< 5 June 7 June >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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. Speedy keeping under WP:SK criteria 2 and 3 - very likely a vexatious nomination, no deletion rationale, no good-faith votes to delete. Note that this decision has nothing to do with the number of people who argued to keep the article and does not preclude a later deletion discussion with a proper rationale. To the many new and unregistered users who showed up to this discussion: please take a moment to read our policies on how deletion discussions work and canvassing. Deletion discussions revolve around Wikipedia policies, not vote count, and the Wikipedia community does not appreciate it when people are clearly being asked to join a discussion in order to support a particular outcome. I do, however, encourage you to contribute in other areas. creffett (talk) 02:49, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Corina Newsome[edit]

Corina Newsome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Newsome Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
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. Speedy keeping under WP:SK criteria 2 and 3 - very likely a vexatious nomination, no deletion rationale, no good-faith votes to delete. Note that this decision has nothing to do with the number of people who argued to keep the article and does not preclude a later deletion discussion with a proper rationale. To the many new and unregistered users who showed up to this discussion: please take a moment to read our policies on how deletion discussions work and canvassing. Deletion discussions revolve around Wikipedia policies, not vote count, and the Wikipedia community does not appreciate it when people are clearly being asked to join a discussion in order to support a particular outcome. I do, however, encourage you to contribute in other areas. creffett (talk) 02:47, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Earyn McGee[edit]

Earyn McGee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · McGee Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page meets guidelines, and Earyn McGee is a prominent science communicator. She is well known in the scicomm community for her popular #FindThatLizard game, and played an important role in #BlackBirdersWeek. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:240:8301:52F0:FDDD:A20D:5602:D17B (talk) 02:40, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This page meets guidelines and has significant impact and influence in the science community. Deletion seems highly inappropriate


This person is a credible scientific professional and has made herself known on the Twitter platform with evidence of her scientific position. I believe they should remain on Wikipedia as they appear to be an influential individual in the science community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaylaAdanero (talk • contribs) 02:30, 7 June 2020 (UTC) This page should not be deleted. This page meets notability guidelines and she is being targeted for her race/gender. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:1018:C2C8:203D:B733:98FB:A7AC (talk) 02:35, 7 June 2020 (UTC) This page should not be deleted. Earyn McGee is a professional with a strong following and media presence and is becoming a well-known outreach personality. She’s known enough to have people want to learn more about her so it makes sense for Wikipedia to be a source.[reply]

This page should not be deleted. Earyn McGee is a highly respected professional in the scientific community and deserves her work to be promoted within her Wikipedia page for all to see.

She is also an advocate for diversity in STEM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:900A:1C14:5100:A1D4:5DA:7D57:D4FF (talk) 02:27, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Earyn easily exceeds notability guidelines. I am part of the scientific community and can confirm this fact. Savie Kumara (meow) 02:28, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Earyn’s integral role in organizing and running the first ever Black Birders Week is historically significant. Across multiple social media platforms, Black Birders Week garnered tens of thousands of views globally, including record-breaking viewership from their live streams with the National Audubon Society. Similarly, the role of Anna Gifty and Corina Newsome in this historic initiative warrants them all inclusion on designated Wikipedia pages chronicling their achievements and backgrounds.

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 , technically speedily, though without any haste. No votes to delete, and nominator does not appear to have standing. Stifle (talk) 10:20, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Scope (alternative weekly)[edit]

The Scope (alternative weekly) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) –(ViewAfD · weekly)Stats):(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable publication; not encyclopedically relevant.--User19004 (talk) 23:47, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:55, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:55, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:34, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ava Vincent[edit]

Ava Vincent (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 pornographic actress. And per all the reasons I've listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eva Lovia, particularly the established consensus through linked AfDs and DRVs, that pornographic actresses lacking sufficient mainstream media coverage and awards, or meeting WP:N by some other criteria, should be deleted. Consistently, pages of people whose best achievement is along the lines of Penthouse Pet of the Month have been deleted. This actress' page only has AVN citations. She hasn't won a major AVN, and lacks notability. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 23:42, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 23:42, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pornography-related deletion discussions. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 23:59, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:13, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:36, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eva Lovia[edit]

Eva Lovia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm relying on precedents in previous AfDs and DRVs. Most the sources on this page are from AVN. Lovia has little coverage in WP:RS, or at least no more than other stars who have been consistently found to fail WP:N. So per 2017 precedent in this AfD, backed by this DRV and this AfD, and reiterated in 2019, after WP:PORNBIO was scrapped by RfC, in this AfD and established as speedy delete in this AfD, despite being very popular for the 2nd and 3rd nominations of AfD, as noted at this DRV.

In conclusion, I think sufficient precedent exists to note that this individual is equally notable as the ones consistently found to not meet WP:N. I'd add that she doesn't qualify under receiving awards. She has won none, unlike others that were found to meet deletion policy.

I'd like to add that I don't necessarily agree with deletion of such articles. I feel current Wikipedia policies are skewed to favour removing pornographic actors/actresses, and this skewing creates a weird situation where you have household names that fail to meet the notability policy and are deleted, while some who only meet technical notability remain on Wikipedia with stub articles. Nevertheless, per established policy, I believe this should be deleted. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 23:12, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 23:12, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pornography-related deletion discussions. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 23:59, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 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. The keep arguments have not presented a broadly policy based argument that debunks the synth argument. Spartaz Humbug! 15:06, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Protests of 2019[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Protests of 2019 (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 previous AfD nomination and talkpage comments since then: this article does not document a true phenomenon. The limited scholarly coverage is either speculation, focuses on certain regions, or debates the possibility of an attitude towards protests, without any certainty. Since the last AfD, it has been built on, but not improved. It now connects more unrelated protests indiscriminately, and is falling foul of WP:NOTCATALOG. The final motivation for nominating at AfD now is the addition of information regarding the Twin Cities riots. Note, the information is only about the riots, not protests, and is obviously unconnected in every way: occurring in 2020 in a world very different to the one left behind by any protests in 2019, and motivated by a racist murder rather than whatever global discontent is the supposed connection between the rest. The addition of this indicates that this article obviously has no connecting thread and is being used as an unnecessary catalog of protests. Kingsif (talk) 20:55, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Kingsif (talk) 21:00, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Kingsif (talk) 21:00, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Kingsif (talk) 21:00, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Kingsif (talk) 21:00, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like an argument that you could make and get published. I'm not convinced either way but it is certainly arguable and I'm not here to tell you that you are wrong. The problem is that Wikipedia is not the place to make that argument. We need external reliable sources to have already made all the links and declared that this alleged global wave of protests was actually a global wave of linked protests. We can't synthesise this for ourselves. I had a look at the two links you give. The BBC article about dissatisfaction with democracy doesn't mention protest at all and the CNBC one only mentions it in a picture caption and not the article text. So, no, these articles do not support claims of a protest wave themselves. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ. Firstly, this is an ongoing debate as the existence of this page has been challenged, so I have every right to make an argumentative point here; asides, I am trying to reason you (and everyone else who may be like-minded) why this page should remain up and running online. Secondly, there actually has been reports of similarity not only formed by whoever started this article (and the contributors that follow), but also establishments by reliable resources as well. Several outlets such as The New Yorker, Voice of America, and NBC to name a few, have already begun acknowledging and agreeing on certain common motives and roots for these conflicts. In this case, the protests discussed in this page have underlying roots tracing back to demands for governmental reform and more political transparency. This is the same notion that goes with the Protests of 1968; they may seem unrelated and sporadic at first glance, but eventually does get to have underlying connections once uncovered. It's only because of the recent occurrences of these protests that may obscure their string of similarity for now. Azurevanilla ash (talk) 06:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When I search for "Global Protest Wave of 2019" in Google Scholar I get just one hit and zero hits in Google Newspapers. Of course I get some hits for "protests of 2019" because there were protests in 2019, some of them notable ones, but I'm not seeing anything to link them in a "global protest wave" or to suggest that 2019 was extraordinary in this respect, even if it had more protests than average. In fact, I'm far from convinced of that. I tried counting raw hits in Google Scholar and the results are not encouraging:
"Protests of 2014": 224
"Protests of 2015": 425
"Protests of 2016": 122
"Protests of 2017": 63
"Protests of 2018": 15
"Protests of 2019": 40
(Average = 148)
Even if we assume that some articles about events in 2019 might still be working through their publication process, this is deeply unimpresive. If there is no shortage of sources for this alleged wave then I'm certainly not finding them. Maybe the article is misnamed? Does this wave of protests have some other name? What should we be searching for in order to find all these scholarly articles about the alleged global wave of protests if not the two titles given in the article? If this is a real thing, like the Arab Spring or the fall of Communist Europe, then I'll happily withdraw my delete !vote but I'm not seeing anything to support this. As I say, maybe I am looking in entirely the wrong places. Where should I be looking instead? --DanielRigal (talk) 15:41, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is 2020 now and there is nothing to link those protests to the overall narrative here which relates to 2019. There will always be protests, every single year. If you choose to link them all then this "wave" started way before 2019 and if you don't choose to link them, except when there is a demonstrable link, then here is no single wave phenomenon for this article to be about. Unless police brutality against black people in the USA started in 2019 (It didn't!) then it does not fit into the narrative that this article is pushing. Of course, it does fit onto the overall history of police brutality against black people in the USA, and it is right that we cover that extensively as it is a large and serious topic, but that is not what this particular article is about and we have other, better, articles for that. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:44, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DanielRigal: Don't worry, Daniel, when someone comes to close this they will look at the arguments, not just the number of !votes, and see that there's nothing saying 'keep' with any sense attached. Kingsif (talk) 00:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Second the view that the 2020 BLM Protests are in fact very good evidence of why there was no joint, global 2019 wave of protests and so this article should be deleted. We can clearly identify where and how the 2020 protests began, they are clearly described as a single global phenomenon in reliable sources, they are not a continuation of what happened in 2019 because we know their cause happened this year, and claims that they are instead highlight that 2019 was really no different to any other year in having protests at various places in the world that shared some themes and differed in other ways. This article is basically a bunch of WP:OR, WP:SYNTH. FOARP (talk) 14:55, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
--Keepcalmandchill (talk) 10:13, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ^^THIS. we have a damage control board lighting up like a Christmas tree here, people. everyone who wants to help track should report for duty to the CIC. for everyone who doesn't want to, that's fine. I assume no one has a problem with our retaining the entry for Full House (season 1), right? well.... that's good! --Sm8900 (talk) 04:10, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A classic example of the major issue: that source is nothing more than a list of all the major protests, and does not attempt to connect them as one movement, or it would have said that. Lots of protests happen every year, more in 2019 than most, but it's not a thing. Kingsif (talk) 16:38, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, all list articles have to also have a good connection as justification for the standalone list article existing. Otherwise, make articles for all the notable entries and use categorization. E.g. there is no 'Films of 2019' article. Also, such a title would suggest that there is something about the films released in 2019 that connects them, like 'Films of the New Wave' or something - not including list in the article title suggests that the subject is a topic. There is also no 'List of films released in 2019' article, because there is no justification for having such a list. Before you mention it, 2019 in film exists, but is not a random list of films, it's an overview of the industry in that year. Kingsif (talk) 01:52, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • there is no rule that says Protests of 2019 cannot be based on the same notability standard as 2019 in film, or that it needs to be in a timeline format just to have validity as an article. this article Protests in 2019 is no different in validity than 2019 in film; it simply uses a narrative encyclopedic format, rather than a timeline format. kind of appropriate, since this is an encyclopedia, wouldn't you say? and also, this is at least as notable as Friends (season 1), which, naturally does have its very own full-fledged entry here. --Sm8900 (talk) 04:06, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
These are two very, very different proposals - redirect in this case is more akin to deletion, so why !vote keep? FOARP (talk) 12:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Most of the Keep comments do not appear to address any notability policy.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 22:58, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:04, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are many articles published in newspapers making comparisons between various things. To pick some obvious examples, Brexit and Trump are often compared, as were Jeremy Corbyn and Bernie Sanders. That this was done is not evidence that they are part of linked phenomena sufficiently notable for an article. Populist wave was quite sensible simply redirected to Populism as that was what is being discussed. Similarly, what is being discussed here is the general subject of protest, not something that began or indeed ended in 2019.FOARP (talk) 12:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One additional point - it is instructive that when the same topic was discussed on FR Wiki they opted to delete. FOARP (talk) 12:34, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
and of course, climate change has caused Young People Lead Millions To Protest Global Inaction On Climate Change. but the whole populist movement has its roots in the worldwide displacement of refugees due to the regional conflicts of the Arab Spring. and also, please don't foreget that More than 500 arrested after protests and clashes as India water crisis worsens, in June 2019; Millions of people are running out of usable water in the southern Indian city of Chennai, which is experiencing major droughts and a rapidly worsening water crisis. Should I continue? Do you really want me to? et cetera. --Sm8900 (talk) 04:35, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, based on your comment, I will have removed the superfluous comments, i.e. those expressing disagreement. I retained one comment above, which agreed with a point made above, and also a single other comment that sought to genuinely respond to a point above made by a commenter here. thanks for your input. --Sm8900 (talk) 12:56, 15 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! 15:07, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maximilian Pupp[edit]

Maximilian Pupp (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)

Skiing doesn't have an SNG to use as a rough guide to notability, so we have to go by WP:GNG, per WP:SPORTCRIT. I have done a reasonably thorough BEFORE search (for an English speaker), and I have found no in-depth sources about the subject. There were only trivial mentions and listings on sports statistics pages. As the subject is now retired, it is unlikely that any further in-depth sources will emerge. Per SPORTCRIT, Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources...is not sufficient to establish notability; we cannot maintain this article on the basis of stat pages. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I actually did search with Google switched to pulling German-language results, and I simply found no in-depth content about him. Everything I found was just stat pages and result reports that included a single sentence along the lines of "Maximilian Pupp did XYZ" with no elaboration. The best source I found was this [1] short piece in Münchner Merkur, which is basically a fluff piece about COVID19 affecting skiing, with some quotes from Pupp. It's still not content about him or his career. There's no content that gets us past SPORTCRIT, which requires more than just stat pages, no matter what his performance level was. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 22:55, 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 redirect to Ivane Andronikashvili. Clear consensus not to retain as standalone; redirecting as WP:ATD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:37, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nino Imeretinsky[edit]

Nino Imeretinsky (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 Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:38, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:38, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:38, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:51, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Constantine Imeretinsky[edit]

Constantine Imeretinsky (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 Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:38, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:38, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:38, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:52, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mikheil Imeretinsky (1843–1892)[edit]

Mikheil Imeretinsky (1843–1892) (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 Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:37, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:37, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:37, 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 redirect to Prince Rostom of Imereti. Redirecting to his father as a WP:ATD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:52, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Bagrationi[edit]

Simon Bagrationi (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 Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:36, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:52, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rostom Bagrationi[edit]

Rostom Bagrationi (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 Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:36, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:53, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Grigol Bagrationi[edit]

Grigol Bagrationi (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 Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:35, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:35, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:35, 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 merge to Street game. (non-admin closure) buidhe 23:39, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Street sports[edit]

Street sports (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 an encyclopaedia article and I cannot establish that the topic meets WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 19:36, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am changing my vote to Redirect to Street game based on the detail provided by Metropolitan90 below. Donaldd23 (talk) 01:29, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 20:50, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is this the same as street game or not?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 22:13, 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. Spartaz Humbug! 15:08, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ali asghar Heidari karimzadeh[edit]

Ali asghar Heidari karimzadeh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Antila (✉) 14:52, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Antila (✉) 14:52, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Antila (✉) 14:52, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:49, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:49, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would help to provide reliable sources, rather than just claiming he's notable.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 22:11, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One of the main sources come from Kianoosh Nikkhah who calls themselves as Digital Influencer. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 22:05, 14 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. Closing as keep per WP:SNOW. Consensus is clear and there is little benefit to keeping the discussion open, considering the amount of disruption and interpersonal sniping that has already taken place.

This AfD has received significant attention, well above and beyond normal, due to the AfD being shared on social media. Several participants on both sides of the discussion appear to have come to Wikipedia solely for this AfD and, as such, were unfamiliar with how the process works and made arguments that were based on preference rather than policy (the governing policy being notability).

The overwhelming majority of participants that based their arguments on relevant policy came to the conclusion that the subject of the article meets WP:BASIC. There was some concern that she is not independently notable of The Sadie Collective (i.e. WP:BLP1E), and that the coverage was not substantially focused on her, however the majority of participants felt that WP:BASIC was met.

I have posted at WP:AN for a review of this closure. (non-admin closure) The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 10:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Gifty Opoku-Agyeman[edit]

Anna Gifty Opoku-Agyeman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Gifty Opoku-Agyeman Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Struck comment by blocked sock-puppet. Nfitz (talk) 03:28, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Struck comment by blocked sock-puppet. Nfitz (talk) 07:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Struck comment by blocked sock-puppet. Nfitz (talk) 03:28, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a tweet by the subject asking someone to create a Wikipedia article for her. She has no peer reviewed articles. She is not an academic. She is currently a research assistant who misrepresents herself to appear more significant, and this is part of that push. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:F906:B300:C575:6272:6EFF:73DE (talk) 22:29, 6 June 2020 (UTC) — 2606:A000:F906:B300:C575:6272:6EFF:73DE (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Heya, not sure what you're trying to accuse(?) me of, but I noticed some "liked by" tweets in my feed about some new Wikipedia articles - check my edit history, I just clean up and expand Wikipedia articles related to plants, animals, and articles associated with plants and animals, like herpetologists, ornithologists, etc. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 22:42, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not sure what "the presence of common editors" is meant to indicate beyond the fact that these are similar articles, and that somebody interested in one is likely to be interested in others. You could undoubtedly find a bunch of "common editors" on articles about white naturalists, or stamp collecting, or classical history, or Pokemon - so what? --Calair (talk) 23:32, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
*Comment The point is that these articles were written by people who immediately went on Twitter and promoted them to the followers of the article subjects, seemingly for little reason other than virtue signal themselves as "allies" to a community of black scientists on Twitter. Supporting evidence has already been provided in other comments I've left on this page. Geeferino (talk) 23:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Struck comments by blocked sock-puppet. Nfitz (talk) 07:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't worry about the mistaken identity. But about WP:BASIC, I wasn't aware that this is how we interpret it. After all, what do we have the "additional criteria" for then? --bender235 (talk) 23:08, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • GNG covers everything as sort of a catch all if a subject doesn't meet a subject specific guideline. The subject specific guidelines are there as heuristics for stuff that is probably notable even if sourcing can't be found immediately. So for instance a football player who plays for a professional league will meet WP:FOOTY even if they don't meet the GNG (ie we can't find 3-5 sources covering the subject in detail) because it is likely that the sources are out there or that they will be soon enough. So if someone meets WP:ACADEMIC we don't need them to meet the GNG because we assume that a concerted enough search will find that they do. I hope that makes sense. I wish GNG were clearer about it and that it were policy but I've fought both of those fights for a long time before and don't care to repeat them. :) Protonk (talk) 23:20, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think both sides are doing their fair share of meatpuppetry here. --bender235 (talk) 23:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, I made this account to flag the article for review when I saw it starting to circulate among Twitter circles I follow in the interest of not getting doxxed by leaving my IP visible. That doesn't change the validity of the points being raised here. Perhaps Black Birders Week is deserving of its own article given the amount of coverage it received, but I strongly disagree that the subject of this article does. Geeferino (talk) 23:03, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am a Wikipedian who had to make a new account to start the delete discussion because associating this delete discussion with my real professional account would lead me to severe harassment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Economist4738 (talk • contribs)
Struck comments by blocked sock-puppets. Nfitz (talk) 07:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment bender235, thanks for your attention to this article. Yes, the meatpuppetry is a serious concern. That's what I was referring to with respect to the edit history of Geeferino, Economist4738, HRMbruh, and several IP edits. It may be helpful to review the long edit histories for users in support of keeping the article. Of course, the primary consideration should be the merits of the article itself according to WP:BASIC criteria (It's not a WP:Vote). -kslays (talk • contribs) 23:16, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, I agree, let us focus on the merits of the article and the subject of the article itself. Fanyavizuri (talk) 02:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Gthh can be seen on Twitter promoting the Corina Newsome (https://twitter.com/G_T_Heller/status/1269273633232470019) and Earyn McGee articles (https://twitter.com/G_T_Heller/status/1269273633232470019) referenced earlier in an effort to build her own social media clout. Once again, Wikipedia is not a place to promote your friends or yourself in the name of "increasing representation of diverse scientists" Geeferino (talk) 23:21, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Furthermore, meatpuppets inserting themselves into this discussion can clearly be observed being sourced from the article subject's own Twitter page here: https://twitter.com/itsafronomics/status/1269378825894408194 https://twitter.com/itsafronomics/status/1269404604040699904 Geeferino (talk) 23:23, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I share Geeferino's concern about being doxxed by subject's twitter mob. I am forth year PhD student in Economics at US university and I am sick and tired of seeing undergraduate research assistants and early-career academics using Wikipedia for self-promotion. I am long-term, albeit infrequent Wikipedia contributor, but I had to create a new account to participate in this delete discussion. As several people noted above, the subject in question (1) is not an academic economist, (2) is not a graduate student, and (3) have zero peer-reviewed publications. I welcome the desire to celebrate subjects activism and her social media activity, which justifies the existence of the Black Birders Week article, but not their personal article. Most information in the article under debate comes from subject's Twitter account, blog posts here and there, etc. The "Early life and education" and "Career" sections paint a fictitious picture of subject's contribution to the field of Economics, which is exactly none so far. --HRMbruh (talk) 23:47, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strike comments by blocked sock-puppets. Nfitz (talk) 07:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No one gets to decide that some people can meet WP:BASIC while others have to meet a stricter standard. If a subject meets WP:BASIC, they're notable. Also your examples completely ignore coverage in NPR and Star Tribune. gobonobo + c 23:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware of the Star Tribune coverage, thanks. But the question of whether we should apply WP:BASIC or WP:ACADEMIC raises an interesting point: why is the subject portrayed as an academic, instead of an activist (which primarily seems to be her claim to fame)? I'm talking about the ((Infobox Academic)), the categorization in Category:Ghanaian women economists, the detailed listings of academic fellowships (none of which verified, neither in the NYT, WSJ, or Star Tribune articles), etc. Maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but someone with the intention to get a graduate degree shouldn't be labelled an academic prematurely. --bender235 (talk) 23:51, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a totally valid topic of discussion for the article's talk page. It might even be relevant here if the sole claim to notability was based on WP:ACADEMIC. But since that isn't the case, arguments that "she's not an academic" really don't have anything to do with passing GNG or BASIC and should be discounted by the closing admin. It doesn't matter what someone's claim to fame is as long as there are reliable sources with significant coverage. gobonobo + c 00:56, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gobonobo: it seems we found a common ground then after all. My issue was mostly with the fact that parts of the article are unverified puffery and claims of academic status, when (at best) we are talking about someone intending to get a graduate degree. If the article is rewritten in the mold of other hashtag activist bios, say Isis Anchalee or Ayakha Melithafa, I wouldn't entirely oppose keeping it. --bender235 (talk) 01:21, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm pretty allergic to hagiographies and self-promotion myself. I'm sure we can find a balanced way to approach this biography. Honestly, I'm far more concerned about spontaneous digital lynch mobs targeting black women who've recently appeared in the media. gobonobo + c 01:31, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak for anybody's motivation to participate in this AfD, but it seems the subject herself has directed her followers here, some of which are apparently veteran Wikipedians who should know better. --bender235 (talk) 01:53, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a "digital lynch mob" dude. You're just trotting out the identity politics defense, the last resort of someone who has nothing left to say. Has it ever occurred to you that the very reason people are opting for more privacy during this discussion is that some social justice weirdo like you would tar us as racists even though we're nothing of the sort? Geeferino (talk) 02:23, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Struck comment by blocked sock-puppet. Nfitz (talk) 07:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Best guess - bunch of dudes from EJMR upset that a pre-doc got a Wikipedia article before they did. You should strike your comment. The link you offered does not support your claim. gobonobo + c 02:13, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gobonobo: Oh boy, after tweets like this the same chaos has now broken out at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corina Newsome and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earyn McGee. Days like these are the reason why I never wanted to be an administrator. --bender235 (talk) 02:48, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gobonobo:@Geeferino: Based on your conversation we then should approve this article on the basis of WP:Basic Then edits of the pages will be needed to meet the criteria of WP:Academic. I can volunteer myself to look for reliable resources to see if the individual meets the criteria.Flavinista (talk) 04:02, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This individual started and organized a worldwide movement during what will become a pivitol moment in history. They deserve a Wiki page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.168.170.161 (talk) 23:07, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


  • I'm the one that originally tagged the article as possibly violating WP:NOTPROMO and being too resume-like. Those changes were immediately reverted without justification by the original author of the article. I put the tags back in place and they were deleted again. When I checked later, someone else had flagged the post for deletion and this whole discussion materialized. Geeferino (talk) 23:54, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Struck comment by blocked sock-puppet. Nfitz (talk) 07:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly do Gobonobo's sources, as well as yours, establish? The relevance of Black Birders Week as a notable Hashtag activism, sure. But none of the academic claims about the subject are mentioned in any of those news reports. --bender235 (talk) 00:36, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://twitter.com/itsafronomics/status/1269378825894408194 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:644:401:5800:49D0:7B8B:62F:DBFF (talk) 00:19, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To be requested here. --bender235 (talk) 00:36, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To Kslays: What kind of discussion do you need? One of the authors of this paper in question is clearly another person, unrelated to the individual in question. The subject under discussion was never affiliated with the Department of Basic Sciences at Loma Linda University Health School of Medicine, as is apparent from journal's page of this article here. The subject is a self-proclaimed "economist" and does not conduct research in cancer treatment. End of discussion. --HRMbruh (talk) 00:38, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, and thanks for the explanation. It would be helpful to note it was the wrong person in the edit summary, especially for a repeated deletion. -kslays (talk • contribs) 00:52, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That publication has barely anything to do with the broader discussion unfolding here. Isn't the argument being put forward by the people saying this article should be kept up that this person is supposed to be considered notable as an activist and economist? A random molecular biology paper with the subject of the article listed as an author does nothing to strengthen the argument that this page isn't being used as a surrogate for a resume/CV. Geeferino (talk) 00:40, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Struck comment by blocked sock-puppet. Nfitz (talk) 07:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • HRMbruh, the author on the molecular biology paper is in fact the same as the subject of the article, and not "clearly another person." This link shows a poster presentation with the collaboration to University of Maryland: https://surf.umbc.edu/files/2014/03/SURF-Book-2016_Online-Version.pdf However, I'm not sure if the "AhR ligand..." journal article is totally relevant to this biographical article, nor the notability discussion. -kslays (talk • contribs)
  • Social media brigading is a very real and warranted concern, especially for people who are still active within relevant academic and professional circles. Don't strawman the discussion about the article. Geeferino (talk) 00:51, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Struck comment by blocked sock-puppet. Nfitz (talk) 07:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since none of the relevant sources (NY Times, WSJ, etc.) talk primarily about the subject, but rather mention her in passing when describing The Sadie Collective, or Black Birders Week, isn't the immediate consequence that now everybody involved in these activist/student projects deserves a Wikipedia article, e.g. The Sadie Collective#Staff? It's a serious question, since the "trivial coverage" clause of WP:BASIC seems to have been rendered moot at this point. --bender235 (talk) 02:14, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your thoughts, and the serious question you ask. You are right to ask it. If someone has co-founded not one but two public and widely-known social initiatives, coauthored an opinion piece in the NY Times, and been either interviewed or discussed in national-scale media on several occasions (see Google news search in relation to the present case), I would be comfortable with that being a standard of general notability, thereby deserving a Wikipedia article. Fanyavizuri (talk) 02:39, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
striking comment from blocked sock-puppet
As opposed to the anonymous dudes from Economics Job Market Rumors who are coordinating to delete articles on Earyn McGee and Corina Newsome? gobonobo + c 02:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And that was just from a quick first two pages of a Google search for things prior to the last week. I could likely dive much deeper for more. From the Sadie Collective to the Sadie Tanner Mossell Alexander Conference for Economics and Related Fields, the subject clearly has been involved in making organizations and events that have brought them notability in the press and elsewhere. It seems pretty clear to me that notability is established for the subject, even prior to this week's events. SilverserenC 02:41, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The same group of weird overzealous identity politickers have appeared on the discussions for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Earyn_McGee and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Corina_Newsome, egged on by the same circle of social media influencers that have been meatpuppeting this article such as Imogene Cancellare. Twitter is not real life, people. Starting a popular hashtag isn't something that gets commemorated with a Wikipedia article. I merely tagged both of those pages with the same tags I did on this page and stopping thinking about it, and there was a whole race baiting tribunal that took place in the interim between then and now. If you're popular on Twitter, that's great! The mechanisms you need for that dopamine hit are built in. Don't bring it here. Geeferino (talk) 03:01, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Struck comment by blocked sock-puppet. Nfitz (talk) 07:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then use WP:IAR - besides, otherwise it's snowing. I don't see a clear position from User:Bender235 - and if they want to ignore the clear racism by a now-banned user in creating this AFD, and still proceed with it, then I feel they should reconsider their position, as it is bringing it into ill repute. Nothing is to be gained by continuing this racist travesty one minute more. There's no prejudice against against future nominations when things are calmer. Nfitz (talk) 03:42, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not willing to IAR on this (though other admins may choose to), and bender235 pretty clearly is !voting delete right now: After taking a closer look, I'd have to say delete. As for snowing and "when things are calmer" - as far as I can see, both sides of this debate appear to be canvassing, and I fully expect that to happen again next time this gets nominated. Finally, please take a moment to look at WP:CRYRACIST - calling someone racist is a serious accusation and is often misused in discussions to gain an "upper hand." creffett (talk) 03:52, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Racist travesty"? Boy, this escalated quickly. Seriously, who wrote anything racist here? --bender235 (talk) 04:00, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nfitz, the purpose of this page is to facilitate a civil discussion over the notability of the article's subject. We are not here to make allegations of racism or bad-faith actions, ignore the stated opinions of others, or circumvent established and necessary processes to wait until when "things are calmer". Thank you, Vermont (talk) 04:04, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That argument is fine, until we find out that the person who nominated it, then proceeded to create AFDs the same day for two other black women, and has since been blocked for sock-puppetry. Given the current political situation, there is no doubt that the nominations were racist. Whether the article should be permanently kept is immaterial - supporting racists is fundamentally wrong and brings Wikipedia into disrepute. Nfitz (talk) 04:11, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The two other AfDs were speedily kept; we can't do that with this AfD because other, legitimate, editors have written comments in favor of deletion. Vermont (talk) 04:34, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Peteforsyth: nope, because the "trivial coverage" clause in WP:BASIC hasn't been addressed yet. As I've mentioned before, none of the relevant sources are primarily about the subject. All they do is mention her in passing as the student organisations and/or activist groups are being described. Also, in the words of Sulfurboy, "any admin worth their salt will see past meat and spa votes" that are only here because the subject sent her 8,000+ Twitter followers our way. --bender235 (talk) 04:06, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bender235: Can you explain how the sources I gave up above are trivial coverage and/or not about the subject in question? Also, considering this AfD (and the other two) were made by a group of SPAs from the EJMR forum, I don't think that means much for this discussion. SilverserenC 04:08, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why User:Bender235 continue a discussion from a blocked sock-puppet that appears to be created out of bias? This discussion needs to end asap. Nfitz (talk) 04:11, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care who created this AfD and why, I came here first to fix the missing AfD templates, then to reason my opinion like any other Wikipedian would. Step of your moral high horse for a second, and instead of accusing others of racism ask yourself why you want to quench this discussion at any cost. --bender235 (talk) 04:26, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on User:Bender235, you just said that you don't care that the creation of this AFD was racist? Surely that's a big problem. There's no doubt that there is a lot of racism in that particular country, and it's hard to believe that it's just a coincidence that a newly created sockpuppet just happened to pick articles for three black Americans to try and delete. Sometimes one needs to cry about racism - and one should never support racism, inadvertently or not. This is not the time to be dying on the hill of protecting the rights of racist editors. Nfitz (talk) 04:43, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not giving up on WP:GF yet, so no, I do not assume racism being the motivation for this AfD. And I'm not here to "protect a racist editor," but to uphold the Wikipedia standards of notability. And before you ask, I have been holding this stance for a long time. I suggest you pause for a moment and look past the Twitter incited outrage. --bender235 (talk) 04:50, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Had this just been a sock-puppet and a black women, then yet, AGF - as unlikely as it would be. But then go and nominate the articles of two other black women for deletion, when the very racist nation that they are from is on the brink of civil war over race issues? At some point, you have to accept that the nomination was racist. Keeping this grossly racist nomination now, doesn't preclude applying WP:NORUSH and examining it in more detail later when people are calmer, and people aren't dying in the streets. Nfitz (talk) 05:20, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bender235 I am surprised, this doesn't seem to align too well with what you said above. But no matter. I strongly disagree with your interpretation of how the source materials match up with policy. The Wall Street Journal is a major publication, and clearly presents the subject as significant. (Shame about the paywall, but that doesn't diminish its value as a source.) Silverseren's list is valuable as well; I have access to some, but not all, of those sites, and they are substantially to the notability claim. This is not a borderline case. She's notable. There are some open questions about how to cover her, but there is really no legitimate question of whether we can cover her. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 04:22, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that's what you meant. Okay. But as I said, the WSJ article, just as the NY Times article mentions the subject in passing at most. The sources cited in the existing article for almost all the relevant biographical facts are self-published blogs, alumni newsletters, or interviews. That might serve as WP:RS for verification purposes, but not to establish "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources." --bender235 (talk) 04:30, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I wholeheartedly agree with this opinion. If the article is kept, it should be made clear that the subject is notable for her hashtag activism, not academic status. Almost none of the listed fellowships and awards are reliable sourced. For instance, the source in this sentence, She currently works at Harvard University as a Research Scholar in Economics, a "non-degree granting post-baccalaureate program that provides mentored research and training for individuals interested in pursuing doctoral studies."[1], doesn't even mention her name. A lot of what's currently in this article needs to be double-checked. --bender235 (talk) 04:37, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ "Research Scholar Initiative". The Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, Harvard University. Retrieved 2020-06-06.
While I can't speak for the nominator, I understood the rational to be WP:SELFPROMO. --bender235 (talk) 04:40, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Which is a refuted argument, since we know the article subject didn't make the article. SilverserenC 04:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying the rational was correct. Just that this appeared to be the rational. As a side note, though, WP:SELFPROMO includes "anybody you know," which may or may not include Twitter friends. --bender235 (talk) 04:54, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi bender235, thank you for the comment. I think you're right that that's probably the rationale we should be organising the discussion around (and, as Silver seren points out, I think it would make the discussion much easier because it doesn't look like that rationale holds up in this case). It would have been very helpful to have this discussion with a clear rationale put forward, and with merge and even redirect being more seriously considered -- notable topics don't necessarily merit their own pages, so why aren't we talking about putting a lot of the content on this page onto a different page instead? I would still vote to keep the page, but I think that's a much more sensible alternative than delete. And while I totally appreciate that this is a good faith disagreement that arbitrarily experienced editors can fall on either side of, it was really surprising to me to hear that there are differences of opinion about WP:BASIC/WP:GNG alone being enough to merit coverage on Wikipedia. WP:N says "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline below" or the more specific guidelines. WP:NACADEMIC says "Academics meeting none of these conditions may still be notable if they meet the conditions of WP:BIO or other notability criteria." In the more than 100 academic bios I've written it's never crossed my mind that it could be WP:NACADEMIC or bust. I think that part of this conversation should also be split off and held somewhere at a much higher level than a specific deletion discussion. With all of the detritus on this page and the sockpuppeting and strikeouts and everything, this is one legendary oldschool WP mess. - Astrophobe (talk) 04:51, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your point about WP:NACADEMIC. But the obvious consequence is that the article should reflect the fact that the subject is not an academic. --bender235 (talk) 04:54, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see! I have two thoughts about that. The first is that notability is a property of topics, not pages; notability is not conditional on how a page is written. For sure we should all WP:BB the page until it reflects the topic's notability. Having said that, the second is that I actually think the page strongly forefronts her activism and nonprofit work, and to me it doesn't really read like an academic bio at all, but more like an activist's bio. Anyhow, now I've said my piece and I think this is the right moment for me to step out and refocus on mainspace work. Thanks for the discussion! - Astrophobe (talk) 05:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • So the organization she created is notable, but she isn't? Is this some sort of variant of the debunked deletion argument regarding authors with notable books and that somehow not conferring notability? Also, there's a ton of references discussing her that isn't about the Sadie Collective, but about other organizations and events she created. SilverserenC 05:30, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point, I seem to have conflated her organization and her own work since they have the same thrust. I also acknowledge my bias as an academic economist, so I might have discounted her as just a research assistant. I do have some suggestions for the article that I have indicated on the talk page that involves clarification and deleting extraneous detail. Peace out. Keep--Ysjzysn (talk) 07:08, 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 redirect to Nova Central School District. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lewisporte-Gander School District[edit]

Lewisporte-Gander School District (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article contains no historical or background information on the school board itself and is quite unnotable.--User19004 (talk) 21:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:06, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, you're quick! I had noticed the absence of that important district in looking into this, but didn't have the chance to start the article at the time. MarginalCost (talk) 15:40, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think redirect to Nova Central School District is the correct target. The NLESD article would have a very large school list if that were added, as there are more than 250 schools. Raymie (t • c) 04:58, 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 merge to Cobra (G.I. Joe)#Bases. This is a selective merge, necessary because there is no mention in the proposed target. (non-admin closure) buidhe 23:41, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Terror Drome[edit]

Terror Drome (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 action figure playset. I'm unsure if Bellomo's "Ultimate Guide" is independent or not, but the rest of the citations are an unreliable fansite, the comics themselves, a primary source "Official Guide", and a fiction novel. A WP:BEFORE search turns up assorted unreliable fansites, sales sites, and user-generated databases. Fails GNG. Hog Farm (talk) 21:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 21:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 21:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 21:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would say it depends on whether or not the books were officially licensed books. If they were, I don't think that would make them any more independent than any of the other licensed material that was not published by Hasbro themselves, such as the comics, fictional books, etc. The second one's title makes it sound like they were an "official" book, but its hard to tell from the information on Google books if that was actually the case, or if that's just what the called the book. Though, that seems to be a bit of a moot point in this case, as the content from the book I am able to see is neither substantial nor does it indicate any independent notability. Rorshacma (talk) 16:19, 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 keep. BD2412 T 19:16, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

William Stretch Abert[edit]

William Stretch Abert (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:NSOLDIER, as only a brevet general (honorary appointment, not the same thing as an actual promotion), was only officially a colonel. Seems to be a GNG failure too, albeit a close-ish one. Gets a paragraph in Eicher's Civil War High Commands [5], but the coverage consists only of a listing of where he was assigned during the American Civil War. The "National Cyclopaedia of American Biography" [6] gives him a very nice writeup, but we need more than that. The rest of the coverage I can find is in blogs, find-a-grave (unreliable), primary source government military reports (primary sources do not establish notability), and a website titled "antietam on the web" that seems to be self-published/blog. Hog Farm (talk) 21:32, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 21:32, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 21:32, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Hawkeye7. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:33, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:08, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hawkeye7: I was only able to find this mention. Do you have a link? Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 08:50, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Abert's entry is on p. 396 in that book. Kges1901 (talk) 17:21, 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! 15:09, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ava Bahram[edit]

Ava Bahram (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability ahuR ☘ 21:29, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:23, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
hello please look at the article No:10,11 and 12 of WP:MUSICBIO, she has this point of policy Pocoyo4858 (talk) 02:08, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There have been several recent AfDs for Iranian entertainers (musicians, models, etc.) in which supporters are making the argument that we see here. Per that argument, the entertainers have no media coverage in their home country because of government repression, and therefore the entertainers are little-known in the rest of the world too. I have no doubt that this is happening and it is certainly unfortunate, but that is a problem that is much bigger than Wikipedia, and Wikipedia is not equipped to fix it. The larger problem could be discussed at Censorship in Iran, among other possibilities, but helping to promote unlucky entertainers is not one of Wikipedia's functions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:49, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
hello, I totally agree with you that in this particular case it seems that there is a need to revise the Wikipedia guidelines. It should be discussed with managers. Zabihsohrabi (talk) 12:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See the Wikipedia policies WP:MUSICBIO and WP:JNN. Just saying she is famous does not matter. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 01:18, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
hello please look at the article No:10,11 and 12 of WP:MUSICBIO, she has this point of policy Pocoyo4858 (talk) 01:28, 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 Soft redirect. to wiktionary, which should've been done in the first place rather than taking it to AfD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:39, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bimonthly[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Bimonthly (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 should be deleted as it is a dictionary definition and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. -KAP03 (Talk • Contributions • Email) 21:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -KAP03 (Talk • Contributions • Email) 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. North America1000 12:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Harald of Schaumburg-Lippe[edit]

Prince Harald of Schaumburg-Lippe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

He's of noble ancestry, but he isnt said to have done anything in the least bit notable. Rathfelder (talk) 20:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 20:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:10, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) buidhe 23:41, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jalan[edit]

Jalan (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)

Adopts to WP:NOT YET (films) CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:56, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:56, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CommanderWaterford, here's Minal Khan, who plays the female lead in the drama, saying so on her Instagram: [7]. I also don't see why WP:TOOSOON, which is presumably what you meant in the nom (WP:NOTYET is on an unrelated topic), would apply when the drama has clearly already received enough coverage in independent sources; that essay states, if sources do not exist, it is generally too soon for an article on that topic to be considered, which is not the case here.
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my comments above. Subject has received enough coverage (I'll try to add Urdu sources as well) to pass WP:GNG, and WP:TOOSOON doesn't really apply. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 01:02, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:03, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Formula E rookie test[edit]

2020 Formula E rookie test (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 appears to be WP:FANCRUFT. It would only interest a very small number of people who are not familiar with motor racing and there is nothing to indicate its short or long-term importance. MWright96 (talk) 19:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. MWright96 (talk) 19:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:41, 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 keep. Spartaz Humbug! 15:10, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Albanese Candy[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Albanese Candy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm aware this recently resulted in a Keep non-admin closure since it was over the minimum 7 days. It only had two editors (Reywas92 and Lightburst) commenting. The first states that "significant coverage" exists and the second supported this although didn't make any comment. Having examined the sources, none are even remotely close to meeting the criteria for establishing notability.

I am unable to locate a single reference that meets the criteria for notability, topic fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing++ 19:12, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:ORGIND, a reference must contain original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Including snippets from interviews or quotations doesn't automatically mean a reference fails the criteria for establishing notability, but these articles contain no other information and fail to provide any Independent Content. Can you point to any text in those articles that meets this requirement? HighKing++ 11:48, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:42, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:42, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As was noted in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albanese Candy first nomination:
Significant coverage includes [8] (already in the article, more than trivial), [9], [10], [11], [12]/[13], [14], [15]. I know these have a local WP:AUD but as the world's second largest maker of gummy bears and the largest non-chocolate candy maker in Canada (plenty large in the US and elsewhere too), I think this is a notable company. .
Thomas, Phyllis (June 19, 2012). Indiana Off the Beaten Path: A Guide to Unique Places (E-book). Guilford, Connecticut: Globe Pequot. p. 98. ISBN 0762786051. ISBN 9780762786053.7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:36, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are also three separate videos, one of which as on the Food Network.
Keep per WP:HEY. In fact, the article in its present state (not the same as when this 2nd AFD was initiated within days of the 1st closure) on its face establishes notability and verifiability. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 03:28, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In relation to the new references mentioned above. The "book" was published by visitindiana who also published one of the videos. The book is aimed at tourists (no problems so far) and contains a single paragraph on the company that mainly describes the novelty shapes and flavours and encourages people to attend the "fascinating free tour". Contains zero information on the actual company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The videos are promotional videos. This short (1:33) video was posted by visitindiana and is a camera tour of children visiting the factory store and clips of lots of candy. There is only a music track. It is entirely promotional and says nothing about the company, fails both WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH. The next video is a PRIMARY source and was posted by the company. The final video was posted by "a family travel vlog] and fails as a [[WP:RS|reliable source]. HighKing++ 11:43, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Don't turn this into a damn refbomb of every tiny little mention. It's not encyclopedic to note that a company has a website and social media, how effing mundane in 2020. This was a bare passing mention in [16] with no discussion or evidence of meaningfulness whatsoever. Don't give me this "learned journal" nonsense and show some critical analysis not a blind inclusion anything that notes the name. Ridiculous that I had to remove a random person's TripAdvisor review too. And HighKing is right, "Santos Chronicles" isn't a newspaper, it's a random person's vlog. Just because an article has more sources and links doesn't mean it's any better. Reywas92Talk 18:11, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Reywas92:. my own unsolicited opinion is that a few primary and or promotional items can be useful for our readers to gain perspective on the operations. We do have other SIGCOV to denote notability. To that end I have re-added the promotional video tour of the retail shop. I am pleased with the progress, and hope that we can collaborate to improve the article instead of being combative. I appreciate you and your editorial abilities. Lightburst (talk) 20:15, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:40, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nathalie von Bismarck[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Nathalie von Bismarck (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 approve of this new nomination. - Khaoz555 (talk) 19:34, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:38, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:39, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:43, 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 redirect to Dave Bing#Bing Steel. (non-admin closure) buidhe 23:42, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bing Steel[edit]

Bing Steel (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 DGG ( talk ) 18:44, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:52, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:52, 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. Spartaz Humbug! 15:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tragic Songs of Life (The Easy Hoes album)[edit]

Tragic Songs of Life (The Easy Hoes album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A non-notable album which didn't make any news at the time, and hasn't made any since. The article seems to tentatively claim it is worthy of notice due to being one of the early projects of Art Alexakis, but I don't think this makes it notable. JohnmgKing (talk) 18:22, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. JohnmgKing (talk) 18:22, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. JohnmgKing (talk) 18:22, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:44, 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. Spartaz Humbug! 15:12, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Easy Hoes[edit]

The Easy Hoes (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, very little coverage and a lack of reliable sources. The article suggests their claim to fame is being associated with Art Alexakis, who later found success with Everclear. Perhaps a redirect to his article is in order? JohnmgKing (talk) 18:16, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. JohnmgKing (talk) 18:16, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. JohnmgKing (talk) 18:16, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. JohnmgKing (talk) 18:16, 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. czar 19:19, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Color Me a Rainbow[edit]

Color Me a Rainbow (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)

There is no significant, reliable coverage about this show anywhere on the web. Its sole claim to fame is running for a few years on a TV network of only middling importance. The article was restored after someone claiming to be the producer requested it be restored, which would appear to be a conflict of interest due to its biased and potentially promotional nature. Dronebogus (talk) 18:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 18:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 18:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:46, 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. czar 19:23, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Florence[edit]

Carol Florence (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 significant coverage. Even the article states that her roles are minor. Fails WP:ENT. SL93 (talk) 18:03, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:43, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:46, 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. czar 19:21, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are Blytt[edit]

Are Blytt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a re-creation of a draft that has been deleted as promotional several times, almost immediately after their block expired. G4 doesn't apply, it is no longer a copyvio. The artist is not totally non-notable, but rather still an emerging artist. There are some sources, but it seems insufficient. [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23] Vexations (talk) 17:59, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 17:59, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 17:59, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 19:07, 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 keep. No consensus to delete, merge can be discussed outside of AfD. (non-admin closure) buidhe 22:40, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1776 Project[edit]

1776 Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not certain that this is a notable endeavor independent from The 1619 Project, which it criticizes. Such sources as can be found only discuss this as a reaction to the 1619 Project, and I'm not seeing coverage of this project's writings on their own merits. Moreover, many sources about this topic are of the op-ed type. Those cited in the article are mostly from the Washington Examiner, which participates in this project and is therefore not an independent source, or from more questionable Internet outlets. This topic would better be covered more concisely at The 1619 Project#Critical response. Sandstein 17:07, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 17:07, 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. czar 19:06, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bharat Tandon[edit]

Bharat Tandon (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)

Apart from a brief mention in a Gulf News article, there seems to be no reliable secondary source that has coverage for this individual. Fails notability. M4DU7 (talk) 16:07, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 16:07, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 16:07, 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 keep. While there is some consideration that the article should be draftified until it is in a more complete state, there is a firm consensus that despite major absences in the article, no deletion grounds exist and it can always be improved. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:41, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical cyclones in 2010[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Tropical cyclones in 2010 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is very incomplete, and has been incomplete since it was created in 2018. Most of the monthly headings refer to January 2010, which indicates that no one has even tried to complete the article. Information on storms is available on individual storm articles, in the articles on storms in years in each of the seven basins, and in an overall list article. This article not only creates more work for the WikiProject, but it creates work that they are not doing. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:00, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say 100%. 🐔 Chicdat ChickenDatabase 13:03, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Completenessness is a requirement for featured status and those so few articles which have reached that level have been formally agreed to be complete.

*Draftify. There is absolutely no reason why to delete an article just because it needs a little improvement. I propose that we move this to Draft:Tropical cyclones in 2010 or Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/2010 so we can all work on it together. @Robert McClenon:, I'm sorry if I was being harsh and/or violating WP:NPA on your talk page. 🐔 Chicdat ChickenDatabase 13:02, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Moving to draft space would be counter-productive because the main effect of that space is to stop people from finding the page. Its categories would be munged and search engines would not see it. And there's no special staff assigned to work on drafts; they get less attention than articles in mainspace. Draftification is just disruption, adding no value and putting obstacles in the way of improvement. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The thing is I'm not sure the information currently present in the article is even accurate, and if it isn't the article probably shouldn't stay in mainspace. The storm effects section appears to rely on information from the individual season pages, but some of the numbers don't even match. The graphical timeline constitutes original research as the Australian intensity scale isn't applicable outside of the Australian region and the South Pacific. I understand where you're coming from, but personally I'd prefer to move conflicting/invalid information out of mainspace until it can be resolved. In the spirit of WP:SOFIXIT I may try addressing these myself if I can find the time. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 14:53, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, we've only got one person for delete. Can someone SpeedyKeep-close this? 🐔 Chicdat ChickenDatabase 11:37, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Chicdat: No - have some patience and let the AFD run its course.Jason Rees (talk) 12:11, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You'd think they would learn from this... Nova Crystallis (Talk) 18:50, 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 keep. czar 16:14, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Chin (photographer)[edit]

Alan Chin (photographer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Looks like this photographer has done plenty of work, but doesn't have anything that meets WP:ARTIST or WP:JOURNALIST. The article is essentially unreferenced. Lots of external links to stories/photo-essays that the subject was involved with, many are dead links. The remainder are articles that Chin wrote himself. Seems a little grand and self-promoting. Since there's no real claim to notability and better references aren't forthcoming, I'm nominating for deletion. Mikeblas (talk) 15:06, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:49, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:50, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:50, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:50, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:51, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:51, 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. Spartaz Humbug! 15:16, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coretrust[edit]

Coretrust (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)

All (reliable) Sources are only inherited WP:INHERITORG, Notability not given in current state as being requested in WP:CORP CommanderWaterford (talk) 14:29, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 14:29, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:52, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:26, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2ulz[edit]

2ulz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability seems to fall short of criteria at WP:SINGER. Only two sources cited in the article and they don't seem particularly reliable. A quick search could not locate any other sources. Meticulo (talk) 14:15, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Meticulo (talk) 14:21, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Meticulo (talk) 14:21, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:52, 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 Withdrawn. I procedurally renominated the article to see if consensus could be achieved if participation was limited to perspectives from outside the Balkans topic area. But so far, nobody has offered such a perspective, and multiple editors have expressed concerns about my approach. That's why I conclude that this AfD is unlikely to result in a consensus either, and therefore I am withdrawing it. This means that the "no consensus" outcome of the previous two AfDs is where we're at for now. Sandstein 06:58, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Plav-Gusinje massacres (1912-13)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Plav-Gusinje massacres (1912-13) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The previous two AfDs reached no consensus about whether this article should be deleted as original research by synthesis. People strongly disagreed about whether there are reliable sources that establish that these massacres took place. My impression is that the personal association of many editors with one country or another from the Balkans influenced the views they expressed.

I'm therefore trying something new: I'm procedurally renominating the article, but with the following WP:AC/DS restriction, per WP:ARBEE#Standard discretionary sanctions: Editors associated with the Balkans may not edit this page. They may also not participate in any deletion review of this discussion. (Edit: The same restriction applies to editors who are not extended confirmed per WP:ECP, as enforced by page protection.)

For the purposes of this sanction, an editor is deemed to be associated with the Balkans if their username or user page indicates or previously indicated any connection to a place in the Balkans, or if they have made recent substantive edits to any page related to the Balkans, or if they were ever sanctioned for editing about the Balkans, or for other similar reasons as determined by me or another uninvolved administrator.

Contributions in violation of this sanction may be removed by any uninvolved administrator (but not other users). Such contributions can be reported on this AfD's talk page. Editors who disagree with the restriction can appeal it at WP:AE.

I hope that this allows other Wikipedians to come to a consensus about the the merits of this article. I know that this may make it more difficult to evaluate sources in languages from the Balkans, but I expect that a notable historical event, if it is notable, will be covered in English-language sources as well (and indeed some are cited in the article).

This is a procedural nomination, I am neutral. Sandstein 14:18, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amended to strike mention of Balkans self-identification on user pages, per concerns about discrimination on my talk page. Sandstein 07:38, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 14:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:53, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:55, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I know that this may make it more difficult to evaluate sources in languages from the Balkans, but I expect that a notable historical event, if it is notable, will be covered in English-language sources as well.
But WP:Notability says,
Sources do not have to be available online or written in English.
VR talk 07:57, 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! 15:16, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

REE Automotive[edit]

REE Automotive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The page is undisclosed COI. If necessary, I have off-wiki evidence to back up my assertion. With or without the COI the subject barely scrapes notability, they have a feature in Forbes but the article hasn't been cited here and it's more of the same promotional churnalism. I feel it is wp:too soon for this page. If or when the subject becomes notable a non-conflicted editor can create the page. GDX420 (talk) 07:40, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 17:25, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 17:25, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. Sorry for my mistake.GDX420 (talk) 04:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All: Remove this AfD.

Hi @Alwayslearnedstuff:. That is correct, I have a mountain of off-wiki evidence which shows that not only is a representative of REE electric vehicles paying you to upload this content, when you say, "I'm the one who created this article" you are in fact lying. You did not write this content. Someone else wrote this content, you just added the awards section and some PR jargon about "coming out of stealth mode" at the client's request. Neither of these amendments is acceptable in encyclopaedia writing. In answer to your question, the reason I am not going to do any work on the page is because if I did that, your employer would essentially be getting two Wikipedians for free, see WP:BOGOF. Bearing that in mind, could you please restore the maintenance tags that you removed so that the page's content issues can be addressed in due course. Also, as a little housekeeping tip, please sign your messages with four tildes. P.S. this conversation would have been better suited to my talk page and not an AfD. Thank you. GDX420 (talk) 04:29, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @GDX420:. No, this discussion should be right here where @Lord Bolingbroke, Llemiles, and Cullen328: can see you're up to the same trolling on this page that they've cited you for in the past on your talk page. Telling me 'I'm lying' is a baseless threat, and I will not restore the maintenance tags I removed because there are no COI or Notability issues. I'm not paid and you can see that in my history of contributions to Wikipedia. You are clearly waging a flame war for unstated political purposes, starting with moving the page to draft _and_ tagging it AfD, which Lord Bolingbroke noted was a violation of Wikipedia policy. The ONLY issue here that should be discussed is the one you initially flagged, and that's whether this page is suitable for AfD. It's not. According to the four Wikipedia deletion criteria (Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research , and What Wikipedia is not), REE Automotive did not violate the last three. I agree with you that it violated the original research criterion (due to about a half dozen biased/subjective adjectives which I removed yesterday), but that has been fixed, as I noted above in my prior comment. From that same Wikipedia neutral point of view bullet, "If an article is beyond help, it should be deleted, but try fixing the POV first," this article is far from beyond help, and you made no effort to fix POV first: i.e. you didn't follow the Wikipedia guideline you're claiming to follow. Your main contribution here is to weaponize AfD policy. You also mentioned--but did not cite--a Forbes quote/article on REE Automotive, so I'm not sure that anyone would agree with your self-righteous stand about why you didn't/won't contribute. The only good etiquette you've displayed is the signature tip. Thanks! Alwayslearnedstuff (talk) 12:36, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi@Alwayslearnedstuff: if you feel that my actions breach Wikipedia's code of conduct you are welcome to report me at WP:ANI, just be careful not to hoist yourself with your own WP:PETARD.GDX420 (talk) 13:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've included the Forbes piece and another source to back up that sentence so I don't see any statement that isn't properly sourced. Pichpich (talk) 18:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Does the OTRS ticket support the accusation that the content attributed to Alwayslearnedstuff is in fact exactly what the company provided? That probably would not constitute a copyright violation since the company presumably understands that whatever they post on Wikkipedia, even through an intermediary, is in the public domain. It would, however, be a very serious lapse in judgment on the part of Alwayslearnedstuff (especially since he's been adamant that the content is his own work) and one that should probably have consequences. So what exactly is on that ticket? Pichpich (talk) 03:32, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's... not correct. Wikipedia's content is emphatically not public domain, it is licensed under CC-BY-SA 3.0. In adding content to Wikipedia, the editor adding it claims that they release it under the terms of that licence, which requires that they own the copyright to it. That in turn requires that the content is either entirely original content created by that editor, or that they have had the copyright legally transferred to them by the original owner/creator. If an editor copies text into Wikipedia that they did not write themselves (or that they cannot prove copyright ownership of), and that text cannot be shown to either be freely available under a CC-BY-SA or less restrictive licence, then their addition is a copyright violation - in releasing it under Wikipedia's licence, they claim authorship and copyright ownership.
The OTRS ticket does not contain the text in the article; it consists of a set of screenshots of email exchanges purporting to be between a representative of REE Automotive and an editor who was previously hired to create the article. The exchanges include images of text documents from REE that are presumed to contain the proposed content. Yunshui 雲水 07:19, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:39, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:57, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:58, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable, WP:TOOSOON. Perhaps one day somebody might be interested enough to create significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content but none of these are it. Topic fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing++ 20:12, 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! 15:14, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Renaissance Capital (US company)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Renaissance Capital (US company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Full disclosure, I found this article because it was posted to the #wikipedia-en irc for possible promotional issues.

Pretty much the whole article is promotional and I could not find any significant coverage. The funds they manage are LISTED, but the company seems not to be, and notability is not inherited. There was a significant expansion of the article concurrent with the previous AfD in 2012, but I do not believe it meets our current standards, even if it was enough for a "no consensus" then: Of the sources considered then, the BusinessWeek article is now a 404 I can't find an archived copy of, the LA Times article appears to be a reprint of a press release submitted to Bloomberg News, and the review in Stocks and Commodities possibly meets the criteria—if there are similar sources, we should consider refocusing the article on that particular product.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:46, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:46, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:46, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also note that some of the employees of Renaissance might be presumed notable under supplementary criteria of NBIO for being highly influential, but there is not an equivalent for companies I'm aware of. Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:50, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:38, 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. Spartaz Humbug! 15:17, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Junior Olympic Gold[edit]

Junior Olympic Gold (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional, with no sources. Unable to find good sources. Violates the verifiability policy and does not satisfy the general notability guideline. PJvanMill (talk) 13:26, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:58, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:59, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:59, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:25, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Nye Gulick[edit]

John Nye Gulick (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)

Certainly an admirable soldier, but no indication he has received enough coverage to merit an article. A Bronze Star, Purple Heart, and lieutenant rank doesn't meet WP:NSOLDIER, and the coverage of him is mostly in local publications, a self published autobiographical account, a college that republished his essay, and similar articles. Not enough to meet WP:NPERSON or WP:GNG Eddie891 Talk Work 12:38, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 13:15, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 13:15, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:00, 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 merge to Success (company). (non-admin closure) buidhe 22:42, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

QP (video game)[edit]

QP (video game) (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. As the article states, this game was cancelled before release. All coverage appears to either be routine promotional press or speculation in less-than-reliable blogs and forums. signed, Rosguill talk 22:40, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 22:40, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:20, 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 no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 15:18, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Full operating capability[edit]

Full operating capability (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)

DoD acronym. Wikipedia is not a manual. Fails WP:NOT.

Addendum:86% copyvio. scope_creepTalk 23:21, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:22, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also Comment: Initial operating capability ought to be considered alongside this article for any changes required to it. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:26, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Alpha3031: Yip. Indeed. I never checked for copyvio until I posted it, as I would have speedied it myself. There seems to some use for the term, so I guess a full article will arrive at some point, if somebody wants to do it. I will need to be deleted outright, or the history will need to be RD1'd. A new article would be ideal. scope_creepTalk 07:53, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The copying was in the opposite direction, as is clear from the full entry at the copying website. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:21, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be striking then. My initial instinct was to merge if there was no copyvio but I'm leaning more towards a keep now. Scope creep, since you've seem to have been convinced the topic is notable as well, do you want to withdraw the nom and SK1 things or leave things open? Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:01, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:38, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is project commissioning, that describes civil engineering practices. It is a military term and it deserves a military style article.scope_creepTalk 17:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Large projects of any sort will typically have a formal completion and signoff stage. It's standard project management and procurement and it doesn't make much difference whether it's a weapon system, a railroad, an IT system or whatever. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:58, 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. czar 05:29, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bruno Vain[edit]

Bruno Vain (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've done the required WP:BEFORE, and it would appear to me the reason why this article about a living person has remained pretty much unreferenced since it was created in 2007 is quite simply because none of the assertions made here have any evidence to back them up. Given the number of pages that link here, it seem to me that an WP:AFD discussion would be preferable. Pete AU aka Shirt58 (talk) 10:28, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 12:45, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:00, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:00, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:51, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 10:53, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:23, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Huntingdon Urban Area[edit]

Huntingdon Urban Area (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 be OR in the sense there is no known definition. In addition seems to duplicate several other articles. Games of the world (talk) 11:31, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:44, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:44, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is a definition but https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160129052708/http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/census/census-2001/data-and-products/data-and-product-catalogue/reports/key-statistics-for-urban-areas-in-england-and-wales/list-of-urban-area-names-and-codes.xls has separate codes for Huntingdon and Godmanchester so using the statistical definition they are separate unless there has been a recent change. It's a valid subject for an article; there are similar articles for metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas in the United States. Peter James (talk) 23:01, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:23, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gloucester and Cheltenham Urban Area[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Gloucester and Cheltenham Urban Area (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 be Original research with no known definition, and duplicates information in several articles Games of the world (talk) 11:20, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:43, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:43, 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 keep. Spartaz Humbug! 15:19, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Astronaut: The Last Push[edit]

Astronaut: The Last Push (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable film, only one review found and no other significant coverage by independent reliable sources, per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 10:21, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 13:11, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • To follow up on WP:NFOE, the film also has to be "a major part of his/her career". How is this film a major part of any of their careers? And the reviews you linked, three of them don't exist, and one is a blog, which does not count as a notable review. There are several professional reviewers out there that review direct to DVD releases, and they did not review this film. There needs to be significant coverage by reliable sources to keep it, that's the point of WP:GNG. I don't see how one professional review, with no other coverage, meets this standard. BOVINEBOY2008 14:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you have any sources indicating this it is his first major role? Do you have a source indicating that it was a major part of his career? Otherwise, it seems like that just a personal view. It is not even mentioned in his own Wikipedia article except for in his filmography. BOVINEBOY2008 20:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I added that review and cited it. That makes TWO independent sources now, which should satisfy WP:NFO Donaldd23 (talk) 01:39, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this looks good. I made the mistake of not looking under the film's other name. Do you have any context as to why the film changed names? That might be helpful info for the article. BOVINEBOY2008 12:48, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, I do not know why the name was changed. I will keep looking for that information, hopefully it is out there somewhere and can be added to the article. Thank you. Donaldd23 (talk) 14:45, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:22, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Archduchess Maria Alice of Austria[edit]

Archduchess Maria Alice of Austria (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)

There is no indication of notability. The article serves merely as a genealogical entry, listing her descendants up to great-great-grandchildren, along with dubious titles of living people who very likely do not use them for professional, legal, or ideological reasons. Needless to say, the sources are lacking. Wikipedia is not a genealogy database, however. Surtsicna (talk) 10:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 10:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 10:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 10:13, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:22, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rancho del Sol, California[edit]

Rancho del Sol, 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)

Fails WP:GEOLAND as a non-notable HOA/subdivision. More info here. No clear redirect target, as it's located in an area between several communities. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 09:21, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 09:21, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 09:21, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:21, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Manzanita Acres, California[edit]

Manzanita Acres, 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)

Non-notable subdivision; fails WP:GEOLAND. The only mention I could find, excluding the websites with autogenerated data pulled from GNIS, is this brief mention in a government document listing various subdivisions. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 09:11, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 09:11, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 09:11, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:21, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jacobsen, California[edit]

Jacobsen, 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)

Fails WP:GEOLAND. Not a community and never was one. While not a reliable source, the information in this page indicates that it was an individual farmstead. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 09:03, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 09:03, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 09:03, 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. Ping for undelete if WP:CRICKET decides that the World Disability Series is actually significant. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:42, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tushar Paul[edit]

Tushar Paul (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 cricketer, fails WP:NCRIC inclusion guidelines, very little coverage to cover wider GNG requirements. StickyWicket (talk) 09:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 09:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 09:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 09:02, 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 keep. Spartaz Humbug! 15:20, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brampton Board of Trade[edit]

Brampton Board of Trade (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 Reliable sources that this organization is Notable. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 00:50, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:37, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:37, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:37, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Something that I might add, if I can find a source (currently it would be "synth", is that Chisholm, Runians, Duggan, Wegenast, Charters all served as both BBOT president and Mayor of Brampton.
Among the content that I have yet to introduce to the article, a flubbed real estate deal that left the organization in a bad position as of a decade or so ago, that led to the board replacing the entire staff. It's documented over a series of articles in the local newspaper of record, The Brampton Guardian, which I've largely avoided to this point, in order to focus on larger publications. Thanks for your consideration, -- Zanimum (talk) 23:49, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 08:21, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:14, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Upper Forni, California[edit]

Upper Forni, 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)

Contested PROD. Fails WP:GEOLAND. This location is an isolated former homestead, now in the possession of the US Forest Service. Despite being listed in GNIS as a "populated place" (see WP:GNIS for more about the meaning and pitfalls of this classification), there is no evidence that there is or ever has been a community here. Although our standards for inclusion of geographical places are deliberately very low, they do not extend to individual homesteads or farms. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 08:12, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 08:12, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 08:12, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:20, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Melanie Maecker-Tursun[edit]

Melanie Maecker-Tursun (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 in WP:BASIC, haven't received significant coverage in multiple published secondary reliable sources, all references are primary or self published (LinkedIn etc.) CommanderWaterford (talk) 08:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 08:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Molgreen, well this is honourable but definitely does not guarantee for the required notability. We have Editors here with hundreds thousands of Edits and many hours of contributing to Wikipedia who also are lacking of notability ;-) CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:45, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CommanderWaterford, I understand and hope that the article gets a chance. . . --Molgreen (talk) 17:58, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:04, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:05, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:37, 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 keep. Spartaz Humbug! 15:21, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ATC code A07[edit]

ATC code A07 (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)

These lists appear to just be reposts of the original ATC lists. There is no encyclopedic coverage of the topics within them. I think the whole set should be deleted because we are WP:NOT a directly or almanac; additionally in my experience these lists are often out of date and therefore have the potential to be incorrect and, because they are just reposts of the primary source, contribute to errors if they are used. Like other sources, interested editors can go directly to the primary source, rather than the copy/pasted list here.

I am proposing a single instance of the list first and, if there is consensus, the result of the set can be nominated. I look forward to hearing the opinion of other editors. Tom (LT) (talk) 07:50, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Tom (LT) (talk) 07:50, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't find any but it would seem there would be some. The "group or set" source is what I was looking for. I haven't been involved with any of these but as a set of navigational aid lists I can see a reason for keeping. Of course this would be more important as long as Anypodetos (or someone) was around to update. Otherwise they would become outdated and better as categories. -- Otr500 (talk) 18:20, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Another concern is that even though consensus might keep this one, thus possibly placating the Nom, someone else might take issue later and it starts all over. Something like 15 pages with many listings on each page and someone may wonder about the same 3 or 4 sources. At least the source I added shows the sub-pages are listed. If a template makes it easier I am for it because I don't think the mentioned refs 1 and 2 does it. -- Otr500 (talk) 18:41, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Re sources: Apart from refs 1 (NIH) and 2 (German Ministry of Health), which have short explanations of the ATC code system, there's quite a number of sites that use ATC codes – e.g. the UK drug information, Drugbank, Germany's Rote Liste (no open access), the Austria Codex – so I think there is no question about notability of the topic. But these sources are ill suited for inline citations, as each ATC code is on a different page, and they don't address the nominator's concern that we are just reproducing the originals from https://www.whocc.no/ with no encyclopedic content on the ATC pages themselves. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 19:52, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, so possible solution? -- Otr500 (talk) 20:24, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That depends on what this discussion is actually about, of which I'm not really sure any more. Are we still talking about (a) no encyclopedic content, and/or (b) secondary sources establishing notability, and/or (c) inline citations for the individual sections or even the individual list items? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 07:14, 13 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! 15:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aralla[edit]

Aralla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability - there is absolutely no way that a town about which nothing is known, whose existence can only be inferred and whose name is never mentioned by any authors meets WP notability requirements. I can find no sources whatsoever that attest to this town existing. LegesRomanorum (talk) 22:14, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:17, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:17, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:17, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 04:24, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:26, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:17, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Onyeka Nnadozie Eze[edit]

Onyeka Nnadozie Eze (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject is not notable. Case of WP:REFBOMB with references discussing his "foundation" instead. Being a philanthropist is not enough claim to notability. Mahveotm (talk) 07:25, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Mahveotm (talk) 07:25, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mahveotm (talk) 07:25, 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 no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 15:24, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FIFA Online 3[edit]

FIFA Online 3 (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)

Nearly all the sources appear to be from the company. From a Google search I didn't see any articles that looked like were not simply reposts of press releases from the company. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
comment - Polygon, Korean Herald, Sportskeeda and IGN all at least talk about the game in some way. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:12, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed links: Korean Herald, Sportskeeda —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 21:17, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 21:49, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Govvy: I would appreciate it if you would remove the accusation clearly no one is interested in WP:BEFORE. That is not true. As I said in the beginning, I did a Google search (this plus some others) and I didn't find anything substantial (Please look at the first 20 entries). I saw the Business Wire post, which read like a press release, and I quickly dismissed it as WP:PROMO: Business Wire's about page says "Business Wire, a Berkshire Hathaway company, is the global leader in press release distribution and regulatory disclosure."
As to the sources provided by Lee Vilenski, I tried looking at them, and two of the four links don't work. I am not sure if the other two count as WP:RS or not. --David Tornheim (talk) 16:32, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why you got so offended! I really don't think you did a good enough web search. I only loaded three of the four links, but for Sport Skeeda, my search AI adjust to this link. koreaherald.com, didn't load. But I certainly felt I saw enough sources in a google search that makes me feel the article should pass GNG. Seems like it was more pushed for the Asian market, saw reviews of the game I could not read or translate. Example articles for the push to the Asian market like techinasia.com, bangkokpost.com. This article is one month old from Indonesia [34] about termination in Asia to make way for FIFA Online 4. Govvy (talk) 17:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that you revised your meaning in the response to something softer. I find it irritating to be accused of not doing a WP:BEFORE, when I have done it, having spent a significant amount of time on it, and the sources I looked at did not appear to me to meet WP:GNG. Editors have different experiences and knowledge of sources, especially in fields they do not know much about. I have virtually no knowledge of current video games or the best sources for it, so it's a lot harder and time consuming for me to access sources like www.polygon.com and IGN, that may just be sites used to promote games or user-generated content, and even mainstream publications like bangkokpost.com, that may also be user-generated rather than truly WP:INDEPENDENT WP:SECONDARY WP:RS. When I see an article like this that is almost all WP:PROMO from the company, and I can't find enough sources I feel for sure to be good enough establish WP:GNG, I think I should be able to submit it to WP:AfD to have other editors look at it, without being accused of failing to do WP:BEFORE, when I did, and nothing in clearly reliable sources in WP:RS/P like NYT, WaPo, etc. comes up. It just seems an unnecessary attack another editor's good faith attempt to get rid of articles that appear to be WP:PROMO.
I brought it here so that others who know the sources better can decide, and I appreciate you offering sources. I would just rather you provide the sources rather than attack the editors who didn't find them and who are making a good faith attempt to rid the encyclopedia of WP:PROMO.
As to the sources you are providing: I would be willing to change my !vote to a keep, if you can make it clear why you think the sources are WP:RS -and- more specifically why you believe any particular published article is not user-generated, a press release, promo, or pay-to-play "news" advertising. I do appreciate your help and experience in that regard. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:59, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I do see that IGN is in WP:RS/P. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 21:37, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge probably is the best decision here, but there doesn't yet seem to be a consensus for any particular decision just yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 07:00, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources? --David Tornheim (talk) 22:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources? --David Tornheim (talk) 22:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 15:25, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bridge Ndilu[edit]

Bridge Ndilu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the basis of his cup appearance for Nantes, however, since Aviron Bayonnais do not play in a fully professional league, this does not satisfy WP:NFOOTY. Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:25, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:25, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 14:09, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 14:09, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 16:21, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 06:59, 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 keep. Spartaz Humbug! 15:25, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Number One Gun[edit]

Number One Gun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not seeing anything notable about this band. All the sources in the article are either trivial coverage or personal blogs. There's no in-depth reviews or articles about in reputable sources that I can find anywhere. Let alone any indication that they have won any awards or charted anywhere that would help with notability. Except for US Christ and US Christ. Which are barely notable weekly sub charts for new artists, but aren't main charts. Even in the Christian music category. Adamant1 (talk) 06:55, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It seems the notability for a lot of these really comes down to just Jesus Freak Hideout and AllMusic. Which is really questionable IMO. Especially AllMusic. Since it includes pretty much anything. It's literally called "AllMusic." So, the band having a bio on their site doesn't really mean much. The same goes for Jesus Freak Hideout. Of course they are going to have reviews of a Christian band. That's their "niche." It doesn't mean anything in relation to the band as far as the generally audience Wikipedia is suppose to cater to though. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:25, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, I'm not seeing either chart you mentioned on the list of acceptable Billboard sub charts for establishing notability. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:15, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While AllMusic tries to include everything, they do not review everything. There are a lot of entries that simply list the album (or band) and there's nothing else there. Sometimes, they will list an album and give it a rating, but unless there's a review, it's not considered enough to meet GNG. This group has a bio and four reviewed albums. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:45, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. If a band has reviews for 4 albums, but they are all from the same source wouldn't that still not work for notability because it's not "multiple" reliable sources? I know for something like a company, if they get repeated coverage but only from a single source or journalist it doesn't work as well (or at all depending) for notability then it would if the coverage was from different sources. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:33, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Each review stands as a source. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And they are from at least two separate reviewers: Nathaniel Schexnayder and Josh Taylor. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:24, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Walter Görlitz: BTW, I wanted to mention it seems that sometimes doing a search for a topic on Google gives different or no results compared to clicking the links in the AfD template. There was an AfD for a company a few weeks ago where I didn't get any results by searching for it directly on Google Scholar but someone else got results by clicking the Google Scholar link in the template. That might have been why that one AfD went so wrong or why you found sources for albums that me and others didn't. I know it's more convenient to point fingers and place blame on a bad BEFORE or whatever though, then it is to give leeway for this being an imperfect process sometimes that not everyone always gets the same results from. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:48, 15 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 Royal Moroccan Air Force. Stifle (talk) 10:31, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of active Moroccan military aircraft[edit]

List of active Moroccan military aircraft (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)

Redundant inventory table. List of Morrocan military aircraft is already covered in Royal Moroccan Gendarmerie, Royal Moroccan Navy and Royal Moroccan Air Force. No reason to keep duplication as it was difficult to maintain the page, and this page is already subject to vandalism Ckfasdf (talk) 01:27, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:08, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:08, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:09, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:09, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:09, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dream Focus: Actually, the main reason is redundancy or unnecessary duplication. That list initally mentioned table of aircraft inventory of Royal Moroccan Gendarmerie, Royal Moroccan Navy and Royal Moroccan Air Force). However the same table also can be found on those pages. Some of Lists of currently active military equipment by country also have some problem. Ckfasdf (talk) 13:11, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk) 02:24, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Azuredivay: that list also used to have list of aircraft that belong to Royal Moroccan Gendarmerie and Royal Moroccan Navy, and that list is already in Royal Moroccan Air Force. So it'll better if we just delete this page. Ckfasdf (talk) 05:45, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Seems likely that the article can be created in the future once there is enough content. This is why I assume that merging is a better option. Azuredivay (talk) 04:54, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 06:55, 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 no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 15:26, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Appolena[edit]

Appolena (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 find no sources whatsoever that suggest that this town exists, and the limited article text strongly suggests that it does not pass Wikipedia notability requirements. This user has created a vast number of permastubs by working through a list of likely apocryphal ancient place names. LegesRomanorum (talk) 22:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have exactly one source - a directory listing/a dot on a map - and literally no other sources, which I am concerned about because the other ones which we've kept have had sources. We can include things in the encyclopaedia without having to dedicate a perma-stub to them. This is better off listified somewhere. SportingFlyer T·C 01:18, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of any policy that requires that articles be deleted unless they have multiple source citations. The Barrington Atlas itself cites Tabula Imperii Byzantini for epigraphic sources, with the additional note "T. Drew-Bear". Tabula Imperii Byzantini is a reliable scholarly source and has a web site which seems at first glance to provide open access to at least some of its holdings; and T. Drew-Bear is the author of some indices of its maps, for which map 62 contains Appolena, with the aforementioned citations—one to himself/herself, but I can't figure out what that citation means, since eleven publications from 1976 to 1999 are listed, all with dates, in the bibliography, but the citation doesn't say which, if any of these, is meant—and the index for volume 7 of TIB is shorter and doesn't include Appolena. So we have a scholarly citation, but I'm unable to locate the source information being cited over the internet. Does that mean the article on the town fails for lack of citations? No, of course not. Sources don't have to be available over the internet. They simply have to exist and be capable of verification—whether or not anyone involved with Wikipedia actually views them.
This stub was nominated for deletion for three reasons that I can identify: 1, that the place is not notable; 2, that it's likely apocryphal; 3, that the editor who created it made many others that are similarly non-notable and likely did not exist. None of these reasons hold up under close scrutiny, however. Notability is established because this is a town or village from antiquity, the location and nature of which are of interest to historians and archaeologists today; its inclusion in the Barrington Atlas as well as within the TIB project framework are more than adequate to establish that. We know that the place either definitely existed at or near the place identified in these sources, or is accepted as probably having been there by modern scholarship; we do not have to prove that this supposition is correct in order for the article to exist: many perfectly acceptable articles exist about people, places, and things that are merely thought to exist or have existed, or claimed to exist or have existed by some scholars, historians, philosophers, theologians, myths, legends, folktales, etc. The mere possibility that a name might refer to someone or something or some place other than the one currently identified doesn't justify deleting an article. We don't delete the articles about Bigfoot, Atlantis, or West Virginia merely because they're potentially apocryphal. And the first two being the case, it really doesn't matter how many other articles the same editor created.
I further note that pretty much all of the others that were similarly nominated for deletion have already been closed as "keep" or deProdded. Yes, it might be a good idea to combine some of these stubs into a single article. But that requires at least one editor to choose which among these many town and village stubs should be included, and perhaps how many articles there ought to be for settlements in different regions. The fact that nobody has stepped up and done so yet—or may do so in the immediate future—is not grounds for deletion. There is no time limit for articles to be improved, and there is no consensus on the best way to treat these many towns and villages yet. Even if some of them are combined, the current titles will still exist as redirects to the combined articles, which we would expect to contain the same source citations and basic descriptions that the stubs have now. So the contents of articles such as this one would not be deleted from the encyclopedia by "listifying" them—it would merely be moved to a different location. Taking all of this into consideration, I can see no circumstances under which this article meets the criteria for deletion. P Aculeius (talk) 14:03, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A search [36] here gave no results. I advocated for keeping other articles, but considering: 1) this article contains only one citation, which itself is only a directory listing, which you have noted that the citation by the author references a citation by the same author, which cannot be found; 2) no other information is available on the internet, and no other sources have been presented that might contain information about this place; 3) other articles which were kept, at least the ones I participated in, were easily verifiable elsewhere; 4) just because other articles have been kept does not mean this one should also be kept/deleted; and 5) if you cannot write anything that's not a perma-stub, an alternative, such as a redirect to a list, should be considered. In this case, there is no actual evidence this is a notable place apart from a dot on a map, and while WP:GEOLAND does give a presumption, I don't think the presumption is met here, since there's really nothing we can say about this place apart from "this was a place name on a map that may or may not be logged in the TIL." That being said, as I've noted above, I have no problem of including this in a list somewhere. SportingFlyer T·C 18:20, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I believe your analysis of the underlying policies is faulty. One citation to a reliable source, such as the Barrington Atlas or TIB is sufficient to demonstrate verifiability. I'm not sure what your point about a "directory listing" is. As far as I know, there's no such exception to the criteria for determining whether a place is verifiable. You may be thinking of the notability criterion, "Wikipedia is not a directory." That's not really applicable here; an ancient town or village that can be named and located within a particular area and is so listed in scholarly sources is notable, even if nothing else can be said about it. But here we don't even know what else can be said; only that I wasn't able to learn more about the information in TIB by looking through its website. Nothing about our verifiability criteria says that we have to have seen the archaeological evidence, or have access to it over the internet, before we're entitled to accept that it exists based on a citation in other sources. I mentioned that the other articles were all kept, because their simultaneous creation by the same editor and based on the same sources was urged as a reason to delete this one. But since the creation of the articles as a group seems to be fine, that's not a valid reason for deleting this one. There's no policy that says that articles should be deleted if they seem unlikely to progress beyond stubs in the foreseeable future. It may well be that this article could be combined with others, but the possibility that it could be is not grounds for deletion. I believe that your description of the town as "a place name on a map that may or may not be logged in the TIL" is misleading. It is not "a place name on a map". It is a known settlement from antiquity that is documented by both TIL and the Barrington Atlas. The fact that we don't know all of the information about it doesn't mean that we can suppose that there might not be any basis for its inclusion. It's highly improbable that TIL would publish an index by one of its major contributors citing it, if it were not documented by the project; and even less likely that it would then be accepted as fact by the Barrington Atlas if it did not consider the material in TIL reliable. As Wikipedians, we are not entitled to assume that the conclusions of scholarly sources are erroneous unless they can produce their proofs to us. P Aculeius (talk) 22:36, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cities have one of the lowest barriers to notability, but I don't buy the fact that just because this was a point on a map and nothing else can be said about it makes it notable enough for its own article when the other places which were nominated were kept and easily verifiable elsewhere. The "directory listing" discussing the place was literally just an index with the place name. I am not saying the atlas is necessarily wrong, but I would expect there to be sources on Google Scholar like there were for the other articles, I would expect there would be listings in books, maybe in one of the readily online searchable Ramsey books on the topic - nothing. Is it really a "known settlement from antiquity?" The fact a place name appeared on a map does not by itself mean that we can have a standalone article for it. It's fine to listify some content, this is one of those instances. SportingFlyer T·C 00:15, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. That's what a stub is for. I'm not aware of "WP:DELETEALLSTUBS". The main argument for deleting the article is that "it's just a dot on a map", but clearly that's not true. We just don't have access to the information used by TIB and the Barrington Atlas—that doesn't mean that the information doesn't exist, or that we'll never know any more than the location of the town. But I think we're entitled to assume that they didn't include it "because it's a dot on a map". The place is clearly notable as an inhabited town from antiquity of interest to modern historians; and its inclusion in these sources makes it verifiable, whether or not we can see the details. So until Wikipedia policy requires the deletion of stubs because they're short—and not because the subjects are non-notable or unverifiable—articles like this should not be deleted. P Aculeius (talk) 00:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is we don't actually know if it passes WP:GEOLAND. We literally only have a dot on a map and its corresponding directory listing. There's nothing wrong with the source, but there are no other sources out there which have been presented that let us say anything other than "According to a single source, this was a city located in Phrygia, whose existence was inferred." It's perfectly reasonable to believe that's not enough of a demonstration of notability. SportingFlyer T·C 05:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 06:54, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Likely it was a translation of Apollonia and the person who created the article did it without known. If you look at the list of Roman towns in Apollonia it, Appolena, and Apellonia are used interchangeably as names for cities throughout. Which is all the more reason to delete this article IMO. As it's likely a duplicate of a differently named Roman city that it is just an odd spelling of. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that it's a common name is not a reason to delete. If it's an alternate spelling of a place that we cover on another page then we should merge them, not delete anything. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:22, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Normally I'd agree. Except two things here make me think that's a no go. 1. We don't usually merge referenced information and in this case I'd say it applies 2. There's no encyclopedic content about it to merge anyway 3. There's zero way to know where we should merge it to and it's probably impossible to figure out since the information in the article is so sparse and general. It could really apply to a bunch of articles cited in Apollonia. So, should we just pick a random merge target and keep our fingers crossed it's the correct one or something? --Adamant1 (talk) 10:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The atlas gives a location for this place (38.959452N, 31.147865E) and also gives an alternate placename (Tezkalesi). This information seems quite adequate for further investigation. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are two reliable sources that call if Appolena, not Apollonia. This isn't some rogue editor with careless spelling, so we can take that argument right off the table. "It's unencyclopedic" is not a valid deletion argument—many encyclopedias have short articles that say little more than "X was a Roman town in Y". Why should Wikipedia be any more demanding? "Not a directory" is about "indiscriminate information". "X was a Roman town in Y" is not "indiscriminate" in the way that "the Phlink warehouse stocked the following valve configurations" or "these are the businesses at the corner of 4th Street and Vine" are indiscriminate. "We don't merge referenced information" isn't a policy. Most merged articles contain sources from each of the articles being merged. "I don't know where it should be merged" is not an argument for deletion—it's an argument for keeping it as a stub. However, it's also wrong—there's no reason why this article couldn't be merged with other stubs on Roman-era settlements in Phrygia. Is that the best solution? I don't know, but it's not important to answer that question, when the question at hand is whether to delete or keep the contents of the article; the potential for merger simply proves that there are valid alternatives to deletion. P Aculeius (talk) 14:29, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is why I think including this topic in a list is the best solution, without prejudice of recreation if we find other sources on it. It's verifiable enough to include somewhere in the encyclopaedia, but it's not notable enough for a standalone article at this point, since we really only have one source, a map. (I'm also concerned that it's a map because mapmakers prevent copying by occasionally including fictional features.) SportingFlyer T·C 16:46, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No map produced as an academic document, as this one is, contains such deliberate falsehoods. This source is just as reliable as anything written in prose published by the Princeton University Press. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Discussions aren't edit wars. Anyway, the point in AfDs are to reduce mainspace/article clutter. Discussions can and should be as long as they need to be to resolve things and everything said so far was to that end. Maybe if the discussion was off topic id agree with you, but sometimes AfDs require debate. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:37, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If your argument is that Appolena and Tezkalesi are the same place, which looking at the references may be a fair one - I would support a move and redirect to Tezkalesi, which currently does not have an article and would pass WP:GEOLAND considering there's actual available text on the place. SportingFlyer T·C 03:18, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm reasonably certain Drew-Bear has associated 'Appolena' with Byzantium 'Tezkalesi'. This blurb referring to the demos of the Appolenoi suggests other authors thought Çoğu. Another possible reference is Drew-Bear, Thomas; Naour, Christian (1990). "Divinités De Phrygie". ANWAR II. 18 (3): 1929–1931. fiveby(zero) 06:10, 15 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! 15:26, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Make (band)[edit]

The Make (band) (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)

There doesn't seem to be anything notable about this band except that they were signed by a record label created by a football player. All the sources are more about player and his record label then the band though and notability isn't inherited. Outside of that, I can't find anything pointing to them charting anywhere. Let alone there being extensive in-depth reviews or articles on them anywhere. Also, the article is clearly promotional.Adamant1 (talk) 06:37, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:14, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:14, 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. czar 05:28, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Promelectronica[edit]

Promelectronica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced company article. I see no significant coverage of the company. From what I can find, it looks like passing mentions and the occasional piece in an industry magazine. I don't see it passing WP:CORP. Mbdfar (talk) 05:16, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:28, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:28, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:07, 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 salt since the last deletion was 2006, but ping for salt if recreation starts again after this deletion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:16, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ProgressSoft[edit]

AfDs for this article:
ProgressSoft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced company article. I disagree with the previous AFD discussions, I see no significant coverage of the subject and nothing that I can find in reliable sources. IMO, this does not pass WP:CORP. Mbdfar (talk) 05:03, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jordan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe your right. Allow recreation with the condition that it goes to draft space etc first though if nothing else at least. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:59, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:08, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:08, 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. czar 05:25, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Riceton, California[edit]

Riceton, 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)

This was at one time a shipping point for rice grown in the area, and there was a warehouse here that is the usual source of references to the locale. But it was a stop on the railroad, not a town. Mangoe (talk) 01:59, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:00, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:00, 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. czar 05:25, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

James Ewell Brown Stuart IV[edit]

James Ewell Brown Stuart IV (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:NSOLDIER as was only a colonel. Comes closer to WP:GNG and WP:NPERSON, but still doesn't quite seem to hit the mark. Coverage consists of obituary that was likely submitted by somebody connected to the man, an image, a post from the American Battlefield Trust, which he was affiliated with, a local newspaper article about somewhere he was speaking, and some rather small newspaper articles, mostly drawing a connection to his ancestry. An article like this from the Miami Herald is good coverage, but it isn't specifically of JEB Stuart IV, but of a group and their efforts to ensure memorialization of JEB Stuart. Other coverage is passing mentions or quotations from him in his capacity as president of the Museum of the Confederacy, not about him. Eddie891 Talk Work 01:32, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:34, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:34, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:10, 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. czar 05:24, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen L Robinson[edit]

Stephen L Robinson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional article on a non-notable author and "life-coach", speedy tag mysteriously removed by an IP. Zero indication of passing WP:NAUTHOR or WP:GNG. 5/12 sources are Medium blogs (see WP:RSP#Medium; it's a blog host with no editorial oversight), the others are his own website and press releases. While "ABC7 News" and "New Jersey News Network" might sound vaguely legitimate at first, a look at the articles [38][39] reveals that they are reprints of the same press release. Nothing on GNews except the same spammy press releases, no book reviews or library holdings. Not notable. Spicy (talk) 01:28, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spicy (talk) 01:28, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spicy (talk) 01:28, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spicy (talk) 01:28, 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. Spartaz Humbug! 15:28, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulla Al-Salem (journalist)[edit]

Abdulla Al-Salem (journalist) (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:BIO, clearly no notability, no awards nor known works, he just a normal blogger and he published some guest articles (not a journalist BTW), all refs from his blog or youtube or twitter, also no google results or significant coverage.

I'm admin in Arabic Wikipedia and I'm sure there is no google results in Arabic language Ibrahim.ID ✪ 00:52, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am user of Wikipedia and add and translate some scientific pages in both versions of this site. I was created this page, so I argue about this writer. He have many articles as journalist in different Qatari journals as Alwatan. This is as reference : Article.User:w5wa —Preceding undated comment added 15:53, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:00, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Qatar-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:00, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:10, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://blackbird.vcu.edu/v9n2/poetry_gulf/al_salem_a/index.shtml.

The information stated above are not ture. User:w5wa

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 16:20, 14 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. Consensus that the subject passes GNG and NACTOR. (non-admin closure) Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:47, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Girija (actress)[edit]

Girija (actress) (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)

Completely unsourced, somewhat promotional, badly worded BLP. I don't see why this has to exist. Somehow it's stuck around for about 10 years. ◊PRAHLADbalaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 00:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:44, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:44, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This popular actress mostly played comedian roles for about three decades in all the South Indian languages. In Telugu, she acted many Hit films along with the Padmasri awardee Relangi Venkatramaiah. As far as I know, she died many years ago. She acted more than 100 films, and during that period, not many awards are given to the films. Please consider keeping her profile in Wikipedia. Thanking you.--Rajasekhar1961 07:58, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Rajasekhar1961: do you have any sources for the claim that she died years ago? Lammbda (talk) 10:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but rewrite to remove the bias. This person is notable, although I could only find two[1][2] reliable English sources. Lammbda (talk) 10:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lammbda, IMDB is not a reliable source. 🌴Koridas🌴 (Negotiate) 21:45, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, alright. I didn't know that before, thanks. lammbdatalk 06:18, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have added about 5 reliable references about the actress. Hope they are adequate.--Rajasekhar1961 09:22, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.deccanchronicle.com/entertainment/mollywood/140317/returning-after-a-long-hiatus-saleema.html
  2. ^ https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0006429/
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:12, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be a IDONTLIKEIT nomination with no signs of BEFORE. AfD is not cleanup. Longstanding Telugu language (and others) actor, almost three decades in film, still discussed long after their death, easily passes WP:NACTOR.[1][2][3] "Girija and others have produced a rich comic fare to successive generations of filmgoers."[4]...Girija, once a successful star."[5]

References

  1. ^ "మా అమ్మపై ఇన్ని పుకార్లా". Sakshi (in Telugu). 12 July 2019.
  2. ^ "నటి గిరిజ".
  3. ^ "Rise and fall of Kasturi Siva Rao and Girija - రాలిన తారలు కస్తూరి శివరావు, గిరిజ".
  4. ^ Nāgabhūṣaṇaśarma, Modali; Sastry, Mudigonda Veerabhadra; Śēṣagirirāvu, Cīmakurti; Sakha, Cīmakurti (1995). History and culture of the Andhras. Komarraju Venkata Lakshmana Rau Vijnana Sarvaswa Sakha, Telugu University. p. 394.
  5. ^ Film World. T.M. Ramachandran. 1982. p. 33.

--Goldsztajn (talk) 17:13, 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. North America1000 01:27, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kash Pleen[edit]

Kash Pleen (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)

Kenyan rapper that does not meet the notability bar. This might be a case of WP:TOOSOON since he released his first song (not counting a couple of remixes) in 2020. A Google search finds only social media presence but no third-party reliable coverage of significant depth. Pichpich (talk) 18:43, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 00:35, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 00:35, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpinningSpark 00:34, 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. North America1000 01:52, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

South West Film[edit]

South West Film (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A non notable production company. Article only contains primary / unreliable sources and WP:BEFORE shows no evidence of better sources Cardiffbear88 (talk) 00:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 00:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 00:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 00:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 00:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 00:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 14:26, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - Flori4nKT A L K 00:16, 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 redirect to 2020 Diamond League. Consensus not to retain as standalone, redirect as WP:ATD ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:13, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Meeting International Mohammed VI d'Athlétisme de Rabat[edit]

2020 Meeting International Mohammed VI d'Athlétisme de Rabat (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 as a part of new article review/curation. No indication of wp:notability COMBINED with: No references that even refer to it specifically much less cover it. The one "reference" was just a schedule where this may have been listed but is deleted/a dead link. Zero content. Event has not occurred. Creator is currently blocked as a sock. A different account has been declining speedy's of theirs so I did not speedy. North8000 (talk) 17:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:43, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:43, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpinningSpark 00:16, 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 redirect to 2020 Diamond League. Consensus not to retain as standalone, redirect as WP:ATD ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:12, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Shanghai Golden Grand Prix[edit]

2020 Shanghai Golden Grand Prix (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 as a part of new article review/curation. No indication of wp:notability COMBINED with: No references that even refer to it specifically much less cover it. Zero content. Event has not occurred. Creator is currently blocked as a sock, a different account declined speedy deletion. North8000 (talk) 16:56, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpinningSpark 00:16, 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 redirect to Dometic Group. (non-admin closure) Dps04 (talk) 04:40, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dometic[edit]

Dometic (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 coverage of the brand. Dometic Group is the parent article, but the company has been covered only in business papers and sites mainly due to it being listed at Nasdaq Stockholm. If possible, can anyone please tell whether the parent company is notable enough to have its own article as well? RedBulbBlueBlood9911|Talk 10:49, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. RedBulbBlueBlood9911|Talk 10:49, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. RedBulbBlueBlood9911|Talk 10:49, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. RedBulbBlueBlood9911|Talk 10:49, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 14:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - Flori4nKT A L K 00:15, 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 redirect to Bahra ceremony. North America1000 01:53, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Barha pikayegu[edit]

Barha pikayegu (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 phrase has no significant coverage or asserted notability. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and this phrase does not belong on Wikipedia. Koridas (...Puerto Rico for statehood!) 00:06, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Koridas (...Puerto Rico for statehood!) 00:06, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Koridas (...Puerto Rico for statehood!) 00:06, 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.
More