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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ruf R Kompressor[edit]

Ruf R Kompressor (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 poorly written article which does less to cover it's subject matter in detail. It is better off as a section in the Ruf automobile main page. U¹ _quattro TALK 09:33, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think with a little more info and some formatting I can clean this one up just fine, i'll get on it after I finish improving the RK Coupe article. TKOIII (talk) 00:12, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be really helpful. This article also needs an infobox and some more citations to bring it up to par. In its current state, it does not look like a proper article.U¹ _quattro TALK 04:51, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. U¹ _quattro TALK 09:33, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:11, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added another source, an infobox and more info to the article so I think it's pretty much up to par at this point. TKOIII (talk) 19:32, 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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Priya Kumar (author)[edit]

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

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

Promotional bio of motivational speaker and writer. Notability is doubtful and although she writes columns for several papers, there does not appear to be good coverage of her in reliable independent sources. Does not pass WP:AUTHOR. Mccapra (talk) 23:17, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 23:17, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 23:17, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 23:17, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 23:17, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 23:17, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Agree that it sounds promotional. A brief search finds only social media and blogs. Not saying she's not notable, but on first pass, it will take some research or editors more familar with this arena. I'll look also for RS. Netherzone (talk) 23:28, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete an article that is onverly promotional and not based on reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:12, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is a purely promotional text, created by a kamikaze account from what was originally a humble yet proper redirect to The Final Call, her only claim to fame and a meagre one at that. Nothing to satisfy WP:NCREATIVE or even WP:GNG. -The Gnome (talk) 16:07, 1 August 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. Salvio 15:30, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolás Morás[edit]

Nicolás Morás (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 journalist. Fails WP:JOURNALIST and WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 22:38, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per failing WP:N and also WP:BIO. Emaponche (talk) 23:06, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 23:47, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 23:47, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep notable journalist, well known work and participation in the mass media WP:BASIC. User:LiebeZenPeace (talk) 00:18, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As a consumer of Spanish-speaking mass media, especially Argentine, I personally do not believe in the particular remarkableness of this journalist. He could be notable only within a certain particular audience, but not so much as to have great importance within the mass media as he is not widely recognized. His most important work only includes three documentary films that are also not prominent or noteworthy. I think that WP:JOURNALIST would strongly apply here. Emaponche (talk) 02:09, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notability depends on the article containing independent sources WP: IS, not its popularity WP:OBSCURE WP:NOBODYREADSIT. I agree that in his documentaries his publication is validated WP:JOURNALIST, but also in his journalistic work that, it is worth mentioning, appears in the following official media of great international scope: Hispantv, RT, Sputnik, and Telesur, and official media from Argentina: La Voz del Interior, Infobae, Canal22, and Pressenza. Without mention his credibility, which, far from being questioned, his notability was built on his work where he uses multiple sources to maintain objectivity and partiality.LiebeZenPeace (talk) 05:57, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, thanks for clarifying your viewpoint. Secondly, you mention that he "appears in (…) media of great international scope". Altough that might be actually true, I still think that the sourcing on the page is very poor. WP:EXIST might be a nice explanation as sources from Infobae (the only major media source of all references) are self-published and do not provide relevance about him (WP:USINGSPS). Thirdly, as you explained, he mostly appears in media (such as HispanTV, RT, Sputnik, and Telesur) that were classified by Wikipedia as questionable sources (WP:DEPRECATED), so his work could be WP:BIASED and lead to WP:SOAP. Lastly and most importantly, as his work might fall into WP:BLPFRINGE, this all would explain why I believe the article shouldn't stay in Wikipedia. Emaponche (talk) 23:00, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let's get to the point. I put the links and references there to demonstrate the trajectory of his career, not to validate his arguments, personally according to his sources, which by the way he uses sources of all categories in his private investigations, but it is not the point, but to verify that he has been in those places, not if he is biased or not, it is precisely a biography of a character that I think I have argued his remarkable, since he appears in many media from all strata, so he has a large number of people interested in your subject, which is proven, and that is why your article is convenient here, and it is fair. LiebeZenPeace (talk) 06:16, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:BIO as there is no independent coverage of the subject on any reliable source, cites either point to opinion pieces by the subject or passing mentions of the subject on independent journalism blogs. These sources mention the subject as part of promotion of his fringe theory advocacy, including his anti-Soros campaign, which is against Wikipedia policy (WP:FRINGEBLP). The Wikipedia user that wrote this article is a personal friend of the subject so it's an obvious case of WP:COISELF and WP:SOAPBOX. --MewMeowth (talk) 08:47, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't understand what you are saying, you say they only quote him on blogs WP: AQU, but the character in question is not only a WP:JOURNALIST, whether you like his investigative topics or not WP:TASTE WP: IDL, he is called in official media WP: HITS WP:RS, as I explained in my previous comment, precisely because of the rigor of his work, and because they value that as such WP: NBIO. And this is enough reason to have an article on Wikipedia. On the other hand, Soros is not protected on Wikipedia, because it is about neutrality, and Morás is not only recognized for that particular work, of which there are secondary sources in this regard, he has even been called to speak about politics in general in recognized media in his country WP: SOSTENIDO. And, of course, I absolutely have no relationship with Morás, and that accusation is suspicious. All neutrality requirements are being met here WP:NOTPROMOTION WP:NPOV, your accusation seems to me sincerely exaggerated. LiebeZenPeace (talk) 01:55, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's a photo of you, next to this article's subject, calling him "a friend," on Instagram. I would definitely call that a relationship. As per Wikipedia policy you are to disclose potential COIs and in fact you are barred from meta-discussions such as AfD on articles where you have a COI. --MewMeowth (talk) 04:26, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you investigating me? Well, if you are so interested in my private life, I can tell you that I met him, on the street, and I liked him, because I agree with his rigor and his work, but I do not have much relationship with him, in fact, We met when I was on vacation, once, you can't say that we are personal friends. I just hope you don't think that's why I have no right to write an article about him, because Wikipedia does not prohibit it, actually I have been neutral and descriptive, for example I put in Controversies that he is critical of Zionism but that there are libertarian circles where they are critical of his position, where you see partiality, he is concrete, but I do not find real reasons to delete the article, let's be fair. But I think that you are harassing me when looking for me on Instagram, and that you are boasting in bad faith, with that argument I can say that you are wanting to eliminate it because you openly have beliefs contrary to those that Nicolás Morás maintains, but nevertheless I do not do it WP:GF. LiebeZenPeace (talk) 06:24, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@LiebeZenPeace: You are calling him a friend, then you have a COI, and will need to withdraw. I will post a note up to coin tonight. scope_creep^Talk 08:29, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: I have already answered you in your comment, but I'm afraid to add that in addition to speculating maliciously about the context of the photo they took harassing me, also are trying to censure me for telling me that I have COI as if the article I wrote was biased, which I already mentioned but I repeat, you are following a leader, and you have not responded to my affirmations. You are WP:BIASED, please i am asking you impartiality and consideration. LiebeZenPeace (talk) 04:32, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MewMeowth: "As per Wikipedia policy you are to disclose potential COIs and in fact you are barred from meta-discussions such as AfD on articles where you have a COI." – He is certainly allowed to participate in an AfD discussion relating to a topic in which he may have a conflict of interest. He just needs to disclose his personal relationship with the subject first, and he also needs to avoid creating or contributing to articles in which his biases can influence his discretion. I don't see this as a case of paid editing. To me, it's an acquaintance of the article subject who wants to help raise his profile by giving him his own Wikipedia page. If this is the first time he's done something like this, then it's fair to assume that he didn't realize his editing would be seen as a conflict of interest. I don't think it's fair for anyone to label LiebeZenPeace a single-purpose account on the basis of one ill-advised article. Kurtis ^(talk) 13:02, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kurtis: And that's exactly the opposite of what the article's creator has done here. The article was single-handedly created by them, they have never disclosed their COI, even going as far as removing the COI tag I placed in the article, as well as being very concerned about Google's indexing of the article. Are we going to be so obtuse and ignore an obvious case of WP:SOAPBOX? Of course, the article will get removed on AfD by the mere fact of not having a single valid source that would merit its existence on Wikipedia, but it's very concerning to see how often Wikipedia turns a blind eye to obvious cases of paid, PR or SEO editing. --MewMeowth (talk) 13:41, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MewMeowth: Yes, I'm aware that he didn't follow COI guidelines, which is why I mentioned it in the first place. My view is that there isn't enough evidence to implicate LiebeZenPeace in paid editing. He probably wanted to create an article for someone who he personally met and considered notable enough to have his own Wikipedia page, and then after he created it, he searched for it on Google and was concerned that it didn't show up. Is it possible that he has a genuine conflict of interest and is receiving some sort of compensation for his edits? Sure it is. But until we can establish that there is a pattern of such editing, or we get some sort of confirmation that he's engaging in advocacy, I don't think it's fair to call LiebeZenPeace a single-purpose account. Kurtis ^(talk) 14:00, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment LiebeZenPeace is a SPA and likely a UPE. I never noticed. And the reason I posted this. Wikipedia:Help desk#Why does my article not appear in Google?. He seems desperate to get indexed by Google. I have left a WP:PAID disclosure on the editors page. scope_creep^Talk 11:43, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have to tell you that you are subjectively interpreting my concerns, since I asked that question because I did not know about it, and I had not seen another user asking about it, I must tell you that you are not only biased in your comment, you also incur as the Another user in the lack of good faith WP:GF, and you're taking someone who falsely insinuates that I want to promote, you are following a WP:LEADER, that accusing me with bad faith and obsessively investigating me. I still do not know about some policies like the ones you have put me in, I do not receive money, I am making this contribution for reasons that I have stated and that you decided to ignore and speculate instead. LiebeZenPeace (talk) 04:19, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not much independent coverage, fails notability. Nika2020 (talk) 21:17, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nika2020: I have already argued the importance of the journalist for a considerable group of people from different backgrounds and classes, I also argued that the sources that I put is to verify the places where he was, all those factors give him enough notability. I also argued that your WP: OBSCURE is not a reason for deletion, as well as your WP: POPULARITY. I would greatly appreciate you taking the time to view my arguments in this discussion. LiebeZenPeace (talk) 04:44, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You not practicing WP:AGF, by pestering an editor who seems to be in good standing. OK, you have posted your arguments. Let the others and the Afd proceed at its own pace, please. scope_creep^Talk 09:40, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – While it is obvious that LiebeZenPeace has put a great deal of effort into this article, and the journalist's career does seem to be on an upward trajectory, I am of the opinion that he is not currently notable enough for inclusion.

  The biggest issue is a near-total dearth of reliable sources. Searching for possible citations turned up links from the Latin American Information Agency, Sputnik News, Sign of the Times, Palestina Libre, and People Pill (blacklisted from being linked to on Wikipedia), as well as a YouTube video with 22,000 views uploaded by a channel with just over one hundred subscribers. None of these would fly as sources, either because their publishers have a known political bias, or they are otherwise not sufficiently accredited.

  As far as WP:JOURNALIST is concerned, he fulfills none of the guidelines. While he is not unknown among Argentine libertarians and some segment of the Latin American community, it is safe to say that he has not become a significant figure in his field just yet, and he hasn't published a body of work that would be notable enough to justify having an article about him. The closest he would get to qualifying is criterion 4, specifically subsection "c": it seems like his work is beginning to garner some degree of critical attention. But even then, having an article for this journalist is really stretching the parameters of what would be permissible by that metric.

  Because this is a BLP, it's better to err on the side of caution. While I have no prejudice against creating an article for him down the road should his accomplishments merit one, he doesn't have a substantial enough repertoire at this time to be included. Kurtis ^(talk) 12:37, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kurtis: I hope you investigate better the next time, each video that he uploads to his channel exceeds at least a hundred views, reaching two hundred, three hundred and even a million and eight hundred thousand views as in his last documentary about the pope.Few libertarians in South America achieve this, has made many complaints that could not be refuted, is subject to "critical attention" as some have wanted but without success. LiebeZenPeace (talk) 19:02, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:50, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:50, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:50, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:50, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:50, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments. I see quite a few errors in what appears to be a machine-translated article from Spanish; this page needs more work to make it actually English-language. The subject appears to be quite controversial on Twitter. I can't read Spanish well enough to evaluate all of the sources. Bearian (talk) 00:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete since subject fails WP:JOURNALIST as well as WP:GNG. The overtly promotional text does not help in the least. Most sources indicate simply that he's a journalist (e.g. this, this, this , this, and so on), but on that we would all proclaim nolo contendere. -The Gnome (talk) 16:15, 1 August 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 10:17, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uusmiirad[edit]

Uusmiirad (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:DICDEF. (Also has slipped through the cracks for over a decade.) Ravenswing 14:11, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 14:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 14:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Very weak keep. I don't think DICDEF really applies. Despite the wording of the article ("Uusmiiradis a Somali word..."), the topic here seems to be the process of getting water from a camel, not the Somali word for that process. That said, I found only three published sources for this, one of which (Latin and Samatar) is already cited, and another which is so similar to the content here that it may be based in part on this article. The third is the 1986 Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Ethiopian Studies, which is on Google Books, but only in snippet view. If there are no more sources than that, then the topic fails Notability (thus my very weak keep). But I wonder if their might be sources on the topic in other languages? Cnilep (talk) 06:19, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I agree with DMySon that DICDEF doesn't apply, this is about a particular practice of slaughtering one's camel as a source of water. I found discussion in Samatar (1982) Oral Poetry and Somali Nationalism (In an uncommonly dry season, the last drops of water in the land are extracted from the stomach of the camel. This is done through a process called 'uusmiirad' in which the stomach is hung from a tree after being pricked open with a thorn at various places. Liquid niters through these openings and is collected by wooden buckets p.13) Other search terms which might be useful, according to the Somali dictionary Qaamuuska Af-Soomaaliga are uusmiir, uusmiiro, uusmiirasho, and uusmiirid. I also wonder if maybe the topic of killing animals for water in a survival situation might be easier to find sources for? That is, have an article about the general practice, not just the Somali, camel-specific one. It might make more sense to merge it to another article, but I don't know enough about survival skills or ethnography to know how common a tactic this is across cultures. Is there a place to list this deletion discussion in terms of the survivalism aspect rather than just specifically as a somali aspect or as a word aspect? Umimmak (talk) 11:32, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 01:57, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 01:57, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I'm quite happy to amend my nomination to include that this fails the GNG as well. As far as whether this is a practice generally across the world, well, sure: I do know a lot more than most about survival skills, and slaughtering riding animals/herd beasts for water, food and shelter -- a/k/a putting the critter's body between you and the blizzard -- is well-known. The issue would be in finding reliable sources discussing the practice, as well as finding a generally accepted name by which the practice is known. As far as that goes, however, I'd think that this particular article's name would be a particularly obscure and useless search term. Ravenswing 02:19, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete at current state of available sourcing. I am finding the same four sources provided by Cnilep and Umimmak, which show that this is a thing but a too-obscure and rarely mentioned one (at least in English language sources). No different Books, Scholar, or general hits for any of the alternate spellings. I think we are looking a at WP:GNG failure here. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:05, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as it fails WP:GNG due to the lack of good sourcing. I'm not sure what else needs to be said about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:13, 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:38, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Gilbert[edit]

Joel Gilbert (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 individual does not appear to be notable. His only claim to fame is a handful of self-produced direct-to-DVD documentaries on conspiracy-esque subjects and Bob Dylan, and belonging to a local Bob Dylan cover band. This page has already been deleted once in the spring of 2012 and a deletion attempt that December after a since indefinitely blocked user resurrected the article resulted in the article being kept. The page also looks to be little more than a self-congratulatory effort at pretending he is a notable individual as the article has been tagged. Pahiy (talk) 22:17, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 22:17, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it was previously discussed at AfD and the result was keep. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussions: 2012-12 ✓ keep, 2012-05 ✗ delete

Related discussions: 2016-10 Atomic Jihad ✗ delete

Logs: 2012-05 ✗ deleted

• Comment. I think the sourcing is enough for general notability. I am willing to be persuaded otherwise. Yipee8f93k (talk) 16:10, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:14, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:14, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The subject is notable in that his work has been reviewed and discussed in numerous reliable sources, as two minutes of research will verify. No doubt the article can be improved but that is not the question here. Dayirmiter (talk) 11:09, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: enough coverage in reliable sources to contribute to the notability of subject.--Deepak G Goswami (talk) 14:05, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is clear that the subject's role as a reputable scholar suffices to meet our criteria for inclusion. BD2412 T 01:37, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Senn[edit]

Frank Senn (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 has several problems. I would put it at WP:BLPPROD, but it has a source (albeit with questionable reliability). The vast majority of the content is unsourced, and the two sources in the article are terrible. One is broken, and even if it were to work, should not be considered. It is by the church he is a pastor at. A pastor's page on a church website is not neutral. The other article mentions Frank a single time, and is clearly not about him. This may even be a WP:GNG fail, as I cannot find any sources about him elsewhere. The unsourced content is so great in number that the article would likely not be salvageable if it were all to be removed. I-82-I | TALK 22:17, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. I-82-I | TALK 22:17, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:13, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:13, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep I found multiple reviews for multiple books, including [1][2][3][4][5]. That makes a case for WP:NAUTHOR. The article isn't in great shape, but I don't think it's quite so bad as for WP:TNT. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:24, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I would agree with Russ Woodroofe. Senn is a well-known academic, theologian, and author in western liturgical studies. Might be one of the premier scholars in the area across North America. Seems like this article just needs better sources and content in line with Wikipedia's guidelines. Afuller2028 (talk) 18:49, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Seems to just about be notable. Deletion is not cleanup. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:44, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Article needs more citations. But it seems notable.DMySon 08:08, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: rather impressive Google Scholar results for the subject area suggests he passes WP:PROF #1. StAnselm (talk) 17:47, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep as stated by Afuller2028 DocumentError (talk) 03:07, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per the reviews shown in this discussion that show that his works have received academic reviews which isn't surprising as he has 3700+ library holdings,passes WP:NAUTHOR in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:59, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Adventist Health. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adventist Health Ukiah Valley[edit]

Adventist Health Ukiah Valley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is a small local hospital that doesn't seem notable for anything. The only reference in the article is to a primary source and all I could find doing a search for them is run of the articles about how they are dealing with the Covid-19 thing in local papers. Which is extremely trivial and likely most hospitals are getting coverage for. Adamant1 (talk) 06:11, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:28, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:28, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:28, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Adventist Health. Rathfelder (talk) 08:15, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Against merging would water down the article Adventist Health. To find information for these hospitals you have to look the former name and current name.Catfurball (talk) 19:57, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weird since I looked the hospitals up under their other names and it gave me a bunch of results for the current one. Importantly, what sources there was under the old names were completely garbage. So, I seriously question the truthfulness of your comment. Otherwise, provide some secondary reliable in-depth sources to back it up with. Also, it would be pretty hard IMO to water down articles that are only 1 paragraph long if even that. Even less if we get rid of the information that cites primary sources, because that's literally all there is. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:56, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete would be the best thing to do with this hospital article, it will most likely will never be a notable hospital. Catfurball (talk) 23:11, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have to strike out your first vote or it will screw up the bot that counts vote numbers. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:13, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Adventist Health. I don't see anything worth merging. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:15, 3 August 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) 20:54, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Namaste Technologies[edit]

Namaste Technologies (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)

So! This article looks beautifully referenced and clearly notable, if you're not paying attention to the content of the references. But if you are, you can see it's a pile of hogwash.

1. CBC: Trivial mention, article substantially about something else.
2. Forbes 1 and 2: Forbes contributors are not reliable sources.
3. Financial Post, BNN: Appear lovely but on inspection both are "provided by Market One Media Group for commercial purposes," so that's a big nope.
4. Oracle Dispatch: Low-audience blogazine. This is actually one of the better sources, which is sad, and doesn't bode well.
5. MarketScreener: Business listing/stats site. Not in-depth content.
6. SmartCompany: Tagline is that they cater "to Australia's entrepreneurs, small and medium business owners and business managers." In other words, this is a targeted-audience publication, not indicative of general-audience notice the way WP:N demands.
7. Microcap Daily: Again, targeted-audience blogazine: "Micro Cap Daily is an equity news and research organization focusing on micro and small cap companies." No.
8. Proactive Investors: Scroll on down to the bottom of the page and you'll see "This record is published on behalf of Namaste Technologies Inc, which is a paid client of ProactiveInvestors." Once again, nope.

What do we get when we put this all together? A bunch of junk that fails WP:CORPDEPTH, that's what. And trying to search for anything better is a wash, because every hit I found was more of the same: churnalism, low-rent blogazines, and paid content. It's time for this article to go. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:38, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:38, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:38, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per the analysis of the sources, which don't seem to pass muster, along with the fact that I couldn't find anything that did when I looked them up. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:01, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• To be fair, there is other media coverage from national newspapers:
  • "Namaste Technologies plunges 21% after it fires CEO and launches strategic review"
  • Ousted CEO of Namaste Technologies threatens legal action ‘to set record straight’
  • B.C. cannabis company Namaste Technologies weighs sale after firing CEO
  • This pot-paraphernalia company promises a great party if you pledge to hold its stock for three months
  • Namaste hires new outside audit firm but will miss deadline for 2018 report, etc. --maclean (talk) 23:10, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To be fairer notability isn't just based on "coverage." It has to not be trivial topics as defined by WP:NCORP. Which all of the sources you refrenced could likely be considered as. Adamant1 (talk) 08:52, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and Adamant1. JavaHurricane 04:18, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Devokewater (talk📧) 19:57, 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 redirect to Peterborough Victoria Northumberland and Clarington Catholic District School Board. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:23, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

St. Stephen's Secondary School (Bowmanville)[edit]

St. Stephen's Secondary School (Bowmanville) (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:ORG and WP:GNG. No references. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 15:48, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 15:48, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 15:48, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 15:48, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 15:48, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2007-03 ✗ deleted

• redirect or Merge to Peterborough Victoria Northumberland and Clarington Catholic District School Board. Redirecting or merging to the school boards article seems to be the preferred thing to do in these situations. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:46, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Peterborough Victoria Northumberland and Clarington Catholic District School Board based on past common outcomes with this sort of unsourced article about a school, per Adamant1. Bearian (talk) 00:26, 31 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 move to Draft:Chowkidekhi. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:23, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chowkidekhi[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPLACE. May be a good idea to merge, also. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 16:45, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 16:45, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - It appears to be equivalent to a Mahallah, per this source from Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics, officially divided into two Purba (East) and Pashchim (West) Chowkidekhi. Google search does provide widespread mentions. Pinging @UserNumber: to clarify as he is more knowledgeable about Sylhet-related affairs. --Zayeem ^(talk) 19:06, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Move - Although it is a very historically relevant area, I am not currently planning to work on Chowkidekhi at the moment. It could be moved to a draft for now, and once I have time I shall add more information (with sources) about Chowkidekhi. UserNumber (talk) 13:57, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:57, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify Per the comment above this by the creator of the article who wishes to work on it more when they have the time. Plus, it seems like there are sources out there about it. So, I see no reason not to. If it just duplicates another article or whatever can be decided later once it's in a state to go back to the main article space. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:43, 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 merge to List of IBA official cocktails. Wikipedia currently has no subject notability guidelines for food and drink. WP:IAR arguments do get through AfD occasionally, but it requires 1) a very good explanation why; and 2) the !votes to make it happen. TonyBallioni's point arguably meets #1, but a 6:5 tally in favor of keeping just isn't enough to override standard practice. That said, there is a tiny amount of verifiable information available, so including it in a list is suitable. List of IBA official cocktails is not currently in a state to accept that content, but there is WP:NODEADLINE and the article can stay up until the list is converted into such a state. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:18, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spicy Fifty[edit]

Spicy Fifty (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 cocktail. A BEFORE search I did found no evidence of GNG-passing coverage. JavaHurricane 05:46, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:21, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It seems very notable and well covered, it is one of the IBA cocktail, what is a before search? Trevey-On-Sea (talk) 10:12, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

nominator probably means WP:BEFORE. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:15, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It is an IBA official cocktail. It may not be very old (created in 2004), but if the IBA considers it important enough for making it well-known beyond the London bar where it was created, I'd say it is a notable enough recipe. Kumorifox (talk) 10:50, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, being an IBA cocktail may indicate wikinotability but its not a certainly, that said diffords goes into its history/origins, and forbes lists it but is this enough? Coolabahapple (talk) 06:19, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Keep, because it is an official IBA drink, which pretty much by definition makes it notable (at least outside WP — and no, we're not going to find significant RS coverage of any cocktail, I don't think). Weak, because it's on IBA's 'new era' list, which is a euphemism for 'not exactly a classic'. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:47, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The Forbes article referenced above is a "Forbes Contributor" article and therefore unreliable (rendering it irrelevant for notability purposes); see WP:FORBESCON. The Difford's link is not in any way "significant" coverage for GNG purposes because it simply lists the recipe with only sentences of commentary. A search indicated no sources that conferred notability. @DoubleGrazing: I don't know whether it's true or not that individual cocktails rarely have RSes about them, but that doesn't mean that they are subject to lower notability standards than articles on other subjects. To the closer: I ask for an exceptional third relist rather than a close because the previous discussion in this AfD did not substantially discuss the notability of the subject for Wikipedia purposes (according to GNG, which is the prevailing standard) and was therefore not policy based. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 21:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, largely per L235. Arguing that all "IBA Official Cocktails" are notable is a bit of an IAR rationale, and I don't find it persuasive. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:42, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for the reasons given by delete voters. Mainly the sources aren't good enough to pass WP:GNG and arguing that all "IBA Official Cocktails" are notable is a non-starter IMO. So, there's no reason to have an article about this IMO. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:04, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I find the rationale that it's an IBA official cocktail to be a good rationale for keeping. Wikipedia works best when we have clear bright line standards for inclusion or exclusion and have precedents, rather than using the GNG, which is an abysmally written guideline that can mean whatever you want it to mean depending on if you want to delete or include something. If I want to go off of that, being an IBA recognized cocktail arguably is a source as they didn't create it (a London bar did.) If you want more references to it see it being referenced as common knowledge isn National Geographic UK, and a quick Google News search sees it referenced off-hand in multiple publications, and Google Books shows it included in cocktail recipes from multiple publishers.
  Additionally, despite the claim above, of course we have different standards for notability for different types of subjects. BLPs and corporations are the highest, bus stops and train stations the lowest. One of the other areas where we traditionally have lower standards is food and drink. That's because food and drink, unless directly connected to a commercial establishment, are next to impossible to harm Wikipedia's reputation, the subject, or provide inappropriate information to the reader. We claim that the GNG is universal, but it isn't and it has never been applied uniformly, and Wikipedia would be worse off if it was, because different topics should have different standards that allow us to incorporate the articles that are significant within the topic area, while also not being a random collection of information.
  Here's the ultimate question: does keeping this cause any damage to Wikipedia? The answer in my mind is clearly "no". This isn't a BLP, so we don't need heavy sourcing. There's no promotionalism going on. We're often used as a reference for readers on different types of food and alcohol, and even if the information we contain is small, keeping it can be used as a jumping off point for others. In this case, it links to the IBA site, which having spent the last 10 minutes searching for in Google, I couldn't on my own. Maybe I'm a bit weird because I'm a fan of fancy drinks and I edit Wikipedia, but I quite frequently search for cocktails on this site as my first stop, and use it as a point of reference.
  I find it useful, and think there's no harm. The group that "regulates" cocktails internationally has deemed it important enough to be official. I think that's a significantly more objective standard than the GNG, and is more useful to the people we serve. The GNG is a guideline, and we can include things that we think will aid our readers in their understanding of the world if there's also nothing negative about including it, even if it does not meet the GNG. I see absolutely nothing harmful here, and I see benefit to readers. So keep. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:33, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IMO you could really put all that aside and just compare it to other articles on cocktails in Wikipedia. For instance compare Bloody Mary (cocktail) to this one. No one is arguing that "cocktails" aren't notable, they are arguing this one isn't. The article for it is essentially a listing of ingredients. Which isn't the purpose of Wikipedia. It doesn't even say what the history of the cocktail is. Again, compare that to Bloody Mary (cocktail). Which actually has encyclopedic content. Even if you want to disregard the GNG you still can't argue this article serves any purpose that isn't better served on a million other websites. Whereas, Bloody Mary (cocktail) the article actually fits the purpose of Wikipedia. So cool, have an articles about cocktails. Whatever, but it should at least be more then a list of recipe ingredients. There is a basic thing underlining Wikipedia that it isn't a directory. Which comes before the notability guidelines IMO. Although they shouldn't be thrown out though just because this doesn't meet their standards. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:46, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, right now it sucks, but you could add sourced information stating when it was created, by whom, etc. Enough to bring it to stub level. I agree that NOT is above N, and I think that's a fair argument. I don't really find the GNG arguments strong, though, because like I said: we don't enforce it uniformly and for a lot of stuff we do rely on the "do people who are involved in the area outside of Wikipedia consider this significant?" standard, which is what the GNG is trying to approximate. For cocktails, IBA official status is as close as it comes to that for cocktails and if I really wanted to Wikilawyer it into GNG I could, but I'd rather be intellectually honest about it and say that in this case, using the GNG as an approximation of off-wiki importance fails, so we should use a better approximation: the judgement of the professional organization for this. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:15, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some info on the drink's origins. A couple of the sources are admittedly a bit flaky, but The Caterer is a leading HoReCa trade magazine so should be pretty reliable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:00, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I find myself in agreement with TonyBallionis rationale. If the IBA consider it significant it's hard to judge otherwise, I find this to be an excellent indication of notability. PainProf (talk) 02:07, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Looking more closely at the IBA official cocktail list, it seems to be a problematic litmus test for encyclopedic notability. Spicy Fifty specifically appears to be classified as a "New Era drink", which according to the IBA is a category that is "periodically revised" and reflects promising new recipes, "fashions of the moment". Indeed, drinks in this category do not remain here indefinitely—in 2019, the list looked like this, and some of the drinks there no longer appear on the current list (e.g. Kamikaze and Dirty Martini). This seems to indicate that these drinks actually lost their IBA "official" status in the 2020 revision, which is problematic because we consider notability on Wikipedia to be permanent. A more convincing argument would be inclusion in the "Unforgettables" and "Contemporary Classics" IBA categories, the members of which do seem to stay in those categories indefinitely and include obviously notable cocktails like Margarita and Bloody Mary.
  More importantly, the keep arguments ask us to disregard WP:GNG for this subject, but I see no policy-based reason for doing so. The community has adopted no guideline or even precedent which states that cocktails are presumed to be notable because they are IBA official, so we fall back onto GNG. "I find it useful, and think there's no harm" is not a valid keep rationale because of WP:NOT: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a cocktail reference. Perhaps GNG is an "abysmally written guideline", but a single AfD here cannot override that general guideline (WP:CONLIMITED). At the end of the day, the fundamental principle here is the following: we presume that a subject is worth writing about if reliable sources have found the subject worth writing about. There are some sources that mention the subject in passing, and a Google Books search seems to find it included in at least one cocktail recipe book, e.g. [6] (p. 153). Unfortunately, this kind of coverage isn't enough to support standalone notability, but it may be enough to include it in a list (perhaps List of IBA official cocktails could be refactored with brief descriptions of each drink, instead of just being a list of links). Overall, the arguments for deleting this article appear to be stronger than those for keeping it. Mz7 (talk) 02:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As per my findings, this is a generic informational article having Reliable resources. And agreed with TonyBallioni DMySon 08:19, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. Article can be expanded to some extent. (non-admin closure) SerChevalerie (talk) 06:38, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Urs festival, Ajmer[edit]

Urs festival, Ajmer (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)

Stub that does not meet WP:GNG, proposing to Merge and Redirect to Ajmer Sharif Dargah. SerChevalerie (talk) 21:08, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. SerChevalerie (talk) 21:08, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. SerChevalerie (talk) 21:08, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SerChevalerie (talk) 21:08, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A significant event attended by millions of people from accross India and overseas countries.Shyamsunder (talk) 23:34, 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. Majority consensus leaning towards a Keep (non-admin closure) Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Martha West[edit]

Martha West (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 academic fails WP:GNG. KidAd (🗣️🗣🗣) 20:14, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

• Keep Her work has had an important impact on society, particularly establishing UCD's Family Protection and Legal Assistance Clinic, which continues today to provide legal services to the community and educational opportunities for law students. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:45, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete first of all there's zero evidence her work has had a an important impact on "society" (whatever that means in this context) and even if it has she still has to pass the notability guidelines everyone else does. Second, the she fails WP:GNG due to the lack of secondary in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources. What little sourcing there is that's not primary is only brief passing mentions of her. Finally she hasn't been elected to a high up academic position or met anything else that would allow her to meet the notability criteria for WP:WNPROF. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:11, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamant1:, "impact on society" was my regrettable shorthand for WP:NPROF criteria #1, #4, and #7. Multiple RS cited in the article describe West's research and her reports, conducted beginning in the 1990s, about hiring of women faculty. Being named general counsel of AAUP probably also matches #6, "The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society." HouseOfChange (talk) 17:44, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It would be false to say the references are describing West's research or reports. It looks most of them have nothing to do with either. For instance one is about a local Women’s History Month luncheon where she was a guest speaker and the most cited source is a short bio from either the college she graduated from or works at. Neither of those are about her "research and reports." Also, it's questionable that her being named general counsel of the AAUP passes WP:NPROF because it's more similar to a teachers union or school organization then a high up "academic" position or even "academic society." For instance the AAUP"s goal is to "advance academic freedom and shared governance, to define fundamental professional values and standards for higher education, and to ensure higher education's contribution to the common good." Which is extremely general. Whereas, an academic society "is an organization that exists to promote an academic discipline, profession, or a group of related disciplines such as the arts and science." Since the AAUP isn't promoting any of those things, I don't consider it an academic society. Therefore, I don't think her being named general counsel to it passes WP:NPROF. That's just my interpretation though. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:02, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Her research and reports are major topic of these RS cited in the article: UCSD Guardian,^[1] Black Issues in Higher Education,^[2]

East Bay Times,^[3] and The San Francisco Chronicle.^[4] HouseOfChange (talk) 18:25, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Local newspaper coverage of research she did at a university in the area where the newspapers are printed doesn't show her research has a wide impact in her field of study. Local newspapers cover local things. That's how they work. My local newspaper covers research done by my local community colleges archaeological department all the time. That doesn't mean my community colleges archaeological department should have an article in Wikipedia or that their research has had any kind of impact anywhere outside of with local history buff. Nothing against them or anything. The SF/Bay Area isn't "society" either. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:37, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment UCSD Guardian is published in the San Diego area, not the Bay area. Diverse: Issues In Higher Education (formerly Black Issues in Higher Education] is published in Fairfax, VA. See also this NYT article I just discovered, discussing her work: "But Martha West, the lead author of the new report, who has worked on the issue for years, said that as the number of women earning Ph.D.'s increased, the rate of female faculty hiring should be growing much faster than currently."^[5] Coverage of West's work is different from the kind of local coverage you describe. HouseOfChange (talk) 22:44, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but two of the sources you cited were local, which was half of them, and those where the ones I was talking about. I wasn't talking about the other ones, obviously. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:32, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. First of all, the nom made no case whatsoever for deletion. When presented with an article that is adequately cited on its face, the simple assertion "not notable," without any supporting analysis, should result in the AFD being speedy closed. Second, the single delete !voter makes no real effort to assess the subject's notability (no effort, for example, to assess the subject's citation record) and quite incorrectly argues that the bulk of the existing sourcing is primary, when it plainly isn't. In any event, the article shows enough reliable sourcing to make a prima facie case for notability. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 20:32, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Based on WP:NACADEMIC#C1 for 364 citations counts for 1 book and WP:NACADEMIC#C2 awards (unsure about strength of awards). Earthianyogi (talk) 22:22, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although the book is co-authored with John W. Curtis so it is more like ~180 number. The rationale for my division: I am an academic myself and if I co-author something, I get only half the credit I'd get for solo paper within my university internal point system. It is logical do divide citation numbers by the numbers of co-autors. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:43, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although I agree with the idea, it is not yet part of the WP:NACADEMIC guidelines. Her books are widely available in libraries around the world and combined with the awards, the subject appears notable. Earthianyogi (talk) 10:48, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep based on citations, and coverage in UCSD Guardian and Black Issues in Higher Education. — Toughpigs (talk) 02:18, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:07, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Daňo[edit]

Martin Daňo (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 journalist. Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 19:20, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 20:43, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 20:43, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not meet actual notability guidelines as either a journalist or a politician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:32, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, and WP:MILL and WP:GNG. Absolutely unknown journalist; he has half of the number of followers on twitter that I do, and I'm far from notable. Bearian (talk) 00:33, 31 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) 19:22, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Rasheed Khan[edit]

Abdul Rasheed Khan (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)

Unsourced since 2015, no indication of individual notability, very likely created by subject or a relative. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:07, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:07, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non notable. --Devokewater @ 00:21, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete an un-sourced article on a non-notable banker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:20, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nothing to support him for WP:GNG , Alex-h (talk) 07:10, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete An article without any citation. fails GNG. DMySon 08:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BLP. Unsourced, and just not notable. Bearian (talk) 00:34, 31 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 current Maraji. Consensus that this person is not notable, redirecting per AtD. (non-admin closure) Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yadollah Duzduzani[edit]

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

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

WP:N. No reliable and independent source was found for him and deleted in fawiki as well. Ladsgroup^overleg 18:53, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 20:46, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 20:46, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 20:46, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable person. Nika2020 (talk) 18:47, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:RS. He might be notable. The problem is that it's not properly sourced. When independent sources are found, then it can be re-created. Ping me if you find anything in English. Bearian (talk) 00:38, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete article lacks the sources that would be needed to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:55, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List_of_current_Maraji can be recreated once sources are found, may exist based off position. PainProf (talk) 02:22, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:06, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Visual Art High school of Kermanshah[edit]

Visual Art High school of Kermanshah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:N Also deleted in fawiki Ladsgroup^overleg 18:46, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 20:45, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 20:45, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, There is nothing in the article to satisfy WP:GNG, Alex-h (talk) 11:48, 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 merge to Arthur Bigsworth. Perhaps selectively, and improving the content in the process - I note that the somewhat lengthy article does not explain how exactly this device works and what the point of it was. Sandstein 10:20, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bigsworth chart board[edit]

Bigsworth chart board (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)

User:Samf4u attempted to create this AfD, but did not complete it. I saw that User:BilCat also supported such an AfD. Personally, I am neutral; the supporters of deletion will have to provide the reasons for deletion. Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:17, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep:A notable piece of equipment.. that all who served on WWII and before larger RAF aircraft would have been familiar with. More could be done with some more research.The IWM has material on it. (Msrasnw (talk) 07:18, 26 July 2020 (UTC))(I created this little stub in the hope of finding out more)[reply]

@Msrasnw: If you do not know that sufficient sources exist and merely hope they might, then creating an article, stub or no, is not the way ahead. If you just need to buy some time you can create a draft in the Draft: namespace. If your provenance is more speculative, you can create it as a subpage in your own user space, buit even that is subject to eventual deletion if it stagnates for too long. If you wish to keep working on it, you might like to move it to one of those safer homes before it gets erased from memory. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:09, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Steelpillow: for your reply ... I think we disagree on the way things work or should work .. and your view is probably now the majority view. I thought and think this device is notable. I had seen a picture of them and wanted to find out more and thought Wikipedia ought have a page. It didn't - no it does... perhaps it won't. Starting such a page might get others to help add things .. ( My guess is they used to be really well known - 1918-1940s and J.W. Dunne would probably have known of the Bigsworth. I think there are sufficient sources and it should be OK ... some other pages Appleyard Course and Distance Computer and the Douglas Combined Protractor and Parallel Rule could also be nice ones to have. The Bigsworth gets a nice - but little - mention in the book about Moffat and his observer Dusty Miller sinking the Bismarck from their Swordfish. There is a nice picture of the device in the US document .. that I was thinking to try and download but will perhaps wait in case I am wasting my time. Anyway best wishes... and it was nice to find out about Dunne and I did a quick page on Dr Mary Cleugh.. but someone will probably want to delete that too. Anyway why would anyone want this page deleting is something I find confusing.But best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 19:32, 27 July 2020 (UTC))[reply]

• Keep per the sources cited in the article and found by the searches above. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:34, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails notability due to lack of significant coverage that is more than a trivial mention IMHO. Apologize for not properly completing the AfD due to a real life issue. - Samf4u (talk) 11:42, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Merge with Arthur Bigsworth, per Retswerb. Insufficient WP:RS to meet WP:GNG. The cited sources give only a brief passing mention. No independent sources (even taken together) appear to give sufficient in-depth coverage to establish notability. It's just a brand of navigator's clipboard. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:55, 26 July 2020 (UTC) [Update] But it does have enough coverage to warrant mention in its inventor's bio. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 06:05, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finding it difficult to reconcile the last two statements with the sources that I cited in this article before they were made. They each contain a pretty full description of this device. That is significant coverage. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:19, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, significant coverage means reliable, secondary sources with detailed coverage. See WP:GNG policy page, and WP:EMSC essay for more info. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:38, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And those are reliable secondary sources with detailed coverage, as described on those pages. What makes you think they are not? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:27, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They do not devote a significant amount of content to the device. They have very little to say about it, far less than a full chapter. By contrast for example the Supermarine Spitfire prototype K5054 has no books devoted entirely to it either, but it does have whole chapters and more in a good many, and also whole articles in magazines. We do not even have an article for navigational chart boards in general; aspiring to one for a particular brand is not really tenable. My best suggestion would be to add some mention of chart boards and their use to Navigational instrument and/ or Navigation#Methods of navigation, see if you can make that stick. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:45, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:46, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:46, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Msrasnw (talk) 09:19, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Does not meet WP:GNG. - BilCat (talk) 17:48, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I just Googled and fond enough references about Bigsworth chart board. DMySon 08:31, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Perhaps you would care to share them with Wikipedia? I too googled but found nothing beyond the trivial. Per WP:PROVEIT, the burden of proof is on those who claim such sources exist, not on those who doubt. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:55, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I have added some more refs and the Swordfish story and ref to that - which might help some .... but not others who - would prefer not to delete. this. I think it is a design rather than a brand and its production in "substantial quantities" and widespread nature and longevity of use are important for notability.(Msrasnw (talk) 11:58, 29 July 2020 (UTC))[reply]

  And none appear to give more than passing mention, they do not establish WP:NOTABILITY per Wikipedia policy. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:30, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Arthur Bigsworth. Probably worth a mention, but as stated above does not merit its own article. Retswerb (talk) 00:11, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Arthur Bigsworth - Certainly not worth an article on its own per WP:GNG. - BilCat (talk) 07:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think merging with the page on Arthur Bigsworth would unbalance that page unless it was just a comment and therefore would be likely to mean we would lose most of the information from here. (Msrasnw (talk) 08:15, 2 August 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Msrasnw (talk) 08:16, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:06, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Griffith Kimmins[edit]

Griffith Kimmins (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 my field, but almost exclusively documented to IMDB DGG ( talk ) 18:32, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 20:44, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a biography of a living person that has no reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:24, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:20, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jasmine "Jem" Miller (singer)[edit]

Jasmine "Jem" Miller (singer) (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)

Subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources hence doesn’t satisfy WP:GNG. Furthermore she also doesn’t satisfy WP:SINGER. A before search only links me to her social media account & her Spotify page. Celestina007 18:08, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 18:08, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 18:08, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 18:08, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 18:08, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 18:08, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Entirely non-notable singer with no coverage indicating WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG are met. Wikipedia is not for promotion. --Jack Frost (talk) 04:49, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable singer. No coverage, no reliable sources. And the "sources" in the article... "Official Site" and "Stream/Buy"... oh my god. I don't have any words. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:30, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete sourcing is way below the level we need for a pass of GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:52, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There are not real references. May be a case of poorly sourced. Requires proper rewriting. Until then, delete is an optuon here. My opinion anyway Jokejust1000 (talk) 19:27, 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 WP:SNOW delete. BD2412 T 00:56, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alejandro Developers[edit]

Alejandro Developers (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 organization that doesn’t satisfy WP:ORG. A before search only links to websites where organizations upload their profile & services. They lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. Celestina007 17:56, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 17:56, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 17:56, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 17:56, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 17:56, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 17:56, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable company. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:10, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Lack of significant coverage fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. --Jack Frost (talk) 05:04, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all of the above Spiderone 09:19, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete i found this profile which shouldn't be counted as a "reliable source", as Economic Times is a business-related newspaper which keeps company's "profile record" on their website. Therefore, the non-notable article in question lacks independent coverage in reliable sources. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 15:39, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete oh. please. what are we even discussing? Light2021 (talk) 01:01, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable spamcruft per nom. ——Serial 09:51, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not meet notability requirements. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:57, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete & salt. It should have gone WP:A7 & WP:G11 but, now that we're here, having WP:G4 available may be useful later. The persistent sockpuppetry & vandalism on this AFD shows that some salt is needed. Cabayi (talk) 10:00, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Draft:Alejandro Developers too. Cabayi (talk) 10:03, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would have qualified under A7 as it makes no claims of importance, but not under G11 as the content is not exclusively promotional. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:48, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for my tuppence worth. Straight up native advertising. scope_creep^Talk 14:18, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable company, fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Nika2020 (talk) 21:20, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I have nothing to add. Glades12 (talk) 10:17, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete in article space. Calcium chloride may be needed. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:13, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt, axe the draft too. (t · c) buidhe 22:43, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:06, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notre Dame de la Bonne Nouvelle (Ladies' College)[edit]

Notre Dame de la Bonne Nouvelle (Ladies' College) (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 find any reliable sources for this school, nor anything indicating notability. It is also a common name, so it was hard sorting through which sources were even talking about this school. My French is basically nonexistent as well, which doesn't help. If you do find sources please update accordingly! Awsomaw (talk) 14:41, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Awsomaw (talk) 14:41, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 17:18, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 17:18, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the first two sentences of the nom. If this school really is notable, someone will have to find sources to support that. The article can be re-created later if the sources are found at a later date. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:25, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:04, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Asim Shah[edit]

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

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

The references which are provided doesn't seem to be passing WP:GNG, Fails wp:SIGCOV too. Dtt1^Talk 17:51, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Dtt1^Talk 17:51, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:32, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I have edited the details and references which were not 100% accurate and only mentioned details and references which are publicly visible..References and details were extracted from various sources like Dui Rupaiyan, Kutu Ma Kutu. I am doing my research for more evidence for this article. I am still learning the ropes.

I hope you will reconsider this deletion. Thank you. Happy Editing! SURYA (talk) 19:48, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG (WP:SIGCOV is literally the same thing, by the way). Fails WP:ENT, and WP:CREATIVE as well. Obviously WP:TOOSOON. Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:11, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the sourcing is not at a level to establish a passing of GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:40, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - An obvious TOOSOON. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 19:12, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:15, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happybean[edit]

Happybean (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)

Straightaway PR/Advertising WP:PROMO. Fails to pass WP:GNG and WP:NCORP.Calling for an AfD discussion. Hatchens (talk) 03:40, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 03:40, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:52, 18 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). Anyone may feel free to merge the material if desired. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:04, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lyceum of the Philippines University–Cavite[edit]

Lyceum of the Philippines University–Cavite (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)

Quick search does not provide sufficient articles to establish notability. Self-published sources are also in use, which could probably sound as a promotion. HiwilmsTalk 19:24, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. HiwilmsTalk 19:24, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. HiwilmsTalk 19:24, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Lyceum of the Philippines University, as a branch campus. BD2412 T 01:41, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:14, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sonpreet Jawanda[edit]

Sonpreet Jawanda (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)

Appear to have played some minor supporting roles in major productions. Almost all the current sources are name checks and I'm not seeing significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG and looks like WP:TOOSOON. GSS ^💬 06:52, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 06:52, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 06:52, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non notable --Devokewater 16:11, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:13, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ruta del Sol (motor race)[edit]

Ruta del Sol (motor race) (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 could find sources (mainly primary) to confirm existence, but not to confirm meeting any part of WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 07:21, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:06, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:06, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:07, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:07, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:09, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:12, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dondi Ledesma[edit]

Dondi Ledesma (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 find evidence that he meets WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. He has worked with notable musicians, but I don't think he is notable. Boleyn (talk) 07:29, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:05, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:05, 18 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 political parties in Wales. Valid alternative to deletion proposed, and functionally has the same impact. No reason to prolong this. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:12, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gwlad Gwlad[edit]

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

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

Wikipedia is not a Gazetteer of political parties. The citations here prove that the party exists without proof of notability, as per WP:GNG and ORG guidelines. Usefulness is not a valid criteria for retaining an article. No notable achievements prior to, or following, elections. doktorb _words^deeds 10:52, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. doktorb _words^deeds 10:52, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. doktorb _words^deeds 10:52, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. doktorb _words^deeds 10:52, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect the party's participation in election is covered by the news media, making it a recognized one for inclusion. So, it should be redirected to the List of political parties in Wales. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 15:14, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:03, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Narine Arakelian[edit]

Narine Arakelian (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)

Straightaway PR/Advertising WP:PROMO. Fails to pass WP:GNG and WP:BIO and whatever one can add. As a nominator, I cannot comprehend and categorize this entity. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. Hatchens (talk) 11:33, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 11:33, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 11:33, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:08, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:09, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as failing WP:NOTSPAM. I was about to soft delete it, but as it's pure promo and really bad, don't think the option of someone getting it back is a good idea. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:10, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Devokewater @ 20:56, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:55, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:55, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, does not meet WP:NARTIST, and WP:NOTPROMO. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:23, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Being part of a national entry in the Venice biennale is a major accomplishment, and she's done it multiple times. There's plenty of media coverage for this giving her a pass of both WP:ARTIST and WP:GNG. Mostly it's about her work in the 58th biennale [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] but to save this from BIO1E here's a story from earlier: [13]. Probably if I could search and read Armenian I'd find a lot more. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:27, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:30, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Vote withdrawn - When this was first listed, I thought it should be deleted, but David Eppstein has shown that despite the article's weaknesses and promotional tone, she is indeed notable, and passes GNG and NARTIST. Netherzone (talk) 10:34, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have withdrawn my !vote. After looking at this article and checking the sourcing again and again, and it seems like it is a case of one notable show (and it's a good show, the VB, however she was not the only artist to represent Armenia, there were four others), everything else about the article seems unverifiable, bloggish, advertorial, PRish. I now think that it's a case of WP:TOOSOON. Netherzone (talk) 17:14, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I would normally agree that the Venice Biennale is a clear indicator of notability, as is Manifesta. It should be possible to find sources that can sustain an article about an artist who participated in such an event. In this case, it's not so obvious. Some of the sources are absolutely horrendous. this was clearly written by a PR agent for example (I have evidence). Even after reading the article several times, I still struggle to understand what her work is, and what she actually showed where. It's a terrible mess. I'd support deletion because it is such a load of PR, but there is some underlying notability. Pretty much all the sources would have to be replaced though, and a thorough vetting of the claims needs to happen. A very commonly used promotional tactic is to claim someone exhibited at the Biennale when they exhibited during, but not in the Biennale (as is the case here too, in one instance). A very reluctant keep, premised on a really, really hard look and firm culling of promo, deception and a clear summary of what actual work she made. Vexations (talk) 16:55, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting.... I did some googling and noticed that she was part of a "Collateral event" for Manifesta XII[14] which are a group of 71 events running parallel to the Manifesta 12 biennial that were selected from an international open call. I'm guessing that that is not the main exhibition that is curated. Netherzone (talk) 18:05, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:02, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keir Thomas[edit]

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

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

It does not look to me as if this journalist, writer and publisher meets WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. The coverage is book reviews. I have not been able to find any additional references to add. (Edited to add: I realise book reviews do count towards notability, but it looks as if two of the reviews are blogposts, one is a deadlink and I'n not entirely sure of the WP:RSness of the others.) Tacyarg (talk) 11:34, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 11:34, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 11:34, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 11:34, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 11:34, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 11:34, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 11:34, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non notable --Devokewater @ 21:01, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:10, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:06, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Order 66 (podcast)[edit]

Order 66 (podcast) (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 podcast. No evidence of GNG, and I cannot find significant, reliable and independent media coverage with a search. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:37, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 13:50, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 13:50, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 13:50, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:05, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Openfolio[edit]

Openfolio (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, now defunct, app. Of the cited sources, we have a few PR-esque investor sources which I'll ignore, Forbes contributors (which is unreliable per RS/PS), and some transcripts of CNBC mentioning it. A WP:BEFORE search brings up CNBC coverage, and some mentions on TechCrunch/CNN Money, but no significant coverage from the latter two. So that leaves 2 CNBC transcripts, which alone don't demonstrate passing of GNG. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:45, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:45, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:45, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:45, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:45, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:45, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:04, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Teenager (Pakistan)[edit]

The Teenager (Pakistan) (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 passing WP:GNG, not even notable not found any single references in Google but yet this is active on Wikipedia as of now. Memon KutianaWala (talk) 12:27, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions.Memon KutianaWala (talk) 12:28, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions.Memon KutianaWala (talk) 12:28, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 July 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:47, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:57, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Heischober[edit]

Bruce Heischober (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 "podcast personality" who's only claim to "fame" is being on Loveline a few times. Which seems to be only thing he's referenced in the article about. He did publish a few papers on substance abuse, but they didn't seem to have any serious impact anywhere. Which is probably verified by his only "notable" appearance seeming to be on Loveline. Anyway, from what I can tell there's nothing about him that would pass WP:BIO. The article seems to have b been created by a COI editor also. Adamant1 (talk) 22:18, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable medical doctor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:21, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:24, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:24, 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. Fenix down (talk) 07:23, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UEFA Champions League clubs performance comparison[edit]

UEFA Champions League clubs performance comparison (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)

clubs performance comparison are not notable according: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EHF Champions League clubs performance comparison Malo95 (talk) 14:12, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Malo95 (talk) 14:12, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Arguments of WP:SYNTH in the AfD mentioned in the nomination are moot, as this article does not use the information to form a new conclusion, it is simply an at-a-glance record of every club that has entered the Champions League. Sourcing is lacking, but it does exist and it will just take a bit of effort to put them all in. As the source I added for Manchester United shows, a year-by-year record of how each team does in the competition already exists, this article just puts them all together in one place so people can compare. Also, I am a professional football statistician and I have found this article (and the Europa League one) extremely useful in the last few years. – PeeJay 14:26, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I think this kind of articles are useful and should continue to be on Wikipedia--Baronedimare (talk) 14:43, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 15:41, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment From what I see article violates MOS:COLOR, WP:ACCESS, fails WP:GNG and also appears to be WP:OR. Saying that, I also feel this article title is completely miss-labelled. As it's not truly a comparison article. On all of that I would say at current Delete WP:NOSTATS. Govvy (talk) 15:45, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:NOSTATS 3: Only statistics without context or explanation, this page has context. MOS:COLOR, many pages use the method used in this article eg. 2020 Formula One World Championship. ~Styyx ^{Hi! ^-^} 16:24, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Govvy, please justify your view that this violates MOS:COLOR, WP:ACCESS, WP:GNG and WP:OR. All of which seem clearly untrue to me, but without you outlining your concern it is difficult to rebuff Jopal22 (talk) 09:46, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply I don't see GNG much a problem now, however, the font size and colourisation are clearly issues with the visually impaired readers, I don't know why you can't see that. Govvy (talk) 12:06, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply I disagree font size and colourisation are clearly issues. The color is not the only method used to convey important information, and you can read the table without using color. This is in line with MOS:COLOR. In any case font size and color are not justifications for deletion as this discussion is about, that is a separate discussion about improving the page. Does this mean you withdraw the deletion proposal? Jopal22 (talk) 13:16, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Question What are you talking about, I am colour blind and I need to put the text size to ctrl+3, it completely fails MOS:COLOR, WP:ACCESS. Also, the table goes way out of proportion when I have to increase the size. Govvy (talk) 14:13, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply But you don't need to know the colours to know what the table is showing. e.g. You can tell Barcelona won the Champions League in 05-06 because there is a "C" in the cell, and alternatively because the cell is dark green. Or are you suggesting the dark green colour makes the "C" unreadable? Either way WP:ACCESS issues are not a reason for deletion. Jopal22 (talk) 14:27, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you are on about, there is just a dark colour cell for Barcelona. :/ Govvy (talk) 11:56, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha. Okay! Well it sounds like we just have to do a WP:ACCESS improvement of the article, which I am sure people will be happy to do? Below is the table key, with an extra column with colour removed. Let us know what colours work, and what doesn't and we can fix it Jopal22 (talk) 12:24, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see Runner Up all the way down fine, there is a C in the top it seems I can't see... o well... :/ Anyway, this is an AfD, these things should be done on a talk page somewhere else. We are getting off-topic here. Govvy (talk) 12:38, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's not a reason for deletion, but you brought it up as a reason, so I responded to try and reach some consensus. You have reeled off a lot of Wikipedia policy, without fleshing out the issue, and when you do all of which has bee rebuffed or is n/a. I am at a loss to know what your issue still is, and it seems you simply don't like the pages and are finding a reason to delete, rather than having a genuine complaint. It's quite tiresome to converse in such a way Jopal22 (talk) 14:11, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - The deletion request seems to be based purely on WP:IDONTLIKEIT, with several Wikipedia policies linked often without a coherent narrative as to why it should be deleted. This leaves the onus on those wishing to keep the article without having a clear objection to discuss. This article, and similar articles should remain. Wikipedia policy cited included:

WP:SYNTH - This is totally inapplicable here. The page does not reach any conclusion of any kind, and just summarises facts.

MOS:COLOR, WP:ACCESS - This is not a reason for deletion and any access issues (which seem minor), can easily be addressed.

WP:GNG - The information set out in the page is covered in multiple reliable sources in multiple countries.

WP:OR - The information is factual and direct from sources. There is nothing resembling WP:OR here.

WP:NOSTATS - This aligns directly with NOSTATS which says statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability (exactly what this does). It also says where statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article, the statistics can be split into a separate article and summarized in the main article (which is exactly the point of pages like this). This presentation of results is common among many sports as it is seen as a good way to present results e.g. Roger Federer career statistics#Performance timelines.

Jopal22 (talk) 15:23, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. In line with the decision at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EHF Champions League clubs performance comparison this is OR and SYNTH, unless these charts can be sourced to a reliable 3rd party. Also wouldn't it be hard to verify this without re-creating the entire chart? How would I check this? Also this is has 67 links to a single website, 67 of which land on a 404 msg, and all of which contain curious-looking "referrer=" syntax in the URL, so it is unsourced as well. (For links to six more of these see this discussion) --Lockley (talk) 00:04, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I feel like this is a useful article for comparisons and perhaps just needs more adequate sourcing provided. RedPatchBoy (talk) 21:24, 31 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:01, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

House of Loud[edit]

House of Loud (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)

Defunct NN recording studio, fails the GNG and WP:ORG. A fair number of namedrops in reliable sources, but not a single bit of the "significant coverage" about the subject the GNG requires. The article lists a number of "notable bands" that recorded there, but WP:NOTINHERITED. Article notability tagged for over a decade. Ravenswing 13:50, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 13:50, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 13:50, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:58, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I agree with the nominator, as the studio has no reliable coverage as an entity in its own right, and it does not get to inherit notability from people who recorded there. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:02, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could find no evidence of notability. Boleyn (talk) 09:22, 1 August 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:01, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zilliqa blockchain[edit]

Zilliqa blockchain (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)