mentions it only in passing. If these are the best sources that can be found, I stand by my statement to delete the article, as this would indicate the subject is not notable. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:03, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Merge as suggested by BD2412, per the same reasoning as previously. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Hole, where everything cited in this article can be condensed to a paragraph in a section under the current "Metaphorical holes" section. BD2412 T 20:54, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  BD2412, I'm still in the (possibly IAR) keep camp, but at least your proposal (assuming it also includes a redirect) satisfies my typing "portable hole" in the wiki search box (brought) them to a page that discussed the concept in some way requirement. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:30, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I like the merge idea, but the problem is what can we salvage from what is right now a mix of trivia and OR? Did anyone find as much as a one sentence defining this concept or a paragraph that says something like "notable examples of the concept of a 'portale hole' in fiction are x, y and z'? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:10, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm satisfied that the citations in the article generally show the concept exists (and is noteworthy, if not independently notable). I would scrap about half of it (including the "Guards at the Taj" part, the non-fiction part, the 8-Bit-Theatre) and condense the rest into a paragraph, except for the Unicode section, which is applicable to regular holes and should be included as a separate section or subsection in Hole. BD2412 T 03:57, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Chronicles and Commentaries: More Explorations of Jewish Life and Learning, found by XOR'easter and already added by RoySmith (Thank you!), provides exactly what Piotrus asks for: A paragraph has a sentence of definition and gives three examples where the portable hole appears in popular culture. The source then goes beyond that and relates the portable hole to stories in ancient Jewish tradition. Daranios (talk) 10:31, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Nice find. Can anyone find more about Quid Pro Books? Are they a reliable publisher? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Piotrus, I believe what you're asking is, "Are they a vanity press?". They do not appear to be (a vanity press). http://quidprolaw.com/ -- RoySmith (talk) 13:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  They do say that they will review the manuscripts, so they don't at least say 'pay us and we publish anything'. I guess they are reliable per a form of AGF, if we cannot find anything that shows that a small publishing company is unreliable, the default I guess is to conclude they are ok. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:33, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  BD2412, I'm confused about this. On the one hand, people are arguing, "This is just a TV Trope". But, here you're arguing that we should delete everything which talks about it outside of the realm of TV Tropes. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:14, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  We should delete everything that is not noteworthy. The portable holes are a thing in roleplaying is noteworthy; that a novelization of a film character has them use the portable hole while role playing is not worth mentioning in hole any more than the The Wolf of Wall Street character doing his "sell me this pen" bit is worth mentioning in pen. For the purposes of having a section on fictional use of holes, we should delete the non-fiction content because it isn't about fictional use of holes. The molecular structure is not an actual instance of the trope, but is merely a tool that can create a hole in a cell. That might be worth mentioning elsewhere in the article (in fact, there is a section, Hole#Holes in biology), but not in the context of a fictional concept. BD2412 T 18:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I have gone ahead and added the Unicode and molecular items, which should be in hole irrespective of the outcome here. BD2412 T 19:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  BD2412, Regarding the unicode character, I've been doing a little digging and can't find any authoritative source that "portable hole" really is an official alias for /U+1F573. It says so at https://codepoints.net/U+1F573, but I don't know if that's a WP:RS or not. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:50, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  The key thing is that it is the Unicode character for "hole", and can be included in the "hole" article on that basis. In fact, whether "portable hole" is an alias is not particularly important, so I'm fine removing that aspect entirely. BD2412 T 20:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Squeeze dramatically and merge to hole, as suggested above. The material I've been able to find mentions this trope/plot device as part of a larger ... whole, be that a magic system or the general scheme of cartoon physics. We can show that the trope exists, it's plausible that someone would search for it, and the meaning is not really ambiguous, but it's also not our role to gather up a lot of examples and systematize them (though that might be an interesting thing to do, in another venue). XOR'easter (talk) 07:45, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge seems fine to me, based on the sources so far. We have one really good one, and a number more which, as far as I have seen, do not go into detail. Or we could keep it as per RoySmith, simpler and no real drawback to Wikipedia. Daranios (talk) 13:58, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge per above comments since there are WP:RS to retain, per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 15:15, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If merged, I expect that it would be section-redirected to the section created in the target article for this purpose. BD2412 T 20:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepXor'easter and Roy Smith make cogent points. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 22:00, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Xor'easter's recommendation was to reduce dramatically and then merge, not keep. Rorshacma (talk) 02:02, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Clean-up and merge per Xor'easter and BD2412. I might also support a target of cartoon physics, given the subject matter. But I support hole if it would produce a consensus. This article doesn't have enough substantial coverage in reliable third party sources to support a notable article, and covering it in the context of another notable phenomenon would help protect it from excessive primary sources and original research. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:01, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Shooterwalker, I still think this should be kept stand-alone, but if it is to be merged, Cartoon physics is a much better target than Hole. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:06, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  To what extent is cartoon physics relevant to portable holes as a roleplaying or other gaming device, though? BD2412 T 23:20, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:55, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bugtime Adventures[edit]

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

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

Only appears to have one truly in-depth source. A search for more sources only found throwaway mentions and snippets of short, stubby coverage. Dronebogus (talk) 07:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:33, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:33, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as is there is no sign of notability. And some searches didn't turn up much.--Surv1v4l1st ^{▌Talk|Contribs▌} 21:44, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The show has an entry in the Christmas-special encyclopedia Happy Holidays — Animated! as well as a syndicated newspaper article that was widely published in 2005. It's not a lot, but it may be enough to demonstrate notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 04:46, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think the brief discussion of a Christmas Special in an obscure encyclopedia counts as in-depth coverage. This article’s case for existing is still looking incredibly flimsy. Dronebogus (talk) 15:05, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the "obscurity" of a published reliable source is relevant. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:27, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It does not; the problem is that you made a false claim that the show has an entry in that encyclopedia. It does not. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:36, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly does, see below. — Toughpigs (talk) 03:33, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep with the Milwaukie Journal Sentinel piece as well that makes coverage in three reliable sources so there is no valid reason for deletion in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:38, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What Milwaukie Journal Sentinel piece? It is not linked here nor in the article. Nor do I see any other "three reliable sources" anywhere. What are they? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:36, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All three are listed in the article's References section, see below. — Toughpigs (talk) 03:35, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No in-depth coverage found; the claim that the show is covered by another encyclopedia is FALSE. As can be seen in [10], the Happy Holidays—Animated! A Worldwide Encyclopedia of Christmas does not discuss the show - it only discuss a single XMAS-themed epsidoe of it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:34, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It absolutely does discuss the show. There is an entry for "Joy to the World (2006)", which says:

"Episode from Bugtime Adventures, a children's religious television series created by Jeff Holder that interwove Biblical events with fictional stories around a community of arthropods who lived in nearby Bugglesville. Consisting of 13 episodes, the series aired on Christian TV stations in 2006."

It then goes on to describe the Xmas-themed episode in detail, followed by voice and production credits. The listing describes the show, as well as a specific episode of the show. The entry is currently used to back up these sentences in the article: "Bugtime Adventures is an American children's animated series that began airing in 2006. 13 episodes were produced, to air on Christian TV stations like TBN." and "Bugtime Adventures interleaves historical events described in the Bible with fictional stories of a community of bugs who live nearby in Bugglesville." The source says exactly what I claimed that it said.

The other two sources are the August 2005 syndicated article (Allentown Morning Call) that I described above, and the December 2005 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article listed in the References section. That makes three. — Toughpigs (talk) 03:33, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That’s not an in-depth discussion of the show. That’s a summary followed by an encyclopedia entry on one episode. Dronebogus (talk) 02:09, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

still enough for WP:GNG imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:04, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is sufficiently clear that sources supporting criteria for inclusion in the encyclopedia are not available for this subject. I note that a "keep" vote baldly asserting that the company meets the appropriate standards is given little weight towards countering this. BD2412 T 04:28, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Virsabi[edit]

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

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

Small and relatively new (2016) virtual-reality studio. Does not meet notability criteria for companies. Eostrix (talk) 09:17, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eostrix (talk) 09:17, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Eostrix (talk) 09:17, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• My goal here is to list an interesting tech business which is notable in the context of Denmark. I didn't include these additional sources in the article as I thought it would seem unnecessarily promotional: Børsen article and Red bull article. But maybe they will help the assessment of this article. Anotherpersoncalledmichael (talk) 13:41, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anotherpersoncalledmichael, the kind of coverage that would be helpful to establish notability (explained in detail at WP:GNG and WP:NCORP) would be articles with significant analysis of the subject published in independent, reliable sources, such as newspapers or academic journals. Note that multiple such examples are generally required. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:28, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, I was unable to find significant coverage in independent sources. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:28, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:58, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The company is sufficiently well covered in the Danish press.--Ipigott (talk) 13:11, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The company meets notability standard.--May♡♡→♡℃※Talk 13:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails NCORP. Average run-of-the-mill VR/AR startup. There is no "enduring notability as it is likely WP:TOOSOON. Over 60% of these startups will fail. The company has 18 employees. Considering Facebook has purchased AR startup "Scape Technologies" for $40M and Google has invested $502 Million in Magic Leap, this is a very small company and Wikipedia is not an advertisement or yellow pages vehicle. Wikipedia is also not a "whos who" in the business world. The sources are not independent if information comes from a company news release. A search returned that the company only produces $1.5M in revenue and is not even ranked. The "sources" I found are not independant or substantial to advance notability. WP:NEXIST includes: However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive... so stating that "The company is sufficiently well covered in the Danish press.", is not actually "sufficient". -- Otr500 (talk) 01:15, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:56, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:56, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Well stated Otr500, we don't count !votes to reach consensus. I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:46, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Summed up well by Otr500. I can't find significant coverage personally, but recognise that perhaps it's covered better in Danish sources (though, I personally wouldn't know where to start with that). Editors above, stating that it's well covered in Danish press, have failed to provide any sources. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:31, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Thank you all for your efforts! I've made a quick list below of independent sources that I could find (predominantly Danish press) to help with the decision making process. I would say this demonstrates significant coverage from independent sources. Anotherpersoncalledmichael (talk) 11:46, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Virtual reality er klar til at bli­ve fast del af kon­fe­ren­cer - Børsen is like the financial times of Denmark. It's a really good, independant source.
  • NNIT i nyt part­ner­skab om vir­tu­al og augmented reality - Another article in Børsen
  • Experience the Red Bull Stratos jump with these AR and VR technologies - Virsabi made a VR experience for Red Bull and the Louisiana Museum of Modern Art
  • Ambitionen er at hjælpe vores kunder ind i den digitale tidsalder - This is from the Danish Chamber of Commerce
  • DSB får tre leverandører af VR- og AR-teknologi: Se dem her - This is about them supplying DSB with virtual and augmented reality services
  • Teknologiens Dag med vilde tiltag: Andreas Mogensens rumkapsel lander i Universe - This has information about virsabi creating an experience for a danish theme park called Universe
  • Valcon partners with Danish AR and VR specialist Virsabi - This is about virsabi partnering with a big Danish firm called Valcon. It reads like a press release though.
  • Digital Reality – Er jeres virksomhed parat til VR/AR/MR-teknologi?, Startup your Business and DI’s udvalg for digital forretningsudvikling - Articles from the Confederation of Danish Industry

I'm not seeing anything that's both significant and independent across the unpaywalled sources, which at best leaves us with the first Borsen piece and the ComputerWorld DK piece. I'm skeptical that this meets WP:ORGCRITE and the collection of other sources provided here that fall short of providing significant, independent coverage don't fill me with optimism about the sources I was unable to read. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:21, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:39, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kile Wali Mata Temple, Shahpurkandi Fort[edit]

Kile Wali Mata Temple, Shahpurkandi Fort (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG, blatant advertising The Banner talk 12:33, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 13:01, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 13:01, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:BROCHURE. No credible indication of notability. --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 19:31, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Spiderone 09:11, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 17:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:38, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brush, California[edit]

Brush, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

What the topos say is that this was a railroad siding on a line drowned and abandoned when Lake Oroville was formed. I can find nothing else about the spot but there is no evidence there was ever a town here. Mangoe (talk) 12:22, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:47, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:47, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I find one source where it is called a railroad siding. No other hits indicating there was ever a community. Glendoremus (talk) 00:09, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:27, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hylandville, California[edit]

Hylandville, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Another entry solely sourced from Durham's gazetteer, but according to Mansfield's history of the county, "Hyland was the only the only man who ever built there." It was only ever a paper town, so I don't see the notability. Mangoe (talk) 12:00, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:09, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:09, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No evidence this place was ever populated, per [11]. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:05, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete from Magnolia677's link: "The utmost development that Hylandville ever reached was the single store built by the founder of the city." Clearly not a populated place. Even the GNIS hasn't heard of it. Hut 8.5 20:25, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. bibliomaniac15 02:30, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Polish[edit]

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

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

I am afraid the subject seems to fail WP:NBIO, and the entry is effectively a promotional piece, perhaps unintended, but still raises issue. This was tagged with COI sources by User:Stuartyeates, and previously was deleted under G11, I will ping User:Carrottopper who the logs credit with the older version creatorion and User:Jimfbleak who deleted it (hopefully an admin can check who added the speedy tag and ping them as well if they haven't been already). If this is NOT deleted, then the old version might warrant undeletion and integration, it seems to have had an infobox? Anyway, as far as I can tell looking at the sources, the subject has some mentions in passing, no in-depth coverage in reliable, independent sources, so IMHO the current version still fails NBIO. Thoughts? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:49, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:49, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as lack depth of independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:41, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. FWIW, the previous version was worse than this, blatant promo, and was nominated for my SD by admin DGG Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:51, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:03, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:03, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article is still pretty promotional of him and sourcing isn't in-depth or reliable enough to meet NPERSON. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:35, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As seen by the number of references of good quality and a high number of sources, this page should not be deleted. Nzgabriel (talk) 22:13, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which references do you consider "good quality"? The number of sources is irrelevant, per WP:CITEBOMB and such. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems like Polish could meet the notability standards required by WP:CREATIVE. There is a documentary that covers him/his story which would satisfy the third rule of having to play a role in a body of work such as a feature-length movie. Outside of the existing promotion on the page, Polish is notable enough to have a page.Kangteen (talk) 17:56, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This article is pretty promotional although given the individuals industry this is likely to create a more promotional tone, and certainly gives reason for some of the article’s content to be deleted, but this isn’t necessarily deletion criteria. With some cleanup, I think the subject is notable itself given the coverage on top what as the editor above has mentioned. Keep with some improvements needed to the article.24.34.19.64 (talk) 18:52, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning delete based on the promotional tone and the atrociousness of the sources, but I would be willing to support a move to draft to provide an opportunity for those who think they can find higher-level sources to do that, with the provision that it must go through AFC review to be restored to mainspace. BD2412 T 03:27, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - for the same reasons as I listed above. However, I would be willing to consider a move to draft if that provides an opportunity to cleanup and include higher-level sources. Nzgabriel (talk) 04:19, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On this note, I have gone through the page and removed/changed some of the language that seems to be causing the most concern. I hope this helps. -Nzgabriel (talk) 21:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(struck duplicate vote) Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:57, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Promotional tone has been reduced and there are good independent sources. This page should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkoala (talk • contribs) 23:10, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You think the promotional aspect has been cleaned up. The first reference is his fees, the 2nd is his books and audio cds on amazon, the 3rd ref is unreliable, the 4th is a talk by his, the 5th is his company, the 6th is his company, the 7th is him, the 8th is him, 9th his documentary and so on. Many of the references are predatory, low quality, illegal per policy, or primary, or him speaking, which cant be used to establish notability. And you think the article is free of promotion? And that is only the references. scope_creep^Talk 12:03, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A lot of passing mentions but not much in the way of reliable independent secondary sources. I don't think he is notable, fails WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 07:45, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. We have a strong consensus that producers are almost never notable. We also want more than connections to famous people. If this was 2008, we'd excuse it, but in 2020, everybody knows not a web host for publicity. Tone can not and has not been fixed. Bearian (talk) 22:06, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per BD2412. This article needs a complete rewrite from scratch, if at all. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:38, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 20:37, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Taaooma[edit]

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

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

Promotional article for the subject who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of her hence doesn’t satisfy WP:GNG. A before search shows this reliable source but as it is an interview it isn’t independent of her. A before search revealed she won a very non notable award in 2019. This looks like it is toosoon. Also doesn’t satisfy WP:ENT. Celestina007 (talk) 18:31, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 18:31, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 18:31, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 18:31, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]