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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:09, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tumble bus (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 very insignificant. Outside one article cited by it, I was unable to find anything else but [1] this. This "coverage" is from a random town in Minnesota's local newspaper, a clear WP:GNG fail. The court case mentioned is not enough to establish notability either, since it is a mundane trademark lawsuit. Thousands of such cases are filed per year, most which do not end up in Wikipedia. I-82-I | TALK 23:57, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The current article doesn't distinguish between "tumble bus" and "Tumblebus". "Tumblebus" is the small business from Louisville in that court case, part of which came to whether the phrase "tumble bus" was "a generic term not entitled to Lanham Act protection", or was a company name worthy of legal protection even though it was unregistered. The generic term "tumble bus" is not in widespread use, from what I can tell, and neither the case nor the company seem worth documenting. The oldest versions were created by a single-use editor. --Lockley (talk) 08:55, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SIGCOV and WP:MILL. How is this thing in any way notable? Bearian (talk) 20:28, 23 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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:13, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lurot Brand (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:NCORP in my opinion. A google search doesn’t provide much other than own publications. PlunketMcShane (talk) 23:44, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. PlunketMcShane (talk) 23:44, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. PlunketMcShane (talk) 23:44, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:51, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non notable per WP:NCORP --Devokewater @ 09:48, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NCORP. I can find no evidence in sourcing that this is a notable company. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:56, 28 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. BD2412 T 23:36, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Not notable because that there are no significant coverage that are from reliable and independent. It would be great if someone could also do a source assessment table because I don't know how to make one.The creeper2007^{Talk! Be well, stay safe} 22:49, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The creeper2007: Do you note that it's already the third nomination? I recommend you look at the second nomination. Σανμοσα^{The Trve Lawe of free Monarchies} 23:52, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A Wikipedia policy that only has coverage from KnowYourMeme (of which there are thousands of memes listed, most without WP pages) is an obvious notability fail. I-82-I | TALK 01:03, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious keep Peaceray's rationale in this article's second nomination said it far better than I possibly could, so I'll simply say that, from a cursory glance at the article, I would hardly consider Deutsche Welle or Variety to be unreliable in any case, especially when this is regarding a pop culture reference. OhKayeSierra (talk) 01:06, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The previous nomination was a year and a half ago, and closed as Keep, with many sources listed. Nothing has changed since late 2018, and the nominator does not explain why the recent consensus is invalid. — Toughpigs (talk) 01:18, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We need to avoid navel gazing. An article about something on Wikipedia itself needs much better sourcing than what we see here to justify it existing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:19, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Nothing has changed since the last nomination. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 21:13, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems like it passes GNG to me.★Trekker (talk) 17:07, 27 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. No consensus about a redirect, but anybody is free to create one. Sandstein 15:20, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10 (Linea 77 album) (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)

Has some reviews, but not in reliable publications (except one listed, but the link wouldn't work for me). Didn't chart. Doesn't appear to meet WP:NALBUM or WP:GNG. WP:ATD would be redirect to band. Boleyn (talk) 22:18, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:31, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Linea 77: Barely found anything about the album. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:12, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG. I found very little sourcing about this album in a WP:BEFORE search I did. @ASTIG😎 I think deletion makes more sense, given that nothing indicates this obscure album is a likely search term. Newshunter12 (talk) 02:07, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Newshunter12, "10" is a generic term that is used as a name for albums, songs, bands and the likes. Some are notable, some are not. Therefore, redirecting it to the target article makes more sense since it's a valid WP:ATD. So, don't bother arguing with me. My vote stands no matter what. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 03:06, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ASTIG😎 Your hostile reply is unwarranted. If you "Barely found anything about the album", how was it unreasonable for me to point out just who is going to be searching for this, in an attempt to discus the value of a redirect vs deletion? If open, civil debate angers you, maybe you should rethink participating at AfD. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:22, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Newshunter12, anyone has the right to participate at AfDs. And so do I. So, don't stop me from doing so. Some people may vote to delete or recirect it. I voted to redirect it, and I've explained more than enough to back up my vote. So, be it. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 03:33, 28 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 with no delete proposals. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 21:53, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Operator (2015 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable film, no significant coverage by independent sources, does not meet WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 22:14, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:31, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:NFSOURCES; the film has been mentioned by Refinery 29, Deadline Hollywood and Patch Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 22:39, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've added a review from Radio Times to further add to its notability. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 22:48, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've added more sources that mention the film from The Post and Courier and Manila Standard. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 23:19, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While these sources are good sources, they don't all constitute significant coverage. The Post and Courier article refers to the film in a single sentence as part of a list of film appearances and The Radio Times review is a capsule review (short summary of plot and a star rating, no actual review of the film). The others are more significant, talking about Casting or an actual critical review (and I am not sure how I missed these either...) BOVINEBOY2008 15:08, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've added a significant link from Jezebel and removed the links from Post and Courier and Radio Times. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 10:53, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Bovineboy2008: I've added a significant source from Screen Daily that mentions this film. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 15:55, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for finding that! I think all of this is enough to withdraw my concerns for this AfD. BOVINEBOY2008 15:58, 25 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. Fenix down (talk) 22:41, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 New Zealand Regional Leagues (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 just the Skyblueshaun getting around previously deleted articles by trying to turn it into one article. It isn't notable, it's the second level, not the highest level in NZ and all Amateur teams. None of the teams can go higher in the pyramid either and promoted to the top competition as it doesn't work that way in NZ. The user can't promise it'll always be updated, it's quite common for these type of articles to get outdated and honestly the people who will care about these competitions will just go directly to the competitions sites. Very little use as a capture of history information either. Lastly, it doesn't meet WP:NFOOTY, WP:NSEASONS and doesn't meet WP:GNG. It wasn't notable as individual articles, it isn't combined. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2020_Mainland_Premier_League Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2020_FootballSouth_Premier_League Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2020_Central_Premier_League Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020 NRFL Premier NZFC^(talk)(cont) 22:03, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. NZFC^(talk)(cont) 22:03, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:08, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and recent AFD consensus, and a trout to @Skyblueshaun: for acting in this manner. If you keep it up we will have to seek sanctions at ANI. GiantSnowman 10:09, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - if applicable, please speedy delete. Consensus already established very recently that this is not notable Spiderone 10:30, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per the previous consensuses (consensi?) Joseph2302 (talk) 17:20, 22 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:08, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stan VanderWerf (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 politician. VanderWerf serves as a County Commissioner in El Paso County, Colorado. There is no indication that he has achieved any particularly noteworthy accomplishments in this role. The promotional tone of the article could be addressed, but there's nothing really to replace it with. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There is some press coverage, but it doesn't appear to be significant. - Scarpy (talk) 21:48, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Hyper local coverage of a county commissioner does not meet GNG or NPOL. --Kbabej (talk) 00:28, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, PR, edited heavily by single purpose account --Devokewater @ 20:09, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the creator of this article PeytonRose wants to improve it, they should be given some time to complete this, the Teahouse will assist them, however the SPA is stiil busy editing. Regards --Devokewater @ 19:01, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you !voting to draftify or leave this article in mainspace? --Kbabej (talk) 19:31, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Note: Devokewater, PeytonRose is not an SPA. They are trying to do good and make a good article, not vandalize or spam or anything like that. ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 17:43, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, now I realize that I was mistaken. ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 03:57, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the subject were notable, but the article merely in need of improvement, I would have tagged it for improvement, not deletion. The quality of the article is not the issue here; the scarcity of useful sources is. This local politician simply has not been the subject of enough in-depth coverage in reliable sources for us to generate any significant content about him. (In my opinion, as nominator, of course.) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:19, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment just cleaned up the article, leaving only sourced information (except his education), a lot of spin + PR has been deleted. Regards--Devokewater @ 13:16, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. County commissioner is not a role that confers an automatic presumption of notability per WP:NPOL — it is a level of office where a person gets a Wikipedia article only if he can show a strong claim to being much more nationally significant than the norm for that level of office. But there's no indication of that here, and the article is written and formatted much more like a résumé than a proper encyclopedia article anyway. Bearcat (talk) 14:33, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Local news coverage of a local politician that doesn't meet WP:NPOL is not sufficient for notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:35, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Has anyone mentioned that this could have been speedy deleted at its inception as spam and a copyright violation of the campaign page [2]? While those rationales no longer apply, multiple revisions can be rev/deleted for the latter. Does the article's creator have an edit history for this sort of copied spam? 73.186.215.222 (talk) 01:56, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the article's creator is bona fide, however I've had differences with a SPA. Devokewater @ 10:24, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm unconvinced. As a reminder, here's the article as created: [3]. Might be a paid contributor. 73.186.215.222 (talk) 15:31, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Stan is now a mountain climber. Devokewater @ 15:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, PR, edited heavily by single purpose account --Devokewater @ 15:47, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've requested a FOIA with the National Personnel Records Center, Military Personnel Records on Mr. VanderWerf's military record to provide some clarity of his military records. Kodiis (talk) 16:07, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Personnel records from a person's own employer aren't notability-building sources. Bearcat (talk) 12:55, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Hi, everyone! I introduced Mr. VanderWerf's page in an attempt to recognize Combat Veterans who went on to contribute to society in a positive way. I heard about Mr. VanderWerf's story and was inspired to start with him since his accomplishments seemed to be notable enough to merit a Wikipedia page. I come from a military family and know how uplifting it is for Veterans when they are recognized.

I thought this would be a great way to contribute to honoring these heroes. I started with info that appeared biographical, though it was riddled with PR. I tried to remove any PR verbiage and many of the wiki editors who are contributing here have definitely helped to accomplish that. Thank you, guys! I tried to use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Cotton as an example to structure the creation of a proper biography.

It looks like another editor has requested an FOI to help with citations on Military accomplishments. My goal is to honor Veterans who have served the United States and then contributed to society and I hope that we consider Mr. VanderWerf (and other Veterans like him who have accomplished notable acts of valor and service) worthy enough to share with the World. I hope that we consider keeping this page. Thank you, everyone for your contributions! PeytonRose (talk) 18:04, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The subject is notable. I would urge the community to keep this page while the FOI for Medals of Honor in Combat Duty are being cited. The combination of the subject's acts of valor and civil accomplishments are notable. Thank you, all for your contributions! — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeytonRose (talk • contribs) 20:22, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment VanderWerf's service record may be valorous, but that is not, in itself, notable. The medals he has received do not rise to the level that would automatically connote notability. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 03:46, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Another local/regional politician who fails WP:GNG. KidAd (💬💬) 07:38, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete While I appreciate what they were trying to do, it fails wp:GNG. ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 15:43, 25 July 2020 (UTC) (and modified at 17:35, 25 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. Discussion around WP:INHERITED (WP:ONEEVENT is not the relevant guideline since it's an entire organization / recurring planned event we're talking about) is bound to be highly subjective, so it is the closer's responsibility to take the opinions as they are so long as they are grounded in a reasonable interpretation of policies and guidelines. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:07, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Siân Evans (librarian) (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)

One of four Co-Founders of Art+Feminism, an annual Wikipedia based event that took place between 2014-17. Another co-founder of this event was recently deleted at afd: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacqueline Mabey, with the consensus being that just being a co-founder is not enough to confer notability. All of the coverage this person has received is for Art+Feminism, which does have a justifiable level of coverage to have an article on its own, but this co-founder hasn't received coverage for anything else, so, therefore, fails WP:ONEEVENT. I don't think we should have articles on everyone who co-founds an event because they got interviewed about it.

I'd like to bring editors to the attention of the articles around this event in general. Until about 12 hours ago, it said on the Art+Feminism article that the last event was on the 11th March 2017. This was edited to say the last event was as early as the end of June 2020. Checking the source linked, this turned out to be an online event attended by 9 people. In addition, the editor admitted on the Previous afd that they were, in fact, a co-founder of this event (may even be this person). As I thought that it was too much of a stretch to call 9 people editing Wikipedia an "event," at least comparable to the ones taking place between 2014-17, I reverted this edit. It seems from a cursory glance that this organization allows anyone to organize events under the name and add them to a list hosted on this site. I think seeing as the 2017 event was the last annual event organized by the organization called "Art+Feminism 20**," it should be listed as the last event on the page. I would appreciate editors forming a consensus on this as well as I want to avoid edit warring on the page. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 15:55, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 23:31, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 23:31, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 00:01, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• AlessandroTiandelli333, an AfD is not a way to settle a content dispute on a related topic. Discuss at the talk page of Art+Feminism, not here. Vexations (talk) 11:49, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - wrong venue. I suggest you post this subject at Wikipedia talk:How to run an edit-a-thon. And if you have not already consulted Rosiestep, she is definitely a person who could point you in the right direction about your questions. But AFD is not the place for this. Sorry. — Maile (talk) 15:36, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I've removed the text about the other issue from the afd. I still think this article should be discussed for afd though. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 15:54, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  AlessandroTiandelli333, don't do that, because now the replies lack context. Restore your text, but strike what you want to withdraw. Once that's done though, I will raise another procedural objection. Vexations (talk) 18:44, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep! Meets WP:GNG. Being the co-founder of an international movement that engages hundreds (thousands?) of people is important and makes the co-founders notable. In addition: (a) named as one of Foreign Policy's 100 Leading Global Thinkers; (b) published writer. P.S. Thanks for alerting me to this conversation. I wasn't aware that this was happening (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacqueline Mabey) or I would have participated (Keep). --Rosiestep (talk) 19:03, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I always dislike the "per so-and-so"reasoning, but in this case ... Per Rosiestep. I know so little about the above process that is the subject of the article. But I trust the knowledge and experience of Rosiestep. — Maile (talk) 20:24, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: an annual Wikipedia based event that took place between 2014-17 is false. Art+Feminism is active and still organizing edit-a-thons. My attempt to remedy the factual error in the article was reverted by the nom in this diff. The nom makes an assertion that he knows to be false (and contested) as a rationale for deletion. I have further procedural objections to this nomination, but need to have the original nomination restored, with deleted parts struck, for those to make sense. Vexations (talk) 20:31, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Deleted paragraph restored as deleted text. — Maile (talk) 20:58, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. Once again, the deletionists hope to save server space by taking up more bandwidth in fruitless deletion discussions than the article itself will ever require. Art + Feminism (and I too have facilitated these editathons, two of them) is a live and active project and its leadership has more than adequate indicia of notability both for this and for their independent activities. Do a little research before hitting the AfD button, this isn't a contest to see how many articles you can get deleted. Sheesh. Montanabw^(talk) 22:39, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The previous afd went overwhelmingly to delete (I think 5-1) and this is exactly the exact same situation, the person has only received coverage for being a co-founder of this event. I'm not having a "competition to delete pages," I don't think wikipedia is the place for WP:PROMO for someone who has been notable for 1 thing, thereby failing WP:ONEEVENT. I'm not going to lecture an admin but if you have been involved in the project perhaps you should disclose you have a WP:COI. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 23:34, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• For transparency, I am a co-founder of Women in Red. Women in Red has facilitated online editathons supporting many Affiliates and non-Affiliate communities when asked to do so, including Art+Feminism, the last time being their March 2020 event, with Women in Red's meetup page here. For a list of all of Women in Red's events, including where we've supported A+F, Wiki Asia Month, CEE, AfroCrowd via Black History Month, AfroCine supporting WM Nigeria User Group, etc., see ((Women in Red)). Personally, I haven't created many, if any articles, about women artists, but I have written articles about women feminists, and I do so all year round, whether there's an on-going A+F event or not. As the Chair of AffCom, I know the founders of A+F as well as the founders and/or Board members of dozens of Affiliates. Sian and I have no special relationship. No one at A+F contacted me asking me to lend my support to this AfD. I'm here because user:Maile66 pinged me; see above. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:48, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• AlessandroTiandelli333, ONEEVENT does not apply. Evans is not the organizer of a single event, but the co-founder of an organization that has organized a ongoing series of events. As for PROMO, I'm don't see any soapboxing, propaganda, advertising or showcasing in the article. The statements are factual, and verifiable. That Evens herself engages in activism is irrelevant. Vexations (talk) 13:15, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The article already contains sufficient facts for notability but could certainly be usefully expanded.--Ipigott (talk) 09:46, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per discussion. And "In 2014, Evans was named one of Foreign Policy's 100 Leading Global Thinkers" is not trivial, but a notable achievement in real-world consideration. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:41, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - Not even sure why this is here. This clearly meets WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 19:39, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails GNG due to a lack of significant coverage. The sources given mention her briefly and are mostly about A+F. Being a founder of Art+Feminism and being named as one of Foreign Policy's 100 Leading Global Thinkers weren't enough to keep Jacqueline Mabey's article. Dougal18 (talk) 11:03, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• then maybe when this AfD is finished Jacqueline Mabey's article can have a put-it-back-on-mainspace discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:27, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Per reasons above. Article easily meets WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:15, 23 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 List of bus routes in London#400-499. Tone 20:25, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

London Buses route 452 (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 refs. Fails WP:GNG. Should be deleted by WP:BUSOUTCOMES. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 20:02, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 20:02, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 20:02, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and redirect to List of bus routes in London#400-499. Absolutely nothing notable about this route. Ajf773 (talk) 21:31, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect to List of bus routes in London#400-499 per WP:BUSOUTCOMES. Fairly obviously not notable. YorkshireLad  ✿  ^(talk) 22:49, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect per above. No evidence of standalone encyclopedic notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:10, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Note It is discussed in detail in this book.----Pontificalibus 08:17, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that changes anything because in any case this would still fail WP:GNG due to there not being multiple sources. Even so, the term "452" is mentioned a total of 5 times in the 160 page book, with about only 5/6 paragraphs on the topic. Not to mention, the book also goes in depth into a lot of other Bus Routes which are not notable. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 17:02, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of bus routes in London#400-499 --Devokewater @ 20:50, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close and revert back to this edit. WP:IAR. Quite clear this should have been done rather than taken to AfD. Nightfury 09:45, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well there has been some edit warring. I mean this article was reverted back to a redirect at one point. I though it would be a good idea to just get consensus on this article and if it should be retained. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 17:58, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The 452 is notable because it was the only new bus route introduced in connection with extending the Congestion Charge zone westwards, and it was not withdrawn when the western CC extension was withdrawn. I have added some references. The introduction of a new bus route for the CC extension is significant for plans to introduce congestion charging in other cities. Winstonsmith99 (talk) 00:11, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Winstonsmith99: Two of your sources are blog entries, we cannot accept these as appropriate sourcing. Nightfury 09:21, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of bus routes in London#400-499. Not notable enough per WP:GNG for standalone article. Additional sourced information could be included in other relevant articles. ~ Araratic | talk 05:18, 27 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 Encantadia. Tone 20:25, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Juvila (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)

Poor refs. Fails WP:GNG. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 19:58, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 19:58, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 19:58, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 19:58, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:13, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Encantadia: Not all characters in the series are notable. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:11, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Encantadia. Fails NFICTION. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:41, 27 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 Encantadia. Tone 20:25, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mine-a (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)

Poor refs. Fails WP:GNG. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 19:55, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 19:55, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 19:55, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 19:55, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:13, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Encantadia: Not all characters in the series are notable. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:12, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Encantadia. Fails NFICTION. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:41, 27 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. Tone 20:24, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Delete - Album of the 43zla, group which got deleted off from wikipedia for not being notable. The album isn't notable either, googling Sve Same Barabe has absolute 0 references, since the main page got taken down, pretty sure this is going with it. PolePoz (talk) 9:12, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
• 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 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:01, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The article for the band was already deleted per WP:A7 for including no statements of notability. Therefore this album article should be deleted per WP:A9. It does try to state the album's notability with an unsourced claim of popularity in a few countries, but that is not enough for the album notability requirements either. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:48, 22 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 9xdead. Tone 20:29, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cursed (9xDead album) (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 couldn't establish that it meets WP:NALBUM or WP:GNG. Possible WP:ATD is redirect to band. Boleyn (talk) 19:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:49, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to 9xdead: Barely found anything about the album. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 13:30, 21 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 15:20, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Notability not established. Only covered in reputable media as a side note. TechCrunch is reputable, but a single article noting how much they raised does not make it pass GNG. The article in The Economist mentions BitX (old name) in just a single sentence at the very end of the article. The Baobab section of The Economist was a blog, and I don't think the article was ever printed. Ysangkok (talk) 19:03, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 19:03, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 19:03, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 19:03, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep the subject seems notable to me. I found all the sources within a moment: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. However, This one should be ignored as it is written by a contributor rather than by a staff member. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 06:10, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TheBirdsShedTears: I don't think Bitcoin.com and TheBlockCrypto.com would qualify as reliable sources according to David Gerard. The article on Forbes is a blog, and therefore less reliable. FinanceMagnates seems suspicious since they single out cryptocurrency as one of their focuses. Their YouTube video is on an account call "Forex Magnates" which is related field full of scams. --Ysangkok (talk) 01:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

the crypto sources are indeed not regarded as evidence of notability (and that includes the Yahoo reprint of The Block piece). "IBS Intelligence" looks like they're promoting their consulting services, not a third-party RS. TechCrunch is news of them getting funding, which doesn't pass WP:NCORP. The Bloomberg and Business Times links might count, but they're pretty thin to base an article on - David Gerard (talk) 05:42, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning delete - two passing plausible RSes, seems a bit thin for WP:NCORP, and the article would be about three sentences - David Gerard (talk) 05:42, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the nom and @David Gerard. Fails WP:GNG as the sourcing is overall quite dubious or minor. Even more problematic is this article about a dark money financial company was created by a WP:SPA. It should be swiftly uprooted to prevent corruption of the purpose of Wikipedia, which is not free advertising. Newshunter12 (talk) 02:27, 28 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 Withdrawn (non-admin closure) Pahiy (talk) 21:31, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

A nonnotable country singer from the late 90s and early 2000s, Google searches turn up the same results as the article. And the only new thing that I could find about him was a YouTube video of a song filmed in 2000 in both Andrews, Texas and Marathon, Texas. While articles of the music video from the local newspaper of the former might be helpful for some; I’m not sure if they would be worthy enough to save this article from deletion. Pahiy (talk) 18:30, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 18:30, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 18:30, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per my expansions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 08:51, 25 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. Tone 20:24, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MyDeathSpace.com (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)

Though this article was deleted 14 years ago and was brought back two days after its deletion, this is/was a website that had no coverage whatsoever apart from a couple of news articles that the site got some attention in both 2006 and 2007. Pahiy (talk) 18:17, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 18:17, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:26, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - WP:INHERENTWEB: "When evaluating the notability of web content, please consider whether it has had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education." Never should have been recreated, especially not 2 days after it was deleted. At best, MyDeathSpace.com seems to have served as an obituary site for social media account holders. But that does not make it notable for a Wikipedia article. Devoid of inline sourcing. The "References" section is a list of news items about the site, with no indication of how they apply to the text of the article. The newest listing there is August 2007. — Maile (talk) 20:04, 20 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 Peakin' Trippers. or vice versa - evidence shows that Peakin' Trippers changed their name to Big September as per discussion. (non-admin closure)   Kadzi   (talk) 10:46, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Big September (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)

Looks like they were a small band with no sign of notoriety and only active for 2013-2014. Bakertheacre ^Chat/_{What I Baked} 17:38, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakertheacre ^Chat/_{What I Baked} 17:38, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:40, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. In terms of WP:NBAND, the subject appears to have had one single which was in the Irish Charts for one week (at number 24) back in 2013. As far as I can tell, it was the band's only charting single. In terms of WP:SIGCOV, the subject seems to appear only very sparingly in the Irish newspapers of record. For example, of the three articles I can find in the Irish Times, only one seems to be about the subject themselves. And that seems to be a single album review. And, while a search in the Independent News & Media stable of regional papers returns more examples, most are not really contributory to SIGCOV. And the main two articles date from just a few months apart. The first is a piece in the regional Bray People which talks a debut album launch (in May 2014). And the second is from the same regional Bray People paper which talks about the band's final gig (just a few months later in Dec 2014). Per nom, seems to be a fairly short-lived band, who achieved some moderate success, but not substantially to the extent that SIGCOV or NBAND are convincingly met. My recommendation leans towards 'delete'.... Guliolopez (talk) 19:23, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and merge with Peakin' Trippers. After additional WP:BEFORE investigations, I am inclined to update my !vote to "merge". While, per the above and nom, it originally seemed like the group barely existed for a year or so, it now seems (in particular based on the ref describing their disbandment) that Peakin' Trippers and Big September are two articles covering the same subject. With several otherwise reliable sources confirming the name change. This evidence of coverage, together with the evidence of (granted limited) chart success, suggests to me that NN is met. And a merged version of the article should likely be retained. Albeit with the quasi-promotional guff from the Peakin' Trippers title removed.... Guliolopez (talk) 09:32, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and merge with Peakin' Trippers as above as they seem to be the same group and they definitely pass WP:NMUSIC with a number one charting release on the Irish national charts and also have reliable sources coverage, in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 00:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Note the nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:45, 26 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. Tone 20:24, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Tomlinson (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)

Per WP:ONEEVENT, this should be replaced with a redirect to The Anacreontic Song. Grover cleveland (talk) 17:27, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:51, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:51, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:51, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 17:59, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep meets WP:BASIC I did some work to the article adding a few sections, and references found in books and other sources. The WP:NSONG he wrote was notable enough to have an article, and the fact that it was used as the music for the U.S. National Anthem is quite notable in an English encyclopedia. He also received some rs for his A Slang Pastoral a parody of John Byrom's poem. The biography still needs to be fleshed out with his early life, and other details. That is why I call this a weak keep. Lightburst (talk) 21:00, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Obviously notable, and this is content that belongs in the encyclopaedia. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:07, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - He is a relatively obscure historical figure but he certainly did more than The Anacreontic Song. Note that targeted searches in Google Scholar and Google Books reveal some pretty reliable evidence that the man has historical importance. For example, he has relatively brief but definitely verifiable coverage in several books on the origins of early American/British songs and academic journals on early American history. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:57, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as he has coverage in multiple reliable sources such as reliable book sources and he has historical significance beyond WP:BLP1E so he passes WP:Basic in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:50, 26 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. Views are pretty much split down the middle on this one. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:15, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Karachi Kings–Lahore Qalandars rivalry (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)

Contested PROD. Not notable, it's 2 teams that have only existed for 4 years. This "rivalry" is made up hype that doesn't meet WP:GNG Joseph2302 (talk) 17:27, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:27, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:27, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete although three sources discuss a "rivalry", two of them appear to be more or less the same, and none of the three really establish this as a notable rivalry. Fails WP:GNG. Harrias ^talk 17:31, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems like a legitimate rivalry: I am not an expert in Cricket but this one has WP:RSs per WP:NEXIST and passes WP:N - most of the references below describe this rivalry and "biggest" and "intense" etc. Finally per WP:NRIVALRY This passes the requirement of NRIVALRY because of the RS. Sports rivalries are not inherently notable. Articles on sports rivalries, such as Yankees–Red Sox rivalry, should satisfy the general notability guideline.

1. Sportkeeda
2. The Express Tribune
3. 24 News HD
4. Cricket World
5. International The News
6. Tech and Biz
7. Cricwick Lightburst (talk) 17:49, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The Boston Red Sox have existed for over 100 years, these teams have been for 4 years. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:33, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The two largest power cities in Pakistan competing in a cricket league is a pretty obvious (and 100% planned) rivalry. In Pakistan, you'd probably get a shrug regarding Sox/Yankees, but this would earn immediate recognition. Nate • (chatter) 21:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. While there are sources that use the word "rivalry" (or rival), none go further than stating it as a rivalry – no explanation as to why/how it is a significant rivalry other than being from two big cities – i.e. coverage is trivial and does not address the topic directly and in detail as required by GNG (NRIVALRY). Further, it is presented in most sources as a city rivalry that has little to do with these cricket teams. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 08:48, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Sound nomination, seems to be more the article creators opinion that an actual strong rivalry exists. Doesn't seem to be much out there which seems to provide significance about it. Plus, the teams have existed for 4 years, so there is no long-term rivalry there. StickyWicket (talk) 10:54, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It should be an emerging rivalry between the two sides and sources do not exactly say that there is a rivalry between these two. This rivalry might not be popular like the Chennai Super Kings–Mumbai Indians rivalry in the Indian Premier League. Abishe (talk) 17:47, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Devokewater @ 20:47, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep While it may not be the most popular rivalry in the world, sources mention it being the "biggest" rivalry in the PSL and it has reliable sources as per WP:RS and lastly I added a few more sources to the page CreativeNorth (talk) 14:33, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - to me this doesn't satisfy the requirements for a sports rivalry. The sources primarily refer to a rivalry between the two cities and any rivalry between the sides themselves seems to me to be exaggerated for marketing purposes - basically we have a single written source (the PCB press release which has been more or less reprinted in The Dawn and partially reprinted by CricinGIF) which makes any attempt at creating some kind of actual rivalry beyond that which you would expect of two sides playing in the same competition; the Express Tribune article uses the word rivalry in the headline but doesn't seem to discuss any aspect of real rivalry beyond that; the same is true of the Crickwick article. That doesn't bring it close to the level of sourcing required (for example, that of the East Anglian derby). The sources to suggest an actual, notable rivalry between these two teams just don't seem to be there. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:15, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is no much references present to show these both teams rivalry. As per it Fails WP:NRIVALRY Mr.Mani Raj Paul - talk 09:30, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The sources presented above are satisfactory. Solo Samaritan (talk) 12:02, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the nom and @Blue Square Thing. Fails WP:GNG. This "rivalry" among newly created teams is a thinly veiled marketing ploy and it's not Wikipedia's job to be a marketing department for private organizations. Newshunter12 (talk) 02:38, 28 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 WP:SNOW keep, as improved. BD2412 T 01:18, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lynne Ewing (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 author does not seem to be all that notable, and the article is mostly without sources. That and this page sounds more like an advertisement than an actual informative article. ShadowCyclone talk 16:54, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ShadowCyclone talk 16:54, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:21, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Media-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:21, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Author of a notable body of work. Her books have been reviewed, translated, and adapted for film. pburka (talk) 17:38, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong and speedy keep. Utter and complete failure to comply with WP:BEFORE. The first page of Google search results includes a review archive that establishes a presumption of notability. The GScholar search results show multiple examples of commentary. Randomly selected Amazon book pages, though not usable as refs, consistently show multiple reviews. A nonconstructive nomination. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 19:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, and rewrite: I understand the initial nom due to how horribly the article is written, but per the slightly harsh but true above comments she passes all basic and author notability criteria and article could be expanded extensively with a bit of source digging. Should work on that instead of deleting. GN-z11 ^{☎ ★} 19:26, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Thanks XOR'easter for the rewrite! Now that that's out of the way I don't see any other possible reason for deletion. GN-z11 ^{☎ ★} 20:53, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Passes WP:AUTHOR: multiple books with multiple reviews apiece, etc. I did a preliminary copy-editing so that the text, while not great, is not horrible either. XOR'easter (talk) 19:54, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP Authors are notable based on the notability of what they create. Dream Focus 20:52, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep 24 books from major publishers! Gamaliel (talk) 12:46, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:HEY because of XOR'easter and AleatoryPondering's improvements. — Toughpigs (talk) 13:54, 21 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. Tone 20:23, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hamish Thompson (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 primarily self advertising, and there is no evidence for notability-- Except for two minor awards, and a number of mentions. Most of the article consist of his own claims for his ownwork DGG ( talk ) 16:29, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I’ve now thoroughly read the Wikipedia delete guidelines.
• Firstly, it recommends doing a google search to check for notability. A quick google search for “Hamish Thompson“ with a key word like ‘PR’, ‘buzzwords’ etc will find multiple independent references to Thompson, particularly in national newspaper articles.
• Secondly, it recommends allowing new editors time to improve an article before nominating for deleting. I would suggest that I have made progress in this, and I’d be extremely grateful for guidance on making more.
• Thirdly, the inclusion of the awards is to prove that Thompson is creator of the stunts/campaigns as the news coverage itself doesn’t mention him.Florapostewrites (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:02, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, PR --Devokewater @ 16:48, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fluff. No evidence that he actually stands out among the people whose job it is to draw attention. XOR'easter (talk) 16:58, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think as a stunt creator, he is worthy of inclusion. Perhaps the article should just focus on that. His stunts have been reported around the world. I can add plenty of other citations to support this. He is also recognised as a PR expert (e.g. the episode of Word of Mouth where he was solo guest talking to Michael Rosen and Dr Laura Wright). Florapostewrites (talk) 17:11, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Media-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:24, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Author-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:24, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:24, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:24, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've now added more examples of Thompson's publicity stunts with links to newspaper articles directly attributing them to him. Florapostewrites (talk) 18:04, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've now stripped out anything that couldn't be independently verified. Added more citations. I also noticed I'd linked to a 5-minute extract of the Word of Mouth episode in which Thompson was the sole guest. I've now linked to the whole programme. Someone had already flagged Thompson for possible inclusion in the Australia project, before the article was flagged for possible deletion. Florapostewrites (talk) 07:37, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Complete fail of WP:BASIC and has to be one of the worst self promotion articles I've read. PR agents always get mentions in tabloids since their literal job is to grab attention, unfortunately there is nothing that concretely suggests he's any more notable than the majority. GN-z11 ^{☎ ★} 18:59, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, many of the stunts don't mention the publicist, instead quoting the CEO or spokesperson for the organisation. [Note: I didn't include a number of notable stunts that don't mention Thompson in news articles, so can't be independently verified.] Thompson's worth for inclusion is due to creating the ideas behind the stunts and being seen as an influential thinker on public relations. I initially wrote the article badly (I'm fairly new to this), but think in its present form Thompson is worth an article. If he isn't, can you explain why a publicist such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Borkowski is worthy of one? Florapostewrites (talk) 09:18, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• What would be really useful is some guidance on what to include: I think the most significant contributions Thompson has made are: (1) the death of the VCR, a campaign which went directly against previous PR orthodoxy (ie you never say something is becoming obsolete); and (2) the John Lewis Make Do or Mend campaign, which reinvigorated the culture of mending belongings instead of throwing them away and buying new. That, combined with being recognised as an expert on media and public relations, seems Wikipedia-worthy. Florapostewrites (talk) 09:53, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• With reference to the comment about PR agents appearing in tabloids: Thompson has been invited to talk about language on BBC Radio 4 Today Programme, BBC Radio 4 Word of Mouth, ABC Australian National radio, New Zealand national radio. His opinion/research about jargon has been been quoted by linguist https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Thorne and in books and academic articles. Thompson has written for The Independent. None of these are tabloids; and in all of these cases was he was acting as an expert or pundit, not a PR agent. [note: links to all of these are in the references to the article.]

Florapostewrites (talk) 06:42, 23 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 that there is substantial coverage in one acceptable source, GQ. But almost everybody who has taken a closer look at the other sources is of the view that they are the sort of crypto subculture materials that we don't consider reliable. Sandstein 15:24, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Banking on Bitcoin (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 per WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. Single RS talking about the film, after the non-RSes were cleaned out - NFILM requires multiple coverage. WP:BEFORE shows nothing more. PROD removed, but without any fixes to these issues. David Gerard (talk) 12:55, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 12:55, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 12:55, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 12:55, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It has been covered in GQ, which is a reliable source. Also, isn't NASDAQ reliable? [12] --Ysangkok (talk) 19:02, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • GQ is a single RS, and WP:NFILM requires multiple coverage. The NASDAQ source is a reprint of Bitcoin Magazine, which is a crypto blog. You also added a pile more links to said crypto blog. These are not RSes and cannot be used to demonstrate notability - David Gerard (talk) 23:58, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I added some information from other reliable independent sources including Cointelegraph, Bitcoin.com (Saint Bitts LLC) and Bitcoin Magazine. These are sources that are not related to the film producer and may be presumed to give accurate information and reviews, not all of which are positive. The film, now a bit dated, gained considerable attention in the bitcoin community and some attention outside that community. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:46, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aymatth2: David Gerard thinks one cannot cite Bitcoin Magazine. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Bitcoin_Magazine_reputable. --Ysangkok (talk) 02:17, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ysangkok: Bitcoin Magazine has a sizable readership, and I see no reason to doubt what it says about this film. When Nasdaq republishes the Bitcoin Magazine review, that means they think the film is notable and Bitcoin Magazine is a credible source for a review. Whether Bitcoin Magazine or Nasdaq would be good sources for investment advice is a different question. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:40, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aymatth2: it would be better to discuss that at the noticeboard since it concerns all the Bitcoin articles. There are a few other AfD's underway. --Ysangkok (talk) 15:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the crypto blogs. This is WP:REFBOMBing, not adding reliable sources - David Gerard (talk) 10:23, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored valid sources and the content they support. The crypto-currency news sites are reliable for information about the movie. You may argue here why you consider Nasdaq etc. unreliable. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:43, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some more information supported by reliable sources. This information, and the citations, should not be removed during a deletion discussion. It is valid to comment here on whether the sources are reliable and whether they contribute to notability. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:59, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not understand what is going on here. I came to this discussion from Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion#Flawed. Banking on Bitcoin is an article proposed for deletion by David Gerard, kept, and then nominated for AfD by the same user. A typical pattern. It seems like a harmless documentary, perhaps a bit biased, as documentaries tend to be. A Google search gives plenty of hits, so it seems notable enough.

I added some neutral and factual content about the film from sources that discussed the subject, and it was reverted by David Gerard with the summary "rm crypto sites - crypto sites are not WP:RSes, need mainstream sources". That seems a bit like saying Christian sources cannot be used in articles about Christianity. I restored the content and added some more from sources that seem to be far from "crypto sites". I then get a large warning box on my talk page from David Gerard saying something about WP:General sanctions, and shortly after Retimuko removed all the changes I had made.

What is going on? I have no views on bitcoin beyond vague skepticism. I am not trying to push any opinion, just trying to salvage a bland article about a Netflix film that has received some attention, rightly or wrongly. Why do we urgently need to purge the article on the film? Aymatth2 (talk) 19:46, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In particular, Cointelegraph, bitcoin.com, Nasdaq (reprint from Bitcoin Magazine) are not considered reliable sources. Retimuko (talk) 02:23, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Retimuko: To be clear, if I restore all the content I added apart from the citations to these three sources, you will not again purge it all? David Gerard seems in his/her unsigned notice on my talk page to be saying one false step and I am in deep shit. I do not want get get into anything resembling an edit war. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:39, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't this make half of the claims unsupported? Besides, I am not familiar with other sources. Is imdb considered reliable? What about thatshelf.com, gritdaily.com and infolaft.com? Simply speaking, yes, I wouldn't object if Cointelegraph, Bitcoin Magazine and bitcoin.com are excluded together with claims they were supposed to support. Retimuko (talk) 05:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have put back the material other than the stuff from Cointelegraph, Bitcoin Magazine and bitcoin.com. This all seems very paranoid to me, but I suppose that is what the world of cryptocurrencies is like. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:07, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes when I go to save an article I get warning notice like:

I suggest that Cointelegraph, bitcoin.com and Nasdaq should be added to Wikipedia:Spam blacklist to avoid problems like this in the future. Aymatth2 (talk) 03:33, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, WP:GNG still not met. The recently added sources are all crypto-currency news sites; not necessarily unreliable, but probably no better than trade magazines for notability (the WP:RSN discussion above is a good discussion of this; I think we're still trying to build consensus around this). The single remaining GQ article is not sufficient. BenKuykendall (talk) 08:27, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A note on the sources:

• IMDB (Amazon) and Barnes and Noble are reliable for basic facts like people and companies associated with the film, but do nothing to establish notability
• Ben Prunty's bio is probably accurate in saying he composed the music, but does nothing to establish notability
• Grit Daily, GQ and That Shelf are large sites (GQ also has a print version) with many readers. The articles are written by paid journalists. They may be assumed to be factually accurate, although the opinions expressed will be those of the authors. They clearly establish notability
• Lozano Vila & Asociados is a large legal consultancy based in Colombia that specializes in prevention of money laundering and terrorist financing. Its lengthy overview of the film may be taken to indicate that the film presents a legitimate mainstream view of the subject, if that is relevant.
• Nasdaq republished a review of the film by Bitcoin Magazine, which also indicates both legitimacy and notability, but the nominator has insisted this source be removed.

Aymatth2 (talk) 12:14, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Aymatth, looks to have sufficient enough coverage to be worth keeping, regardless of what we might think about the subject matter.† Encyclopædius 12:07, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources: [13], [14], [15], [16]. Thanks Aymatth2. ~Kvng (talk) 14:09, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per BenKuykendall. Cryptocurrency, being an area rife with promotionalism, is a subject where niche sources have a deep well to climb out of in order to prove themselves reliable. Churning an unreliable source does not make its content more trustworthy, so the NASDAQ/Bitcoin Magazine item counts for nothing; the closest we get is the single piece from GQ, which isn't enough. XOR'easter (talk) 16:51, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@XOR'easter: what about the three other sources listed by Kvng? None of them are crypto media. --Ysangkok (talk) 02:41, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Other areas "rife with promotionalism" include politics, the performing arts, software and so on. Let's not get paranoid. The main sources are reviews of the film published in broad-audience journals. They are reliable and independent: that is what they saw, and that is what they thought about it. The film itself may be biased – many films, books, politicians etc. are biased – but what counts is whether it has been noted, and that is clearly true. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:45, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the documentary is covered and reviewed by the multiple notable sources [17], [18], [19] and [20]. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 04:11, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete - The GQ source is good, but otherwise the sources people are linking to to support keeping are really dodgy. "Grit Daily" calls itself the "top news source on Millennial and Gen Z brands". Other sources are from Bitcoin Magazine and other bitcoin-related sources rather than sources known for their coverage of film. For a recent movie on Netflix about a topic in pop culture, there's a surprising lack of good coverage here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:53, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bitcoin Magazine is not cited, or any other bitcoin-related sources, because of the ruling that all sources that cover bitcoin-related topics are unreliable. That limits the available sources for a film about bitcoin. GQ, Grit Daily and That Shelf are independent and surely reliable for what they say about the film. Lozano Vila & Asociados, a law firm, is surely also reliable and independent. All these sources cover the film in depth, which is all that WP:GNG requires. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:19, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bitcoin Magazine and other bitcoin-related sources are in fact linked above as evidence that the article should be kept (the source published on nasdaq.com says "publisher: Bitcoin Magazine"). I see no indication that Grit Daily is a reliable source for a film review here. Ditto the law firm. Independent is not the same as reliable for a particular purpose, of course. Would need to look into That Shelf more, since I've never heard of it and it's unclear by looking at it, but jsut GQ + That Shelf doesn't speak highly for a film. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:53, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"I don't like it" is a weak argument. We have identified seven professionally-written reviews of the film published by sources that cover crypto-currency, finance in general, technology and modern culture. There are not short publicity blurbs. They are detailed descriptions and thoughtful, informed critiques from different perspectives. The depth and breadth of coverage is impressive. The film is notable. Aymatth2 (talk) 11:49, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No we haven't, they're bad sources that can't be used for notability - even if you keep just repeating your claim at everyone who points this out. We have two review sources at absolute best - David Gerard (talk) 13:34, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion Infolaft (Lozano Consultores Ltda) is the most significant source. They specialize in prevention and control of money laundering and terrorist financing. It is their business to understand in detail the crypto-currency technology, legal issues and ways in which bitcoin etc. can be used for illegal purposes. They are subject matter experts. GQ is a glossy that dates back to 1931, Grit Daily can explain the significance of the film to millenials, and That Shelf can comment on its artistic quality, but Infolaft gives a truly informed view of the views expressed in the documentary, the errors, omissions or distortions. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the nom. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM since it only has one significant reliable source, the GQ article. The article is fluffed up with links to IMDB (which is not a reliable source) and a Barnes & Noble advertisement, neither of which do anything to prove notability, in an attempt to seem notable. One significant source is not sustained WP:SIGCOV, and articles on topics so financially focused should require a high bar to meet notability, to prevent Wikipedia being abused as free advertising. Newshunter12 (talk) 02:55, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• The GQ is a certainly good coverage. If there was an equivalent review in another equivalent periodical that would demonstrate notability for me. I do notice some routine coverage in Deadline e.g. [21]. Beyond that I find a whole lot of references to it in good enough sources: in this listicle at the Telegraph on the best business content on Netflix, or this Chicago tribune column or as a throw away line in this CNBC article, or as a good primer in this the Street article. I could give more like that. None of them add up to a good enough second source for me to show notability. But my collective reading of them gives me great pause about deleting it. So I can't quite say we should keep up but I also can't say in good faith we should delete it. So take this as my own personal no consensus about what we should do here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:10, 29 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. Tone 20:29, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Haroon Shahid (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 to meet basic GNG. Creator of this BLP is a paid editor. Saqib (talk) 15:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable individual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:32, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article provides very little evidence that its subject is notable.Babbu2208 (talk) 17:14, 23 July 2020 (GMT+5:30)
• Delete non notable --Devokewater 14:29, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. He has appeared as a lead actor in a movie. - Solo Samaritan (talk) 12:05, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In just one movie. No enough. --Saqib (talk) 17:39, 26 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. Tone 20:29, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aneesa Sharif (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 to meet basic GNG. Creator is a paid editor. Saqib (talk) 15:44, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:48, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:48, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:48, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Looking at what at first glance appears to be the strongest source, Deccan Herald – uh oh, at the end of the article this is printed: "DC doesn't endorse the above content". It's an advertorial. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:16, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Smells strongly of WP:PAID, no solid third-party sources to support notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:12, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Devokewater @ 10:03, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:04, 22 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. Nothing to suggest this needs to be deleted. Can easily be cleaned up and as editors have noted, there are sources of it. (non-admin closure)   Kadzi   (talk) 16:27, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Broad Street Mall (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 suggestion at all, anywhere, that this is notable as a structure or a landmark. A few local newspaper articles prove that it exists--but that is not enough for an article. Drmies (talk) 15:28, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:32, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:52, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep When searching I also found mostly local newspaper coverage, which is perhaps to be expected, though the local newspapers are, I would argue, reliable sources; I also found this photo history, which could be used to expand the article. I did also find [22] from the Estates Gazette about the centre itself, and a couple of news stories from the Daily Telegraph [23] and from the BBC [24] about stories related to the centre; more substantial coverage of the latter appears in the local newspaper sources. (The centre used to be called the Butts Centre, with its name changing around the advent of online news coverage, so I didn't find much under that name—but it might appear under that name in older print sources.) YorkshireLad  ✿  ^(talk) 17:54, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Other bits include [25] from Reading Museums on the history of the site, and [26] about its opening, from a source I've never heard of but which may be reliable (it seems to have staff and a company owning it, rather than being simply user-generated content or a blog). YorkshireLad  ✿  ^(talk) 17:58, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I had a quick look at that Flashbak site--it's a bit odd in its lack of clarity about what it is, but I wouldn't discredit it right away. The thing is, it has very little text (and that's the kind of thing I would have accepted, since it looks decent), and so it doesn't help much in writing the article, and the unknown quality of its quality means it can't add much weight to the notability matter. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:28, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Not the best article, and in my defence when I created it 15 years ago WP policies on all sorts of issues were still very much evolving, so I probably didn't pay as much attention as I would now to notability and sourcing. Later editors havn't helped by making it too much like a mall directory. But we should remember that deletion is not cleanup and there is notability and sources to be had. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 22:57, 20 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. Tone 20:30, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I cannot find decent coverage of this poet. There is quite a lot in various blogs, and I have found and added two interviews, but nothing that meets notability requirements. Tacyarg (talk) 23:50, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 23:50, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 23:50, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 23:50, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 23:50, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 23:50, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• This is worded very promotionally, in particular the obviously cherry-picked quotes in the "reception" section, so if it is kept it needs to have a good going over for neutrality. I prefer not to spend my time looking for sources when an article is so blatantly promotional. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not enough independent sourcing to show that he is a notable poet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:55, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:TNT, WP:NOT, and WP:NOTESSAY. It is written in the form of a witty review or essay. I'm not sure he;s notable anyway, based on the lack of WP:SIGCOV. Bearian (talk) 01:51, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Substantial coverage in reliable sources exists: this article in English Studies discusses his work in some depth, as does this recent doctoral thesis. The article also cites a review in Acumen – the review doesn't seem to be available online, but we don't require sources to be. The interview in Dream Catcher in the external links section is also quite a good source – I know some editors don't think interviews should contribute to establishing notability, but typically established publications don't interview just anybody. The current state of the article is indeed poor, but the list of works and the useful references strongly suggest WP:TNT isn't the right approach. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Arms & Hearts; with the back-flap blurbs removed, it reads better, and I think this is a case where the interviews are evidence of the world paying attention, so they count towards wiki-notability. XOR'easter (talk) 17:17, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I did a little searching (<5mins) and found these: [27], [28], [29], [30], [31]. A bit more time in JSTOR, Project Muse etc, would (probably) reveal more. He's not famous but I believe he is notable. Agree with Phil Bridger on promo style problem; it reads like a press release. The article could defintely use work.   // Timothy :: talk  23:49, 25 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. Tone 20:30, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Appears to have many roles but all minor. Cannot locate any significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. CNMall41 (talk) 15:11, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:32, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:32, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The same Keep arguments apply as in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Dyktynski. The article does need to be improved though to make notability clearer. Boneymau (talk) 23:37, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Boneymau, acknowledging the need for improvement. Deus et lex (talk) 12:47, 22 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. Tone 20:31, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Avtar Singh Makkar (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)

Unelected politician. The article fails WP:GNG. Becoming the part of his party's affiliate organization is not enough for passing WP:NPOL. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 20:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 20:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• As someone generally unfamiliar with the organisation he was president of, it's unclear to me how exactly he's unelected. SportingFlyer T·C 21:15, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:55, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The subject's claim to importance is not as a politician as definied by WP:POLITICIAN, but as the leader of a body managing places of worship, so the appropriate guideline to check against is WP:GNG. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:38, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - SGPC president should suffice for notability. Notably seems all major English-language newspapers covered his death: https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/former-sgpc-president-avtar-singh-makkar-passes-away/story-tprB46tAwFcxsOdiL0Fy0L.html , https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/amritsar/former-sgpc-chief-avtar-singh-makkar-passes-away/articleshow/72914313.cms , https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/ludhiana/former-sgpc-president-jathedar-avtar-singh-makkar-cremated-in-ludhiana/ , https://www.business-standard.com/article/news-ani/former-sgpc-president-avtar-singh-makkar-dies-after-a-brief-illness-119122001507_1.html , https://www.outlookindia.com/newsscroll/former-sgpc-president-avtar-singh-makkar-passes-away/1690964 , etc. --Soman (talk) 12:04, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- per Soman, as meeting WP:GNG, and as having a better claim to notability than many of our WP:SNGS find enough for "presumption" of it. The organisation he was the president of, is described as an "apex body" of Sikhism. The obits linked above have enough WP:SIGCOV for a balanced, neutral, encyclopedic biography on the subject, which is what WP:GNG is all about. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:38, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets GNG per above sources. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:15, 22 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. Tone 20:31, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

James Osborne (sport shooter) (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, cannot find any coverage of him in a before search, tagged for over a decade. SportingFlyer T·C 17:27, 6 July 2020 (UTC) SportingFlyer T·C 17:27, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 17:27, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 17:27, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. If he did win a world championship in his sport then he would be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:53, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Source me. I've looked. SportingFlyer T·C 21:13, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Not terribly hard, it would seem. [32] [33] [34] [35]. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:26, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• So, Keep. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:26, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Necrothesp I suggest you add those sources to the article. Papaursa (talk) 14:08, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep Although the sourcing of the article isn't great, Necrothesp did find some sources that are reliable and confirm Osborne was a world champion. Papaursa (talk) 14:08, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: per Necrothesp. I likewise think that the sourcing is shaky, but the fact that the subject was a world champion is a definite indicator of notability. Ravenswing 17:02, 26 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) 16:22, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

non notable musician, sourced entirely to fake "news" sources operated by black hat SEO firms. Praxidicae (talk) 14:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:33, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:33, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — no evidence of satisfying any notability criteria. Celestina007 (talk) 16:43, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• delete not notability and known trash sources. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:05, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, sources are spam used for promotional purposes. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 15:28, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non notable --Devokewater @ 10:02, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:33, 22 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:39, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Scales (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. All sources in the article are self-published materials or her own employer. I could not find any independent reliable coverage of her in a WP:BEFORE search I did. Newshunter12 (talk) 14:35, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:35, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:35, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Very weak keep. Her papers have been archived (albeit at the school where she was dean), and she seems to have some coverage I can't quite access in Animation Journal and Museum Origins. pburka (talk) 20:33, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. As with a lot of women of this time, searching for sources is made more complicated by the many variations of her name to search for (e.g. "Mrs. Robert Leighton Scales", "Mrs. Robert L. Scales", as well as various permutations of the names given in the article itself). I can't read it to tell how in-depth it is, but she appears to have an obituary in The New York Times [36] and a syndicated news story about her 110th birthday [37]. She had an honorary doctorate from Smith in 1931 [38]. Her resignation from the museum of fine arts is covered at [39]. She was the subject of an Alfred Eisenstaedt photo in Life [40]. Her publications include "The Museum's Part in the Making of Americans" [41] and "Shall we fear the large college?" [42]. So there seems to be plenty more to say about her than is already in the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:08, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep on basis of information found by Eppstein. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:21, 20 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep The NYT obit is not long, but it does confirm her honorary doctorate of humane letters from Smith in 1931, as well as an honorary doctorate of literature from Dartmouth College in 1939. Two honorary doctorates from well-established institutions, along with the other information given above, adds up to a notability case. XOR'easter (talk) 23:40, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep now that I have some idea what's in the NYT obit. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:48, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Two honorary doctorates from well-established institutions, papers held by one of them, plenty of coverage. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 05:32, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, passes GNG with Eppstein's sources.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:12, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Sufficient notability. Gamaliel (talk) 12:47, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep given the sources presented above. -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:15, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• If any passing admin would like to snow close this, that would seem fair by now. XOR'easter (talk) 17:16, 21 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 Morgue file. As proposer suggested; the 2006 deletion discussion would not hold up today - the website is complete non notable. Appropriate for a redirect (non-admin closure)   Kadzi   (talk) 16:30, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MorgueFile (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)

Kept a very long time ago, at a 2006 AfD. The article has not kept up with changing notability norms, particularly WP:GNG. – Teratix ₵ 14:23, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 14:23, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 14:23, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 14:23, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Morgue file: As an WP:ATD. Barely found anything about this database. It may be best to talk about it in the target article, albeit in at most 1 sentence. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I have no strong objection to redirection, but the title is not a likely search term; readers are unlikely to omit the space. The potential target mentioned is about quite a different subject, and I don’t see how any content could be merged there. – Teratix ₵ 03:07, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 14:54, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I support turning this to a redirect, per WP:ATD. However, I don't support a merge, as MorgueFile and Morgue file, despite sounding similar, don't have much to do with each other. Not a very active user (talk) 16:15, 20 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. Tone 20:32, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

H. Ray Dunning (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)

Tricky one, hence sitting in CAT:NN for over 11years. He has been published, articles and books. He has held an academic post. But looking at it altogether, I can't see him passing WP:PROF, WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. At least most of the sources should be in English and easily accessible. Boleyn (talk) 13:30, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 13:50, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 14:27, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment WP:NAUTHOR is plausible. I found a review [43] of one book and a "critical response" [44] to another. There's a citation to another review in the latter. It may be harder to find sources as much of the subjects work predates the internet era. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 16:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• There's another review of that book here. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:55, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes WP:NAUTHOR with reviews of his works in multiple reliable sources as shown above and now in the article so deletion is no longer necessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 18:33, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huh? There has been no significant change to the article since its nomination (only some category sorting) and the article still does not list any reviews. There are reviews listed above, but the number is small. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:48, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stand corrected about the article state but there are three scholarly reviews identified in the discussion, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:09, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. No serious challenge to the level of notability established by the reviews cited here, and the nominator's argument that "At least most of the sources should be in English and easily accessible" is utterly ungrounded in policy and reflects quite poorly on their basic WP:COMPETENCE. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 19:30, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I was saying that this person's first language is English, so that is likely to be the language of most relevant sources, as opposed to another I had nominated, where I had commented that we needed to be extra careful because of possible confusion and difficulty tracking down sources in the subject's native language. Boleyn (talk) 19:43, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that there was some ambiguity in the "should be" in the nomination statement. I initially interpreted it in the same sense as Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, so thanks for clearing the point up. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:46, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Dunning is one of the most important and infulential theologians in the Wesleyan/Holiness branch of Christianity. Kevin Rector (talk) 14:50, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The comment immediately above comes without evidence, but the sources identified above along with the one I just added to the article show that it is true. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:43, 23 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. Tone 20:32, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

A difficult one to assess. Possible ATDs are redirect to creator (Mineko Ohkami ) or publisher (Wings (manga magazine)). I couldn't find the coverage to establish it is WP:NOTABLE - it definitely exists but most sources are primary or unreliable. I'm aware I may be missing something from Japanese sources. Boleyn (talk) 07:57, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 09:36, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 14:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Anime News Network is considered a reliable source by WP:ANIME. I also found coverage in Natalie: 1 2 3 With that said, the article is full of unsourced WP:FAN and WP:ORIGINAL that needs to be cut down. lullabying (talk) 09:55, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. In the current state it is pretty bad, but I'd hesitate to delete it without input from Japanese speakers. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:47, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the sources already on the article and the sources found by Lullabying. If two different reliable sources cover this manga in six different articles, then it seems to meet WP:GNG. The "Characters" section would, however, need some heavy clean-up. Not a very active user (talk) 16:27, 20 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 (WP:NPASR). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:12, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cosendai Adventist University (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)

Seemingly non-notable university. Only a few articles in Adventist news sources come up in a search about them and the two sources in the article are extremely trivial. So, there's nothing about it that pass WP:GNG from what I can tell. Adamant1 (talk) 07:20, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 09:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 09:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The number of Ghits looks a little better for the name "Université Adventiste Cosendai", and this bit of 3rd-party coverage is more convincing, although possibly a different campus of the same school. --Lockley (talk) 21:31, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect I spent about 3 minutes finding sources, but returned with trival mentions. What i want to say is that the subject is recognized and registered with multiple other institutions. It's main organisation Seventh-day Adventist Church is affiliated (or working) with the Maranatha Volunteers International. However, a topic needs in-depth independent coverage to meet the general criteria of notability, which the subject in question lacks clearly. Therefore, it be redirected to the List of Seventh-day Adventist colleges and universities. [45]