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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:05, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Crystallia (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)

Shocking article about a person that is not known at all. Should be deleted as there are no reliable sources. Glucken123 (talk) 15:38, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Glucken123 (talk) 15:38, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:58, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural Keep - No evidence that WP:BEFORE was followed and good evidence that it probably wasn't as this was part of a mass-nomination of dozens of articles about Greek culture over the course of a hour. FOARP (talk) 15:59, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Part of mass nomination. Contrary to the nomination, I see nothing shocking about the article, and on searching for "Κρυσταλλία Ρήγα" in google news she appears to be well known.--Eostrix (talk) 16:00, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the coverage comes from gossip sites. There is nothing notable or encyclopaedic about this person. Glucken123 (talk) 02:43, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There is wide coverage on her in Greek media, but mostly about her personal life, and her "hot" photoshoots. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 13:12, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not a gossip magazine. If that is the only level of coverage we have we should not have the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:08, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete. She has notable mentions in the Greek media, largely related to her non-musical activities. She also holds a somewhat mediocre musical award from 2012. I would say delete unless the page of her as a musician can be supported on the basis of her personal life notability in Greek sources. Runforlimit505 (talk) 05:39, 13 June 2020 (UTC)Blocked sock. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:35, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:49, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per Eostrix. --Micky (talk) 00:59, 21 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:58, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• No recommendation as I can't understand the nomination. There's no "shocking" content in this article at all. Furthermore, despite some of the other comments here, there is nothing gossipy about this article, as it is focused entirely on her musical career. Even if the sources are gossip sites (as they are almost all in Greek, I haven't tried to evaluate them), those sources are only being used here for career information rather than information about the subject's personal life. I would recommend a "no consensus" close and allow a better AfD nomination to be made instead. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:25, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  What this AfD needs is a Greek editor who is familiar with Greek sources. The nominating statement is clearly wrong (and was part of 20 nominations in 26 minutes). From what I can see Crystallia was the lead singer for OtherView (where I held off from voting, but it did win a national award one year) and went on to have a solo career afterwards. The amount of google-news hits on "Κρυσταλλία Ρήγα" (persisting to present), in Greek, refute the nominator's statement that she is "not known at all". She definitely is known (and is covered for photo shoots, her marriage, and songs), and some of the pieces have some depth. Assessing the quality of these sources towards SIGCOV requires a Greek editor.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉]) 07:17, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Googling her name in Greek reveals a number of websites that have covered her personal life over the past couple of years, but all of them appear to be limited to gossip reporting. A few examples: gossiptv.gr, znews.gr, hit-channel.com etc. There is no notability here, while her music career is not significant. On top of that, the Wiki article is dominated by hit-channel.com, which makes its encyclopaedic importance quite weak. That's why I used the term 'shocking' - a bunch of exaggerated claims have allowed this article to remain online for way too long. Glucken123 (talk) 13:37, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'll probably get some unfriendly responses to this, but IMO if there are no English sources that can be used for notability then I don't think it is worth having a English article about the person. Due to them lacking the "broad appeal" in English articles require. Just like I wouldn't assume that something with only English sourcing would be appropriate for the Greek Wikipedia, or any other language for any other. If English speakers are interested in the subject then there should be enough English sourcing to support the article. Period. I know there are a few, but they seem trivial and not really about person. I wouldn't have a problem with some Greek language articles being used as a way to support other stuff in the article, but that shouldn't be all there is. From the comments above about the Greek sources it doesn't sound like they are that good and would work for notability anyway though. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:24, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep with no prejudice to re-nomination when someone who understands Greek has taken a look. Per the WP:NONENG section in the verifiability policy, non-English sources are allowed, so a lack of English sources is not a reason for deletion. I will say that the sources currently in the article look like they might well be generally unreliable. PJvanMill (talk) 19:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I looked over the sources in Greek and they aren't very reliable either. At least not enough to keep the article over IMO. I know non-English sources are allowed, but that doesn't mean we just say "well, there's non-English sources out there and they are allowed. So lets keep the article" without factoring their notability or lack of it into this. If your not doing that though because "hey, I know the sources exist so whatever. I'll just vote keep." and admit yourself that the English language sources are generally unreliable ,then personally I don't think that's a valid reason to vote keep. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:07, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:MUSICBIO. She is not known outside of her local market. I do want to be clear that "shocking" or "controversial" are not reasons to delete. Bearian (talk) 00:07, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I completely agree @Bearian: that "shocking" or "controversial" are not reasons to delete, but as I tried searching for her but got only a couple of mentions in RS which are In English, but the ones in the Greek seem to be ok. so its a 50-50 for me.Dtt1^Talk 12:48, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Bearian says she's not known "outside of her local market" but she's not known that well inside that market either. Almost all the subject's appearances in Greek media are in gossip magazines or similar websites and are about either "sexy" photo-ops (e.g. here or here) or her marriage as a social event (e.g. here or here) It's indicative of her lack of notability even at the local level that one of the articles is titled "Greek singer gets married and these are the photos." There is nothing here as far as WP:NMUSICIAN or even WP:GNG are concerned. (I speak modern Greek fluently.) -The Gnome (talk) 15:56, 11 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) 01:30, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bubblegum dance (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:SIGCOV. Seems like it should be a speedy delete or at best redirected to Eurodance. ili (talk) 23:00, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As best as I can tell, this is a fan movement; they have a fandom wiki and have planted the same description just about everywhere that user-generated content is allowed, from Last .fm to urban dictionary to reddit, as well as on their own "free information encyclopedia" on bubblegumdancer.com. I can find no evidence that this term exists outside of its fandom, and it has no notability. (Even the article begins with an explanation that this new term is being applied retroactively to older music that was never called this "subgenre".) Possible candidate for a CSD A11, but since we're here... Schazjmd (talk) 23:16, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. I was unable to find really anything besides the fandom page mentioned above and some Spotify/YouTube playlists. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 20:17, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Schazjmd (talk) 20:31, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I do not know if this is an "official" term, but the article is definitely describing an existing and distinguished music genre.--Clicklander (talk) 14:33, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Clicklander, what reliable sources do you cite for that claim? Schazjmd (talk) 16:08, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I do not have any source. I am just saying that the article describes a genre that exists. There is a set of songs that have some common characteristics and this is exactly what this article describes.--Clicklander (talk) 18:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:OUTCOMES and WP:SIGCOV. Since at least 2007, we have been merciless in deleting articles about marginal musical genres. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electrocrunk, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chelpedo punk, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tech Beat, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian fantasy metal, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alternative bubblegum pop, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian post-hardcore. I don't know of any other such strong consensus outside of official policy. I note that there is a lack of significant coverage for this term, as did the nomination. Bearian (talk) 00:16, 10 July 2020 (UTC) P.S. see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slow grass. Bearian (talk) 00:22, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable term. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 12:40, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. There are a couple of mentions in wp:rs about the Genere bubblegum like this [1], [2], [3] so I am a bit confused weather to endorse these refs or not, I would prefer my fellow editors to decide about the reference mentions. Dtt1^Talk 12:55, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Dtt1, there is already an article about Bubblegum music. This is about a supposed subgenre called Bubblegum dance. Schazjmd (talk) 15:44, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There is nothing out there that could support the inclusion of this subject in Wikipedia. It's a text constructed by its authors. Claiming that it's a good subject for inclusion without substantion of the claim is unacceptable. Saying that "it's well known" or that "it exists" are also geting us nowhere. We need verification but the sources for this do not exist. The reason is that the subject is not notable enough for an article. -The Gnome (talk) 16:05, 11 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 Gone with the Wind (novel)#Minor characters. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:07, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

India Wilkes (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)

Minor character within the Gone with the Wind franchise, including in the novel, film, and television miniseries. No sources within article, and fails WP:GNG from general search online. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:31, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:31, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:31, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:31, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:31, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Gone_with_the_Wind_(novel)#Minor_characters as India is one of many minor characters in the franchise. I can see someone potentially searching for the name. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 00:15, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per the above, soft delete seems fine. Does not warrant being kept as a stand-alone article, due to failing WP:NFICTION. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:36, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per the above, soft delete is ok, but not really needed. Eternal Shadow Talk 16:27, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete there are no secondary sources which would be needed to show a fictional character has had a broad cultural impact.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Gone_with_the_Wind_(novel)#Minor_characters. I agree with DiamondRemley39 that this may be a viable search term and a redirect would be a preferable option to outright deletion. Aoba47 (talk) 04:45, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per above, but maybe make an anchor at the section to point it to directly. Hog Farm _Bacon 13:56, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to that suitable list. Worth expanding there if at all possible. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:55, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I oppose a merge. As of the writing of this comment, the article is completely uncited, and it's generally not a great idea to merge uncited text. Hog Farm _Bacon 00:32, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the article on Gone with the Wind, since the subject evidently lacks independent notability. This is a text entirely constructed by an editor without any outside sourcing. Therefore, we cannot merge it anywhere else. Texts unworthy of inclusion are deleted; not dumped elsewhere. -The Gnome (talk) 16:10, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:09, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uzi-Eli Hezi (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 page should be deleted: both the english and arabic version. the page promotes an insignificant person, for commercial reasons. pay attention to the fact that there isn't a page about him in the Hebrew wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.126.125.95 (talk) 17:06, July 1, 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Completing nomination on behalf of IP nominator. Above text is copied from article talk page. I have no opinion of my own at this time. --Finngall ^talk 21:55, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 23:01, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete promotional nonsense. Mccapra (talk) 23:49, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non notable Devokewater (talk) 09:22, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non notable; promotional wording. Eternal Shadow Talk 19:07, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Promotional. Alex-h (talk) 12:59, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SIGCOV and WP:MILL. Coverage is routine. Everybody is into the same things. Bearian (talk) 00:18, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Seems well-known where he's from, but Google results are littered with transcriptions on a number of different formal and informal wikis. Hard to imagine it's anything other than cultural or promotional KB11001 (talk) 15:04, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this promotional text about a non-notable subject. -The Gnome (talk) 16:12, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:09, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aliyu Abdullahi Sumaila (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 Nigerian financial manager with no real claim of notability. Unsuccessful political candidate. Mccapra (talk) 21:34, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:34, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:34, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:34, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:34, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:34, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator, fails NPOL and GNG, the atricle suffers from some pretty useless Note bombing in an attempt to create notability, such as this in support of the claim "he was also National Vice President (North West)/ Kano State Chairman Youth Sports Federation of Nigeria and an investment manager at the Kano State Investment and Properties Limited" or this (that doesn't mention a PhD) supporting all of their acadmemic qualifications. JW 1961 Talk 22:11, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This reads like; PR. --Devokewater (talk) 23:53, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete extraordinary sources require extraordinary sourcing. If we are going to claim that he really did change the nature of banking in northern Nigeria in the 1990s, we are talking about something that would probably effect 50 million people, we need good strong sources to show that this person was really having the impact claimed. They are lacking from the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:08, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Fails wp:GNG, promotional article. Alex-h (talk) 13:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - WP:SOAP, and as an demonstrably false. Halal lending was introduced world-wide in the early 1990s by Rushdi Siddiqui. Bearian (talk) 00:21, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article seems to be written from the point of view of a Fan or as a PR. Not according to Wikipedia policies Dtt1^Talk 13:03, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A deluge of sources that are not worth the bandwidth which they take up, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, and a text written in the best promotional prose do not a Wikipedia article make. In fact, they make an excellent candidate for deletion. -The Gnome (talk) 16:14, 11 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:11, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GAFFER for some of the background on the creation of this article.

Zero indication this meets WP:NPERIODICAL, especially considering it just launched. Sourcing is not sufficient - first source cited is a short review from a magazine club that promotes new magazines (ie quite a narrow audience), and the second is a one-man blog about graphic design in football (again, narrow audience, and hardly a reliable indicator of notability). The other two articles are about Callum Hudson-Odoi and briefly mention him appearing in Gaffer. It's hardly indicative of notability.

On a search, I found nothing more to indicate that this magazine would meet WP:GNG or the SNG for magazines. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:11, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:11, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:11, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:11, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I have improved the article. Could you please check if it now meets the required guidelines? Regards, Serankail (talk) 17:31, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources you added are sufficient to support a claim of notability. All of them are are trivial mentions in articles about other subjects. Kyle Harman-Turner's website is not reliable for a claim of notability, because he works for them. I'm sorry, but this is why I think new editors should not be starting out creating new articles right off the bat - you need to get familiar with our sourcing and notability guidelines first. Please start with the two I linked above - general notability guideline and notability for periodicals, and look over reliable sources as well. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:04, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the guideline links. I have already read these and I still believe it meets the general notability guideline. For general notability guideline, the sources (except the Kyle Harman-Turner's website) are "Significant coverage", "Reliable" and also "Independent of the subject". For notability for periodicals it reads more like a guideline for academic periodicals than sports or cultural magazine. The magazine has been quoted by other reliable media like The Guardian[4], The Mirror[5], The Independent[6], Vogue[7], The Athletic[8], Evening Standard[9], Manchester Evening News[10], The Metro[11], Yorkshire Evening Post[12], Liverpool Echo[13], Sky Sports[14], Hull Daily Mail[15], The Sun[16] and many more if you search on Google. Why would these media quote the magazine if it were not notable? Serankail (talk) 18:28, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you had read and understood the GNG, you would understand why simply being mentioned is not significant/in-depth coverage. Significant coverage that meets GNG would be an article that's about Gaffer as a magazine, not an article about some other person that mentions that Gaffer interviewed them. None of the sources you provide support a claim to notability under the GNG, and nothing you've shown indicates that Gaffer meets any of the bullet points of NPERIODICAL. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:45, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. None of the references demonstrate that the magazine is notable in its own right. At best, it's a case of WP:TOOSOON. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 10:02, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Zero material RS for notability/nothing remotely meeting WP:SIGCOV. Britishfinance (talk) 18:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:10, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Sheldon (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)

Mayor of a small town (less than 13,000 inhabitants) with no trace of significant press coverage - fails WP:NPOL and GNG. Ingratis (talk) 20:54, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Ingratis (talk) 20:54, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ingratis (talk) 20:54, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Sheldon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

@Ingratis: & fellow Wiki family: Panama City Beach hosts 17 million+ visitors each season - thats more than double the entire population of New York City.^[1]

@Ingratis: stated position, regarding Mark Sheldon's position of Mayor; @Ingratis: states: "Mayor of a small town (less than 13,000 inhabitants) with no trace of significant press coverage" - yet the article cited for Mark Sheldon was from a media source with whom has a verified + published wikipedia page: WJHG-TV and Panama City Beach. So might I ask @Ingratis: - how is this not significant press?

In my opinion, it is not editors jurisdiction to decide what is and isn't "significant press". That is not providing a service to this community, it's creating bias, to the editors preferred publications/media.

From a fiscal standpoint, the economic impact of Panama City Beach tourism is over $2 billion annually. Tourism is the #1 revenue generator for the state of Florida. Thus, the Mayor, the beach town, the fiscal output of said town, all play significant role & warrant Wiki consideration in publication. ^[2]

--Guitarhistory (talk) 04:18, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - no disrespect intended to Panama City Beach or the mayor - I have no personal axe to grind with either of them. I based the nomination on WP:NPOL and WP:POLOUTCOMES. Notability of mayors (local politicians) comes from the size of the place they're mayor of and also on the existence of "significant press coverage" (the wording is Wikipedia's, not my own). PCB has a small population and as far as I could see, Mark Sheldon has only local press coverage. Ingratis (talk) 12:04, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Mayors of smaller municipalities are routine (every town has a mayor) and rarely notable, and need more than local press to establish lasting notability on Wikipedia. SportingFlyer T·C 04:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NPOL, as he does not hold at least a state-level position, and has not had wider (i.e. national-level) press coverage. Jmertel23 (talk) 12:25, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The Mayor, while a well accomplished person, has not yet met the criteria of WP:NPOL.--Mpen320 (talk) 15:40, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Ingratis: @Jmertel23: @Mpen320: @SportingFlyer: I can understand your position a bit clearer. Thank you for that and for taking the time to review, respond and provide the above references regarding: WP:NPOL. I too, have no axe to grind. I value your contributions, past & present.

Comment - cont. Having visited Bay County FL last month (coming from the North East) - I was completely leveled by their community. A few years back, Hurricane Michael ravaged their county. Pure devastation (feel free to review the NPR article below). As I drove the back country roads, there were still entire families living under trees & make-shift sheets, as their homes were wiped away. Hundreds of families. Feral animals running the roads starving (I have a rescued dog in my lap as I type this message). There are many places in this country, living a great struggle. My aspiration for creating this article comes from a good place & perhaps if small individuals/communities had a voice, change & progress could be made for their community? Food for thought. --Guitarhistory (talk) 16:24, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

^[3]

• Publish- According to Wikipedia WP:NPOL standards - Politicians and judges - The following are presumed to be notable: Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office. A province "is almost always an administrative division within a country or state". Panama City Beach town counsil, is quite literally, an administrative division; the tourism within this community, generates the top revenue for Bay County, Florida. I believe there is a case to be made here --Guitarhistory (talk) 16:42, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Province in that context clearly means a first-level sub-national government, since some countries (Australia, Mexico) have states as a first-level sub-national government and others (Canada, South Africa) have provinces. There's no technicality. SportingFlyer T·C 18:19, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• @Guitarhistory: - I respect your support for the town. Most of the content you're suggesting would be well placed at the article on Panama City Beach itself, if not already included. Ingratis (talk) 13:04, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non notable. --Devokewater (talk) 23:38, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is the worst article on a local mayor I have ever seen. The mayor of a place this dinky is never going to be notable, and especially not when half the article is a quote from his acceptance speech. Saratoga Springs, Utah has more people, and the only reason we have an article on one of the mayors of that place is because she went on to become a member of the US house and a nationaly syndicated broadcast news jouranlist. OK, someone is going to point out that in 2010 when I created the article on Mrs. Love (Mia Love) she was still only mayor and had not even announced her run for congress. True, but that was back when we accepted more random first inclusions, and were less quick to have problems with articles. If the top claim to fame of Mrs. Love was being the first female African-American (as in the first of this intersection) mayor in the state of Utah, I think the article would be deleted today.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:01, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Mayor of smaller cities is not notable, fails WP:NPOL, Alex-h (talk) 14:02, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NPOL. It's fairly strong consensus and based on AfD outcomes, mayors of cities much smaller than 80,000 or so (the debate is still on for the exact figure) are just not notable, absent something unusual. Panama_City_Beach,_Florida is a city of about 12,500 people, which is much below whatever is the exact consensus. Bearian (talk) 00:26, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is wide agreement here that the subject has sufficient coverage to meet WP:BASIC/WP:GNG. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:03, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alyssa Carson (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 biography was deleted two years ago, with a bit of controversy. I recalling !voting "delete" as there wasn't a good amount of sourcing, but I appreciate there's been more since, so a second discussion is probably a good idea. Have at it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:02, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, grudgingly. There is sustained coverage over about two years in various high-quality sources (e.g. Newsweek). Everyone calls her an astronaut in training, but I am pretty sure she would need six years of science-based education at an Ivy-league institution and then some military training before she could even apply to become an astronaut in training with anyone who actually owns the keys to a rocket. It's all inflated bullsh*t, but it's covered in good pubs.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:16, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Over two years of sustained coverage (a lot more if you count the handful of articles out there about Carson from 2014), so not WP:BLP1E as was argued by some in 2018. Plenty of sources to easily meet WP:GNG. One of the issues from the last nomination was that Carson "hadn't done anything" but she has since self-published a book and developed some space luggage, so there's that. Another problem from previous AfD was Carson being under 18 but time has solved that one for us. Can't see a reason to delete other than people just not wanting the article to exist. Samsmachado (talk) 22:31, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Coverage in Forbes, Teen Vogue, Newsweek and The Advocate — reliable sources that are pretty different from each other in tone and audience. It may have been deleteable two years ago, but I don't see why you'd want to delete this version. — Toughpigs (talk) 23:22, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:32, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:32, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:32, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep due to more sufficient sourcing available than two years ago it looks like. Kj cheetham (talk) 09:35, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, several in-depth profiles in media so passes GNG.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉]) 12:24, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This is kind of a perfect example of why we have deletion discussions. She's written about in RS, but most of the sources are generic, human interest-type stories that repeat the same basic facts about Ms. Carson's life. Ms. Carson's actual notability is tied up in speculation, plans, hopes, desires, etc., in a way that is different from the vast majority of BLP articles. I hope Ms. Carson achieves every one of her goals, but she doesn't, in my opinion, meet the threshold for notability. Caro7200 (talk) 17:32, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Caro7200, do you have any policies to cite to back up your opinion (ie. something from WP:NOT as everyone else seems to be in agreement she meets WP:GNG - unless you disagree and think she does not meet GNG) or is it just an opinion? Just clarifying so that when this AfD is eventually closed, the admin can weigh your !vote accordingly. Samsmachado (talk) 17:42, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• @Caro7200, I agree the content is all about a fabricated myth that she is in training to be an astronaut. She's doing personal training to be one, but nothing official. But there is lots of coverage of that myth. She's a product of the media, maybe like Kim Kardashian, who as far as I can tell is extremely notable for doing nothing much.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:53, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean this condescendingly, but the last thing I want to do is criticize an optimistic 19-year-old. But this is really weird--do we describe college sophomores who are majoring in biology and who plan on going to med school as doctors-in-training? The Southern Living article describes her as an individual who is "a college freshman studying astrobiology at Florida Institute of Technology and is said to be the world’s youngest astronaut-in-training." Is said, as in they don't care enough to actually substantiate the statement. Even the Newsweek article includes a correction that explains that Carson has no formal affilitiation with NASA. And, as with every AfD discussion, the admin can completely ignore my argument if she or he feels that it adds nothing to the discussion. Caro7200 (talk) 22:05, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The Spanish version of this page was just deleted (again). Nothing against her, but as others have commented before, she is only a product of the media, and her father trying to make her famous. She has had a few talks, attended a lot of camps (which are like summer camps, where you pay to assist. Really, check the PoSSUM academy website please... https://projectpossum.org/science-programs/possum-space-academy/), but that does not means she must have a Wikipedia page. Look at the references on the website, most of them are talking about her being an "in-training astronaut", or things like "teen might be flying to Mars", "teenage astronaut", etc. Which, honestly, there is nothing to validate that statement... besides, those references claiming she is an astronaut in training, next generation of rocket women", etc., are intentionally misleading. I have known a lot of people who actually believe she WILL be going to Mars, or that she IS training to become an astronaut, all this due to this kind of references. I vote to remove, because I feel all of this is misleading, and this kind of misleading content should not be on Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.94.171 (talk • contribs)

@70.184.94.171: can;t we figure out a way to describe the media inflation? I added something to the lede saying how her story has been reported widely. What about adding something more, like "In the media, Carson has frequently been called an astronaut in training despite not being part in any astronaut trainng programs that lead to launches."? I am trying to figure out how to word that without being POV.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:32, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ThatMontrealIP: Removing all misleading information is doable. However, if we remove all that speculation, media sensationalism, etc... would the remaining information be relevant enough to be part of Wikipedia? 70.184.94.171

There's no need to remove the media coverage. There is significant an in-depth coverage of her hope to be an astronaut. The media created that, and it meets GNG easily. What I am saying is we could possibly talk a bit about that media myth creation.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:54, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For example, can we use snopes.com as an RS? They say yes she is "training" to be an astronaut, but also "Carson is not in training with -- or being prepped by -- NASA to become an astronaut, or to take part in the first human mission to Mars." POlitifact also cheked the inflated claims, calling them false: "NASA spokesman Sean Potter told us that NASA "has no official ties to Alyssa Carson" and conclluding that "A headline claims NASA is "prepping 17-year-old Alyssa Carson to become first human on Mars." Carson certainly wants to go into space. And that may happen. But she has no official connection to NASA." ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:08, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@70.184.94.171: The article (as it stands) makes no claims that NASA is actually preparing Carson to be an astronaut. (Many thanks to ThatMontrealIP for their hard work improving the NPOV side of things.) Isn't it important then to have this article to clear up misinformation for the "people" that you reference? Don't they need a wikipedia page to give them correct information about Carson? Are there any specific parts of the page specifically that you feel are misleading? Because these things could almost certainly be fixed. If you identify what parts of the article you feel are misleading, then we can determine what is left and see if that is indeed notable. Samsmachado (talk) 00:51, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 19:51, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Samsmachado: All the astronaut in training, and many of the references... ThatMontrealIP has been modifying the article and I'm glad about that (Thanks). As I said before, I was talking a lot about the references used in the article, many of them are extremely sensationalists. Also, with all due respect to Alyssa, what has she done besides being covered in the media due to the facts several users have discussed here before (i.e., claims that she will go to mars, that she is an astronaut in training, assisting to paid space camps not affiliated to NASA, etc), and speak what she hopes to accomplish? Her Wikipedia page has already been deleted more than once in several languages before due to this exact kind of discussion (on which they decided to delete her page), and very recently like 2 weeks before her Spanish version was deleted. Don't get me wrong, as a space enthusiast myself it would be awesome she actually make her dream come true. However, I honestly believe that she has not done anything that merits this website. I guarantee you that hundreds of kids would love to go to all those space camps, but their families can't afford it. Her "success" is mostly due to the propaganda of her dad, and speaking as if assisting to all summer camps is a merit itself (but you just need to pay a fee to be admitted). 70.184.94.171

• Delete and salt. No significant improvement since last time. Certainly no pass of WP:Prof and sources are too flimsy, exaggerated and promotional for WP:GNG. Still no significant achievements to her name that would warrant notice by Wikipedia. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:02, 30 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]

• Comment. @Xxanthippe: No one is claiming Carson falls under WP:PROF. The bigger consideration is whether she meets WP:BASIC/WP:GNG and does not fall into WP:NOT. In terms of your claims about the sources let me present the following:

Source	Significant?	Independent?	Reliable?	Secondary?	Pass/Fail	Notes
The Daily Advertiser	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	A whole article in local paper that meets publishing standards in terms of who it allows to write things
Huck Magazine	Y	?	Y	Y	?	An interview, so dubious independence
Teen Vogue	Y	?	Y	Y	?	Interview, so not totally independant
CBS	Y	?	Y	Y	?	Interview, but from national news source so is almost certainly independant
Space Coast Living	Y	Y	N	Y	N	Poor publishing standards (see: https://www.spacecoastliving.com/publish-your-blog/)
The Advocate (Baton Rouge)	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	A whole article in local paper that meets publishing standards in terms of who it allows to write things
Southern Living	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	National magazine with decent standards
Rocket Women	Y	?	?	Y	N	Blog, but pretty legit seeming blog
Stylist	Y	?	Y	Y	Y	Same problem with interviews as before
TNW	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Tech news site, they do speak to Carson but the article is not interview style and is rife with scientific commentary about the future Mars mission
Newsweek	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	They don't appear to talk to Carson at all. They're quoting the Forbes source.
GMA	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Discusses Carson's appearance in a Super Bowl ad (which isn't mentioned in the article)
Forbes	Y	Y	N	Y	N	Focusses on her 'entreprenurial' endeavours, talks to Carson but not in an interviewy way See Puzzledvegetable's comment for issue of lack of editorial oversight. Samsmachado (talk) 16:08, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Total qualifying sources					7	There must be multiple qualifying sources to meet the notability requirements

I count 8 for sure reliable, notability-contributing sources. Anyone may feel free to disagree with my source evaluation, but you better give reasoning. Samsmachado (talk) 00:51, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your heroic work and formatting skills in constructing this table. All it shows is promotional public relations flim-flam, likely all based on the same press release. It is worth looking at the first AfD for further views. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:12, 30 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]

@Xxanthippe. The sources show coverage 6 years. (2014 source) Are you saying that Forbes is using a press release from 2014 to discuss an invention that wasn't made public until 2019? (Most of the sources are from 2018-2020, but that's still extended coverage for 2 years making it unlikely they're all from the same press release.) (WP:SUSTAINED) But, let's address concerns from the first AfD (some of which I addressed earlier):

• WP:BLP concern over privacy, Carson's age (she was a minor during last AfD discussion) - she's 19 now and she and her dad worked on the last iteration of the article clearly showing they don't mind the article's existence
• WP:BLP1E. Clearly not 1 event as she has written a book, designed space luggage and tested space suits, and appeared in a super bowl commercial in addition to the 'one event' of attending space camp
• WP:CRYSTAL: "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." And it is properly referenced. The article does not claim she is going to Mars; it only says that the media says she might.
• "But she hasn't done anything." Well, the media doesn't agree there. It's pretty unlikely that someone would sustain 2+ years of media coverage in a wide array of reliable sources despite not doing anything. I agree that going to a bunch of space camps isn't 'doing anything' but she has written a book, designed space luggage, tested space suits, appeared in a super bowl commercial, given TEDx talks, and spoken at the MER (Mars Exploration Rover) 10 Panel. She hasn't gone to Mars but that doesn't mean she hasn't done stuff.
• WP:109PAPERS. As per what I said earlier, coverage over 6 years so it's unlikely that this is all from the same press release. This argument relies on the sources being "temporary". Which they're not.
• WP:PROMO. A big problem was Carson and her father's direct involvement in the previous article. That aside, ThatMontrealIP has been doing some tremendous work removing anything even remotely promotional, so I think we're over that concern.
• Source quality. To quote JohnPackLambert from last AfD discussion: "This article is in no way "sourced well". Much of what it says is sourced to either primary sources, or not sourced at all, or cited to sources that do not say what it claimed. Additionally, the secondary sources are not the in-depth, reliable coverage we look for, especially for biographies of living people." I have already shown source quality, but everyone is more than welcome to take issue my assessment.
• WP:SENSATIONAL Yeah, the part about her going to Mars has no basis in fact, but plenty of the sources acknowledge this and our WP article doesn't say it. They call her an astronaut in training because she is training herself, not because she is involved with NASA training. Again I'm going to make the WP:SUSTAINED argument because to say that the same person getting fluff pieces for 6 (or 2, if you're stingy) years is unlikely.
• WP:TOOSOON. Yes, this article would be better if she goes to Mars. BUT (as is mentioned in the TOOSOON essay) Carson meets GNG and there is independent coverage to back up the article's claims. And, as I mentioned earlier, she has done some stuff.

Anything I missed? I don't see how any of the previous AfD claims apply except PROMO which is being addressed. Samsmachado (talk) 16:08, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think so. With respect to Ms. Carson, her book is self-published, 44 pages, and reads like it was written by, well, a teenager. As far as her luggage, I have no idea how much she actually contributed to its design and manufacture--and neither does any other editor. As far as the tone of the human-interest-type stories about Ms. Carson, that, sadly, says more about the business of journalism than it does Ms. Carson's notability. I still think this is an article about a teenager who wants to become an astronaut. Even with the addition of Snopes, etc., why does this exist? It seems more like an article about the lengths parents will go for their kids, which should perhaps be the real subject. Caro7200 (talk) 16:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why does this exist? Because this woman has been getting coverage in the media for 2+ years and there are more than enough sources to meet GNG, meaning there is a high likelihood that the public needs/wants reliable encyclopedic information about Carson. In terms of your question about her contributions to the luggage, please see the Forbes article. WP:AUTHOR has nothing against the quality of a book or whether it was self-published (not that Carson meets WP:AUTHOR, I just don't think we should be devaluing her work). Samsmachado (talk) 16:54, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Xxanthippe, I think looking at this article through the lenses of WP:NPROF is the wrong perspective, as she is not an academic. I am looking at Carson as an athlete, model, or social media personality. I don't quite understand why media is covering her, but it is.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 16:59, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The media is covering her because she has aggressive public relations support. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:24, 30 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Samsmachado It's not about devaluing her work, just like it's not about overvaluing her work. 70.184.94.171

This will be my last comment--as I wrote above, I don't want to be seen as "picking" on a 19-year-old. I read the Forbes article, and didn't find any details about Ms. Carson's actual contributions; the closest was this: she helped "develop visual prototypes." I think Eostrix makes a good point that Ms. Carson may most accurately be described as a "personality." Caro7200 (talk) 17:59, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Samsmachado: Note that Forbes.com articles written by contributors, rather than staffers, are not considered reliable sources per consensus developed by 12 different discussions. See WP:FORBESCON for more info. According to Forbes, "Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own." This can be viewed by hovering over the question mark next to the writer's name, and it is placed there becuase those articles are not subject to editorial oversight. I believe the table should be updated accordingly. --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 15:41, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Samsmachado (talk) 16:08, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment in the interests of balance, I tracked down enough sources to be able to add this to a new "astronaut training" section: "Despite being frequently cited in the media as an "astronaut in training",[12][13][14] Carson is not affiliated with any national space program.[15][16] NASA has publicly stated that the organization "has no official ties to Alyssa Carson",[16] and separately that "although Ms. Carson uses ‘NASA' in her website name and Twitter and Instagram handles, we’re not affiliated at all."[17] In 2019 Newsweek corrected a headline that had implied that Carson's training was affiliated with NASA.[18]ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:33, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:BASIC. It doesn't matter if she's achieved nothing at all: reliable sources have taken note of her, thus she's notable. (Had she flown to Mars but not received national news coverage, I might lean the other way.) pburka (talk) 22:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:BASIC as explained by others above. TJMSmith (talk) 22:53, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, meets WP:BASIC, covered by independent sources over extended period of time. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:27, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Has enough coverage for a stand alone article. Alex-h (talk) 13:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per pburka's, somewhat funny, albeit relevant reasoning. I will also note that I see fairly sustained coverage from a wide-variety of reliable sources as mentioned above. Additionally, WP:GNG is clear on three criteria, e.g. significant coverage, reliable WP:PSTS sources, and independent coverage. Donna Spencer^{talk-to-me⛅} 17:49, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as the references definitely meet WP:GNG. However, please ping me when the notability guidelines are overturned or if WP:NOT starts excluding articles about young women and I shall reconsider. Thincat (talk) 09:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. During the course of this AfD the BLP has been edited to remove trivia and now properly includes the corrections issued by NASA and Newsweek about the subject's allegedly illegitimate use of the NASA logo and connections. I think the present version is more balanced, but it now reads as an attack page. In some jurisdictions of the world the use of deception to gain a benefit is regarded as a criminal offense and it seems that the BLP can implicitly be construed of accusing the subject of doing this. It could be that some of the Keep votes did not appreciate that the current version of the BLP could result in public exposure of the subject's behavior. I see this situation as a case of a vulnerable young person being exploited by older people and not fully understanding the consequences of their actions. I think that the article should be deleted under BLP policy and WP:Do no harm. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:24, 3 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]
  • I removed an awkward reference to NASA from the lead, but I don't see how anything here could be perceived as an attack. I'd never heard of this person before and I think the article portrays her in a fair and positive way. pburka (talk) 00:26, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think that these fact-checks [17], [18], [19], that another editor dug up, portray her in a positive way? Xxanthippe (talk) 07:16, 4 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Those aren't attacks, either. Besides, do you believe that deleting this Wikipedia page would have any effect on Snopes or Politifact? pburka (talk) 15:33, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I take the above hidden comment to be a Delete vote under Wikipedia:BLPREQUESTDELETE and I support it. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Feel free to uncollapse that section if you like; I collapsed it because the article subject's father is not going to have a lot of sway in a deletion discussion. BLPREQUESTDELETE doesn't apply to public figures, and since she has actively sought media attention she is not a low profile individual. Quite the opposite. I'm not really seeing what the big deal is here; she has given dozens of interviews and actively sought media attention. People who get media attention often get Wikipedia pages. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct to say that she has been an active seeker after media attention. However, I am reluctant to hold that against her because I am not certain to what extent she has been mistress of her own fate and to what extent she has been influenced by others. My concern is that if this BLP stands, it will be a millstone round her neck for the rest of her career. That is why I advise Delete on compassionate grounds (at least). Xxanthippe (talk) 07:16, 4 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]

@Xxanthippe: I understand and recognize your compassionate point of view here. But it is incorrect to say we are doing harm, as we are not publishing anything new here. We are just doing what we do in every article: summarize the sources. Her story is extremely well documented in dozens of reputable publications. The only negative side is that this article might have longer longevity that those news pubs, but that is not a deletion consideration. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:36, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the subject requested deletion I might well go delete. However, my reading of the "This is Alyssa's dad ..." comment is that it is the remarks in the AfD discussion(s) that are being criticised more than the article itself. Once social media have gone out of fashion we'll be in a better place.Thincat (talk) 12:31, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per above comments. Alyssa Carson, so-called youngest member of NASA, is notable enough that an article about her would be deserved. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 06:08, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NASA has told Newsweek that NASA has no formal affiliation with her. [20] Xxanthippe (talk) 05:40, 11 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]

• Comment. The page has been quiet for a while and I take the opportunity to ask contributors how they view the ethical issue involved. The version of the page brought to AfD contained not a single source critical of the subject. However, scrutiny by contributors to the AfD brought to light several [21], [22], [23],[24],[25] media reports that implied that the subject had given misleading information to media outlets which disclaimed the promotional "fake news" (the phrase that they used) that they had unwittingly published. This detrimental information has now been properly included in the BLP by the editor that discovered it to make the article WP:NPOV. An accusation of generating fake news for self-promotion is not good for anybody's reputation and may prejudice entry into occupations where high ethical standards are required. For a normal adult this would not bother me: people reap what they sow. The ethical issue is that it appears that the subject is a vulnerable young person who appears to have been heavily influenced by others. She may not have understood the harm done to her reputation by the actions of herself and others. I think it would be best for Wikipedia not to rub salt in the wounds and delete the BLP on compassionate grounds under WP:Harm. User:pburka and others make the point that nothing that Wikipedia does will alter the existence of the detrimental material in the sources. True, but Wikipedia is one of the most widely read sources on the web, much more so than the individual media sources referred to. I see no cause for Wikipedia to join in the chase and function as a public pillory. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:40, 11 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]

@Xxanthippe: is there some published evidence that the subject is a vulnerable young person who appears to have been heavily influenced by others? What you are suggesting is a sort of parental "best for you" intervention to remove the page, as there is no policy-based reason to remove the page. I applaud your sensitivity to the subject, but the page meets GNG, and she is willingly continuing to appear in the media. She looks perfectly happy to do so: Here is the GMA article about her SuperBowl ad in January 2020. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:45, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I echo Pburka and ThatMontrealIP's comments that this is not a case of WP:HARM as nothing in the article is not widely documented in the press. Further, the age of majority in the US is 18 so I would require a request from the subject herself (ie. not Carson's father) to even consider BLPREQUESTDELETE (which may not be applicable due to Carson being a highly public figure). She's young but she is 19 and I respect the right of a 19 y.o. to make decisions about herself. Further, I think most of the misrepressentation and harmful discourse has been in this AfD discussion (ie. people claiming Carson has "done nothing" and alleging that she is only garnering coverage because her dad is paying for it) rather than on the page itself. Carson, to my knowledge, has not been misleading the media in any way other than by using NASA in her usernames (which she has official permission to do); the media has been misrepresenting Carson to a certain extent by claiming her official involvement with NASA space programs and ignoring her very real contributions and achievements. These are just my opinions on the ethics of this BLP, so I would love to hear other's thoughts. Samsmachado (talk) 14:46, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• At the risk of circularity, I agree with Samsmachado: there's nothing harmful in the article. If there have been any hints of defamation, they're in this deletion discussion or in reliable sources referenced by the article. pburka (talk) 17:12, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per @Samsmachado:'s table, it does have enough wp:rs to pass wp:sigcov. Dtt1^Talk 13:18, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Closing admin needs to take note of the faulty relist by @Synoman Barris: without even giving a reason. The discussion before the relist had healthy participation and policy based arguments, clearly enough to conclude the AfD. In case it wasn't conclusive, an admin should've relisted it instead. This relisting trend is wasteful. - Harsh (talk) 12:33, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Not a slam-dunk but there is now just too much non-trivial RS here (per the article) do be a delete. The July 2019 Forbes piece (albeit a senior contributor) is pretty much SIGCOV. WP:BASIC says: If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. She meets this criteria now. Britishfinance (talk) 19:39, 13 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) 21:21, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zoran Djurovic (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 priest seems to fail the GNG. I did quite an extensive source search on the web and all I found was this: [26], which (from what I'm able to tell with the help of translation tools) seems to be unreliable. PJvanMill (talk) 19:45, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the sourcing here is no where near enough to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:56, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:56, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:56, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:56, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete could not find sourcing. His CV on a gallery site says he showed at Obsolete in LA frequently, which is a furniture store that exhibits art alongside the furniture. So, JACA: just another commercial artist.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 07:09, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The sole source in this article is his name (with no accompanying text) in a list of committee members of the League of Communists of Serbia. And even if the source noted in the nom turns out to be significant, that is not enough to establish notability, nor pass GNG, BASIC or NARTIST. Netherzone (talk) 00:01, 11 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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:15, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All Lights Fucked on the Hairy Amp Drooling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not appear to meet notability requirements. Previous deletion discussion seems to predate WP:MUSIC, as all the arguments seem to rely on notability being inherited. RF23 (talk) 20:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:01, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:01, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This album does not exist. WP:NALBUM would normally be the criteria for deciding whether to keep the article, but in this case, the "album" appears to have been a rumor invented or encouraged by the band for the sake of having an air of mystique, so the relevant criteria would instead be whatever we use to adjudge the notability of cryptids and UFO sightings. AfD is the wrong venue for determining whether this should be deleted or not, since obviously we do not want to have a redlink here; the nominator should pursue a redirect or merge discussion instead. Chubbles (talk) 00:13, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Godspeed You! Black Emperor and merge a couple of lines into the history section. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:27, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not understand the rationale for deletion. Chubbles’ theory above is unsupported speculation contradicted by the available evidence as cited in the article; the fact that it is widely discussed in major music magazines is in itself prima facie evidence of its notability. There are many articles about lost films, lost manuscripts, etc. so the fact that it is unavailable commercially is not relevant. Tothebarricades (talk) 02:36, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I guess the real question (regardless of whether it is a "lost work" or a fictional album) is whether it passes GNG. Chubbles (talk) 05:13, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - I have had my doubts as well, but it doesn’t seem like the role of a tertiary source to adjudicate that sort of thing. A quick Google Books search turns up mentions in Colin Larkin’s ‘’The Encyclopedia of Popular Music’’, among other things, so there’s no reason it shouldn’t be up here. (https://books.google.com/books?id=_NNmFiUnSmUC&pg=PA1439&dq=%22all+lights+fucked%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjp1enM55_pAhVGl3IEHU1ADJYQ6AEIMzAC#v=onepage&q=%22all%20lights%20fucked%22&f=false) Tothebarricades (talk) 18:02, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Something tells me Larkin wrote that from the band's press kit, not having heard anything firsthand, but... there it is, in the books. Chubbles (talk) 18:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Godspeed You! Black Emperor: Though there are sources about this "lost work", its existence remains in question. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 05:11, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it that you bookburners always seem to get your way in these things? Completely fascistic philistine idiocy. Why even bother discussing? Tothebarricades (talk) 20:55, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article appears to meet WP:GNG. I would point to the three sources already used by the article, which report on the Casketjack leak.^[4][5][6] There are other sources but most of them are too closely related to the band or label for them to qualify of WP:GNG in my opinion. It also seems to meet WP:NALBUMS on the same grounds, but if we are being honest here I fail to see how something qualifing for WP:GNG could fail to meet WP:NALBUMS. Apart from this more formal argument, I also think it would be of detriment to the encyclopedia to lose this article. It is an interesting subject that is worth reading about. Since there is enough material to make a well cited article, I believe it would be best to keep it. AquitaneHungerForce (talk) 21:32, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Changed my vote, per deletion review. Its existence remains in question as to being a "lost work" or a fan-exclusive album. Nonetheless, the "album" is also featured in Nashville Scene, The Rough Guide to the Best Music You've Never Heard, The Rough Guide to Rock and The Wire. With all the sources indicated in this AfD, the article easily passes WP:NEXIST and WP:FUTUREALBUM. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:59, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It may be a lost album, but the sources in the article (including this one), and the one shown by Superastig prove it's notability. (This one). Koridas 📣 05:38, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per @Koridas: and @Superastig:. The album does have Reliable sources. Dtt1^Talk 14:20, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:05, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I'm not sure what the purpose of this article is as it recreates and summarises individual articles for each year that already exist as shown at Category:Lists_of_number-one_songs_in_Mexico. This information is already available in the categories and individual articles for each year. Therefore this article is incorrectly designed per the name. I would expect it to contain information about the chart itself not a reproduction of the number 1 lists which already exist. It's also bizarre to talk about the nth number one single in a country. It seems like an indiscriminate list. ≫ (Lil-Unique1) -{ Talk }- 19:35, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ≫ (Lil-Unique1) -{ Talk }- 19:35, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. ≫ (Lil-Unique1) -{ Talk }- 19:35, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not a neutral source in the bunch (and most are behind paywalls or deadlinks), no mentions of the chart's methodology, and the wording's tinge is overtly connected to the performance of American songs and charts with songs from Mexican artists being shrugged off (I'd care more for sure about the performance of domestic artists over the stations which just air American artists and call it a day). It's not a WP:BADCHARTS...because it isn't even a chart. It's just a carousel article which exists to say 'this is #1 in Mexico' with some needless picture decoration. Nate • (chatter) 20:30, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I’m not sure I understand the nomination. The article just says that it’s a Billboard (magazine) chart. I’m not sure I see the difference between this and the endless other Billboard chart articles. (Country Airplay, Latin Pop Airplay, R&B/Hip-Hop Airplay, etc etc) Sergecross73 msg me 00:04, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Billboard charts#International charts. The article as it stands offers nothing of significance, and I can't find sources that would establish its independent notability for a stand-alone article much less a list of its number ones.
• Comment: As the creator of the article I do not know how to respond to this nomination. Maybe a change of title would be appropiate, which was my original idea, to have a main article and create a list of number-one songs in Mexico but at the time it was not enough material. It is a Billboard chart, just as many others that are included in Wikipedia that also enlist the weekly number-one song. Javier Espinoza (talk) 02:37, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment from nominator - WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't always the best reason to cite. While other articles do exist for Billboard charts that doesn't make them notable either. The trouble is this article doesn't serve a purpose as there is already categories for each year that list what was number one. The other articles for Billboard charts usually include some information about the chart itself as well as a summary of number ones, not the whole history of songs that were number one. The article is also reaching the boundaries of what's navigable per WP:SIZE and would need to be split in the future if it continued which makes no sense, given that lists/categories already exist for number one songs in Mexico. ≫ (Lil-Unique1) -{ Talk }- 09:42, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Move to List of Mexican Airplay number ones. There are many, many featured lists of number one songs or albums, including this one which is no different. This information cannot be clearly conveyed through a category or individual pages. Thankyoubaby (talk) 04:32, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the chart itself has not received coverage in reliable sources (not even in Billboard in which the chart is published), what makes a list of its number ones worth keeping. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 15:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The chart was not included in the Billboard site before, but now it is listed along several other charts previously included in their billboard.biz website. I will update the links and change the name to "List of Billboard Mexican Airplay number ones of the 2010s" and other one for the "2020s". Javier Espinoza (talk) 18:45, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Jaespinoza please don't move the article until the discussion is over. ≫ (Lil-Unique1) -{ Talk }- 18:52, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Lil-unique1 Absolutely, that was just my proposal. Javier Espinoza (talk) 18:53, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Move to List of Mexican Airplay number ones per Thankyoubaby. Britishfinance (talk) 23:50, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Note the chart does get mentions in news sources such as: MSN, and Jamica Observer etc. Britishfinance (talk) 10:07, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Billboard charts#International charts or move to List of Mexican Airplay number ones. I don't really have a preference as to which option is the best, because a good argument could be made for either one. Other people given reasons then I can for both options. So, I'm just leaving this at my "vote." I know it's not a vote, but I feel like the discussion is long enough already without me repeating points that have already been made better then I can make them. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:31, 15 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. Consensus to keep the article for now. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 09:17, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Udayapur Cement Industries Limited (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 I just conducted shows no evidence of notability as they are merely mentioned in unreliable sources without editorial oversight. Celestina007 (talk) 19:15, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:15, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:15, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:15, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:15, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:15, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I started the article because its a government own industry. Also i think delete is the wrong tag. The right tag should be notability or insufficient reference. Well, i will try to add few more references.nirmal (talk) 01:39, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nirmaljoshi, no! Per WP:ORG the organization must possess in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources & no reliable sources can be found to substantiate nor prove the organization is notable even following a before I conducted.Celestina007 (talk) 01:52, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources should mean notablity. Anyway, added few more references to prove significance. nirmal (talk) 02:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No! Press releases and self published sources are generally not what we consider to be reliable. Celestina007 (talk) 02:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right. But the soruces are not Press release but online newspaper coverage in this case.nirmal (talk) 03:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Enough with this back & forth go through WP:RS. Celestina007 (talk) nirmal (talk) 03:08, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also check before C. Consider whether the article could be improved rather than deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nirmaljoshi (talk • contribs) 03:10, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Our coverage of Nepal is pretty thin. International Journal of Scientific and Engineering Research looks a pretty good reference, and Global Cement clearly notices it. Rathfelder (talk) 13:16, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The current sourcing very likely does not meet NORG (I can't access (and so evaluate) the research paper, there is one almost-SIGCOV, the rest seem non-qualifying for notability). At the same time, there is no way this would not meet it when all the archives are sorted through. All I can offer at this time to justify my Keep is an inductive-ish argument for WP:NPOSSIBLE; it follows: From what I know of Nepal's economy, and similar government-owned industries in and around my own community, government owned industries of this size are basically a castle (except for being a literal castle or in Europe). They usually play at least a minor role in the country's history for a period of years to decades, its economy (Nepal's economy is really small and the government is very short on investment capital (as it spends relatively generously on social programs); at the very least, these organisations are widely discussed with respect to the government's economic policy). These often do generate a number of headlines (socialism/capitalism or free-market/protectionism debates or government/opposition tension, corruption/embezzlement, protests from affected locals, strikes, delays, and so on.) They have a very significant impact on the local economy (hundreds of thousands of people) and direct impact on the lives of thousands of people (often raising associated, often multiple, settlements, markets and transportation hubs). The ropeway and associated mines means it also directly impacts a number of other communities, not necessarily in the immediate vicinity.
  ;tldr I don't know this organisation personally (take the grain as per your taste) and the current sourcing likely falls short of NORG but there is no way this is not notable, so we should keep it as a very strong case of WP:NPOSSIBLE based on what's already there and give it time to develop, which is likely to happen more with a bluelink than a red one. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:38, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 23:36, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of buffet restaurants (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)

As 62.165.227.49 said in the failed RM on the talk page, the article should be deleted per WP:NOTDIRECTORY, item #7, as a simple listing without context information. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 17:36, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 17:36, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Schazjmd (talk) 17:42, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as index of articles per WP:LISTPURP and as complement to Category:Buffet restaurants per WP:CLN. There are notable buffet restaurants. We list and categorize articles by what their subjects are. It's just as simple as that, and commenters above need to read all of NOTDIR, which clearly states just that. They are also not understanding what "without context" means because "buffet restaurant" is plainly defined both by the intro and the linked article buffet, so we know what this list and its corresponding category should include. postdlf (talk) 17:55, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this could be quite useful. Devokewater (talk) 18:48, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP Anything in the category can be listed here with additional information shown, making it far more useful than a category. Dream Focus 19:00, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – This list of notable restaurants qualifies for an article per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Buffet restaurants and also functions as a valuable information source and navigational aid, as per WP:LISTPURP. This is demonstrated in part per the page views that the article receives compared to the category page: The list article has received an average of 160 page views per day between 1/1/2020 and 6/30/2020 (link), whereas during the same time period, the category page has only received an average of 4 page views per day (link). The list clearly has more utility for WP:READERS compared to the category, and furthermore, contrary to the nomination for deletion, this list article does provide context information, specifically in its lead section. Some entries on the list also have descriptions, and more can easily be added. Also, contrary to WP:NOTDIRECTORY, this is a discriminate, refined list that only includes topics that have their own articles on Wikipedia. It is not an indiscriminate list of all buffet restaurants in the world, nor is it a list of loosely associated topics or a yellow pages type page that has contact information such as phone numbers, fax numbers and e-mail addresses. This article has none of this. As such, WP:NOTDIRECTORY is being misapplied toward this article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:46, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per NA1k. These types of list articles, populated by notable examples, are part of how we organize data. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:53, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As others have said, these lists are very useful and well-used. The key is to keep them free of redlinks. Lard Almighty (talk) 16:09, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – It meets the one GNG exception as applied to lists (restricts inclusion to notable items), and adheres to criteria outlined within WP:LISTN — WILDSTAR^talk 16:44, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - WP:NOTDIRECTORY doesn’t imply deletion this way - lists are written differently then that. The reasoning is that there are enough notable examples to make the list meet the GNG exception. Eternal Shadow Talk 16:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete KFC is on here because apparently "some locations include a buffet". There are lots of restaurants that maybe a few locations have a buffet, and lots of other issues in buffet service. This can be covered by articles, there is no benefit to having a list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:58, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have noted this in the past too but it's an argument for clearly defining what is a buffet restaurant and cleaning up the list, not deleting it.
• That one entry on a list is improper is an argument for removing or editing that entry, not for deleting the list, any more than bad grammer in one sentence is an argument for deleting an article. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I was ready to 86 it, but on reading it fully, it look like it passes WP:LIST. It's limited in scope, has all blue links, and verifiable. Bearian (talk) 00:30, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. bibliomaniac15 05:06, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kullam Chinar (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. Article seems to be confused if this is a spring (a water source) or a settlement. Unfortunately, there are no sources to solve this confusion. The Banner talk 17:36, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:43, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non notable natural feature as per WP:GEOLAND -- Ab207 (talk) 18:50, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - one of millions of water sources. Bearian (talk) 00:31, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:56, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per all of the above Spiderone 08:45, 12 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) 22:32, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pickering FC (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 a fully professional league that has not played for the national cup. Can only fine WP:PRIMARY and WP:ROUTINE sources to support its existence. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:03, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:03, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:03, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. RedPatchBoys (talk) 02:20, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Tier 3 league, essentially equivalent to USL League Two, of which most teams have their own Wikipedia page. I can name several other equivalent semi-pro leagues on their respective league pyranids with all or most of the teams having wiki pages. Several other League1 Ontario teams have wiki pages despite not having been in the Canadian championship yet, for example Sigma FC, ProStars FC, Internacional de Toronto, Windsor TFC. There are clubs in the 5th-10th tiers in European countries with wiki pages. Many of these L1O teams serve as a gateway to playing in the Canadian Premier League. My plan is to make articles for each team in the league. RedPatchBoys (talk) 17:22, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The Canadian national cup has very selective entry. This league seems to me to be a state-level league similar to Football Queensland Premier League. If better coverage exists than just the league website, I'd support a keep, but I'm not seeing that right now. The "5th-10th tiers" is a WP:OSE argument: those teams receive secondary independent coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 17:52, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suspected that you were planning on creating articles for each team in the league which is why I'm starting here. Don't create articles for teams that are not notable. We can visit the other L1O articles after this closes. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:00, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:SportingFlyer the references to the League website are mostly only for the Year-by-Year results, not the actual article information. The article's citations are from other news sources, and I've included a few more. The WP:OSE argument is fair. Also, while it may not be the greatest justification, although I feel this league is notable enough for it's teams to warrent articles, especially as the Canadian Premier League purchased the league with the plans of making it its primary development league akin to the USL/MLS relationship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RedPatchBoys (talk • contribs) 02:37, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The sources you have added to the article since the start of the AfD are local, but I think they establish notability consistent with the sourcing we require for other clubs. SportingFlyer T·C 03:36, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This club plays at a semi-professional level, in the first level of Canadian soccer below fully-professional (tier 1), and teams at this level are eligible for the national cup. A founding member nonetheless. Well referenced article, with some good references. Nfitz (talk) 04:01, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. GiantSnowman 09:52, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:43, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep just enough coverage from independent sources to warrant an article. BLAIXX 23:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above.CreativeNorth (talk) 11:59, 7 July 2020 (UTC)CreativeNorth[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:05, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aussie and Ted's Great Adventure (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non notable film with no independent reviews. Donaldd23 (talk) 16:49, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 16:49, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Its seems to have gotten one short review at Common Sense Media, but that is about it, which passes neither WP:NFILM nor the WP:GNG. It could possibly be used as a redirect to Shuki Levy's article, as he was the director, but its so obscure of a project that its not even mentioned there currently. Rorshacma (talk) 22:45, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Does not pass WP:NFILM. A non-notable movie directed by a notable person. The page for it should either be deleted or turned into a redirect to Levy's page. -HAWTH OFF HEAD (TALK) 0:51, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Devokewater (talk) 13:37, 13 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:41, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Ox Jerky (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 product. Of the sources in the article, Trademarkia looks unreliable, metromode clearly states the source of the article is the company, the press release does not contribute notability, and the sources from the company itself are not independent. A Wp: BEFORE search brings up press releases and blogs. Fails the notability requirements for organizations and the general guidelines. Hog Farm _Bacon 15:51, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:31, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:31, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:31, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This artile has been created by a single purpose account. Devokewater (talk) 16:34, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:56, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this promotional piece of text about a non-notable product. Solid effort by the kamikaze account that created it but no cigar. -The Gnome (talk) 16:17, 11 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. Can be recreated as a redirect if a suitable target is found. Sandstein 09:03, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Game in hand (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)

Really tricky one. It exists, and it has mentions, mainly for football (soccer) but also in other sports. However it has no notability I can see, and is more a dictionary definition - and in this case, an overly-long definition with no sources. I think it coul possibly be useful on Wiktionary. Boleyn (talk) 15:43, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:34, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:34, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:56, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Glossary of association football terms. GiantSnowman 09:58, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This term is used in other sports so I'm not sure if a redirect would be appropriate. Spiderone 12:27, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - useful in Wiktionary but not for Wikipedia Spiderone 12:27, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• It also has another meaning. To say "he's got the game in hand" means that he's expected to win. I'd never heard the other use before. Do we do soft redirects to Wiktionary? Hobit (talk) 19:53, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect if a suitable target can be found. This is a term, but an article should be based on more than mere existence. And a lot of this stuff is unsourced, wandering off topic. Jontesta (talk) 19:40, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:43, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Wildlife Cinema episodes (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 television show which has an article listing its episodes does not have its own article. This articles only source are multiple TV listings (which are primary sources). Therefore, according to WP:NOTTVGUIDE and WP:GNG this should not have an article, since it only contains primary sources. It is thus not notable. Note: I can not find any sources online about this television show. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 15:18, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 15:18, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 15:18, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. WP:NOTTVGUIDE. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:23, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The TV show doesn't even have an article. A list of episodes of a non-notable TV show is non-notable. Hog Farm _Bacon 15:55, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Simply because WP:NOTTVGUIDE, especially for a potentially non-notable show. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:36, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Leet#Owned and pwned. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:19, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pwn (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's time this article finally got pwned. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and the bar to notability for a word is very high indeed. A basic glance at this article shows that it consists of definition, etymology, usage over time, pronunciation, and four cultural references. All but the last are precisely dictionary material, and the last is not enough to sustain an article. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:17, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:17, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:17, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:17, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:17, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:25, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. There is thus no justification for this article. Word notability is a high bar and this does not meet it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:35, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge anything useful to Leet#Owned and pwned, and leave a redirect as a valid alternative to deletion. Given there is a subsection in the leet article about this word, a redirect makes sense, and if there is a part that is useful but not enough to sustain an article, that’s the right place to put it. Red Phoenix ^talk 14:47, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Leet or to Glossary of video game terms. No need for a standalone but a searchable term --Masem (t) 15:21, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Leet#Owned and pwned, per Red Phoenix._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:03, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Plausible search term, so whatever we do here, it won't involve using the delete tool.—S Marshall T/C 19:52, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP:DICDEF is commonly misuderstood as meaning that we should delete something. It doesn't as the main point of that policy is that "In Wikipedia, things are grouped into articles based on what they are, not what they are called by." This is harder than it sounds because editors are commonly too literal-minded to accept different words as synonyms. So, we have separate articles for cacography; catachresis; eye dialect; sensational spelling; &c. even though these are closely related concepts. Pwn has a similar meaning to words like domination; exultation;humiliation;jeer;victory;&c. but if we were to try merging it then there will be complaints about sourcing and synthesis. It's best kept separate while the worst case would be merger into the glossary of video game terms. It is our policy that "there is no practical limit to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover" and so we need not stint ourselves. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:35, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is the crux of your argument. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:03, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A vague wave to WP:OSE is not helpful because, if you actually read that essay, it says that '"other stuff exists" arguments can be valid or invalid'. When I produce evidence rather than unsupported assertion, it's especially valid because my examples are pertinent and WP:OSE also states that "these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent". My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:10, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/Merge to Leet. - We have articles on independently notable terms, which isn't this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:03, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletion and merger are opposite outcomes; one deletes the content while the other doesn't. See WP:MAD for details. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:15, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Andrew Davidson, the "/" sign usually means "or". Hence, he votes to either delete the page or merge its contents to the target article. No WP:MAD involved in his vote. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:06, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Slash (punctuation) explains that "slash is also used as a shorter substitute for the conjunction "and"". Andrew🐉(talk) 17:43, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to the most relevant article (internet slang maybe?), Wikipedia is WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Maybe there are relevant reliable sources about the history of the term, but I'm having a hard time finding those. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:26, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP https://www.inverse.com/gaming/pwned-meaning-definition-origins-video-games-internet-hackers gives quite a lot of coverage about this word. Dream Focus 12:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As far as WP:VG/RS is concerned, Inverse is not a reliable source. Even if it were, one additional source doesn't mean WP:GNG has been met. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 12:46, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additional sources were already found in the first AFD. "Word cops take down 'pwn'" in The Detroit News and "You've Been 'Pwned'" on AlterNet. The first one is at [27] but you only read part of the article. The other I'm not sure where its at now. The second AFD [28] had some reliable sources mentioning it such as the Wall Street Journal but the link doesn't work anymore. Dream Focus 15:51, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that Inverse is referenced at over a thousand Wikipedia articles. It was never discussed at WP:RS. As for video game reliable sources, it says "These sources have been discussed but no resolution for their reliability is available. They have not been discussed at sufficient length to achieve consensus." So no consensus not to consider it a reliable source. It has 30 paid employees writing stuff for it, it has editorial oversight, it is a legitimate reliable source. Dream Focus 03:35, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per comments. This should never have been an article. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 19:29, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - per nom and Masem’s argument. Can probably be mentioned at both targets. Sergecross73 msg me 02:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Leet#Owned and pwned: The term is talked about in the target article. Hence, there's no need for a standalone page for that. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:06, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Leet#Owned and pwned - Most of the information in the actual reliable sources presented in the article are simply defining the term and its origin, which is already largely covered at the main article on Leet, but there is some bits that would be useful to merge to that section, such as its inclusion in the official Scrabble dictionary. Rorshacma (talk) 19:30, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a significant article, and "pwning" is definitely notable. Numerous articles have been written about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by I-82-I (talk • contribs) 05:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Leet#Owned and pwned per above. Clear WP:NOTDIC issue here. No need for a stand-alone article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:07, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as Wikipedia isn't a dictionary. Articles should be more than what a word means, and that doesn't mean running into a list of examples of every time a word is used. Much better if this is covered in context with other internet slang. Jontesta (talk) 19:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. I see nothing wrong with the content; I'm just not sure this will ever be more than a very short, out of context stub. Bearian (talk) 00:33, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There's no consensus to delete, and no matter how many times it's relisted at this point, there's no realistic chance of consensus emerging. Nick (talk) 14:20, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

James Bodenstedt (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)

He's been recently covered for a single event. I don't think he quite meets the requirement, possibly MUY! does though. Jerod Lycett (talk) 22:05, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Jerod Lycett (talk) 22:05, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:17, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:17, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete he is a local level owner of a few franchised restuarants with news level coverage, nothing at all of note.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:20, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as you might expect from the article creator. It's hard to find too much coverage in privately owned companies, but revenue of $600+million and the largest Wendys franchisee reflect the size of the company. The guy has been invited to the White House and has been profiled in a few places. Yes, it's a borderline case. tedder (talk) 16:47, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - a week ago this would have been a delete, but he's notable for his Trump campaign donations and the negative effect it is having on the Wendy's Corporation as a whole. This would be a regular keep if I could find any decent profiles of him that aren't about the donations or owning Muy. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:32, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I am in agreement there on that. If there was coverage of more than just the one event I wouldn't have AfD'd it. As is though I think it fails. Jerod Lycett (talk) 08:33, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete: Seems to have gotten some coverage for one event but little more. A businessperson is generally considered notable if they are the head of large corporations, something that a ~600 million franchise isn't. Agree that it's borderline, but the coverage seems to be more about MUY! then Bodenstedt himself. Just owning a corporation and donating money to Trump doesn't make a person notable without in-depth and lasting coverage to back it up. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:09, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Not enough biographical coverage out there to meet WP:BLP. I'd have said merge with MUY! except, for whatever reason, that article does not exist. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:09, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Bodenstedt, Jim (2010-06-26). "Hunger for success. Finalist Retail & Wholesale". Smart Business Network. Archived from the original on 2020-06-25. Retrieved 2020-06-25.
  2. Weingartner, Nancy (2011-04-01). "Muy Buen Team: It takes a team to run a company, according to YUM! franchisee Jim Bodenstedt, and a big man to know he needs one". Franchise Times. Archived from the original on 2020-06-25. Retrieved 2020-06-25.
  3. "Roadrunners score first major alumni gift". San Antonio Business Journal. 2010-01-19. Archived from the original on 2020-06-25. Retrieved 2020-06-25.
  4. "$1 million = Touchdown". The Paisano. 2010-02-01. Archived from the original on 2020-06-25. Retrieved 2020-06-25.
  5. McInnis, Jennifer (2011-05-18). "CapRock Winery owner resides in San Antonio". San Antonio Express-News. Archived from the original on 2020-06-25. Retrieved 2020-06-25.
  6. Stice, Sharon (2020-06-06). "CEO Of Popular Fast Food Chains Slammed For Supporting POTUS". Canyon News. Archived from the original on 2020-06-25. Retrieved 2020-06-25.
  7. Dunn, Adrienne (2020-06-11). "Fact check: No, Wendy's CEO didn't give to Trump's campaign, but a franchise owner did". USA Today. Archived from the original on 2020-06-25. Retrieved 2020-06-25.
  8. Laurel, Lety (Summer 2012). "Taking Care of Business: Alumnus brings dollars and sense to chair university's capital campaign". Giving. University of Texas at San Antonio. Retrieved 2020-06-25.
  9. "A Special Report Campaign Highlights: Gifts from key donors led the way". Giving. University of Texas at San Antonio. Winter 2016. Archived from the original on 2020-06-25. Retrieved 2020-06-25.

  Sources with quotes

  Bodenstedt, Jim (2010-06-26). "Hunger for success. Finalist Retail & Wholesale". Smart Business Network. Archived from the original on 2020-06-25. Retrieved 2020-06-25. The article notes: Though Jim Bodenstedt runs several Taco Bell, Pizza Hut, KFC and Long John Silver’s restaurants today, he can still quote from the McDonald’s training manual he learned as a teenager. From an early age, he knew he wanted to own a restaurant company. At 15, he was accepted into McDonald’s management training program. By 17, he was a general manager. He read every manual he could find about running a restaurant and becoming a franchisee — and the self-teaching contributed to some of the material still stuck in his head. He further demonstrated his quick learning skills and innovation at the University of Texas at San Antonio. After he tested out of as many courses as he could to complete his master’s in accountancy degree in record time, the College of Business instituted the “Bodenstedt rule” to limit future students from testing out of graduate courses. Weingartner, Nancy (2011-04-01). "Muy Buen Team: It takes a team to run a company, according to YUM! franchisee Jim Bodenstedt, and a big man to know he needs one". Franchise Times. Archived from the original on 2020-06-25. Retrieved 2020-06-25. The article notes: After completing a deal with his former boss to buy his 31 Pizza Huts, plus purchasing an additional 77 units in Houston from the franchisor - bringing his total number of YUM! units to 226 with eight more under construction - Jim Bodenstedt and his team did what any executives would do with a quickly expanding company: They moved their restaurant support center to smaller quarters. ... Bodenstedt is on efficiencies like a dog on a bone. Saving money, time, effort and headaches is Jim Bodenstedt’s calling in life. ... Bodenstedt has always been an enterprising go-getter, and has attracted like-minded people to him.  He was born in southern Michigan, but moved to Texas when he was 4. “I tell everyone, I got here as soon as I could,” he says. He borrowed money to go to college, worked and graduated in 23 months. “I was planning to go to law school, so I needed to do it (college and law school) in five years,” he says of his financial timeline. It didn’t make sense at the time to go further into debt, when what he wanted was to make money and help other people get ahead in life. One of his first jobs was at McDonald’s and he was the youngest person at that time to attend Hamburger U. ... Bodenstedt and his wife, Cathy, believe education is important. Cathy just finished her college degree - and bought the Cap-Rock Winery near Lubbock. The couple donated $1 million in scholarships to their alma mater, University of Texas at San Antonio, to help fund the start of a football team. It’s not because he’s a football fan, Bodenstedt admits, but because a strong athletic program ultimately beefs up the arts, business and engineering programs. The gift was the largest in the school’s history. "Roadrunners score first major alumni gift". San Antonio Business Journal. 2010-01-19. Archived from the original on 2020-06-25. Retrieved 2020-06-25. The article notes: The Bodenstedts both graduated from UTSA. Today, the couple owns 117 Taco Bell, KFC, Pizza Hut, Wing Street, A&W and Long John Silver’s franchise restaurants. As a result of the donation, UTSA will name the Student Athletic Academic Center the James and Catherine Bodenstedt Athletic Learning Center later this year. The facility is a dedicated study and tutoring center for UTSA’s more than 250 athletes. "$1 million = Touchdown". The Paisano. 2010-02-01. Archived from the original on 2020-06-25. Retrieved 2020-06-25. The article notes: University of Texas at San Antonio officials announced Jan. 19 that Jim Bodenstedt, a graduate of UTSA’s College of Business (1996) and a local restaurant franchise owner, and his wife, Cathy Bodenstedt, a current undergraduate, are the first to award a million-dollar donation to support the upcoming UTSA football program. ... The Bodenstedt’s, who met in high school in the 1980’s, own a 117-unit franchise restaurant company known as MUY Brands LLC. It has acquired popular chains such as Taco Bell, KFC, Pizza Hut, Wing Street, Long John Silver’s and A&W restaurants. The company owns and operates locations in Texas and New Mexico. McInnis, Jennifer (2011-05-18). "CapRock Winery owner resides in San Antonio". San Antonio Express-News. Archived from the original on 2020-06-25. Retrieved 2020-06-25. The article notes: The winery most recently filed for bankruptcy last July, and her husband Jim came across the auction listing when he was looking up contact information for someone with the CapRock investment group that he had previously met. ... Bodenstedt and her husband have lived in San Antonio since 1988 and founded Muy Brands in 2003. The company has acquired more than 200 A&W, Kentucky Fried Chicken, Long John Silver's, Pizza Hut and Taco Bell franchises throughout Texas. Her husband bid on the winery and bowed out at $4.5 million. The winning bid of $6.5 million came from Laurent Gruet, of Gruet Winery that produces sparkling wine in New Mexico. ... The couple had to separate some assets to comply with the Texas Alcoholic and Beverage Commission's licensing, so Cathy owns the winery and Jim owns Muy Brands. Stice, Sharon (2020-06-06). "CEO Of Popular Fast Food Chains Slammed For Supporting POTUS". Canyon News. Archived from the original on 2020-06-25. Retrieved 2020-06-25. The article notes: James Bodenstedt, CEO of Muy Cos., which operates Pizza Hut, Wendy’s, and Taco Bell is under fire for donating funds to the reelection campaign of President Donald Trump. The recorded donations have been made over a two-year period starting in 2019. As of March 2020, large donations that accumulated would equal to approximately $200,000 from the Muy Cos. to President Trump’s re-election campaign (Trump Victory). ... [discussion of Trump's holding of a roundtable meeting at The White House with restaurant executives on May 18, 2020] Mr. Bodenstedt attended the meeting and spoke on behalf of the employees that work at his 765 restaurants across the U.S. He indicated that each restaurant has approximately 27 employees. Bodenstedt spoke of the needs of his employees and their families and the importance of how people treat one another; treating everyone that enters into the restaurants like family. Dunn, Adrienne (2020-06-11). "Fact check: No, Wendy's CEO didn't give to Trump's campaign, but a franchise owner did". USA Today. Archived from the original on 2020-06-25. Retrieved 2020-06-25. The article notes: James Bodenstedt is the CEO of MUY! Companies, which owns Wendy's, Taco Bell and Pizza Hut franchises across the country. ... According to Federal Election Commission records, Bodenstedt has donated more than $400,000 to the Trump re-election campaign since January 2019, $200,000 of which was given on March 12, days before restaurants began to shut down in response to COVID-19 in the U.S. Laurel, Lety (Summer 2012). "Taking Care of Business: Alumnus brings dollars and sense to chair university's capital campaign". Giving. University of Texas at San Antonio. Retrieved 2020-06-25. The article notes: When he was 16, Bodenstedt carried a briefcase to school instead of a backpack. Between classes, he’d rush to a payphone to call his stockbroker about the newest stock to buy or sell with $2,000 he had inherited from his great-grandparents.“I was the biggest geek in the world,” he laughs, recalling his teen years. ... He already knew he wanted to someday own or run a large restaurant. So he got a job at McDonald’s, and by 18 was managing a Houston store. ... Over the next decade he worked at McDonald’s and Taco Bell. He helped develop some of the 15 Alfonso’s/ChaCho’s restaurants in San Antonio at the time. Then he decided he wanted a law degree. He walked away from a $60,000 salary and for 23 months approached his undergraduate education at UTSA like he did business, working 80 hours a week. He also tested out of classes through the College Level Examination Program. "A Special Report Campaign Highlights: Gifts from key donors led the way". Giving. University of Texas at San Antonio. Winter 2016. Archived from the original on 2020-06-25. Retrieved 2020-06-25. The article notes: James Bodenstedt Alumnus Backs Business and Athletics When NCAA football began at UTSA, James Bodenstedt ’96 made the first million-dollar commitment to support athletic scholarships. Owner of MUY Brands LLC, a franchise restaurant company, Bodenstedt, a UTSA alumnus with a degree in accounting, is also the donor behind the $1 million Bodenstedt Chair for the Dean of Business. “I wanted to give back to the business school where I graduated, and I wanted to help Dean Gerry Sanders to grow programs and to better develop the College of Business,” he told UTSA Giving.

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow James Bodenstedt to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 10:04, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Notability (people) says: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability."

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources after combining all these sources. In 2010, James Bodenstedt donated $1 million to the University of Texas at San Antonio to create the Bodenstedt Chair for the Dean of Business. He also received significant coverage in 2010 and 2011 in the Smart Business Network and Franchise Times, respectively. This predates the coverage of his 2020 Trump campaign donations and White House visit, so WP:BLP1E does not apply.

  Cunard (talk) 10:04, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• While I appreciate your effort to find sourcing, I'd argue that the feature in Smart Business Network isn't indicative of notability, given that they say they focus on "helping the owners and managers of smaller [and later mid-sized] companies survive and prosper" and they focus on "deepen[ing] our value proposition for clients (about page). If you then read the article, it's clearly not neutral, ending with contact information for the company and has phrases like "From an early age, he knew he wanted to own a restaurant company" and "recognized the entrepreneurial spirit it took". It's basically a puff piece. Franchise Times is overall decent.

Sourcing about him donating $1 million to the college he graduated from doesn't indicate notability, particularly given that it only got covered in a local business journal (and business journals are known for publishing very promotional pieces) and a school newspaper and magazine.

Not only is the San Antonio Express News relatively local, the article is about his wife, not him. The rest of coverage is about him donating money to Trump, which makes him exactly a BLP1E. If there was coverage of his donations suggesting they were in any way special, it would be different. NPERSON says " multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." Here we have multiple non-independent sources (the University of Texas at San Antonio publications and likely Smart Business Network), a semi-decent feature in Franchise Times, passing mentions in relatively local publications and then the one event where he gave money to Trump. That's not enough to push him over the line of notability. This is a case where trivial mentions are not sufficient to establish notability. Best, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:02, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Franchise Times article is a detailed profile of the subject. The Canyon News article discusses his political activities. These two sources meet the Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline requirement for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". WP:BLP1E does not apply because the Franchise Times article published in 2011 is about his business career and is not about his donating money to Trump in 2020. The other sources are of lesser detail but contribute to notability per Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria saying that sources can be combined to establish notability.

Cunard (talk) 08:49, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per SNOW, pace to LongRoad, but no point in wasting people's time (although it should be noted that this closure is in spite of !votes from the ARS, not because of them: they are no more convincing than usual!). But there has, apart from that, been much good work done from other editors. I suggest the sources now apparently available, particularly those in Bangladeshi, are utilised in the article to avoid the otherwise unavoidable impression of fancruftdom.While we're at it, Timtrent, may I suggest that you adjust your signature in accordance with WP:CUSTOMSIG/P (A customised signature should make it easy to identify your username). All the best, ——Serial ^# 18:18, 5 July 2020 (UTC) (non-admin closure) ——Serial ^# 18:18, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shuvro (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 fictional character. No google hits. A dearth of reliable newsoutlets provide coverage. Nothing whatsoever in the literature. Pure fancruft with no current hope of passing our most basic requirements for a standalone article. WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE applies. ——Serial ^# 13:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC) ——Serial ^# 13:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ——Serial ^# 13:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Fiddle Faddle 16:20, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 21:31, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 21:32, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG. I was more charitable than the nom by leaving a PROD on it, but I'm as happy with their replacing that with AfD. Support exactly as nominated. These are wider than my reasons, which were simply no indication that it could pass WP:GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ Timtrent (talk • contribs) 14:07, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtrent: I'm awfully sorry, but your prod wasn't there when I opened the twinkle interface—if you look at the time stamps we were three minutes apart, and I assure you it takes me longer than that to write a nomination  :) but sorry to have erased your work, particularly as it was exceptionally thorough reasoning! ——Serial ^# 13:15, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Serial Number 54129, I'm content with AfD. Worry not. It still gives the creating editor and others seven days to work on it if they can save it. It would have been my next stop had PROD been removed unchanged.

For extra clarity my rationale was "Fails WP:GNG. PROD added to give author a fighting chance to sort out referencing. We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this article survive (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today." Yours is more succinct 👀 Fiddle Faddle 13:24, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, fails WP:GNG. I declined this at WP:AFC, user moved it to main space regardless. Theroadislong (talk) 13:50, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have searched for references under the alternative spelling of "Shubhro" and found a published work on Amazon that indicated that this is an alternative spelling. I have used it to cite that factet. Even so I see this as a primary source. More diligent work at sourcing may find more than passing mentions, but that is all I can find. I have not found anything so far to make me alter my !vote, but I am willing to be persuaded by the work of others Fiddle Faddle 15:15, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I now see referencing sufficient to allow me to suggest the article be retained. There is more referencng required, but as we are often reminded, AfD is not a Cleanup process. Though a cleanup is a useful by-product. Fiddle Faddle 20:57, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The character appears in a series of six books by Humayun Ahmed, a best-selling author in Bangladesh. It doesn't appear that there were many (if any) English translations of the books, so most of the coverage is in Bengali. I found a couple of good sources:
  • "Shubhro: An Epitome of Perfection" by Apurba Jahangir (The Daily Star, 2017)
  • "Shuvro: The softest hero created by Humayun Ahmed" by Syed Monzur Morshed (Roar Media, 2018)

Ahmed was tremendously popular, described by The Times of India at the time of his death as "the Shakespeare of Bangladesh". I know that notability is not inherited; I just mention Ahmed's reputation to say that there are likely to be more sources in Bengali. Unfortunately for us English-speakers, the name শুভ্র can be transliterated as Shuvro, Shubhro or Śubhra, and the word means "white", so it's not easy to search for. Still, I would encourage people in this discussion to think globally, and not assume that a character is unimportant simply because the work is unknown to English speakers. — Toughpigs (talk) 21:29, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Toughpigs you have come under some criticism on your talk page for use of some sources seen as less than reliable. On your own talk page you have explained and justified to me why you have used them. I accept that deployment, since they are simply showing non contentious facts. In your comment there to another editor you suggested that discussion come here, so I am opening it by asking for your comment either here or on this AfD's talk page, at your discretion. As a side note, it might be worth using ((efn)) for those to split them out as notes, avoiding a dispute over referencing. Fiddle Faddle 22:27, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was using Goodreads to verify the publication dates for the six novels, since it was an English-language source verifying simple facts. However, I don't want to upset people, so I took the Goodreads citations out. The list of books can live without citations, if you think that that's better. — Toughpigs (talk) 22:47, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How about using ISBNs, which does a similar job? Fiddle Faddle 22:51, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP The Times of India news article proves he was a notable person. Dream Focus 03:24, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • But we are not talking about Humayun Ahmed, only about his character. You seem to be confused as to what this AfD is about. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:40, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • He was notable for this hugely popular character as well as Baker Bhai, Himu, and Misir Ali. Is the name also spelled Shubhro? Anyway, other sources found as well. This is the main character in some of his bestselling books. Dream Focus 05:11, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Humayun Ahmed is obviously a versatile genious. And one of his 'genious' creations is Shuvro. Please don't consider it for deletion, it is a very important part of Bangla literature. Please let this article stay, I understand that i am not good at writing an article but it has been drastically improved by Toughpigs and the article will be improved in the near future by hundreds and thousands of fans of Shuvro.

Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suborno Sabbir (talk • contribs) 04:52, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - passes WP:GNG per sources shown above. One of the most popular fictional characters of Bengali literature. --Zayeem ^(talk) 17:47, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I realized that there's been a misunderstanding about one of the sources I've used in the article. The paper that is listed in the Perennial sources list as unreliable is the Daily Star (UK). The paper that I used as a source in this article is The Daily Star (Bangladesh). These are unrelated newspapers that happen to have the same name. I've left a message on the nominator's page, explaining the situation and asking if it's okay to put the Bangladesh Daily Star material back in the article. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:06, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 09:40, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Article that doesn't cite any sources about a plane that was never made. There is a few trivial mentions in blogs and a couple of brief sentences in some articles, but nothing in-depth that would pass WP:GNG. Which would make sense because apparently not much else seems to be known about it aside from that it was being designed at some point. So, likely won't be any in-depth coverage of it anywhere. At least not that isn't mostly speculation or original research. Adamant1 (talk) 12:48, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:54, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:54, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:54, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notification of the existence of this AfD has been made at WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this article falls. - Ahunt (talk) 13:00, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - Although this project never resulted in any hardware being built and was never likely to have resulted in hardware, it does seem to have resulted in a fair amount of contemporary coverage - approximately a page's worth in Jane's All the World's Aircraft 1982–83 (pp. 807–808) as well as the magazine articles - while from memory I think that the Flight International coverage was pretty minimal (their on-line archive is down), I seem to recall that the Air International article was a bit longer (I no longer have a copy of the magazine in question. This coverage probably allows GNG to be just about passed.Nigel Ish (talk) 14:29, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that the Air International article appears to be written by a David Williams, the same name as the Addax's designer - while Air International is a good RS, the closer may need to be careful when considering the Williams article's contribution to natability.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:17, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    His article states that he was the designer and was invited to write it for that reason. That invitation alone helps establish notability, and don't forget it would have been subjected to editorial review. Where appropriate we do cite works by historical designers such as Geoffrey de Havilland, Sir Richard Fairey or Alexander Lippisch, no harm in doing so here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:35, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong SNOW keep. Several of the sources cited or otherwise mentioned are top-quality RS for establishing notability. More are identified at https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/addax-1-s-new-zealand-combat-aircraft.235/ This was clearly a notable project which passes WP:GNG. Since the company appears to have no article and to be notable primarily for this design, this article is the best place to gather relevant information. That might change if enough can be put together about their other designs, but that is for the future. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:22, 4 July 2020 (UTC) [Update] Content has been added and referencing improved since this AfD was posted. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:35, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Article has now been expanded with new information from Janes, which is pretty much the gold standard for aircraft, in establishing WP:GNG. Obviously now should be retained as of historical note, even though the aircraft was not completed. - Ahunt (talk) 18:59, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Ahunt - if this warranted inclusion in Jane's, it means there's sufficient high quality coverage to meet our inclusion criteria. Nick-D (talk) 23:31, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Ahunt. Unbuilt aircraft can be notable if they meet GNG, which the article now does. - BilCat (talk) 00:00, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Good that the article was expanded. It still only has three references though. The third one is repeated several times as if it's different, but it's the same source. I just don't think personally that it's enough. If the article is going to have 4 sections there should really be more sourcing involved in it. Plus, now the article is written in borderline prose form. It's suppose to be an encyclopedic entry that summaries the sources. Not an almost 1/1, word for word, blow by blow of a few sources. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:32, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The third source is cited three times in the text because each time is a different page or page combination. As for the amount of sources, three high quality sources are generally sufficient to prove notability, and if we find more high quality sources, that's a bonus. Copyvios/close paraphrasing, while definitely a serious matter, is a separate issue, and entirely irrelevant to notability. As to what you meant by "borderline prose form", I have no clue what you think that means, as all articles are supposed to written partially or wholly in prose per MOS:PROSE, other than list articles and the like. - BilCat (talk) 07:15, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I wouldn't call the second source "high quality." Most of it is extreme details on things like pricing that aren't relevant to or suited for a general audience. Maybe other things like the plane having 807 turbofans is relevant to plane fanatics, but the aim of Wikipedia isn't to be an encyclopedia for those types of people. So, if you mean "high quality" as in "people who are really into planes will enjoy this" sure, but it's not high quality in relation to helping create an article that everyone can read and understand. Most people don't know or care what a "turbofan" is. Let alone how many the plane has. Unfortunately, that type of stuff seems to be mostly what was added to the article. Maybe AfDs aren't cleanup, but if the keeps votes are based on what content was added, then it's worth noting that said content still doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards. Other articles about products aren't that way either. For instance, the F-Series article doesn't go into obtuse detail about the dimensions and weight of the trucks tire. By "borderline prose form" that's what I meant. Along with how the "development" section is written. One definition of prose is "talk tediously." I'd say that's how the section is. For instance "blended wing-fuselage layout with high enclosed volume utilisation (EVU) and offering STOL capability." Seriously, no one knows what STOL capability is or cares about it. It's just a bunch of industry buzzwords, that where probably lifted straight from the article to act as filler so people will vote keep based on "article content." Like that's an AfD standard. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:33, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's also worth mention that the second source is a product advertisement. So, I'm pretty sure it's not valid for notability due to that and a lot of the "content" in the article that people are using to justify voting keep comes from it. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:04, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamant1: Which is the "second source"? I see no product advertisements in any of the three cited. You are not mistaking an invited and editorially reviewed article for paid advertising space or sponsored "advertorial", are you? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:22, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

""Kiwis Design a Tank-Killer for Farmers." I'm saying it's an advert for a few reasons. 1. It's an anonymous "article" or it's written by a person who works for the company, I can't really tell (BTW, AfD's are usually against both of those, advertisement or not). 2. It's not really a review or anything that would be considered "neutral" fair telling of the aircraft. It's just an overlay positive listing of aircraft features with a few buzz words mixed in. The main thing that makes it seem like an advertisement is the sales hook at the end. "Interested at an estimated flyaway cost of 2.7 Million? Then write to Dave Williams, IML Group Aerospace Products Division, PO BOX 1202, Gisborne, New Zealand." "Interested?, then write to.." That sounds like the end of an advert to me. I don't know about the magazines editorial control, but I do know that plenty of magazines have "guest writers" that are either company reps or paid to write a glorified review of a product with the purpose of advertising it. Especially in the early 80s when the "article" was written. The fact that it's an anonymous piece and the bit at the end are big giveaways for me though. Otherwise, they would have been up front about who wrote it and not told us how to contact the company if we wanted to buy one or included the price. Adverts always wait until the end to provide that information also. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:44, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are way off in your suppositions. Flight was and is one of the most globally respected professional aviation journals. This piece was published in an editorial news column. Such pieces can draw their content from a wide variety of sources but are almost never signed, no matter who wrote them. What matters is that the editorial team gave it their stamp of approval. This is how it has always been done. The inclusion of contact details strikes me as a way to fill the last couple of lines on the page and slip in a wry smile at the same time; to read in anything more is paranoia. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:44, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's weird, because I was just looking at other articles in Flight and some do have the authors names, while others don't. It can "respected" all it wants, that doesn't mean everything they print is automatically acceptable to use as a source and a sources "respectability" isn't mentioned as a clause to the thing about anonymously written sources. Your the one making it about the magazine anyway though. I never said I had a problem with the magazine or that the magazine is an advertisement. There's plenty of otherwise reputable sources where certain articles don't work for notability because that particular source isn't a good one. Your free to ignore that and call me paranoid, just don't claim I have an issue with the magazine when that's not what I said. I'll also add that a lot of their other articles, or really none that I saw, used contact information in the last couple of lines of the article as a joke. There was a reason they decided to do it in this case. You might call it "being cheeky" or whatever, but I call it advertising. Otherwise, there was no point in including it. The article above that doesn't end with contact information. Neither does most, or all, of the other ones I looked at. BTW, jokes can still be advertising. So, I don't really get what your point there is about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:15, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please yourself what you call it. It may seem weird to you that short editorial news pieces are hardly ever signed and occasionally include contact details, but that's the way it is. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:46, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My argument has never been that magazines don't sometimes have anonymous short editorial pieces, its always been that Wikipedia has a problem with them being used to establish notability. That's it. So get it right and stop making this about something it isn't. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:19, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please respect WP:CIVIL. My apologies for not realising that "That's weird, because I was just looking at other articles in Flight and some do have the authors names," was about Wikipedia, but that was hardly obvious. Dare I suggest that TL:DR may also have helped to obscure your meaning. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:00, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think at least in spirit if not in practice that WP:CIVIL would apply to reading what people wrote so your clear about what they were saying before you respond to it and not miss quoting them repeatedly. I could be wrong though, but that does seem like the civil to do anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:33, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, it didn't fly but as pointed out above there are sources. Vici Vidi (talk) 07:39, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:42, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Non notable musician. Has been unreferenced, apart from primary sources, since at least 2016. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 12:48, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 12:48, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 12:48, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 12:48, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not even one source is remotely close to being reliable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:56, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Leaning keep. Appears to pass WP:NSINGER#2 as two of his songs have charted #1 and #2 in Thailand, according to th:Jui Juis. pburka (talk) 15:03, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Here's Manager's review of his 2009 EP, which covers his life and career.[29] Has appeared multiple times on ThaiPBS's music talk show Nak Phachon Phleng.[30][31][32] --Paul_012 (talk) 15:51, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have added awards he received. It's a respectable award from radio station Fat Radio (now becomes Cat Radio). --Lerdsuwa (talk) 13:41, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you Lerdsuwa. Are there reliable secondary sources to confirm these awards? They are currently not sourced. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 14:41, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, @Cardiffbear88: reliable secondary sources to confirm the awards?? There is not even 1 wp:rs, for me its a Delete. Dtt1^Talk 19:04, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  The reference I provided IS secondary source. kapook.com is one of Thailand oldest website. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 12:06, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  This reference mentioned that kapook took number 1 web portal in Thailand in terms of unique IP address some time ago (around 2012) [33]. As of today it is still number 4 for Thai's site [34] and 14th overall [35] --Lerdsuwa (talk) 12:25, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as he does seem to have charting hits and is also signed to a major label Sony Music so he has claims to pass WP:NMUSIC (only one criteria needed) in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 19:29, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Non notable --Devokewater (talk) 13:39, 13 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.