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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:04, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cresta, California[edit]

Cresta, 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)

...and here we have yet another spot on the Feather River Route in the middle of nowhere.I can't tell whether there was a siding here or what, but there are again no roads or any other sign of a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 23:48, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: another United States Geological Survey permastub that should never have been created in the first place. --Cornellier (talk) 00:07, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I cannot find anything at all about this online. Earnsthearthrob (talk) 15:59, 3 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:04, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lutz Aengevelt[edit]

Lutz Aengevelt (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:ANYBIO by any means. Most of the references are to the subject's personal website (or Wayback Machine copies thereof). Article creator RealEstate55 is a single-purpose account. bender235 (talk) 23:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:ANYBIO--Olatunde Brain (talk) 02:16, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:02, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete None of the sourcing is either reliable or independent. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:54, 4 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:05, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EuroCyclingTrips - CMI Pro Cycling[edit]

EuroCyclingTrips - CMI Pro Cycling (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)

Is the team notable? The only external reference (not counting the team website) is to the UCI site, which merely confirms that the team exists. I see three bluelinked members, one of whom probably can be AfDed, but two others are notable since they competed in the Olympics - and accidentally none ever finished an Olympic race. Ymblanter (talk) 07:02, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 07:02, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: because according to WP:CYCLING/N, "A team is presumed notable if it is: A men's road team in the 1st (UCI WorldTeam), 2nd (UCI ProContinental), or 3rd (UCI Continental) tier...". This team is in the 3rd tier, so should be presumed noteable if we're going by that guideline. However, I agree with the concerns about the lack of independent sources. When creating the article, other than the UCI website, I couldn't find much other than this. Perhaps if the article remains, I could add a 'Citation needed' or 'Primary sources' tag?[DONE]. Also, please note that there were similar concerns recently with another team in the same tour, Black Spoke Pro Cycling Academy. Cheers, Meticulo (talk) 07:27, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Again, obvious pass. UCI Continental teams are clearly notable.--Seacactus 13 (talk) 15:52, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to closer: This article has been moved during the course of the AFD. This may mess up closer scripts. Make sure you close correctly. Stifle (talk) 12:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: for the sake of convenient comparison, here are links to articles on other teams in the Oceania Tour: ARA Pro Racing Sunshine Coast, Black Spoke Pro Cycling Academy, Nero Continental, Oliver's Real Food Racing, St George Continental Cycling Team, Team BridgeLane. I suggest either all these articles be deleted, or none of them. If deletions occur, the notability guideline for sports should be rewritten. There might also need to be a rethink of articles about teams in the continental tours of Africa, America, Asia and Europe. Meticulo (talk) 07:54, 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. There is not a clear consensus either way and the BLPREQ policy says "Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete". Since notability appears to reflect from the scandals, the BLP compliant approach is to delete this and ensure that the scandals are fully covered at the appropriate place. I will make the sources available to anyone that needs them. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:10, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Demery[edit]

Thomas Demery (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:BLPREQUESTDELETE requested by a representative of the subject (Special:Permalink/958743072#https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Demery, verified by the subject at VRTS ticket # 2020052510005286). I think it's a reasonable deletion request - this seems to be a fairly low-profile person, I think it's a case of WP:BLP1E for the Reagan administration court case mentioned in the lead, pretty much all of the coverage is either factual "he's the Assistant Secretary for HUD" or mention of the trial. Didn't turn up any SIGCOV in a BEFORE search other than the outcome of the aforementioned trial. creffett (talk) 14:06, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 14:06, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 14:06, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I agree that he probably doesn't need an article, but the scandal was widely covered at the time, and for years after, and was part of the corruption problems during Reagan's second term. Would not a sentence in the HUD article be appropriate? There is a history section. Caro7200 (talk) 14:34, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Caro7200, I wouldn't be opposed, though I'd prefer to see general coverage of the corruption problems and have this as a part so that it gets due weight. creffett (talk) 14:55, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Accept Request Assistant Secretary of HUD is not a position that confers automatic notability. Merge any relevant information to Reagan administration scandals. --Enos733 (talk) 15:22, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• That works as well. Caro7200 (talk) 20:58, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Yup, agreed with merge - would have suggested myself if I'd known there was a page for that. creffett (talk) 14:32, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Reagan administration scandals per comments above. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:15, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete we need to respect the privacy of living people. The postion held is not high enough to make a person default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Assistant secretary of a government department is not a significant enough role to be "inherently" notable under WP:NPOL, the crime angle is far too minor and unimportant to claim that he would pass WP:PERP as an individual, and he's basically not a high-profile enough person that the need to have an article about him should outweight his personal privacy rights. As noted above, there are other articles where content about scandals in the Reagan administration can be included without needing to maintain a standalone BLP of every individual person who was implicated in one of them. Bearcat (talk) 22:41, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and if there's anything worth merging to Enos733's link, do so without a redirect (which may violate some rule, but IAR.) SportingFlyer T·C 07:16, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm surprised there were a number of keep !votes in this discussion, but this is a low profile WP:BLP1E who received sustained coverage for exactly one event who can be covered elsewhere and who has a privacy concern. A Newspapers.com graph doesn't bring up much coverage apart from the 1989 scandal and a blurp from his guilty plea in the early 1990s. None of the links that are presented below cover him significantly and all link him back to the HUD. I still don't see how he's not a WP:BLP1E. The scandal with African fundraising was directly related to the one event. SportingFlyer T·C 01:57, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. What is going on here? These comments have little to do with reality. The very first reference identifies Demery as "the {HUD]department’s No. 3 executive". The NY Times called him a "key player" at that cabinet-level department and covered his activities extensively, including at least six front-page articles (most of those in 1989). We're not dealing with some low-level bureaucrat. We're dealing with a prominent national figure with extensive coverage in national media. And this is in no way a BLP1E situation; Demery has also been covered in relation to his role in Pat Robertson's "blood diamonds" business [1], his fundraising for presidential campaigns [2], and his fundraising on behalf of RENAMO, a Rhodesian-backed faction in the post-independence Mozambique Civil War [3]. It's evident that none of the delete !voters have done the most minimally adequate WP;BEFORE search (and, frankly, far more caustic comments are justifiable. This is the bio of a notorious white-collar criminal, and his significance shouldn't be minimized because his crimes predate the social media era. It's not Wikipedia's job to sanitize the reputation of politically connected felons. We don't work for Bill Barr. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 05:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Wolfowitz. The person is, or at least was, a public figure, and is notable enough and notorious enough to where deleting the article would violate WP:CENSOR. Devonian Wombat (talk) 08:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Updating my comment (see above) after thinking about it for a few days. It's clear, per Wolfowitz, that this is a case of more than just one incident. I don't quite agree that Demery is/was notorious--he just isn't/wasn't as famous as North, Watt, Poindexter, etc. Aside from the ethical and moral aspects of his misdeeds, he also seemed, in a criminal and quasi-criminal sense, to be notable as a consistent screw-up, to put it politely and ironically. Caro7200 (talk) 14:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As some of the sources lack anything about Mr. Demery. Only one of them actually talks about him significantly. Koridas (...Puerto Rico for statehood!) 22:25, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. The subject of the article was quite notable at the time. There are numerous sources testifying as to the subject's independent notability, even though lots of them date from the pre-internet era, e.g.:

• Maier, Karl (17 June 1993). "United States policy". Conspicuous Destruction: War, Famine and the Reform Process in Mozambique. Yale University Press. p. 193. ISBN 978-0300056181.
• Hays, R. Allen (9 March 1995). The Federal Government and Urban Housing. SUNY Press. p. 254. ISBN 978-0791423264.
• Shapiro, Bruce (1998). Keeping Special Counsel. Vol. 266. The Nation. p. 7.
• "3rd HUD Official Indicted In Influence3-Peddling Scandal". The Washington Post. 10 June 1992. Retrieved 9 June 2020.
• Jackson, Robert L. (10 June 1992). "Ex-Official Pleads Guilty in HUD Corruption Probe". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 9 June 2020.
• Kaplan, Joel (27 August 1989). "At HUD, Home Deals Often Begin With Charity At HUD". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved 9 June 2020.
• Yancey, Matt (6 January 1993). "Three Convicted in HUD Influence-Peddling Case". Associated Press. Retrieved 9 June 2020.

This article, of course, should be linked to the Reagan administration scandals, as it already is; but not "merged" to it. -The Gnome (talk) 21:27, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Wolfowitz and The Gnome. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 23:01, 9 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 List of Jain temples#Nagaland. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:11, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kohima Jain Temple[edit]

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

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

This article has no sources provided at all. I realize that sources, if there are any, may be in Hindi, a language I can't read. However, a Google search for the temple name in Hindi [4] brought up nothing but Wikipedia, its mirrors, or other wikis. Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:36, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:42, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:44, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No reliable sources available. Drat8sub (talk) 19:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Place that has historical significance. A) The building was one of the few structures that survived the Battle of Kohima (WW2) per this. B) Also the oldest Jain temple in Kohima (capital of a remote Indian state Nagaland) since 1920 per this. Also listed at List of Jain Temples. The jains were a business community that migrated to remote Kohima in 1920. This temple is an important part of the city's history given very few ethnic groups migrated to Kohima that early. Nagaland has 18 tribes, many of whom continue to retain their traditional ways. C) There is systemic bias in the national print and broadcast media on coverage of the North Eastern part and this limits references in mainstream media. I will continue to look for more reliable sources and references. Arunram (talk) 20:28, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Jain temples#Nagaland. From sources given, I believe it's a real temple, and that its 100 years old (wouldn't bet anything on the latter) but, clearly, there isn't anything to write an article with. My search yielded the same as reported by nom. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:15, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 15:28, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sinister Violence[edit]

Sinister Violence (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 band. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 15:55, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indian metal band. I don't think they are notable enough for Wikipedia. Some of the sources are okay, while some of them (like blogs) are not. Even though some Indian newspapers covered their wins at some (local) talent shows, they don't appear to be notable as this was their only claim for notability. I did a Google search and only these sources that are already presented here were the main results, along with a site named "Hire4event" (do I need to explain?), some blogs, another concert site, and the rest of the sources were not even about Sinister Violence, they were articles with the words "sinister" and "violence" separately. So prove me wrong, but I think this is a non-notable band. Sinister Violence has an article on eswiki too, but it uses the same sources as here, and huwiki has an article on them as well, but that page is also nominated for deletion because it uses the same sources.

GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 15:54, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 15:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 15:57, 25 May 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 May 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:09, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: non-notable band, I don't even find they had releases other than demos. Earnsthearthrob (talk) 16:04, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable band. Every band that releases demos does not immediately qualify for an article. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:11, 5 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:49, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Jiang[edit]

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

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

Not notable. Fuddle (talk) 16:51, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Fuddle (talk) 16:51, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:16, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:16, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable animator.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:28, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no sources cited, and I haven't found any, fails WP:BIO. Ym2X (talk) 22:46, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unreferenced. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Doesn't seem to be notable, a quick google search revealed no source (though a couple of other people named Jack Jiang do exist). Kj cheetham (talk) 10:55, 8 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:11, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wellwer[edit]

Wellwer (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 was not a notable website. Wikieditor600 (talk) 18:54, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:10, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:10, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Doesn't seem to have the reliable in-depth coverage required for notability and everything about it in the article is extremely trivial. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:39, 26 May 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:40, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elftown[edit]

Elftown (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 website. Wikieditor600 (talk) 19:17, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:05, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:05, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:05, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:06, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:06, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No indication of notability beyond being an everyday website. At this point at least.BabbaQ (talk) 14:33, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete the only source is a humor site. Traffic stats at https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/elftown.com give no indication that the site might notable. Vexations (talk) 14:19, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Barely found anything about the site. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 07:30, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:43, 7 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:12, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shweta Kumar[edit]

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

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

Subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources hence falls short of gng & also does not satisfy WP:NACTOR. Subject appears to be related to numerous notable people but notability isn’t a birthright neither is it inherited. Celestina007 (talk) 22:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

'KEEP' This subject have added enough notable references, yes it definitely lack of content as its not traceable till now and whatever content have cant be put, as it may looklike 'Advert', the references added as per WP:ICTFSOURCES. Still if it dosen't met with Wiki Guidelines you may delete it. But as It passed WP:ICTFSOURCES I vote KEEP. Krishna Murthy DL (talk) 03:33, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment — striking out !vote from confirmed sockpuppet. Celestina007 (talk) 11:08, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not meet the multiple significant roles in notable productions threshold for notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:05, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep article have significant coverage in media. इं. हेमंत बोरकर (talk) 14:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment — striking out !vote from confirmed sockpuppet. Celestina007 (talk) 11:08, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Fails WP:NACTOR. Abishe (talk) 19:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --SalmanZ (talk) 17:08, 4 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 no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:13, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mai Minokoshi[edit]

Mai Minokoshi (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 tennis player who fails WP:NTENNIS and WP:GNG Iffy★Chat -- 10:54, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:00, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:00, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:01, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral Keep as article creator. (It was kind of an experiment, as I took the name off the Wikipedia:Most-wanted articles list. Have to admit, I am at a loss to find additional references of note. If anyone else can find anything that would be appreciated, but I'm not holding my breath.) Happy to concur with any decision arrived at here. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 15:45, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my vote, as, thanks to User:Athomeinkobe, there have now (03:57, 28 May 2020 (UTC)) been plenty of refs added to at least cover GNG – they were just hiding in several Japanese publications (see below). Regards, GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 03:58, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, has over 100 incoming links, so seems like a prolific figure within the tennis sport. Geschichte (talk) 18:23, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This argument is fallacious but it doesn't appear to be anywhere in WP:ATA. Just because there were a lot of redlinks it doesn't presume notability. Iffy★Chat -- 20:07, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it does indicate she's been getting around; I think we just have to find some more refs on her. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 20:33, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - doesn't meet WP:NTENNIS for starters. Can't seem to find enough independent sources that would indicate she meets WP:GNG either. Adamtt9 (talk) 17:09, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as I believe there is enough to satisfy GNG. [This] is a sufficiently detailed report of her signing a contract with Yoshimoto Kogyo, Japan's biggest talent agency. There is also a more recent [interview-style report] about her career, and [another] detailing her early life before turning pro. I've been away from editing for a few years, but from what I remember these sorts of references were usually enough, despite her career not yet reaching the level required to satisfy the specific tennis player criteria. I'll have a quick crack at fleshing out the biography. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:26, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have started expanding the article. I do not have any more time to work on it now, but I hope I have shown that there is enough there. There are more sources I haven't used it too.

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) Juliette Han (talk) 16:47, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

105 mm[edit]

105 mm (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)

Artillery and tank gun calibre. Unsourced since 2017, fails WP:V. I assume this content could be sourced, but per WP:BURDEN that's up to those who are interested in keeping the content. If nobody is, it's got to go.

Another question is whether the topic is notable, either as an article or as a list of 105 mm guns. I have no idea. Google produces any number of hits, but they generally seem to be about specific 105 mm guns, not about the calibre as such. Sandstein 22:01, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 22:01, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This makes a good category, as distinguished from an article; one already exists.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 22:12, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point of WP:NOTDUP is that lists and categories are complementary. This further already demonstrates that it can be annotated in ways that the category cannot. postdlf (talk) 15:56, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an article - no prejudice against a list or category being created for it. -- puddleglum^2.0 22:59, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:04, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, no valid argument for deletion presented; all comments above are instead about fixable problems or are contra relevant guidelines on lists and categories. Clearly if the individual entries are verifiable, then an index of them together is as well, and it's just a question of migrating sources over from those articles. The nominator even "assume[s] this content could be sourced", which means per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE that deletion for lack of present sourcing is off the table. We're not talking about contentious BLP material so there's no deadline. Most of the entries in Category:105 mm artillery even have the caliber as part of the article title so it seems silly to me to even consider that a problem. postdlf (talk) 15:56, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP Perfectly valid list article as it list related items which have their own articles. You can rename it as List of 105 mm if you want, although doesn't make any real difference here. Dream Focus 19:24, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to closer: This article was moved to 105 mm calibre during the AFD. Please be careful if using an automated script to close, that you edit/delete in the right place. Stifle (talk) 12:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It appears that the popularity of this calibre is due to the success of a particular gun: Royal Ordnance L7. We could merge but it seems better to keep the more general title as a de facto standard like .22 caliber. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:26, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep We have plenty of articles on gun calibres, and as a NATO standard one this certainly merits its own article. My impulse is to re-assess this as a set index article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep 2 sources added, this is a standard artillery and tank shell used in many armies including during my own time - I'll try and find sources to my own Irish Armys (and others) use of this ammo and add JW 1961 Talk 20:40, 8 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:13, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Buurtpoes Bledder[edit]

Buurtpoes Bledder (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)

fan-page without real notability. The Banner talk 20:05, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is now the third or fourth time this page has been marked for deletion by someone who hasn't taken the time to actually look at the sources involved. Worse yet, no reason beyond a completely false "fan-page without real notability" was provided for why it should be deleted by the nominator. Yes, the page is about a cat, and that might seem silly, but Wikipedia is filled with thousands of even more ridiculous pages with far fewer citations from notable sources. The cat received attention from several national media outlets in the Netherlands that are included in the article and they are right there for the perusual of anyone who doubts the page's legitimacy. Furthermore, this is a topic that has already been debated at length in other deletion nomination discussions. Each time, the decision has been made to keep the page. Why is there the need to now do this all over again, especially after the last one was only a few months ago? Constablequackers (talk) 08:21, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I did took time to look at the unknown sources, the blogs, facebook, the dead links etcetera. The link to Omroep West is in fact the only reliable source. The Banner talk 09:25, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I did not see the earlier nomination. But to note that: the article was not kept, it was not removed due to lack of consensus. The Banner talk 09:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Okay, in addition to the Omroep West citation, there's also citations from the national paper De Telegraaf, the Leidschdagblad (the daily newspaper for the city), the Leidse Glibber (another publication that covers Leiden), I am Expat (a national website aimed toward expats living in the Nethelands) and at least a mention of coverage from SBS 6. That should be more than enough to merit keeping the article on a website with over 6 million articles, many of which don't have even half as many citations and/or are about subjects that are even more niche. Constablequackers (talk) 09:26, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Every article will be judged on its own merits. So it is useless to compare it with other articles. And Wikipedia is not a memorial. The Banner talk 18:23, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to judge this article on its own merits then. And the six citations listed above from reputable sources. Furthermore, if "Wikipedia is not a memorial," would you care to explain the many thousands of articles about various other dead animals and humans that are on this website? Constablequackers (talk) 12:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously get the idea that Bledder was your cat, seeing that you wrote this article and are now fighting to keep it. And about the many thousands of articles about various other dead animals and humans... feel free to nominate them for deletion. But be aware of some repercussions. The Banner talk 13:33, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bledder wasn't my cat, nor was I the person who created his Facebook page, wrote all those articles, and so on. I did, however, originally create this Wikipedia page. That much is true. Now then, would you please provide an argument as to why this page should be deleted beyond quips like "it's a fan-page" and "Wikipedia is not a memorial"? Furthermore, if you don't like "memorials," I can only assume you'll be placing deletion notices on the pages for everyone from Winston Churchill to that dog who used to hang around outside the train station in Tokyo while waiting for his owner to get off work. But I suppose doing so might result in you potentially facing "repercussions." Those who start needless/highly subjective/repetitious deletion debates about dead cats on Wikipedia get carte blanche and are above the law, eh? :D Constablequackers (talk) 14:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You were the one complaining about those articles... The Banner talk 15:19, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Afraid not. I have no problem with those articles, whereas you're the one taking aim at "memorials." I have no problem with pretty much the entirety of Wikpedia and am perfectly fine with articles about even the smallest and most obscure of topics, provided they've got citations to back up their inclusion on the site. Now then, do you want to discuss this article and its citations, or should we should go back to hurling sarcastic comments and off-topic digressions at one another? Constablequackers (talk) 13:18, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:32, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not news, just because slow news cycles cause notice to be given to non-notable subjects does not mean we should follow suit.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:34, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, by your logic, we'll need to remove half of the articles on Wikipedia; everything ranging from characters in films and books to small businesses that are all equally reliant on stories supposedly created during similarly "slow news cycles." Constablequackers (talk) 12:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, the logic is: every article is judged on its own merits. The Banner talk 15:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • And thus far, the only person here beyond myself who has done so is Cunard. Constablequackers (talk) 11:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not news. scope_creep^Talk 10:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Wikipedia is not news." What does that even mean? Could you elaborate? Constablequackers (talk) 10:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:NOTNEWS The Banner talk 11:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the link. The article clears those bars, so no worries there. Constablequackers (talk) 15:16, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per nom and everyone above. Let's not compare with other articles (WP:WHATABOUTX). Ifnord (talk) 14:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.

  This page notes that (translation from Google Translate) "Bledder became known nationally after an article in De Telegraaf because he was the first cat with its own Facebook page." The page includes a photo of a lengthy newspaper article about the subject titled "Buurtpoes Bledder online" that was published in October 2012, 10 months before the subject's death.

  SBS6's television program nl:Hart van Nederland covered the subject's August 2013 death in this article as did Algemeen Dagblad here (metadata here), Leidsch Dagblad here, and Omroep West here. This December 2013 article notes that Leidsch Dagblad declared "Buurtpoes" the word of the year in 2013 after the subject's death.

  Five years after the subject's death, the subject was covered in this article in Omroep West. The article's first paragraph notes (translation from Google Translate): "Cat Bledder from Leiden has been dead for exactly five years. "Well," you would say. But that is different in Leiden. The cat made the national news before its death and has its own Wikipedia and Facebook page because half of Leiden knew the beast. Bledder has been set up and is being put down for a day in the Velvet record store on the Nieuwe Rijn so that people can stop and talk to him. Students from the house on the Hartesteeg where Bledder still lives, deliver him early Tuesday morning to record store Velvet." The article mentions that the cat made the national news before it died and mentions in passing that he has a Wikipedia page. (I do not consider this passing mention of the cat's having a Wikipedia page to detract from the article's contributing to Buurtpoes Bledder establishing notability since the rest of the article focuses on how the people of Leiden are still remembering the cat.)

  That the subject was covered by reliable sources before, at, and after his death demonstrates he has received sustained coverage. That this coverage was in national and regional newspapers and radio stations strongly establishes he is notable.

  Cunard (talk) 17:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Dutch Wikipedia page is removed and a request to reinstate the article was refused... The Banner talk 17:37, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that a lot of the sources were published in August, a period know in the Netherlands as "cucumber-time". In that time newspapers lack normal news so they almost publish everything handed to them. The Banner talk 13:03, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't consider some of the sources' publication in August to detract from their helping establishing notability. The sources are reliable and give the subject serious consideration in their news coverage. Cunard (talk) 10:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • As I said, they accept nearly every press release. I have seen too often that my own (i.e. work related) press releases were nearly verbatim copied and published by newspaper. The Banner talk 14:45, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • The initial versions of many of these articles (before they were moved into online archives) featured original photography in addition to onsite journalism. The report from 2018 even involved a film crew going down to look at the "stuffed cat" who was put on display in a nearby record store. These were hardly just cut/pasted press releases. And it's not the cat's fault that he was killed by a motorist during August/cucumber time. I'm sorry he didn't die during a more lively news cycle. That motorist should have thought more about how all this was going to impact his Wikipedia page 6 years later!!! Constablequackers (talk) 09:25, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per nom and others. I question how notable this cat was.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 19:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, cited sources indicate WP:GNG is met. Notability is not transient. Stifle (talk) 12:08, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - as above: the sourcing is adequate to establish notability. Notability is not temporary. Ingratis (talk) 00:18, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Tenuous notability, in a fly by night news story that only gained coverage due to social media, the covid virus, and the name, otherwise it would have been totally ignored. Little lasting notability. A 1300 people fan page. Must be the smallest fan page on the planet. No last notability. Single event. scope_creep^Talk 09:46, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The sources were published between 2012 and 2018 so it is not "a fly by night news story" and the coverage is not owing to "the covid virus". Cunard (talk) 10:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• What Cunard said, but I must admit that it's been very frustrating to witness editors like Scope Creep vote "delete" without actually looking at the page or its sources. And the "Covid crisis"? Uhhhh...what? Constablequackers (talk) 09:18, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmmm, but you do think it is normal to attack voters that vote different from your preference? Could you please show a neutral attitude? The Banner talk 15:33, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair enough, but I'm not the only editor here who is having trouble displaying a neutral attitude. Now then, perhaps you can offer a neutral appraisal of why Scope Creep mentioned the Covid crisis in that comment. Constablequackers (talk) 15:59, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Also: it appears that Scope Creep has voted "delete" twice in this discussion. There's this one and another above. Should one of them be removed? Constablequackers (talk) 10:33, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Removing: no. Striking the second vote is possible. I shall do that. The Banner talk 11:10, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Deleted completely the 2nd vote, making closer's life easier. -The Gnome (talk) 21:36, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• It doesn't look like it's been struck out. I switched "delete" to "comment." I've never had to field this particular situation on Wikipedia. Is this a reasonable solution or no? Constablequackers (talk) 10:41, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Coverage in national in Dutch media, including in 2018 five years after Bledder's demise.--Eostrix (talk) 06:30, 8 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 no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:14, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Asatrian[edit]

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

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. There's some trivial coverage (particularly in German-language sources), but I wasn't able to find anything both significant and independent. Does not appear to meet WP:NMUSICIAN either. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:37, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:37, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:37, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable jazz musician. Does not pass GNG nor any of the specific guidelines for musician notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:40, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep This is tricky, especially as I don't speak German well (and I strongly suspect there may be many sources in Armenian, which is almost impossible to search unless you speak it) but he has records (at least two that I can find, and Skylark appears to be a Universal imprint too) distributed by Universal and has won an award in the USA that's been going for 20 years. Some things I found; Article in major Austrian paper appearing at a major jazz festival in Tunisia and an event in Italy as well as the ones in the article. It's thin, but I think he squeaks through GNG. Black Kite (talk) 01:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable musician. --SalmanZ (talk) 19:17, 2 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:37, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jami Tobey[edit]

Jami Tobey (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)

Amsterdam Whitney Gallery is a Vanity Gallery and there are insufficient WP:RS to satisfy NARTIST. Theredproject (talk) 21:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 21:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 21:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 21:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete insufficient coverage to meet WP:ARTIST. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:03, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - There is nothing I can find to substantiate that this artist meets the required standards for notability. GNG and NARTIST fail. Netherzone (talk) 00:10, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable painter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:01, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no indication of notability. No exhibition, collections, monographs, articles... Vexations (talk) 15:47, 5 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:15, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Stutz[edit]

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

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

A preponderance of Vanity Galleries and insufficient WP:RS to satisfy NARTIST. I couldn't verify the claims of inclusion in the Triennale de Paris or 10th St. Petersburg Biennale in Russia. Theredproject (talk) 21:49, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 21:49, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 21:49, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 21:49, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - There is something bizarre about this article, it does not seem to have been written from an art historical perspective - not that that is a requirement - however it does seem written from an odd perspective that's slightly industrial-economical-promotional. Things that strike me oddly for example: Harald Szeemann name-dropped as a "performer" rather than a curator?? Nevertheless, the exhibitions are unverifiable WP:V, and he does not meet WP:NARTIST nor WP:GNG criteria. Netherzone (talk) 00:01, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable artist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:02, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is a retired amateur artist. Vexations (talk) 15:40, 5 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 merge to Cliffside Park, New Jersey. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:17, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mayor of Cliffside Park, New Jersey[edit]

Mayor of Cliffside Park, New Jersey (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:LISTN guidelines for notability. Only two members of this list were deemed notable enough to have articles and lacks reliable sources for this incomplete list. I oppose any type of merge since reliable sources do not exist. Rusf10 (talk) 02:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 02:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 02:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 02:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Too small either way. Does not need standalone page. Mohanabhil (talk) 15:26, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect (and, if relevant, merge) to Cliffside Park, New_Jersey#Local_government, per WP:ATD. Several pages link to this one; deleting the page would break the links for no good reason. pburka (talk) 15:34, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...or keep, now that there's some substantial content, thanks to User:Djflem. No preference between merge and keep. pburka (talk) 19:37, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There are only three pages in articlespace that are actually linking to this list, and it's not a critical or essential link in any of them — two of them are, unsurprisingly, the two people listed here who actually have established notability for other reasons, because one was also a state legislator and the other was an NBA player, but just wait for the punchline that makes one of them even more problematic — while the third is just the "deaths in April 2015" entry for one of those same two people. So none of them have a contextual need for this link to exist — it can easily just be unlinked in all three uses.
  Now, to be fair, strictly speaking the value of a list of mayors does not necessarily vest in how many of them do or don't already have articles to link to — it's more important that a list of mayors of a town or city be complete than it is that the list comprise exclusively blue links. So the real problem here isn't the number of red links — it's the fact that the list is incomplete. The first mayor took office in 1901, with no indication of when his term ended. He's then followed by the state legislator, who — time for the punchline — is listed as an unsuccessful three-time candidate for mayor in the 1920s with no indication given in either the list or his biographical article that he ever actually won a mayoral election or served as the actual mayor at all. Then we skip to the 1950s for a person who served as mayor in 1950 and 1951, and then we skip one or more other mayors to land in 1958 — and then the list is complete from then on, but even then only because one of the next two mayors served for 50 years before dying in office literally just a few years ago.
  So what we have here is an incomplete list, with just two notable people in it — and one of those two notable people isn't reliably sourced as belonging in it at all, while the other one is notable far more for other reasons separate from the mayoralty than he is as a mayor per se. Gerald Calabrese can certainly be mentioned in Cliffside Park's city article — and indeed he already is — but this is mostly unsourced information about mostly non-notable people, along with one additional person who may not even properly belong here at all, which is not a recipe for a list that we need to retain either by keeping or merging. Bearcat (talk) 16:19, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Article's problems as described above are surmountable since deletion is not cleanup.Djflem (talk) 20:20, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Satifies Wikipedia:SALAT, Wikipedia:LISTPURP, Wikipedia:CSC, Wikipedia:LISTCRITERIA, doesn't contravene Wikipedia:NOTDIR, (and because Wikipedia:Other stuff exists).Djflem (talk) 09:48, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm very dubious of the nominator's claim that "reliable sources do not exist." Historical governance in the Northeastern States is famously well studied and documented. Surely paper sources could be found. pburka (talk) 14:26, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSTBESOURCES. If sources surely exist, where are they?--Rusf10 (talk) 16:53, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can accurately say that your search for sources was not fruitful. You might even be able to claim all sources are simply routine coverage. But the idea that no reliable sources exist for 130 years of mayoral elections in a New Jersey city is an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence. pburka (talk) 20:38, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So attack me rather than prove notability? Giving me links to Google searches is not helpful, see WP:GOOGLEHITS. Your three actual sources don't establish notability. The first is nothing more than a list of alumni of New York University, it doesn't even provide biographical information, we're not a directory. Second source is a local history book written about the town, it may satisfy WP:V, but not notability, I probably can find a book like that for every small town in America. Third source also appears to be a directory, just like the first one.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:00, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've got a reasonable claim that the topic fails notability... thus my !vote above. However, claiming that it's also unverifiable is a reach. Clearly reliable sources exist which document the existence of historical mayors of New Jersey towns. pburka (talk) 23:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Pburka: May I suggest you consider Wikipedia:LISTN, a nom rationale which is dubious, since it clearly states (bold mine): One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources and There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability ... or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists...Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability...Also, as stated above by another editor:the value of a list of mayors does not necessarily vest in how many of them do or don't already have articles to link to . In other words, a list does not require that its entries be independently notable or "blue-linked" (a nom rationale that appears to be flawed). With such a finite list, as mentioned, it should be complete, which it now is. Given Category:Lists of mayors of places in the United States it is clear that the community consensus is is to keep this type of list.Djflem (talk) 07:14, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:HEY: concerns have been addressed & article has been significantly improved since it was nominated for deletion: version 11 May and version 22 May

• Delete and move content to Cliffside Park, New Jersey --Cornellier (talk) 00:05, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying merge? Djflem (talk) 06:58, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge The article's an oversourced mess at the moment. I don't think the topic itself is notable, but the information in the article has been improved and would be a valid list... I think the best solution here would be to clean this up into a table and move it over to the Cliffside Park article. What information there is on each mayor can be included in the article somehow. A mayor of the town isn't really all that notable, but there's no reason to delete this information now (it was expanded from when it was nominated.) SportingFlyer T·C 06:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. No policy-grounded reason for deletion of this content has been advanced. The only legitimate question is whether the content should be included in the article on the municipality or spun out into a discrete list. That is noy an appropriate discussion for this forum. I also echo the concerns about the nominator's absurd claims that no reliable sources exist as to the mayoralty of a New Jersey city established in 1895, since both municipal records and newspapers from the entire time period exist. Statements like this, and the nominator's doubling down on them, indicate the nominator lacks the skills required to research and present deletion proposals. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 21:15, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Typical WP:IDONTLIKETHENOMINATOR WP:PERSONALATTACK. Even, though more sources have been discovered it only provides WP:V, not notability. The sources are nothing more than a collection of obituaries and the local town history book. If you search hard enough these sources can be found for almost any town in American and do not create notability.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:41, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:15, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Manoj Pillai[edit]

Manoj Pillai (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)

Sources don't establish notability. A Google search turned up a few results for a cinematographer of the same name. The article tone is too promotional. M4DU7 (talk) 20:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 20:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 20:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 20:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE Very well said @M4DU7: sometimes Sources don't establish notability this article purly sound paid edit. you should tag it with 'Advert' as well. I vote for Delete.Krishna Murthy DL (talk) 10:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear M4DU7 - Could you please elaborate the elements on this page (Manoj Pillai) that require clarification? Will be happy to furnish the necessary links / material to support them. Manoj Pillai is a notable writer and ad-film maker from Bangalore. There is a cinematographer by the same name, but the two have no connection with each other.106.51.28.60 (talk) 12:41, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Krithikamanohar: Please sign the messages by using delt 4 times i.e. ~ 4 times after writing your message. Feel free to ping me for help. Krishna Murthy DL (talk) 11:26, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Krishna Murthy DL: Have added delt 4 times after my earlier message 106.51.28.60 (talk) 12:46, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Krithikamanohar: @106.51.28.60: Kindly login into account and reply. @M4DU7: I think as you mentioned, the tone is promotional.

• Delete a non-notable filmmaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:51, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Adverts and promotions not allowed here. इं. हेमंत बोरकर (talk) 14:03, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Promotion aside the sourcing falls way short of what is necessary to pass WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:31, 9 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:15, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mark L. Rockefeller[edit]

Mark L. Rockefeller (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:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. Lots of paid advertising, name drop, mentions in relationship to company. No secondary sources present. Highly promotional spam. scope_creep^Talk 20:31, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:32, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:49, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Completely refbombed and once you peel away the non-reliable, non-independent sources there isn't much left and not enough to pass WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:07, 9 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:16, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Kis-Lev[edit]

Jonathan Kis-Lev (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 artist. Appears to be an elaborate promotional/vanity page. Searching for this person on Google, I find mostly self-created promotional websites: Facebook, Youtube, etc, and some marketplace websites where I assume his art is for sale. No Google News articles discussing him. Google Books reveals a bunch of books written by him, but every single one is self-published on CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. Going through the References section, every link is either dead, or something published by the subject of the article himself, or a live link that doesn't mention Kis-Lev. Two major contributors to the article: one is Forever Art, who created the article and spent most of his other editing time adding Kis-Lev's artwork to other articles (most of that has been removed from those articles). The other is the similarly-named Psychology Forever, whose other edits are mostly adding Kis-Lev's self-published books to other articles as references. Seems likely that's the subject of the article doing the editing in both cases. JimKaatFan (talk) 20:22, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable individual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:41, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:41, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:41, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:41, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is just a big puffery job. I have to say it is pretty well put together for a subject that has no notability based on available sourcing. (Not really related to deletion, but this looks like an autobiography, along with the graffiti works The_Peace_Kids_(mural) 27_Club_graffiti_in_Tel_Aviv. The original author of this little WP:walled garden had not logged in for two years until a few days ago, so maybe we will hear from them.)ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• keep Israeli dude, mediocre notability, but meets WP:ARTIST:

→Authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals:

→1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. →2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique. →3. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. →4. The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. אמנות או נמות (talk) 04:06, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Note for whoever ends up making the decision on this deletion: Users Art Lover, Forever Art and אמנות או נמות all participated in the creation of the Kis-Lev article back in 2012. אמנות או נמות has only 6 contributions to Wikipedia in over 8 years. Art Lover had not made an edit since 2015, and just reappeared to comment on this deletion. JimKaatFan (talk) 16:11, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with what you are saying. I believe this is plainly a case of long-term promotion across numerous subjects and articles. Art Lover actually created the first draft for the Kis-Lev article in their sandbox. They deleted the draft, and six minutes later Forever Art published it under their account. This is all back in 2012. Anyway, it should all unravel shortly, just waiting for checkuser. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:20, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The SPI confirmed that Art Lover and Forever Art were the same user. Art Lover's original account name was User:Jonathan Kis-Lev, so this is 8 years of self-promotion.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:01, 9 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:16, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gamera 4: Truth[edit]

Gamera 4: Truth (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 fan film; previously deleted: 1 2 - Flori4nKT A L K 19:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. - Flori4nKT A L K 19:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. - Flori4nKT A L K 19:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This fanfilm has had articles created, and then deleted via AFD, twice already, and nothing has changed this time around. This fanfilm just does not have sources that allow it to pass the WP:GNG. The director seems to have gone on to get a modicum of notability since this fanfilm, and there are a few sources mentioning him and the original films he went on to make. But the only coverage in those sources of this fanfilm are just brief mentions as something he had made in the past. Rorshacma (talk) 20:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the only sources covering this film are one line passing mentions in articles about the other films the director has made. Fails WP:GNG. Ym2X (talk) 21:09, 6 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 19:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon Vyff[edit]

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

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

No evidence of notability per WP:GNG, WP:NSCIENTIST or even WP:FRINGE. Reliable Sources are a couple of news articles about her diet; the rest is inside-fringe. Notability claims raised on talk, not addressed in years; previously PRODed in 2015 (after two A7 speedies in 2010). David Gerard (talk) 18:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 18:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 18:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 18:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails our notability guidelines on fringe figures.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:44, 2 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 19:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Diddy laugh[edit]

Diddy laugh (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:N. Topic is not notable, and the only reference is based on a personal blog. Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 18:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 18:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 18:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not even remotely notable, and too trivial to be featured anywhere as a redirect. Delete per WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 18:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not pass WP:GNG imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:56, 7 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. No prejudice against creation of a "List of..." for this sort of list. Primefac (talk) 18:33, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of file verification software[edit]

Comparison of file verification 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)

this list fails WP:NOT as original research. There are a handful of notable software but it's been nothing but a spam target for years and I would suggest only the notable (ie. existing articles) entries be moved to List of file verification software as "comparison" is original research. Praxidicae (talk) 18:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Pi (Talk to me!) 18:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This article is problematic for a few reasons. Firstly, as Praxidicae mentions, the overwhelming majority of the software listed in the article are not notable and improperly include external links to places where you can purchase or download said software. As a result, this has made the page a very attractive target for people who wish to promote a particular product. This, of course, is not a reason to delete the article in itself, since we could simply just clean up the article to remove any non-notable software. This leads me to the second issue. After reviewing the few entries on this list that are bluelinks to Wikipedia articles, I discovered that for several of the programs, "file verification" is not their primary purpose: e.g. 7-Zip (file compression), TeraCopy (copying files between drives), Total Commander (file manager). As a result, it seems much of this list is a conglomeration of divergent pieces of software that just happen to have file verification as a side-feature, which makes this toe close to the line of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. What's left are programs that are able to calculate cryptographic hashes or checksums as their primary purpose, e.g. md5deep, sha3sum, and cksum. However, I am skeptical that these relatively esoteric pieces of software are sufficient to sustain the notability of this kind of comparison article per WP:LISTN. Mz7 (talk) 19:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Mz7 (talk) 19:21, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTCATALOGUE, WP:NOTLINKFARM and WP:NOR. The function of Wikipedia is not to be a product comparison site. Ajf773 (talk) 20:15, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• One option is to trim the tables to notable examples only and merge to File verification; we have kept plenty of similar comparison tables/lists but there's probably not a need for it to be standalone here. I'm noting FWIW that there is no corresponding category for Category:File verification software. postdlf (talk) 20:37, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Postdlf ftr, I did try trimming it but was repeatedly called a vandal, so seemed like AFD was the only logical option. Praxidicae (talk) 14:04, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AFD is not for resolving content disputes. I see you posted this AFD not even a half hour after first posting to the talk page, rather than seeing how discussion proceeded or seeking additional editor input. You also could have reported the inexperienced editor reverting you for edit warring. postdlf (talk) 18:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not using it to solve a dispute and I'm well acquainted with proper venues. Ideally I would have just been able to be bold and clean it up and do what I suggested but given the opposition, it seemed AFD is the best venue since it should be deleted in it's current form. This is the norm for AFD. Praxidicae (talk) 19:19, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. There are a few hundred software comparison articles on Wikipedia (see Category:Software_comparisons). I know that "other stuff exists" is a bad argument to make at AfD, but it would be great if we could deal with these articles systematically. Obviously notability and policies like WP:NOTDIR are factors here. But is there an overall consensus on this type of article? BenKuykendall (talk) 01:08, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BenKuykendall I am for the nuclear option here and think Comparison of ... articles for the most part should be deleted per WP:NOT, since by their nature they almost all rely on original research. But in this particular case, I don't see any value for this article, hence my single AFD. Praxidicae (talk) 14:02, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: If this is being used as a test case then it is appropriate to noifity appropriate WikiProjects as that is a WikiProject level interest beyond normal alerts Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:25, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- Comparison of XYZ articles are often deleted, particularly if they are badly sourced. This one seems to be nothing but a directory of software, most entries of which are not notable. Reyk _YO! 11:36, 9 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 19:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Collis St Hill[edit]

Collis St Hill (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)

Seems to have been a standard soldier, who did not do anything very significant except live in an upper-middle-class family. Notability, however, is not inherited. Otherwise, a fail of WP:NSOLDIER as a lieutenant colonel and a mention in despatches isn't significant enough by itself. A google search indicates no in-depth coverage to meet WP:NPERSON independently. In the article, sourcing is either unreliable (i.e. self-published genealogy sites) or not in-depth (like the CWGC source) Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:09, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:15, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:15, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:SOLDIER, nothing notable about him or his service. Mztourist (talk) 06:27, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:SOLDIER, no evidence that he did anything noteworthy. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:06, 6 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 19:33, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

William Dixon (MYP)[edit]

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

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

WP:BLP (actually likely WP:AUTOBIO based on the creator's username) of a youth politician, not properly referenced as passing Wikipedia's inclusion standards. A youth parliament is not an WP:NPOL-passing office, so he's not automatically entitled to have an article just because he exists -- his includability would depend on showing that he's been the subject of enough reliable source coverage in real media to clear WP:GNG. But the footnotes here are entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability at all, such as his own self-published website about himself and the self-published website of the youth parliament. This is not how you make a person at this level of prominence notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Bearcat (talk) 17:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Probably a good idea to remove this and have a separate page for the Wakefield Youth Council itself, as it has been covered in local and national press. There are a few non suitable articles available on local press, I believe, but they represent the Youth Council rather than a specific. It is therefore difficult to justify why this article should be allowed on Wikipedia. Will d601 (talk) 10:18, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete youth politicians are not notable for such and there are no other signs of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:07, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. "Youth politicians" are not notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:47, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Why the scare quotes, Necrothesp? RobinCarmody (talk) 00:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because the whole concept of youth politics, like student politics, is divorced from the real world. What exactly is a "youth politician"? Any idea that they may be notable just adds to their self-importance. Particularly when the article was likely written by the gentleman himself. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:39, 9 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 procedural close. Duplicate nomination, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Oake (2nd nomination) (non-admin closure) Dps04 (talk) 17:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Oake[edit]

Brian Oake (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)

NN local radio personality. No achievements that rise to the level of WP:NCREATIVE. Entire career in one market, and not a major market locale either. Fails WP:ANYBIO. John from Idegon (talk) 17:31, 2 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 19:32, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Oake[edit]

Brian Oake (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)

NN local radio personality. No achievements that rise to the level of WP:NCREATIVE. Entire career in one market, and not a major market locale either. Fails WP:ANYBIO. John from Idegon (talk) 17:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. John from Idegon (talk) 17:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Single market radio hosts are almost never notable. Back in 2008 we would keep all sorts of articles we have since come to realize were on people who clearly were not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • We need an essay: WP:WEUSEDTONOTCAREBUTNOWWEDO. What JPL says is absolutely correct. John from Idegon (talk) 20:05, 2 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 19:32, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sono Khan Lashari[edit]

Sono Khan Lashari (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 can't find enough sources to figure out which (if any) of the potentially existing places with the name this article is trying to be about. The articles says it's a town (city?) in Hyderabad District, Sindh, Pakistan. The version of the article until earlier today [5] had a population figure that was sourced to a webpage that doesn't seem to have any mention of the place. The article listed coordinates that were right in the middle of the city of Hyderabad (presumably an artefact of a copy-and-paste from Hyderabad (Pakistan)), but the article's text mentions different coordinates, which seem to place the town instead in Tando Muhammad Khan District (which was part of Hyderabad District before 2005). Wikimapia has an entry too, but for a place in yet another part of Tando Muhammad Khan [6]. Google maps has an entry for a Sono Khan Lashari village, but that's in a different direction from the city of Hyderabad. There's nothing in Geonames, and I can't find anything reliable on google (though I've only searched in English, not Urdu).

Maybe there is a place, or maybe more than one place, with the name that's notable, but until reliable sources are found, we can't keep this article. WP:TNT applies to a large extent: the only content in the article history is two sentences about the languages (probably alright, but unsourced), a list of generic links that was probably copied from another article, and a few small sections about a local "notable family" that were puffery through and through. – Uanfala (talk) 17:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 17:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional bio coatracked in a geo article. Gotitbro (talk) 00:14, 7 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, and sanctions for disruption will be imposed if you make more nominations that are so grossly erroneous. Nyttend (talk) 00:30, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Myxter[edit]

Lee Myxter (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)

Micro stub which does not appear to reach the WP:NPOL requirement for Significant coverage. References at this time consist of Legislature directory page, An "independent" directory page, and a trivial mention in a list of many election returns. This was page was created by an editor who is currently subject to editing restrictions regarding creation of pages. Hasteur (talk) 17:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hasteur (talk) 17:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Hasteur (talk) 17:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. Hasteur (talk) 17:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep: this is ridiculous. You cite NPOL, but have you actually read it? Lee Myxter held a "state/province–wide office" as proven by a government website. That means he's clearly notable. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:38, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NPOL is a guideline, not a rule. Per the top of the section that includes NPOL: meeting one or more [additional criteria] does not guarantee that a subject should be included. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE) 17:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per my stated rationale. It is also irrelevant that the article creator is under a restriction, since it is that very restriction which forces them through the AfC process; still, since WP:BMB does not apply, an editor's restrictions are a distraction at best. ——Serial ^# 17:42, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep clearly meets NPOL. I will emphasize that NPOL is not just any old SNG. I point to footnote 12 linked from there, which reads "this criterion ensures that our coverage of major political offices, incorporating all of the present and past holders of that office, will be complete regardless." So, this goes above and beyond just "a claim to notability that hints at a strong possibility that GNG can be met with a deep enough dig". Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow Keep per TryKid, not really sure any way that one can swing delete here. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 18:08, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems to pass WP:POLITICIAN easily as he has been a member of a legislative body. Theroadislong (talk) 18:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. State legislators have a straight pass of WP:NPOL #1. The current quality of the article is not relevant to their keepability at all — state legislators always have media coverage, and we're just not always on the ball about actually finding and using all of it, which is not the same thing as coverage not existing in the first place. And since the creator used the AFC process, and the article was approved by an AFC reviewer who isn't under any similar restrictions, the original creator's restriction on creating articles is not a problem either since external oversight was involved. And yes, when it comes to state legislators our goal is to be as complete as feasibly possible a reference for all of them, not to pick and choose that some are more notable than others for some arbitrary reason outside of their having being covered by the media in the context of holding a notable political office — so precisely because better sourcing does exist to repair an inadequate article about a state legislator with, articles about state legislators are not deleted just for not already being in better shape than they are. Plus the AFC reviewer has personally already done some work on improving the sourcing here, so this article is already in better shape than it was at the time of nomination. Bearcat (talk) 21:35, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Straight pass of WP:NPOL. The goal is to have biographies of all federal and statewide elected officials. Whether or not the current state of an article is a stub, there will be sources available to improve the article. --Enos733 (talk) 22:10, 2 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 19:31, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gurudath Musuri[edit]

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

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

Reviewed under new article curation process. No indication of wp:notability. No wp:GNG-suitable coverage, no claims relevant to SNG. The references only mention him as the cinematographer for the movie that they are discussing. Two of the films that he was cinematographer for have wikipedia articles. Has been tagged for notability since December. North8000 (talk) 21:50, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:59, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:59, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:00, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Doesn't seem notable. Especially since the couple of films he worked on hardly are themselves. It's hard to be notable in the film industry, let alone in Wikipedia, that way. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable as either an actor or filmmaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:27, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:NBIO. Drat8sub (talk) 19:37, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The subject's name seem to be misspelt. "Gurudutt Musuri" yields some results. Dflaw4 (talk) 07:10, 1 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 19:31, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kramm, California[edit]

Kramm, 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)

An extremely isolated passing siding, in a wilderness with nothing else for miles. It's not even served by a road. Searching is a problem because of a common last name but the one good hit I got was in a gazetteer of railroad placenames. Mangoe (talk) 17:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not a community, not notable, another United States Geological Survey stub that should never have been created. --Cornellier (talk) 17:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:47, 5 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:38, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Renee Michelle[edit]

Renee Michelle (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:PWBIO. No indication of notability in reliable, independent sources. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:43, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:43, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:43, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not very much coverage on reliable sources. [7] Most of them are talking about his husband. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:21, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable professional wrestler.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:36, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:35, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - a handful of WWE appearances, and being married to James doesn't make notability. Fails GNG Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:22, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete since subject fails WP:PWBIO and even WP:GNG. The fact that the article has been created and curated by a kamikaze account only worsens its credentials. -The Gnome (talk) 20:38, 9 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 List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero characters (H–L)#Hardtop. Sandstein 19:21, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Defiant (G.I. Joe)[edit]

Defiant (G.I. Joe) (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)

More G.I. Joe action figure cruft. Sourced to comics, an "official" G.I. Joe book (primary source), and a book claiming to be a comprehensive guide of every G.I. Joe action figure or toy ever created ("including all of the easy to lose parts"). A WP:BEFORE search turns up mostly unreliable fansites and personal websites, action figure/toy databases (user-generated), and sales sites. WP:GNG fail. Hog Farm (talk) 16:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 16:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 16:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero characters (H–L)#Hardtop. Since this is sourced entirely to primary sources, with the exception of one book, published by the same company that published the “official” primary source books, that would not be enough to pass GNG even if it was a reliable source and provided significant coverage. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:35, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero vehicles per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 04:17, 3 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 19:19, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Triibe[edit]

Triibe (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)

Triibe does not exist (any longer!?), website forwards to a Japanese spam advertiser CommanderWaterford (talk) 13:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - you beat me to the AfD nomination. However, the fact that a product is no longer made is not a cause to delete it from Wikipedia. I would argue the deletion reason is that this is very definitely a non-notable product. A Google search does not suggest this is a product that the world has taken much notice of. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:32, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable source exists.Drat8sub (talk) 13:36, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: nn; found no sigcov. - Flori4nKT A L K 16:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The lack of reliable, secondary sources shows that this product was never notable, and the fact that it appears to now be long defunct means that its highly unlikely it ever will become notable in the future. Rorshacma (talk) 16:13, 2 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. There is consensus to not keep this. Most "keep" opinions do not make much sense in the context of our policies and guidelines. Less clear is how to not keep it. "Keep & Merge" and "Delete & Merge" are both mutually exclusive and are therefore disregarded. There is some support for merging, but it is not clear what could or should be merged where to. Redirect isn't really advocated here, probably because the title isn't an obvious search term. As a result, plain "delete" is probably the most consensual option. Sandstein 19:17, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Entertainment industry response to George Floyd protests[edit]

Entertainment industry response to George Floyd protests (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)

Whilst it maybe sourced we do not have to have page (and certainly something that is not much more than a list) on every view on every subject. Slatersteven (talk) 13:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Delete or Weak redirect to George_Floyd_protests   Kadzi   (talk) 13:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather we did not add a huge list of random celelbs to this article.Slatersteven (talk) 13:26, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting to change my mind to agree with you, having seen (and proposed for deletion) other similar articles to do with the riots etc, any credible celebrity actions will automatically be included into the actual articles. Changed views accordingly.   Kadzi   (talk) 14:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep

I do not believe this should be deleted, as it captures the individual reactions to these protests, which is something that is not often captured or paid much attention to during large historical events. It's not crucially important, but I believe it has value and especially should not be deleted. Uelly (talk) 20:41, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This practice is very common when it comes to endorsements of political candidates, and this in fact goes into more detail. The movement that is presently going on is important to report on, and this support is part of that. I would not have spent so long on the page if I didn't believe that.

I specifically created this new page because I did not want to have specific names fill too much of the original. Instead, I wanted it to have its own space in order to discuss how the entertainment industry as a whole -- not only celebrities -- has been responding to this pivotal time. It's also why I have tried to add details on each figure's stance, and not merely their name, which is in fact more detailed than presidential endorsement list pages.

I additionally plan to expand this page in the coming days to include more total content about what is happening. There is controversy over certain facets of the responses, and I have yet to see much in the way of opposition to the protests within the entertainment industry. I will be curious to see more in the coming days. Making a page for any currently occurring event is difficult. Hopefully we can make this page even better as a community. PickleG13 (talk) 14:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a political candidate.Slatersteven (talk) 14:14, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are, in many ways, more arguments to be made for having a social movement and the support given (which here is totaling in the hundreds of thousands of dollars and many protests) than for a political candidate generally. It is a similar issue. PickleG13 (talk) 14:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Alternative of new Response page

While I think and will continue to defend this page as being a valid one that contributes well to Wikipedia's mission as well as the public interest, there could also be a possibility of creating a new page titled Response to George Floyd protests, which could include this plus various commentators and politicians. Responses by high profile figures, verified by reputable sources, are rather crammed into the original. Creating a new page of this kind could also solve the problem. I wish to work with the community to find the best solution that puts this work to use! PickleG13 (talk) 14:14, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Any comments by high profile figures go in the main article, the problem is "and here is what the cast of this years America's version of TOWIE thinks".Slatersteven (talk) 14:19, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unencyclopedic trivia; WP:INDISCRIMINATE applies. There's no indication of why these individuals have any particular credibility in the field or qualifications that make them an authority whose opinions we should report for their value.
  This discussion is pretty clear on the nil-value of such an article; as Slatersteven noted, why is what some celeb thinks is ever relevant...except to their fans, of course. For the record: Do not merge; anything salvageable will make its way to the parent article. ——Serial ^# 14:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Subject fails WP:GNG, WP:LISTN, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. This is a current event and Wikipedia is not here to host this sort of slacktivism. Let's wait twenty years for responsible history to be written upon the statements of celebrities and then this article can be developed. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:35, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right lets wait to see who and what is actually high profile rather than "get my fizog in the news for a bit of free publicity".Slatersteven (talk) 14:37, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete What is this, a stan list? We already have a page for Blackout Tuesday, which is already closely linked. As I said earlier on the talk page of the protests, if we want to add responses from the entertainment industry, it must be someone of considerable following who has done something substantial, like Cole Sprouse getting arrested, Halsey joining the protests and Taylor Swift criticising Trump. If we are going to add every celebrity who has like, posted, about it, the page is gonna be long as hell. Nahnah4 (talk | contribs) 16:13, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is all a bit crufty.Slatersteven (talk) 16:19, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - this is merely about celebrities saying things or donating money. This article would only be valid if it were about things like concerts being cancelled & filming being stopped because of the protests. Jim Michael (talk) 16:28, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- I concede that cruft arguments have a point, but in the current situation where people are locked at home paying disproportionate attention to "public opinion leaders" which for better or worse, include the cultural elite (also known as "entertainment industry" -- I know some will cringe at Taylor Swift being called a "cultural elite" but her influence on certain demographics is indeed relevant). Additionally, this is a nice way to keep the info, but move it off the main page. I would also support a merge to include other public opinion leaders, including politicians, other public figures such as famous scientists, philosophers, columnists, et cetera. --Calthinus (talk) 16:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why would we want it on any WP article? It's trivia. Many celebs are using it as an opportunity to look good & gain media coverage for themselves. Jim Michael (talk) 17:07, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All culture is political and all politics is culture. The "irrelevance" argument is hinged on this idea that public figures do not matter. Loads of research suggests the opposite. Of course some selectiveness is warranted, but when people underestimate the influence of even low-brow pop singers to effect politics, they do so at their own , etc [8]. --Calthinus (talk) 17:15, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You mentioned Swift, but Swift is just one of the many celebrities out there. This can easily be added into the initial article itself, without the need of this article which is almost just like a stan list. Nahnah4 (talk | contribs) 17:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nahnah4: absolutely agree about the need for selectiveness -- hence why I started the thread over at Talk:George Floyd protests. But deletion is WP:NOTCLEANUP -- the topic is notable, though, as I've said, it should be expanded to include all impactful public figures, not just those in the so-called "entertainment industry". The discussion about which celebrities should not be on a "stan list" (don't really know what this means tbh) is one for establishing inclusion criteria, not deleting a whole page. One good criterion would be if there is independent RS coverage of the celebrity's statements -- if is adequately covered by significant RS, then it is warranted, exactly in line with WP:DUE. --Calthinus (talk) 17:21, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per Jim Michael. There is no denying that public figures like celebrities are incredibly influential, and that Taylor Swift can make a Tweet about Trump and get 2 million likes from it, but there really has no encyclopedic value to listing every celebrity who have responded to this. There has been an influx of celebrities who have supported the movement, are you going to name every single artist who has a Wikipedia page? From the initial article, we have already mentioned that the support from the entertainment industry has been overwhelming, so it should already give readers a sense of how positive the response was, without needing to list out everything. If we really want to mention celebrities, mention the ones that have done more than what other people had done. But the thing about this is also that we can't really define who did what that is considered more "impactful". Nahnah4 (talk | contribs) 17:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. There is a criterion for notability if not "impact": WP:RS coverage. If the celeb in question is not deemed by any RS to matter, they won't cover it. For example, this means we'd keep Trevor Noah, but remove Hardwick... Noah is covered by RS, Hardwick is sourced only to Instagram. --Calthinus (talk) 17:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What notability is there from celebs saying things? That doesn't do anything. Jim Michael (talk) 19:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A personal opinion. Personally I find the obsession with celebs annoying as well. But this is not our place. RS determine notability. Not Wikipedia editors. --Calthinus (talk) 20:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge - Keep, or merge to Blackout Tuesday. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:03, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:LISTN and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Such a list is destined to grow to unreasonable size, and convey little to no meaningful info. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete - are we also going to need to start an article for the response from the sports industry? What about the hospitality business? This article's only purpose seems to be for keeping tabs on which celebrities have responded and which haven't. If any of their responses were particularly notable, then perhaps this article would approach being encyclopedic. But as it is, it's just an indiscriminate list. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 21:04, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The sports industry is entertainment. Perhaps we can add a section on that on this page. Won't even have to change the title of the article. Kire1975 (talk) 02:09, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was being sarcastic. A list of reactions is not inherently notable unless the reactions themselves are notable or have received significant attention from reliable sources. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 03:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, if presented with sources on this page that have received significant attention from reliable sources, that would change your position then? --Calthinus (talk) 04:01, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge any salvageable content (such as coverage to be had on a few select celebrities supporting BLM) to George Floyd protests under a subsection, Delete the rest, with a reminder to the article creator that Wikipedia is not a news reporter, it is not an indiscriminate repository of information, it is an encyclopedia first and foremost. Topic does not pass WP:LISTN at this point in time. --letcreate123 (talk) 22:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and merge Most of the article of composed of inessential, miscellaneous responses that are of little interest or importance to anyone outside of the fanbases of the individuals and organisations making those responses. How Queen's lead guitarist or Cartoon Network responded to this uprising has no correlation to the uprising itself. However, specific elements of it (especially significant responses from prominent African American entertainment figures such as Jamie Foxx and Tessa Thompson) can be merged into other articles about the protests, where necessary. PlanetDeadwing (talk) 23:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to George Floyd protests, while this is just a list of people and organisations vaguely related to the entertainment industry who have commented on the ongoing events, there are several very significant people here whose comments have received a lot of attention, and that is worth covering at the main article to a greater degree than it is already. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Merge a lot of these pages are already huge and unwieldy. Dividing it up into multiple pages is standard practices hence the Category:Death of George floyd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kire1975 (talk • contribs)

• Keep It's notable and can only be improved. Deleting it is censorship and prevents any possibilty of improving it. Merging it is unneccesary. Kire1975 (talk) 02:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kire1975, how is deleting this article censorship? —valereee (talk) 15:16, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Trivial unencyclopedic WP:NOTNEWS. None of the responses by the celebrities are notable, and if by chance one or two were, they can go in the main article. The page adds precisely zero to the project. Black Kite (talk) 08:36, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Just a collection of soundbites. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or soft merge As per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Trivial and redundant lists of random celebrities joining protests and giving money isn't notable on its own and does not warrant an entire article dedicated to it. It can be summed up in one sentence in the main George Floyd protests page that a number of celebrities supported the cause, if it's even notable enough to mention. RopeTricks (talk) 11:36, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and don't merge. This is all trivia. —valereee (talk) 17:44, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep & Merge into a new page only for reactions as is done with major international events. Idan (talk) 17:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Celebrity trivia doesn't warrant its own page, nor does a repository of Twitter/Instagram support. KidAd (talk) 18:29, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete & Merge: This entire list doesn't provide meaningful information, and it can be summarized on the main page if needed. 9gfg06w2 ✉ 18:44, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This could be a worthwile spin-off article but there would have to be more stuff here. Its a bit too small for now.★Trekker (talk) 21:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:54, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:54, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this is not encyclopedia worthy. WP:IAR or as a WP:ATD-M selective merge. No need for a standalone. Lightburst (talk) 13:55, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This can be covered in one of the main articles, and probably doesn't merit a list of every celebrity who has tweeted support or attended an event (hence not !voting to merge). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:57, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep & Merge into a new page only for Reactions to the George Floyd protests as is precedented: Reactions to the 2019–20 Hong Kong protests. However, list may need to be edited down or the formatting may need to be changed. --Xicanx (talk) 07:19, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & Merge, are you saying we keep this page, and add the material into a new one as well?Slatersteven (talk) 18:32, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - we do not need a list of random celeberties that have to chime in to controversy. This happens in every event. Can easily be covered in the main article, and is a clear violation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Inter&anthro (talk) 03:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/partial merge Fully agree with description of this being mere "chiming in". It baffles me why anyone thought attendance at a protest or tweets in support is encyclopedic content that needs to be catalogued like this. If they had an impact on specific protests such a speaking at them, that should be listed at the respective [Protests in Location] article, not listed with other unrelated musicians or actors or whatever at celebrity trivia. Reywas92^Talk 22:00, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – I understand the passion behind this list, but to put it politely, Wikipedia is not the place for this kind of list. It's a clear violation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The list can be useful, but it's better suited for a blog or something else. Songwaters (talk) 02:07, 8 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 19:11, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ECPlaza[edit]

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

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

Not notable or enough reliable sources Wikieditor600 (talk) 13:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not finding significant RS coverage to satisfy WP:NWEB or WP:CORP. After the copyvio spam was removed from this "leading" B2B's article, the remaining stub is left with superlative claims sourced to the subject and event participation fluff. An independent search for coverage only got trivial mentions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Barely found anything about the portal. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 03:27, 4 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 Qype. Sandstein 19:11, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stephan Uhrenbacher[edit]

Stephan Uhrenbacher (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)