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. I recommend not bundling articles together unless a single rationale can be applied to all of them. Here, each organization stands on its own merits, and it is hard to discern a consensus when several non-equivalent entries are in the mix. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:12, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vancouver Furious George (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 seeing WP:GNG. Club teams are pay-to-play and "national championships" aren't really that due to the pay-to-play nature and the emergence of semi-pro leagues that dilute the talent pool. Also nominating other non-notable ultimate entities that do not satisfy GNG. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 13:36, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 13:36, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seattle Riot (Ultimate) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Seattle Sockeye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Disc Northwest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Delete fails WP:ORG/WP:NSPORT. No relaible source, not a single source describing topic of the article. 4 of the sources seem spam. Drat8sub (talk) 13:41, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 13:43, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (most) The articles are in a poor state, but it wasn't hard to find multiple independent secondary sources (which seem reliable enough) for most of them, which should satisfy WP:GNG. Just FYI regarding the national championships, there are financial barriers to playing any sport; the semi-professional leagues have non-overlapping schedules with the club season (and the dilution of the club talent pool is minimal, if anything its the other way around); most of the cited national championships happened before the existence of semi-professional leagues; the articles also cite worlds level championships. The three clubs here have won major international tournaments held on 4-year cycles, and to quote this line from WP:NSPORT: "that sports figures are likely to meet Wikipedia's basic standards of inclusion if they have, for example, participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level" AZ 02:08, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there were two prior AfDs 1 2 that were consensus keep. AZ 03:12, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To augment comment from AndyZ: The Championships are run by the National Governing Body for Sport in the US, part of the USOPC and World Flying Disc Federation, part of the IOC. These events are analogous to other smaller international sporting events which are part of the Olympic family. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahgoff (talk • contribs) 21:15, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note this was the user's first edit. Ahgoff, I'm not sure how that six-degrees line of reasoning implies notability. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 18:52, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The USA Ultimate Club National Championships have been contested for men since 1979 and women since 1981. Vancouver Furious George have won three championships, multiple Canadian national championships, and are still competing at the highest level today. Seattle Sockeye are the defending club national champions and have won four club titles overall. Seattle Riot have won two national championships and are still competing at the very highest level. The statement that "club teams are pay-to-play and 'national championships' aren't really that due to the pay-to-play nature and the emergence of semi-pro leagues that dilute the talent pool" is completely non-sensical. First, there are many "pay-to-play" (read: amateur) sports leagues, teams, and individuals that are worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia. Second, there is no ambiguity about whether the USAU Club National Championships represent a true national championship of ultimate frisbee. Third, semi-pro leagues such as the American Ultimate Disc League are comprised of the same players that compete in the USAU club series. If anything, the AUDL talent pool is diluted by most players preferring to exclusively play in the USAU club series. As quoted above from WP:NSPORT: "sports figures are likely to meet Wikipedia's basic standards of inclusion if they have, for example, participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level" [[1]] 13:57, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:55, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:55, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In case it wasn't clear from my comment above, I had added multiple secondary sources and cleared a few of the dead links. There are many more secondary sources from Ultimate media, which probably would fall under WP:N but I didn't want to start a debate about that. The previous state of the articles does not imply lack of notability (WP:ARTN/WP:NEXIST). AZ 05:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No media coverage to speak of. I've lived in Vancouver or the lower mainland for many decades and had never heard of these guys until now, and I read the Vancouver Sun six days a week and watch the sports channels every day. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:16, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've linked to this AfD on Talk:Ultimate (sport) in the hope that the keep side of the debate gets argued more lucidly.— Charles Stewart (talk) 11:51, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:37, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Werewolf Reborn! (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 3rd party reviews. Donaldd23 (talk) 22:45, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per lack of notability. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 00:27, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 22:45, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 22:45, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, Not enough coverage, fails notability Alex-h (talk) 09:09, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:07, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Frankenstein & the Werewolf Reborn! (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 3rd party reviews. This film is a compilation of 2 shorts...one of which doesn't even have its own article, and the other one also of questionable notability. Donaldd23 (talk) 22:45, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; I agree it doesn't meet notability standard. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 00:28, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 22:45, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 22:45, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Doesn't pass WP:NFO. Only passing mentions in film directory websites can be found. - Harsh 13:57, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mz7 (talk) 21:40, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Unsourced since 2008. I'm aware there is no deadline, but this is ridiculous. 11 years, 8 months, 30 days. This is one of hundreds of articles on video game companies that have no sources at all. I have so far held off from nominating them because nominating all of them would overwhelm AfD, and nominating only one of them seems unfair. I'm choosing this one because it's on my watchlist and was recently updated, and the sources that are listed at the only article about a game this article links to (Spore Origins) make no mention of the subject at all. Vexations (talk) 13:37, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 13:37, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 13:37, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I added some sources to the article. More are still needed but it’s a start. Balle010 (talk) 18:33, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non notable company with no notable games. Donaldd23 (talk) 21:23, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Spore Origins at least has an article. Captain Galaxy (talk) 16:27, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I have added two new citations. Captain Galaxy (talk) 16:27, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:29, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails WP:NCORP. The new sources added are not reliable. The GameZone source is only a company profile page and does not indicate notability. OceanHok (talk) 16:23, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails GNG as there is no significant coverage in reliable, third-party published sources. It also fails all of the additional criteria at NCORP. Woodroar (talk) 21:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect to Spore Origins. Just insufficient coverage in reliable third party sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:42, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 22:05, 22 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. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:34, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scouting and Guiding in Belarus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Another article related to Scouts-in-Exteris, though I am loath to nominating them as a batch. Here is another non-notable organization, though this one seems to cite secondary sources; look closer, though, and discover that the Kroonenberg book, The Undaunted: Keeping the Scouting Spirit Alive, is hardly an objective secondary source. In other words: non-notable, borderline promotional. Drmies (talk) 00:52, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:55, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:55, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to International Union of Guides and Scouts of Europe#Member organizations. Per nom, this fails GNG, as it sourced to a book which is a primary source and an interview. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:57, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I can't see how this is not going to be notable, but the sparcity of English language sources makes it difficult. The book Scouting for Girls: A Century of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts [2] has some non-trivial coverage on page 163 an 164 and there is this article on a Russian language site, but the article is in English. I can't get a handle on how RS compliant that site is (because of the language) but it looks ok as far as I can tell. SpinningSpark 23:26, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Normally I would not be swayed by an argument like Spinning's. If the reference do not exist and people cannot find them, then it fails the notability guidelines. But, common sense tells me that this is very much the case for this article. While references may be difficult to obtain, there is no doubt in my mind that they exist. I will take a gentle stab at finding some, at least enough to tide the article over until someone who cares about Scouting or Belarus pops up. Ifnord (talk) 21:38, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ifnord: I think you are misreading what I said. I am not presenting a "sources must exist" argument (although I do think that); I presented two reliable, independent sources that, in my opinion, get across the line of notability. In addition, there are enough reliable primary sources (which are fine to use for verifiability, but not notability) to build a decent article. SpinningSpark 23:12, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, in response to the original nom, sources are not required to be neutral in order to be reliable per WP:BIAS, also explicitly stated in the WP:NPOV policy. So unless the nom has something else against Kroonenberg's book, it is fine as far as I'm concerned. Also, excluding any source that has any connection at all with the scouting movement is just plain ridiculous. That's like excluding all sources written by a scientist in a science article. And I note that this article is not about a specific organisation, it is about scouting in general and covers a number of organisations. SpinningSpark 15:00, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment/ Very weak Keep - The second site listed by Spinningspark definitely doesn't seem to meet reliability - it seems to be just a pure file upload site with no editorial oversight. The book reference is just a single paragraph, but does probably meet the non-trivial distinction. I've tried to find some other sources, but am having trouble. This PDF from Google scholar seems to be a random student paper, no evidence of publication or editorial review. I have found some Russian sources that seem promising, Classification, Essence And Functions Of Children's And Youth Associations In The Republic Of Belarus, Social Partnership of Institutions of Additional Education for Children and Youth and Children's Public Associations in the Space of Social Education in Belarus, and Youth Diplomacy As a Tool of Forming Positive Image of the Republic Of Belarus in European Political Space, but these are in Russian and not friendly to Google translate. Adding to the Russian delsort list in hopes of reaching a wider Russian-speaking audience. My inclination is that the sources probably theoretically exist to support this, but at this point I can't say for certain, so I am !voting the weakest possible keep. MarginalCost (talk) 15:31, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @MarginalCost: Thank you for establishing the reliability of the Russian site, but I think that we can still accept the article under the terms of WP:SPS. The authors are shown on the first page of that upload here, one of whom is N.K. Radevich, head of the educational-methodical department of foreign languages ​​of the Minsk Regional Institute for the Development of Education. Scholar returns this paper co-authored by Natalya Kazimirovna Radevich (she is definitely the same person since the institution affiliation is the same). Machine translation of the publication details gives Education of the Minsk Region, No 5 (52), 2014. A prima facie reliable journal, so Radevich is previously published on youth matters thus meeting WP:SPS. And besides that, we still have Piet J. Kroonenberg's book which is the source the article actually relies on, and Kroonenberg is self-evidentently an expert in scouting. SpinningSpark 16:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 15:31, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: It feels like we're overthinking this one. If there is a scouting organization in Belarus that was founded in 1909 and joined the World Organization of the Scouting Movement in 2010, then I have no doubt that it's possible to build on the sources that people have identified in the course of this conversation. As far as I can tell from this discussion, nobody who has participated can actually speak or read Russian, and it is slightly painful to see people who can't read Russian second-guessing the idea that a century-old Russian organization would be covered in Russian-language sources. No one is suggesting that this article is a hoax; it's just that it was assembled between 2006 and 2010, when we didn't have strict standards on sources. I know there isn't a policy on WP:PEDANTRY, but discussions like this make me wish there was. — Toughpigs (talk) 03:02, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Can someone provide me the correct link to that russian article? I think i can decode what is written there because i'm fairly good at translation. The link seems to be dead. Regards Pesticide1110 ^{Lets wrestle!} 07:48, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Pesticide1110: which article are you having problems with? The article on the Russian site I was talking about is actually written in English so doesn't need translating. User:MarginalCost listed three Russian language sources, all of which work for me. If you are still having trouble, you can send me an e-mail and I will forward a copy to you. SpinningSpark 09:58, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• SpinningSpark There's a russian source in the article itself. I tried opening it but it didn't open. Btw thanks for these links you provided above. Im going to check these. Regards Pesticide1110 ^{Lets wrestle!} 10:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Pesticide1110: A copy has been archived here. SpinningSpark 12:08, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

( Slightly better archive copy, this one has the header, but still no pictures archived. SpinningSpark 12:20, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• SpinningSpark Which one is this? Is this the reference from the article or one of those that Marginal cost pointed out. P.S. the full translation of all those three articles and my judgement regarding this case is forthcoming. Regards Pesticide1110 ^{Lets wrestle!} 12:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• It's the reference from the article, as you requested. SpinningSpark 12:27, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: So after an hour of continuous research about the topic, i have finally decided to favour keeping the article. MarginalCost should be given a guard of honor for finding those three sources. I still can't figure out how the hell did he do that.

The following paragraph explains why i think the article should be kept:

The main two concerns i had, on which i am to base my opinion, about the article were WP:N and WP:GNG. First of all, its impossible to fully read the whole articles given by the sources of MarginalCost. It seems to cover the entire history. So i read only a few important lines. Combining the knowledge i gathered from all of the three above sources, i can say that the movement had a far-reaching impact on people's lives then. And hence the historical and cultural significance can hardly be doubted. It is definitely a one-of-its-kind movement in Belarusian history so for me it passes WP:N. Regarding WP:GNG, we the english wikipedians, can not tell it with that much accuracy since we cannot understand and find most of the sources that are about the subject. But still from the four sources provided by MarginalCost, 2 sources by the article itself and one by Spark, we can cite all the content in the article. And all the citations can be considered reliable. Especially the three provided by MarginalCost is written by the lecturers of Belarusian State University and hence is reliable. Overall the movement is of a very high historical significance and hence it is must to have an article on wikipedia about it. Regards Pesticide1110 ^{Lets wrestle!} 13:30, 19 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. (non-admin closure) Captain Galaxy (talk) 22:30, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Poor references provided despite several opportunities to expand. Article is more of a CV rather than an article. Doesn't fit WP:GNG criteria. - Funky Snack (Talk) 14:24, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:41, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2006-05 ✗ deleted

• Keep I think he was fairly famous in the late 60s, I've added some details, but struggling to find sources outside his local area, but I'll keep trying Piecesofuk (talk) 14:22, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "key pioneer in commercial radio" according to Music Week, also his radio show received a Music Week nomination in 2012 Piecesofuk (talk) 17:16, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as he seems to be a notable radio dj prominent on Radio Caroline and the BBC as confirmed in reliable sources, so passes WP:BASIC, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Per above, he seems to be a notable radio broadcaster. Alex-h (talk) 09:22, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 16:40, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 16:40, 24 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 redirect -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:07, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aeglos (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 dab page is not necessary per WP:TWODABS. It looks like this was a dab page from 2007 until 2020, where it was redirected to Middle-earth weapons and armour#Aeglos by @BenKuykendall:. In May, the dab page was restored by @Rich Farmbrough:. A Google search reveals that the spear definitely has primary topic over the plant. Therefore, this should be redirected to Middle-earth weapons and armour#Aeglos, since the spear is the primary topic. Aeglos (disambiguation) should then be deleted per WP:G14, and a hatnote should be added to the section about the spear pointing to the sentence about the plant at List of fictional plants. Hog Farm (talk) 21:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 21:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 21:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 21:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Middle-earth weapons and armour#Aeglos; the plant is rather unimportant. I don't think we even need a hat note: the plant Aeglos is barely discussed at List of fictional plants § In J. R. R. Tolkien's Middle-earth which only says Aeglos: a plant, similar to a gorse named for the Elvish 'snow-thorn'. The relevant sentence could even be added to Middle-earth weapons and armour#Aeglos. BenKuykendall (talk) 22:24, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Change per Hog Farm a section hat note seems reasonable. Let me know and I'll g7 the dab page. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 08:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]
  
• Redirect to Middle-earth weapons and armour § Aeglos The spear is the primary topic. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 10:22, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per nom and others above. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:59, 21 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 redirect -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:53, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kismet (comics) (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)

Set index article consisting of one bluelink, one blacklink, and one redlink. The blacklink and the redlink don't appear to be particularly important/notable, and don't seem to be mentioned anywhere on the Wikipedia, although I may have missed something. Currently, this SIA has only one working target, and this would not make a good base name for that one target, per the comics MOS. Hog Farm (talk) 21:49, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 21:49, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 21:49, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 21:49, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the DC Comics entry was deleted at AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kismet (DC Comics), removing all links. On the fence between a cheap redirect and delete. -2pou (talk) 13:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Kismet (Marvel Comics) as the only valid entry on the current disambiguation page. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:06, 21 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 deleted as G5. (non-admin closure) —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 09:11, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hasht Behesht (TV series) (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 doesn't seem to be notable. No significant coverage in English or Persian. Hanooz (talk) 14:21, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 16:21, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 16:21, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:47, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

It is a bit of a mystery how this article about a fitness instructor stayed below the radar for so long – there is no claim to notability, and the only coverage in independent sources is in connection with the tragic accident that killed him. (There is also a trivial mention here, but that has no information about Shao, it just lists his name). I have attempted to find sources to confirm some of the claims in the article, but only come up with primary sources and Wikipedia mirrors. bonadea contributions talk 17:39, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 17:39, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bodybuilding-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 17:39, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 17:39, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Lacks the significant coverage that would establish notability. The references in the article don't really do it. The news article is a reliable source, but it really is about the family trying to return the body from Thailand. It's a news item and not an obituary. The second source is a directory listing and is useful to verify a fact but useless for establishing notability. He is mentioned here but that is again useless for establishing notability. The best I could find was his youtube channel in a list of top fitness channels here. That's way too little to clear the notability bar. -- Whpq (talk) 01:58, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTMEMORIAL now there are thousands of fitness trainers not clear how the subject is notable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:23, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 03:09, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Underground Gaming (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 e-sports organization from Kuwait. Sources are almost all social media. This is the last remaining of a bunch of articles created by this author on the subject. JTtheOG (talk) 20:44, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:57, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:57, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kuwait-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:57, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• DELETE Prize money is between 30 and 350 dollars. This is just some local thing, not a real tournament. Dream Focus 01:31, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP As long as all resources are reliable, the wiki page is still a stub so it should be fine, but no clarification for prize money on references so remove the prize money numbers Khs17 21:08, 19 June 2020 (GMT +3)

  Which references are reliable sources by Wikipedia standareds? YouTube and Instagram don't count. See WP:RS Dream Focus 20:12, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEPAgree with past agreement; As long as all resources are reliable, the wiki page is still a stub so it should be fine, but no clarification for prize money on references so remove the prize money numbers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baderalfahad99 (talk • contribs) 18:28, 19 June 2020 (UTC) — Baderalfahad99 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment - *sigh* He didn't even try to change the words huh? Just a straight copy-paste. JTtheOG (talk) 19:31, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails GNG due to no significant coverage in reliable, third-party published sources. Woodroar (talk) 21:10, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per nom and Woodroar. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 16:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - sources are not reliable when they are self-published, since they can say anything. Also impossible to write a neutral, verifiable article without substantial coverage in third party sources, which is why we have the WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:44, 22 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 moved to Draft:Sabina Almammadova. The article should not be restored to mainspace unless it satisfies normal AfC review. BD2412 T 03:56, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This article is written like a resume -- no reliable sources.P,TO 19104 (talk) (contributions) 20:47, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:54, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:54, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:31, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete potentially notable academic but there is a distinct lack of reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. Polyamorph (talk) 11:44, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify I think she might be quite or really heavy-duty. A lot of these Russian, or satellite Russian academics are hard to verify at the best of times. Its contingent on us to a least get somebody, a specialist, to look at it and drum up some refs, if they exist. scope_creep^Talk 19:32, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:38, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Doesn't meet WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 20:32, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete being a body double in a major film is not a significant role, so does not meet actor notability and the sourcing is not enough to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:57, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Lacks significant independent coverage to meet WP:NACTOR. Appears to have written an autobiography but that is not by itself notable. Hzh (talk) 14:46, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mz7 (talk) 22:21, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Hall Stewart (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)

Previously deleted bio of non notable businesswoman, resume-like and lacking sufficient reliable independent sources. Mccapra (talk) 20:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep seems notable between the 2018 Globe reference already in the article and a 2012 Toronto Sun reference that's still online. I don't see any indication that their middle name is Hall though (it surely is, but WP:COMMONNAME). Article should be renamed "Karen Stewart (entrepreneur)" or something. The content of the article itself is dreadful - needs a complete rewrite, so it doesn't sound like a paid advertisement. Nfitz (talk) 00:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is clear - and a weak keep shouldn't slow it. Nfitz (talk) 21:46, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 09:30, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this is a spammy PR puff piece and the subject lacks notability based on the utter lack of in depth coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 16:26, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No real coverage outwith the above puff articles. Couldn't find a single notable ref. Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 20:11, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — Per rationale provided by scope_creep. Celestina007 (talk) 00:00, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:BIO and WP:N. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:36, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no real coverage, does not pass notability. Alex-h (talk) 09:35, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mz7 (talk) 22:22, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of pages in Shughni Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Per WP:LISTCRUFT, WP:NOTDIRECTORY, and WP:SALAT. Related AFD: WP:Articles for deletion/Pages in Karakalpak Wikipedia. Schazjmd (talk) 20:11, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tajikistan-related deletion discussions. Schazjmd (talk) 20:12, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Yuck. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:50, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:40, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no reason for this to exist--Jac16888 ^Talk 09:04, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. A list of pages can be found at Special:PrefixIndex/Wp/sgh/ (linked on the test-wiki's main page) - Flori4nK ^{t • c} 16:27, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete What is this???!!! I’m suprised it hasn’t already gotten speedy deleted. RedRiver660 talk 19:13, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per nom. Wikipedia is not a directory. However, if (for some reason) you were to want a list of all pages on that Wikipedia, it's thataway. --Jack Frost (talk) 11:08, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above ~ Amkgp 💬 17:20, 24 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 redirect to The Fairly OddParents (season 6)#ep75. The assessment that the sources are only short blurbs appears correct; therefore the redirect arguments are much stronger in determining consensus, and I don't see grounds for keeping this discussion running longer. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:26, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fairly OddBaby (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 TV special. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 14:53, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Non notable The Fairly OddParents TV movie. I didn't found anything that indicates notability. The sourcing in the article relies on databases, but my Google search did not turn up any better. Trivial mentions and databases, forums, Amazon pages and links where you can watch the film/buy the DVD. But nothing that indicates notability. While FOP is obviously a notable show, its made-for-TV specials does not deserve their own articles as they are better suited for a fandom wiki (in fact there is a FOP fandom wiki). This movie has articles on other wikis too but the sourcing is a problem on every one of them (some of them does not even cite any sources, while the rest cites sites like IMDb, TV.com and Big Cartoon Database as sources). GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 14:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 14:54, 10 June 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 14:54, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to The Fairly OddParents (season 6), I think the summary for the episode in that article I linked is just enough for this episode. Pahiy (talk) 17:30, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 17:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC) [reply]

• Redirect to The Fairly OddParents (season 6)#ep75 (a little more specifically). Episode redirects are WP:CHEAP and commonly used. -2pou (talk) 18:33, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I see three reliable sources talking about this film and its notability:
  • "Good weekend for 'Fairly Odd'", Hollywood Reporter (Feb 21, 2008): "The show's Presidents' Day special, "Fairly OddBaby," averaged 8.8 million total viewers from 8-9 p.m. Monday, making it the biggest audience ever for an "OddParents" episode... So far this year, the special ranks as the most-watched entertainment program on all of TV in all kids demos."
  • "Ratings more than 'Fair' for Nick", Variety (Feb 20, 2008): "Nickelodeon has come up with the biggest audience of the year for a kid show... Because “OddBaby” is an extension of Nick’s bellwether hit series “The Fairly OddParents,” it was able to get a 1 million-hit boost from the “OddParents” website, which began the promotion on Feb. 7. Other online promotions, including a videogame, a streaming video and various message boards, also scored hundreds of thousands of hits."
  • There's also another Variety article from 2011 about a Phineas & Ferb film, which says the film's performance "was highest in those demos for an animated program since Nickelodeon’s ”Fairly OddBaby” in February 2008." This means that Fairly OddBaby was still being cited three years later as a standard for kids TV-movie performance.

This film was not treated like just another episode of the series — it had specific online promotion including a video game, and achieved ratings beyond what was usual for a season premiere. I believe that this demonstrates notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 19:37, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to The Fairly OddParents (season 6)#ep75. The sources shown above are all just short blurbs discussing nothing but the ratings numbers for the special, which all would just support a sentence or two in the main article. That information and those sources can be easily added to the episode list, which would be a far better way of presenting the information rather than having an entire independent article containing only a couple sentences worth of actually reliably sourced content. Rorshacma (talk) 20:30, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think the sources makes it pass GNG.★Trekker (talk) 09:09, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Will add salt. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:50, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vernon D'Souza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSICIAN. WP:REFBOMBed with unreliable sources and was twice rejected at Draft:Vernon D'Souza GPL93 (talk) 19:52, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 19:52, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 19:52, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - If the article was twice rejected during the draft process, I honestly wonder how the reviewers over there failed to notice that it ended up in mainspace anyway. Also note that two editors with suspicious names were primarily involved with both this article and the draft version: one called Vernonsmusic (the singer's first name is Vernon) and another called Prteamthisis (starts with "PR team" which could be an unfortunate coincidence or indicates public relations). In any case, the article accomplishes little more than a copy of the singer's professional biography propped up with unreliable social media sources. He has not received the significant and reliable media coverage that is necessary for notability. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:48, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - User:Doomsdayer520 asks how the reviewers in the draft process failed to notice that this ended up in mainspace anyway. The timing is that the draft was declined three times (not just twice) before it was entered into article space. The author gamed the system of auto-confirmation by making more than ten edits to the draft and having been registered more than four days by the repeated submissions of the draft. This is not an uncommon problem. The way to deal with this conduct is to nominate the article for deletion, which has been done, and we are here. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:15, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Does not satisfy musical notability. Has been entered in article space by gaming the system. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:15, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - If the name of the article creator matches the name of the subject, or if the name contains "PR" or "official" or stuff like that, you know it's a red flag. And if the case of "gaming the system" happens, it's even worse. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 21:21, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Checkuser note I've blocked User:Johndavis22, User:Paulwebber72, and User:Prteamthisis as  Confirmed socks of User:Vernonsmusic. I'm tempted to CSD the article as a WP:CSD#G11/WP:PAID TOU violation, but it may be better in the long wrong run to let the AfD play out then salt it to force all attempted recreations trough the draft process.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:08, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ponyo I agree that it should play out. An AfD deletion also allows editors to WP:G4 any recreation although salting isn't a bad idea. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:40, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:53, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Dumani (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 sources in the article are all affiliated, and I find no applicable coverage of him to satisfy the notability requirements, WP:GNG or WP:BIO. For what it's worth, the article itself doesn't necessarily set an expectation that he would be notable. Largoplazo (talk) 19:40, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 19:40, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 19:40, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 19:40, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:28, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete: Per Largoplazo. Just a wikipedia article and an amazon page about him are visible when searched simply. Regards Pesticide1110 (talk) 11:00, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Google Scholar shows only two academic publications and no citations, so WP:PROF is out of reach, and notability through WP:AUTHOR for a single self-published book without evidence of published reviews seems equally remote. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:32, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails GNG and doesn't pass notability standards for authors or for academics. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:09, 23 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. (non-admin closure) Captain Galaxy (talk) 22:23, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Heroic Origins (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 may be a notable episode of the comedy series Community from its gas leak season, with its the article having multiple issues, if it were to avoid deletion, I don’t know it would be best to WP:BLOWITUP as the article has multiple problems that were brought up a few months after the episode first aired. Pahiy (talk) 18:23, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:25, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not notable enough of an episode to justify a seperate article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:18, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. If the plot summary sucks, fix it, don't take it to AfD, especially when you haven't even given an indication of doing a WP:BEFORE. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:01, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as no deletion rationale is given by nominator. Lack of reason to delete is a reason to keep. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:36, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per PMC. I see no particular reason to delete given here, other than "the article having multiple issues". WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:09, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for the reasons above. I would recommend that if the article needs work, be bold and work on the article. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:57, 24 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. Mz7 (talk) 21:44, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Johnson (reporter) (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 17jiangz1 (talk) 01:32, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. 17jiangz1 (talk) 01:32, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:33, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:JOURNALIST KidAd (talk) 02:11, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Major news anchor in a major media market. Plenty of sources out there if you look, including pre-death. Suggest expansion of article instead of deleting. Andise1 (talk) 03:47, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:JOURNALIST. I looked for "plenty of sources" and found nothing. GSearch had barely four pages of results and the majority of them were about his death, which does not establish notability. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 05:57, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Look, this guy has won a Peabody award and an Emmy. I agree that being a news anchor in a major market is not evidence of notability alone, but winning awards is, and this guy won awards. User 73.36.79.67 23:10, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
• Keep He seems to be notable in his field based on the awards he has won. Article needs expansion.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:07, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:23, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:23, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:ANYBIO #1. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 02:35, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep WP:Anybio 1.The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times. He one an Emmy in 2011 and nominated 2013. Found this in a few secs of Google search!User:Davidstewartharvey
• Keep Please stop with these ghoulish 'subject has died, let's also remove the article' nominations. Expansion is needed, not deletion. Nate • (chatter) 19:12, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Some articles need Destubbing rather then deletion. With a little expansion, it could have enough sources to prove notability. RedRiver660 talk 19:09, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:02, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fraud Allegations in South Korea's 21st Parliamentary Election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:POVFORK from 2020 South Korean legislative election. There have been a few attempts to insert this material to the main article by new accounts or ones that rarely edit.[3][4] It seems that when they were unable to, this article was created instead. Prod removed by article creator (after it expired). Number 57 08:19, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 16:31, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 16:31, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete To the extent that the content is verifiable at all, it appears to be sourced t multiple non-reliable sources, e.g., blogs, personal sites, a press release in a newspaper classified section, advertisements, etc. The only RS I do see cited are all expressly personal opinions of various commentators. There are no sources cited that suggest that this is anything more than sore loser sour grapes or that this is actually a serious set of allegations that are being investigated. In other words, Number 57's analysis of this as a POVFORK is correct. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:34, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As a POVFORK which is unduly based on poor sources (failing WP:V). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:28, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:03, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Notability ahuR ☘ 15:19, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 16:19, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 16:19, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 16:19, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A google search shows there’s a huge PR campaign going on in the Turkish media at the moment to promote her, but that’s not a reason for us to have an article. Mccapra (talk) 20:17, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, a bunch of PR spam can be found, but no good sources, so she fails GNG. She has only so much as appeared in one “notable” production, (which itself should probably be deleted) so she fails WP:NACTOR. Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:27, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not even remotely close to having the required multiple significant indepdent 3rd party sources needed to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:52, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This subject isn’t notable right now. But if she play notable production then we can add her wiki page again. Baran Ahmet (talk) 17:57, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 16:21, 24 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 redirect to Myriad (disambiguation). -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:43, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Myriad (comics) (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)

Set index article with only one non-redlinked entry. One entry was deleted via PROD in January, the comics series looks NN since the publisher is a redirect. That leaves only one non-redlink in this SIA. Per the comics project MOS, this title wouldn't make a good article title, so this should be deleted. Hog Farm (talk) 18:48, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 18:48, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 18:48, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 18:48, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. With only one actual notable, linked entry, this page does not serve much of a purpose. The entry at the main Myriad (disambiguation) page pointing here should also be changed to only link to the one, notable character. Rorshacma (talk) 20:28, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Thanks for the heads up! There's not much use for a DAB page when there's nothing left to disambiguate. I don't recall what was there the last time I edited the page, but deletion looks like the best option currently. --GentlemanGhost (séance) 22:38, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect. Comic cruft, the last artc;e is more likely to go then not too. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:26, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete With only one actual notable, linked entry--May♡♡→♡℃※Talk 13:31, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and creator's support. You might even say there are no entries. The only blue link has since been moved to another page. -2pou (talk) 14:06, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Myriad (disambiguation) as ((R from incomplete disambiguation)): contrary to the implication of other editors there are 2 legitimate entries here. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:13, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - GizzyCatBella🍁 04:31, 24 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:00, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Chicago south suburban airport (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 article has been tagged for notability issues for 18 months; its content chronology has not been updated in 5 years. The primary topic of the article is about something that does not currently exist (and probably never will at this point). SteveCof00 (talk) 09:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SteveCof00 (talk) 09:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. SteveCof00 (talk) 09:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. SteveCof00 (talk) 09:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and move limited content to Chicago_metropolitan_area#Transportation --Cornellier (talk) 12:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Transportation in Chicago#Proposed airports may be a better location (the subsection already borrows most of the first sentence of the article) --SteveCof00 (talk) 02:11, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the spirit of Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a work in progress. In my opinion, the project meets GNG and notability doesn't change because a project needs an update. There are plenty of proposed transit projects that have articles. See Category:Proposed public transportation in the United States and Category:Proposed transportation infrastructure in the United States for examples. The idea it is likely not to happen (hell I think it's a bad idea) should not impact if it has an article. If the end result of this is keep, I can commit to improving the article.--Mpen320 (talk) 15:05, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete and condense content to move to Transportation in Chicago#Proposed airports (the subsection already borrows most of the first sentence of the article). To further support repackaging the content within another article, this article has relatively few articles that link to it (although not literally orphaned). --SteveCof00 (talk) 08:37, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment @SteveCof00: You can't nominate and then vote again. So I struck your delete above....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Easily meets WP:GNG with a quick source search (I used the search term "Peotone Airport") turning up tons of news articles discussing the proposal and the controversy associated with it. Notability is the only actionable issue raised by the deletion proposal; the fact that it hasn't been updated isn't a reason for deletion and Mpen320 has already volunteered to do some updates. RecycledPixels (talk) 00:43, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RecycledPixels: Do you know to what extent I am allowed to make updates while this is being proposed for deletion. Obviously, I cannot delete the deletion notice.--Mpen320 (talk) 21:56, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mpen320: You can do whatever you want to improve the article during the deletion discussion, at the risk of what you do being deleted if the consensus here eventually tips toward deletion. Of course, improvements to the article may also help sway opinions towards a keep. RecycledPixels (talk) 21:15, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets notability criteria as a proposed infrastructure project. A simple google search turned up numerous articles on the topic from third party sources. Whilst not a defense in itself other such articles exist such as London Britannia Airport for proposed airports where there is significant coverage of the proposal. If it needs to be updated then it should be updated but not deleted Tracland (talk) 06:54, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - If the proposal is dead, then the current article name and its category inclusion is inappropriate. That some political activity happened that Wikipedia should document has been effectively argued by the keep side; that it should be an article documenting a thing that doesn't exist and apparently won't has not been. — Charles Stewart (talk) 12:04, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mz7 (talk) 21:42, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sandesh Jagtap (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)

Student politician who fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Of the seven references used 1 & 2 are passing mentions, 3 & 4 don't mention the subject at all, 5 & 6 aren't working but appear to be to the website of an organization he is a member of and 7 is his personal website. GPL93 (talk) 18:10, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 18:10, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 18:10, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not a notable politician as per WP:NPOL or WP:ANYBIO ~ Amkgp 💬 18:45, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable politician. LefcentrerightDiscuss 23:31, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As usual, holding a role with the youth wing of a political party is not an "inherently" notable political office that guarantees a Wikipedia article, and India is still not more special than any other country no matter how many times the Indian contingent tries to ignore the established consensus. And as for the sourcing, it's split about 50-50 between primary sources that are not support for notability at all, and glancing namechecks of his existence in media coverage that is not about him to any non-trivial degree, so there's no argument to be made that he would clear WP:GNG in lieu of having to hold a notable political office. Bearcat (talk) 22:08, 19 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Wiki2008time (talk) 02:54, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April Sanders (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 meet WP:N and minimal WP:RS. Non-notable minor politician and physician. Wiki2008time (talk) 17:38, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator This was not made in bad faith, I genuinely don't know all the rules in this hostile place but I do feel that such short articles are inadequate for Wikipedia. I still believe they should not exist, but I see the majority disagrees because apparently every politician who has nothing interesting to be said about them still gets an encyclopedia entry, so this AfD will be deemed a "kept" regardless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki2008time (talk • contribs) 02:48, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 June 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:01, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep Clearly passes WP:NPOL as Sanders was a member of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:23, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep. Per GPL93. Sanders served as a member of a provincial legislature. LefcentrerightDiscuss 22:58, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 08:46, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 08:46, 18 June 2020 (UTC)*[reply]

• Keep Member of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. One goal of the project is to have biographies of all national and state level office holders. --Enos733 (talk) 16:03, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This is one of two articles that the nominator marked for deletion before abruptly retiring due frustration at their own articles being nominated for deletion so I believe this is likely a bad faith nom. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Meets NPOL.--Eostrix (talk) 17:41, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep as verified legislator. --Lockley (talk) 20:17, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep While it could use some more sources, subnational legislators are generally held to be notable. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:25, 19 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 redirect to River Blackwater (River Loddon). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:04, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I am not convinced this is a real river, for the reasons expressed on Talk:River Broadwater. The section of river it refers to is called River Blackwater by the Ordnance Survey, and Twyford Brook, which is further north, was historically called the Broadwater, but has an article called Twyford Brook. Bob1960evens (talk) 17:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:32, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:32, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 08:02, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have just discovered that the current Ordnance Survey 1:2500 map marks the stretch of river below the junction with the Whitewater as both the Broadwater and the Blackwater. I think a sentence on the Blackwater article about alternative names should be adequate.Bob1960evens (talk) 08:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC) I have now added a short section to the River Blackwater article which discusses naming, and am sure that Broadwater was applied to a small section of the Blackwater that was somewhat wider than the rest. Bob1960evens (talk) 07:59, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to River Blackwater (River Loddon) per Bob1960. buidhe 18:34, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to River Blackwater (River Loddon) seems to be most reasonable option. Hzh (talk) 16:13, 25 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Wiki2008time (talk) 02:58, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kona Williams (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 meet WP:N and minimal WP:RS. Completely non-notable physician. She is not the first First Nations doctor in Canada. She's just the first First Nations person who went into forensic pathology, which is not anything notable. Citations are minimal, there is nothing particularly unique about her career path - standard graduate of medicine who completed a standard residency. This page should also be marked as a medical stub but for some reason was around since 2017 and not stubbed. Wiki2008time (talk) 17:24, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator This was not made in bad faith, I genuinely don't know all the rules in this hostile place but I do feel that such short articles are inadequate for Wikipedia. I still believe they should not exist, but I see the majority disagrees because apparently every accomplishment we have as First Nations people needs to be announced like it's such a surprise some of us are able to become doctors that it needs to go in an encyclopedia, so this AfD will be deemed a "kept" regardless. --Wiki2008time (talk) 02:51, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 June 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:45, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a slam dunk keep. Her accomplishments are clearly deemed notable by very substantial coverage in major reputable national sources, not just local hometown coverage. The TorStar story by itself, is more than enough, but more is visible in Google. --Rob (talk) 22:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:33, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:34, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:34, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I found this through the science deletion sorting list, but as a working pathologist the appropriate notability standard for her is WP:GNG, not WP:PROF, so the nomination remark about citations is irrelevant. Searching news for her name finds plenty of coverage, some of the general-interest who-is-this-person type (e.g. [5] on top of the coverage we already have) but also for her work on investigating deaths of indigenous people [6] [7] and as an examiner in the Murder of Tess Richey (despite the fact that somehow our Richey article doesn't actually mention her; for coverage see e.g. [8]). So there's also no issue with WP:BIO1E, nor with the nominator's suggestion that being the first indigenous pathologist is somehow unworthy of notability (despite worthiness not being relevant for GNG), because she has plenty of other accomplishments to be notable for. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:56, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 09:34, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Meets GNG by court/criminal coverage involving her work and profiles of her trailblazing career in forensic medicine (sources pointed out by David Eppstein).--Eostrix (talk) 10:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and close the AfD. This is one of two articles that the nominator marked for deletion before abruptly retiring due frustration at their own articles being nominated for deletion so I believe this is likely a bad faith nom. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:24, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets the general standards for wiki-notability thanks to the sources provided above. XOR'easter (talk) 00:50, 19 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Sricsi (talk) 11:58, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TechHaus Volantis (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 vehicle, only ever used once by Lady Gaga as a promotion for her 2013 album, Artpop. Anything that can be said about it is already covered at ArtRave#Press conference. Sricsi (talk) 17:10, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Sricsi (talk) 17:10, 17 June 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) 17:15, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Steelpillow. Redirect to ArtRave#Press conference. - ZLEA _T\^C 18:21, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot about that. - ZLEA _T\^C 19:00, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. First, the rationale is incorrect. Everything cannot be said in the ArtRave article, especially the technical details. Second, the Aviation WikiProject has a longstanding consensus which effectively means that every aircraft to have flown is notable, see WP:AVINOTE and especially WP:NAIR Types criterion 3. As a prototype Personal air vehicle, Volantis qualifies as an aircraft. And it flew. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:47, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing these out, I didn't know about that. And I can't argue with that. --Sricsi (talk) 22:38, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sricsi - do you wish to withdraw this nomination? Mjroots (talk) 17:02, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mjroots, don't know how it's done, but yes, sure! --Sricsi (talk) 21:18, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sricsi (failed ping)

Here are the instructions. - ZLEA _T\^C 21:53, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The aircraft meets WP:GNG and WP:NAIR for a separate article and, as noted, if merged the technical specs would be lost. - Ahunt (talk) 12:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:55, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Actually the Vista Robles Siding, according to the topos, well, some of them at least: others have just "Vista Robles" a bit to the west, and others have "Hearst". At any rate, a siding is what it was, on the outskirts of Palermo, which nothing much around it. There's no sign it was ever a town of its own. Mangoe (talk) 16:43, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:46, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:46, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Doesn't appear to be more than a railway siding. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 15:03, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a non-notable locale. --Lockley (talk) 11:22, 18 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 redirect to State Treasurer of Wisconsin. Although he technically meets WP:POLITICIAN, Bearcat's arguments that we simply don't have enough sourced content to write an encyclopedic article about him are convincing. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:02, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clyde M. Johnston (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is not a notable person and so doesn't merit a Wikipedia article. Factfanatic1 (talk) 14:44, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Factfanatic1 (talk) 14:44, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:09, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Having held office as the state treasurer of Wisconsin, doesn't this person fall within WP:POLITICIAN ("Politicians ... who have held ... state/province–wide office")? Cbl62 (talk) 15:58, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep State treasurer is definitely a notable position, and it falls within both WP:POLITICIAN and WP:POLOUTCOMES. Furtherly, per WP:POLOUTCOMES,

  Elected and appointed political figures at the national cabinet level are generally regarded as notable, as are usually those at the major sub-national level (US state, Canadian province, Japanese prefecture, etc.) in countries where executive and/or legislative power is devolved to bodies at that level. See WP:POLITICIAN.

  RedRiver660 talk 16:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The office of state treasurer of Wisconsin is notable and Clyde M. Johnston was notable-thank you-RFD (talk) 21:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

:This article would certainly fall under “major sub-national level” in this criteria. RedRiver660 talk 16:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete actual state treasurers are notable. However Johnston was the acting state treasurer. People who only filled a position as "acting" in general do not gain notability from it. I am surprised no one has ever challenged my creation of the article on the person who was acting president of Brigham Young University during Ernest L. Wilkinson's run for the senate. I forget the man's name, but would consider a deletion nomination if someone brought it up. I do not remember neough of his other biographical details to be sure if he would pass or fail, but I think acting anything is not enough to grant default notability, although in that case there may be enough sources, as I said I forgot his name and have not looked at the article in nearly a decade.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:45, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep: As the editors in this discussion have already stated, he is notable per WP:POLITICIAN. Lack of sources can be disregarded here considering that he belongs to the class of early 90s during which online articles were considerably less in numbers. Further, to find a source from that time is like finding a pin from a bush. There's no harm in keeping this article. Regards Pesticide1110 (talk) 10:43, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We have no requirement that our sources be online. We can use print-only sources like newspapers and books and magazines and microfilms, so finding sourcing from the 1990s is not like finding a pin from a bush at all — it's like finding a pin in a pincushion. I don't even have any real difficulty finding sourcing from the 1890s when I need to. Bearcat (talk) 22:02, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Technically passes WP:NPOLITICIAN even though they were just in a caretaker role for three months. SportingFlyer T·C 16:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. He passes WP:NPOLITICIAN.
• Delete. Temporarily holding a role for a few weeks in an acting capacity is not a notability freebie that exempts a person from having to have some sourceable evidence of his significance in the role. Bearcat (talk) 22:00, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per WP:POLOUTCOMES. Although Johnston held the post for a little more than three months, he still held an important statewide office. He was the state's (temporary) treasurer. LefcentrerightDiscuss 20:40, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Changed Delete. Bearcat made a convincing argument. LefcentrerightDiscuss 16:45, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, our articles about politicians are supposed to go into properly sourced detail about their political impact in the role, not just to document the technical fact that they held it — they're supposed to be encyclopedia articles, not just directory listings. There are certain roles where it's a foregone conclusion that such an article can be written even if nobody's put in the work yet — so the reason we keep some poorly written articles about politicians isn't that they're exempted from having to have that kind of content, it's that sources are available to add that kind of content with and thus make their article better than it is. But temporary acting holders of political roles don't necessarily have the same improvability, which is why they don't get the same presumption of "inherent" notability as the official holders of the office. The rule isn't that we always have to have a standalone page about every holder of X political office just because they existed, even if it's completely impossible to say or source any content about their political significance — the notability test for all politicians, even in the "inherently" notable roles, always hinges on the ability to write and source some substantive content about their work in the role, and never just on the ability to write "this person existed, the end" in and of itself. No matter what role a politician did or didn't hold, his notability still hinges on the ability to write and source content. Bearcat (talk) 15:22, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect into State Treasurer of Wisconsin. Not notable on the basis of his own career or actions in office but well worth mentioning there. --Lockley (talk) 20:00, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep subject passes WP:NPOLITICIAN. The office of state treasurer of Wisconsin is notable Lightburst (talk) 17:16, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to State Treasurer of Wisconsin. He is not de facto notable for having just been an acting state treasurer for a few months. we have notability to ensure an encyclopedia article can be written (obviously), and here everything worth saying can be said at State Treasurer of Wisconsin. Right now all his article really says is that he was acting Wisconsin State Treasurer from October 1, 1948 until January 3, 1949, was appointed from staff, and had been a Wisconsin state employee since 1916 and had worked in the state treasurer office since 1920. as well as his birth and death dates. The treasurer list tells us that he was acting treasurer from October 1, 1948 to January 3, 1949 and was appointed from staff. Realistically everything worth keeping is already in the article. Perhaps a sentence could be merged into the note with a bit more detail but he certainly doesn't merit his own article. If there was evidence he did anything particularly notable this would be a different story. Best, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:57, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 16:15, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This is an article about a doctor who was involved in the 2015 junior doctors contract dispute in England. The article currently has 53 references, including to reliable sources. However, my take on it is that Carter himself is not notable outside his involvement in the dispute, or possibly even in that context, as he is not mentioned in the article about the dispute itself. Some of the references are WP:MILL where Carter is quoted - this one (current ref 6) for instance, which does not support the statement it follows, "Harrison was one of the key people involved in supporting junior doctor contract negotiations". He is not always mentioned in the references, such as here (current ref 45) and here (current ref 50). I don't think notability is met. Tacyarg (talk) 23:41, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 23:41, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 23:41, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 23:41, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 23:41, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the deletion analysis that makes it clear that Carter does not fit our defintion of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:11, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. -Hatchens (talk) 04:40, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:59, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Weik (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)

Candidate for state senate seat, does not meet NPOL. Prior to state senate run she held a position (receiver of taxes) in the municipal level which is not notable. Eostrix (talk) 14:20, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Eostrix (talk) 14:20, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Eostrix (talk) 14:20, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is notable. She represents a town of more than 325,000 people, larger than the average State Senate and State Assembly districts in New York.^[1][2] Additionally, she meets Wikipedia's threshold, as she "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Therefore, "it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." She has been covered in Newsday and the Long Island Advance.^[3][4][5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by PoliticsEditz (talk • contribs) 14:58, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

She's not mayor (or Town supervisor in NY parlance). She's Receiver of Taxes (see: Islip, New York#Government and politics, this position is on the municipal ballot but is not a policy making position). Her state senate run has generated some local New York coverage, which is insufficient for notability.--Eostrix (talk) 15:06, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

She still holds an elected position which represents more people than the average New York State legislative seat. While her position as Receiver of Taxes or her candidacy for New York State Senate may not be sufficient on their own to merit an article, the two together have provided enough notoriety to merit one. There have been several news articles about her since her announcement which meet the threshold for a notable person. Even prior to her run for State Senate, she received coverage for her job as Receiver of Taxes.^[6] Regardless of the positions lack of policy making ability, the office still maintains a more elevated position to advocate from, as demonstrated. This person has held an elected position for 9 years, and is now running for an elected position at the state level. That qualifies as notable.PoliticsEditz (talk) 15:35, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not according to normal Wikipedia standards, she's not presumed notable and the local and election-generated coverage is not sufficient. If she actually gets elected to the state senate, that would make her notable.--Eostrix (talk) 15:38, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Size is not the only factor that makes somewhere notable. Islip is a huge place, with over 300,000 inhabitants, but it is just an indistinct suburb in the greater New York City area. Also, there is no place where the holder of a non-policy position like receiver of taxes would be default notable. If she wins the election she will be notable, if she does not she will not be. Keep in mind Macomb County, Michigan has around 900,000 inhavbitants, but we are not going to declare the county clerk and county tresurer default notable. Even the county prosecutor who has wide disgretion in who to pursue for cimes is not default notale, although there may be enough sourcing for Carl Marlinga, although as much for his involvement in corruption as his role in government.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:32, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, evidently presentism causes us not to have an article on Marlinga. His successor Eric J. Smith (Michigan politician) does have an article. He also left office due to criminal activities.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:34, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Doug Carl of course shows that you do not have to be a crook to get an article related to Macomb County. Of course, we would probably not have an article on Mr. Carl if I had not created it. The article needs more work, since it fails to mention his run for county office on one occasion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:36, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Carl is of course default notable because he actually was a state senator. Disctirct size does not matter for state senators because they create law that impacts all the state. So even if they were elected from a 1962 drawn bocket borough in Tennessee or another state that was insanely far from one-man, one-vote they would still be notable. State legislature members though are an extreme case of presentism.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:38, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 08:43, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: She is a person of high importance and has a great resumé but fails WP:SIGCOV. This may be helpful. Regards Pesticide1110 (talk) 10:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Does not meet the notability standards mentioned above.--Mpen320 (talk) 01:50, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unelected state candidate, non-notable local politician per WP:NPOL, also seems to fail WP:GNG. If she wins the state election we can always recreate it. SportingFlyer T·C 16:26, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. People do not automatically get articles either for running as candidates in elections they have not yet won or for holding office at the local level, the referencing present here is almost entirely primary sources (raw tables of election results from the county elections office, her own staff profile on the self-published website of her own employer) that are not support for notability at all, and the one reference that is actually to a media outlet is just her initial announcement of her candidacy, which is not enough coverage to get her over WP:GNG all by itself: since every candidate in every election can always show one or two of those, if that were all it took to hand a candidate a GNG-based exemption from having to pass NPOL then every candidate would always get that exemption and nobody would ever actually have to pass NPOL at all anymore. Obviously no prejudice against recreation in November if she wins the state senate seat, since her notability claim will thus have shifted from candidate to officeholder, but nothing here is a legitimate reason for a Wikipedia article to already exist today. Bearcat (talk) 21:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is a case of WP:TOOSOON. If she wins the primary/general elections, then she can have an article. Candidates don't get articles for solely being candidates. Weik is also a non-notable local politician as she holds a low-profile municipal-level post. Islip is certainly a large enough town, yet the current sources in the article are all primary sources. LefcentrerightDiscuss 21:06, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:36, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Only one red-linked entry. I have added Peter Tiefenbach (composer) to Tiefenbach; perhaps this could be a redirect to that DAB page. Leschnei (talk) 14:07, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:33, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, non-notable nobody who doesn't pass WP:GNG. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Juno_Awards_of_1994#Best_Classical_Composition. (That looks unsourced, but the EL to the Junos site checks out: he's there.) PamD 12:03, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete there are other possible notable/semi-notable people of this name (hence it was a dab) so redirect could cause confusion. Boleyn (talk) 07:05, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This made sense when the porn guy had an article, given the problem that the semi-obscure real name of a porn performer didn't really have valid WP:PRIMARYTOPIC rights over a potentially notable composer — but now that the porn guy's been deleted under the tightening of WP:PORNBIO, and the composer still doesn't actually have an article at all, there's nothing to disambiguate anymore. Bearcat (talk) 02:14, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete to facilitate uninterrupted Search. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:18, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:59, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Muhs (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 business person. All the sources are passing mentions or WP:MILL coverage of the company. Praxidicae (talk) 13:33, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:32, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:32, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not even close to being a notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:47, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment:Not notable by wikipedia standards (although he looks like a successful buisnessman). I would say WP:TOOSOON. Regards Pesticide1110 (talk) 10:34, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete:the subject falls short of wp:GNG. Of the 11 sources cited non of the online sources give WP:SIGCOV. The sources only focused on the companies the subject co-founded. Cryforjustice (talk) 13:31, 21June 2020 (UTC)

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. Stifle (talk) 16:15, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Brian Fee Project (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)

How can this film have an article if we don't know what the film is about?? I support that this article be deleted if we can't find any sources revealing that the subject of the movie is known. Georgia guy (talk) 11:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete Fails WP:V. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NFF. Way too early, we don't even have a title yet. Hog Farm (talk) 14:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete Jumping the gun a bit on this creation. --Xannir (talk) 13:32, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, it does seem to fail NFF, and it's not garnered enough notable (or reliable) coverage yet (which might warrant its inclusion even if it had a placeholder for a title). Plus, there are no sources on this page to boot. Philotimo (talk) 00:33, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Someone moved the article to Nightmare Chapter while this Afd is still going on. This is ridiculous! Not only do I support that page moves should not be done during an Afd, but I did a Google News search on Nightmare Chapter and it revealed absolutely nothing about this film. Georgia guy (talk) 00:37, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I found evidence that a Brian Fee project is definitely in the works but no specific details about it. Nothing on "Nightmare Chapter" or "Nightmare Chapter Brian Fee" when I searched for them. Philotimo (talk) 00:56, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete WP:V and WP:NFF aren't the only things wrong here; is this even really notable before it gets it's title? Lots of movies are planned; and it seems weird to have a Wikipedia page before anyone involved in the making of the film is allowed to talk anything about what the film actually even is. ♥ Melody ♥ 22:33, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete I support the deletion of this article. Brian Fee is indeed working on a Pixar feature film, but it isn't known yet if it's going to be released in 2021, 2022 or 2023. No other information about the film is public. This article is all fake info and spam. Should be deleted asap. Fanowaty (talk) 08:19, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the article has been moved to Draft:The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent by $uperFan32. BOVINEBOY2008 20:05, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • And now, $uperFan32 has moved it back to main space, without any explanation of either move. BOVINEBOY2008 22:43, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete Clearly fails WP:NFF. Not to mention it's a weird article to exist in the first place. Itrytohelp32 ^(talk) 02:27, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete Immediately: I support the article’s deletion. Please delete ASAP as nothing is known about the film. We don’t even have a title, or a plot for that matter. Globbett) (Spl4t Sh3rm4n) 14:03, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete - Per WP:NFF and WP:V. Good grief! -Jack Frost (talk) 11:26, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]