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! 22:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Costa Salafis[edit]

Costa Salafis (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:SUSTAINED, it wasn't a "movement " just a group attracted attention for short period of time in 2013, then they officially announced the cessation of their activities in Sep 2013.

actually, the article doesn't meet notability guidelines, no achievement or works or notable works, they was highlighted because they are Salafis work with liberal groups and that is uncommon, many sections in article also are Wp:MASK. Ibrahim.ID ✪ 22:27, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 22:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 22:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 22:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per much the same rationale as I gave at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohammad Tolba. Next time User:Ibrahim.ID, please consolidate similar AFDs per WP:MULTIAFD. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 22:11, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Lake Okeechobee. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Monkey Box, Florida[edit]

Monkey Box, Florida (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)

Sometimes with these places you can wonder, "well maybe it used to be a community" or "maybe the name applies to a few scattered buildings here" but it doesn't get more obvious than this when you look at the map! topo, GMaps Pretty hard to build a community in the middle of Lake Okeechobee – It was once a literal box! Reywas92^Talk 23:41, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 23:41, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 23:41, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Lake Okeechobee. Not a community. CJK09 (talk) 00:20, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Redirect It's an established landmark in the hunting/fishing community, named after an actual monkey or owls that were mistaken for monkeys depending on who you ask, but not significant enough for a standalone article. –dlthewave ☎ 01:58, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per CJK09 but also update the article to reflect the redirect (as is required anyways) as this is an interesting and encyclopaedic oddity. SportingFlyer T·C 03:14, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If articles like dlthewave provided were added in the article, along with the GNIS reference, wouldn't that be enough to establish notability? GNIS acknowledges that it's part of the "Fisheating Bay", it looks like there's a Fisheating Creek nearby. Reading the "Modern history" section does seem like this is the history of the area. I wonder if the decision there also prevented any movement for Monkey Box? We have dredging south of the established spot. – The Grid (talk) 18:03, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @The Grid: The reason this was nominated was because GNIS calls it an unincorporated community, which it clearly isn't. The articles dlthewave has found do lend some notability to the subject, and it may be notable enough for a stand-alone article. I don't think we're quite there yet, and the very poor GNIS reference actually doesn't help in this case (GNIS has been found to be good for WP:V but very unreliable in terms of figuring out whether something was a community.) I think a redirect/merge is best: right now they'd be functionally the same thing, but I think this needs to be referenced somewhere in Wikipedia, and if someone wants to turn it into a standalone article I'm fine with a draftify result. SportingFlyer T·C 19:45, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @SportingFlyer: Understood. Thanks! I know it would be interesting to see if there were plans to dredge this area. This had to be around the time where legislation come through to get a hold on making canals and maintaining natural flow of watersheds especially for Lake Okeechobee. Until then, I would support the redirect. – The Grid (talk) 13:14, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect WP:CHEAP. Lightburst (talk) 15:33, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Of note is that while some commentary has dismissed some of the sources as not being usable to establish notability, overall consensus, relative to the overall strengths of the arguments and overall commentary presented herein is for the article to be retained. For example, a user dismissed one of the sources as unusable to establish notability, but then later !voted for the article to be kept, using a guideline-based rationale. The nominator also questioned the sources in a blanket statement, but did not provide analysis of each individual source. Conversely, while AfD is not a vote or vote count, a satisfactory amount of users have stated that there are enough usable reliable sources that provide independent, significant coverage to satisfy notability requirements, countering the nomination for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:12, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Homes for the Homeless[edit]

Homes for the Homeless (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 to meet WP:NCORP. The argument and references presented in the prior AfD fails to demonstrate that this organization has been the subject of multiple, reliable, significantly independent, in-depth secondary coverage by wide audience media coverage, per the notability requirements for organizations and companies.

The "book" cited was a court proceeding/publication, which is a document of public processes, not a secondary coverage. Some of the reliable sources that mention this thing only do so in passing. I recommend deletion. Graywalls (talk) 21:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC) I cleared out some things in the article and the sources, because while those sources were reliable and what they said, they were generic comments about homelessness that doesn't relate to the organization and doesn't have contextual connection. Graywalls (talk) 07:53, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 21:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 21:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 21:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Criswell, Sara Dixon (1998). Homelessness. San Diego: Lucent Books. pp. 93–95, 100. ISBN 1-56006-180-4. Retrieved 2020-05-17.
  2. Lehmann, Susan P. (November 2004). "A Shelter Is Not a Home... Or Is It? Lessons from Family Homelessness in New York City (review)". Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved. 15 (4). Johns Hopkins University Press. doi:10.1353/hpu.2004.0067. Retrieved 2020-05-17.
  3. "Editorials". The New York Observer. 2006-05-08. Archived from the original on 2020-05-17. Retrieved 2020-05-17.
  4. Basler, Barbara (1986-07-03). "Private Group Prepares Housing for Homeless". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2020-05-17. Retrieved 2020-05-17.
  5. Doak, Melissa J. (2006). Homeless in America: How Could It Happen Here?. Detroit: Gale. pp. 9. ISBN 1-4144-0477-8. Retrieved 2020-05-17.
  6. Egbert, Bill (2004-06-27). "Sheltering families: Homes for Homeless makes room at Inn". New York Daily News. Archived from the original on 2020-05-17. Retrieved 2020-05-17 – via Newspapers.com.
  7. Walsh, Mary E.; Jackson, Julie Heim (2005). Handbook of Mental Health Services for Children, Adolescents, and Families. Boston: Springer. pp. 284–285. doi:10.1007/0-387-23864-6_18. ISBN 978-0-306-48560-2. Retrieved 2020-05-17.
  8. Colon, Alicia (2005-10-07). "The City's Homeless Problem". The New York Sun. Archived from the original on 2020-05-17. Retrieved 2020-05-17.
  9. Gordon, A.L. (2006-05-11). "Out & About". The New York Sun. Archived from the original on 2020-05-17. Retrieved 2020-05-17.
  10. Turner, Janice (1998-08-01). "Hope is on the house". Toronto Star. Archived from the original on 2020-05-17. Retrieved 2020-05-17.
  11. Oram, Roderick (1987-09-27). "Private Efforts Increase Help To NY Homeless: A problem that city politicians are slow to tackle". Financial Times. Archived from the original on 2020-05-17. Retrieved 2020-05-17.
  12. Campanile, Carl; Henry, Jacob (2019-12-10). "NY Homeless provider closes complex for elderly tenants right before the holidays". New York Post. Archived from the original on 2020-05-17. Retrieved 2020-05-17.
  13. Mandor, Samantha; Barclay, Laurel; Zachary, Jonathan (1988-03-19). "By children for everybody Home is where...". New York Amsterdam News.
  14. Lueck, Thomas J. (1989-04-30). "Breaking New Ground in Housing Policy". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2020-05-17. Retrieved 2020-05-17.
  15. "Shelter on Staten Island Opens With Opposition". The New York Times. 1987-09-27. Archived from the original on 2020-05-17. Retrieved 2020-05-17.

  Sources with quotes

  Criswell, Sara Dixon (1998). Homelessness. San Diego: Lucent Books. pp. 93–95, 100. ISBN 1-56006-180-4. Retrieved 2020-05-17. The book notes: Homes for the homeless In 1986 Leonard N. Stern founded Homes for the Homeless to offer hope to New York City's homeless mothers and children. Founded on Stern's belief that inadequate education is the root cause of homelessness, this private nonprofit group built the American Family Inns—transitional housing wherein residents receive education, job training, and services ranging from counseling to summer camps. In most traditional shelters, families must go elsewhere for such services. American Family Inns collaborate with community health care providers to provide on-site prenatal and pediatric care, dental care, immunizations, and preventive medicine. The Inns' family reunification program and two crisis nurseries are the only programs of their kind in New York State. These two programs focus on reuniting foster care children with their familieis and preventing foster care placement. ... The four American Family Inns in New York City serve over 540 families every day. Each family has a unique service plan that considers the family's individual and collective past, and its goals for the future. A caseworker helps each parent and child within the family develop and pursue short- and long-term personal goals. Each caseworker counsels twenty families in individual weekly sessions. After a family moves into permanent housing, follow-up programs provide postplacement services for up to eighteen months. Homes for the Homeless reported in 1996 that 94 percent of all families who graduate from American Family Inns remain in permanent housing. The book notes on page 100: Homes for the Homeless A private nonprofit organization that is the nation's largest single provider of residential education services to homeless families. Its American Family Inns transitional housing facilities serve homeless mothers and children in New York City. Lehmann, Susan P. (November 2004). "A Shelter Is Not a Home... Or Is It? Lessons from Family Homelessness in New York City (review)". Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved. 15 (4). Johns Hopkins University Press. doi:10.1353/hpu.2004.0067. Retrieved 2020-05-17. The article notes: Homes for the Homeless (HFH) was founded in 1986 by businessman Leonard N. Stern (who made his fortune developing the Hartz Mountain pet supply business begun by his father and later in extensive real estate development in the New York metropolitan area) in collaboration with the Cathedral of St. John the Divine and the City of New York. Operating in close conjunction with the Institute on Children and Poverty, a research organization, HFH is the nation's largest provider of residential, educational, and employment training centers, serving over 540 homeless families and over 1,100 homeless children each day at four separate sites across New York City. Dubbed American Family Inns, these sites host a network of on-site education, employment, and family support services that address the multiple causes of homelessness. The book under review serves as a convincing rationale for this Tier II shelter approach to the problem of homelessness, at least in so far as it concerns families with children. "Editorials". The New York Observer. 2006-05-08. Archived from the original on 2020-05-17. Retrieved 2020-05-17. The editorial notes: Leonard Stern's Homes for the Homeless This week marks the 20th anniversary of Homes for the Homeless, the nation’s largest provider for homeless families. The tragedy of homelessness so often proves intractable despite the best intentions of local and federal governments. Thousands of children, whose average age may be no more than six years old, still sleep in New York City homeless shelters on any given night. Homes for the Homeless has proven that there is a way out of the cycle with its innovative residential, educational and training services. Since this magnificent pioneering program was started in 1986 by Leonard Stern, chairman of the Hartz Group, more than 18,000 homeless families and 30,000 homeless children have received emergency transitional housing under its auspices. In addition to housing, Homes for the Homeless offers services necessary to building an independent life: adult education and literacy, job training, accelerated after-school programs, psychological counseling and child care. Its Institute for Children and Poverty conducts the latest research on how trends like welfare reform and gentrification impact homeless families. Not only is the vision vast, the results are solid. Leonard Stern will be honored this week for his humble and dignified stewardship of this remarkable organization, which he alone created more than 20 years ago. He has shown that one man, with courage and compassion, can change the lives of thousands who might otherwise give up hope. Basler, Barbara (1986-07-03). "Private Group Prepares Housing for Homeless". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2020-05-17. Retrieved 2020-05-17. The article notes: The group - formed by the Cathedral of St. John the Divine and Leonard N. Stern, a businessman - said the first shelter or inn will open within six weeks in the building that formerly housed Prospect Hospital in the South Bronx. It will hold 80 families or 300 people in private rooms. ... The not-for-profit group, Homes for the Homeless, will operate its shelters under contract with the city. Mr. Stern, who helped form the group, is its treasurer. The chairman of the group is Basil Paterson, the former Secretary of State of New York and The Rev. James P. Morton, dean of the Cathedral, is the vice chairman. Board members include Ethel Kennedy, Gloria Steinem, and Rabbi Balfour Brickner of the Stephen Wise Free Synagogue in Manhattan. Recently, Mr. Stern has worked closely with Andrew Cuomo, the Governor's son, on other homeless projects, including one called Help I, which will initially provide 420 small apartments as temporary living quarters for homeless families. Doak, Melissa J. (2006). Homeless in America: How Could It Happen Here?. Detroit: Gale. pp. 9. ISBN 1-4144-0477-8. Retrieved 2020-05-17. The book notes: Homes for the Homeless (HFH) is a New York City-based program designed to find long-term solutions for homeless people in New York. HFH created an innovative and successful program—a network of residential, educational, and employment training centers called the American Family Inns—which has been used as a model for permanent solutions to homelessness. HFH is affiliated with the Institute for Children and Poverty, and together they conduct research studies to uncover strategies for fighting poverty and homelessness. Egbert, Bill (2004-06-27). "Sheltering families: Homes for Homeless makes room at Inn". New York Daily News. Archived from the original on 2020-05-17. Retrieved 2020-05-17 – via Newspapers.com. The article notes: So Nunez left his government job in 1986 to found Homes for the Homeless with a grant from philanthropist Leonard Stern. ... Homes for the Homeless operates four so-called Family Inns throughout the city, serving 555 families. The Family Inn model combines housing with an array of social services to help residents reintegrate into the workforce and move on to regular housing. Walking down the Prospect Family Inn's "Main Street" corridor, residents are just steps from social workers, a wellness clinic, a day-care center, job training, even advice on starting their own business. Walsh, Mary E.; Jackson, Julie Heim (2005). Handbook of Mental Health Services for Children, Adolescents, and Families. Boston: Springer. pp. 284–285. doi:10.1007/0-387-23864-6_18. ISBN 978-0-306-48560-2. Retrieved 2020-05-17. The book notes: American Family Inns The American Family Inns are Residential Educational Training (RET) Centers for the entire family. The Inns were developed by Homes for the Homeless in 1986, with the idea that all necessary services can be cost-effectively and efficiently provided for families, under one roof. Homes for the Homeless believes that to effectively break the cycle of homelessness and poverty, the underlying issues that lead to homelessness all must be addressed (Nunez, 1994). The American Family Inn offers comprehensive educational and training programs, which are supported by on-site services such as child care, family counseling, medical clinics, and substance abuse counseling. Parents are given the opportunity to complete their education, to acquire independent living skills, and to obtain job training before moving into permanent housing. At the same time, their children’s education, recreation, and health care are assured and any family problems are addressed. American Family Inns tap the potential of the transitional shelters; they turn a long shelter stay into a productive, concentrated period of learning, recovery, and preparation, with all of the needed tools and support available on-site (Nunez, 1994). The success of the American Family Inn demonstrates that shelters need not serve merely as waiting rooms between temporary bouts of housing. As a result of this education-based program (provided at the same cost as operating a traditional shelter in today’s emergency shelter system), 94% of all families who graduate from the American Family Inns remain in permanent housing (Nunez, 1995). Colon, Alicia (2005-10-07). "The City's Homeless Problem". The New York Sun. Archived from the original on 2020-05-17. Retrieved 2020-05-17. The article notes: Homes for the Homeless was founded by Leonard Stern in 1985 to provide clean, safe, and humane transitional housing for families. This organization presently has five shelters - entire buildings with tight security and strict guidelines. The shelters are de facto communities where residents can pursue their GED and get day care and counseling in one place until they are ready for permanent housing. This is a great program, and one has to wonder why we are still paying a fortune in tax dollars to house families in seedy motels when that money should be going toward expanding the shelters that work. The city should be donating properties seized in tax liens to Homes for the Homeless. Its Web site is www.homesforthehomeless.com. The article includes quotes from the president of Homes for the Homeless. Gordon, A.L. (2006-05-11). "Out & About". The New York Sun. Archived from the original on 2020-05-17. Retrieved 2020-05-17. The article notes: Homes for the Homeless held its first fund-raising gala this year to mark its 20th anniversary. The organization's five American Family Inns in New York City provide temporary shelter for about a year, with 90% of occupants in permanent housing two years after their inn term ends. The inns are also centers of education, job training, and counseling. On a typical afternoon, a parent is studying for his GED while his teenager is playing in a basketball league and his toddler sister is in daycare. Real estate developer and hotelier Leonard Stern, a major donor to New York University, founded the group in 1986 after he saw some homeless people sleeping in City Hall Park. And he seems to be passing on his commitment to doing good in New York through his daughter, Andrea Stern, a photographer who was the mastermind of the gala. Turner, Janice (1998-08-01). "Hope is on the house". Toronto Star. Archived from the original on 2020-05-17. Retrieved 2020-05-17. The article notes: [quote from Leonard Stern] Leonard Stern, chairperson of the HartzMountain Corporation and founder of Homes for the Homeless, the largest single provider of transitional housing and services for homeless families in New York ... In November, the first of 10 families will begin moving from various hostels into a temporary site for Beatrice House, a residential family education centre. The pilot project is a personal tribute to Northey's late maternal grandmother. The concept is modelled after Leonard Stern's New York's Home for the Homeless, established in 1986. Its program of intensive and sustained assistance boasts a 94 per cent success rate of moving families out of hostels and into apartments. The New York project has moved well beyond the emergency mentality surrounding homelessness to provide a long-term strategy, with the leadership and commitment of all levels of government, as well as the non-profit, foundation and corporate worlds. Oram, Roderick (1987-09-27). "Private Efforts Increase Help To NY Homeless: A problem that city politicians are slow to tackle". Financial Times. Archived from the original on 2020-05-17. Retrieved 2020-05-17. The article notes: If politicians and goverments feel the need for lessons in banging heads together, they might try Nancy and Alexander Abraham and Leonard Stern. Distressed by bureaucratic delay, the three New Yorkers have taken their own initiative to open shelters. Mr Stern, chairman, of Hartz Mountain, a real estate, pet food and publishing group, set up Homes for the Homeless two years ago. The non-profit organisation has bought so far three buildings with loans guaranteed by Hartz. Together, they house 420 families, or about 1,500 people. Campanile, Carl; Henry, Jacob (2019-12-10). "NY Homeless provider closes complex for elderly tenants right before the holidays". New York Post. Archived from the original on 2020-05-17. Retrieved 2020-05-17. The article notes: A non-profit called “Homes for the Homeless” is booting tenants — including a 99-year-old Holocaust survivor — from its senior citizen housing complex in Manhattan, right around the holidays, The Post has learned. ... The group was founded by pet toy and real-estate honcho Leonard Stern of Hartz Mountain industries, with its principal mission to provide housing for those without. It previously ran a homeless shelter for families at the building for 20 years before shutting it down in 2015 and converting the building into the senior housing facility, which opened last year. The senior center charges about $4,000 for a one-bedroom apartment, but provides three meals a day in a communal dining room and pays the utility bills. ... Homes for the Homeless also operates a housing complex for seniors on Staten Island, as well as three homeless shelters, two in the Bronx and one in Queens. Mandor, Samantha; Barclay, Laurel; Zachary, Jonathan (1988-03-19). "By children for everybody Home is where...". New York Amsterdam News. The article notes: Stern turned outrage into inspiration and founded Homes for the Homeless, a non-profit organization which finds safe and affordable housing for homeless people. Stern's role, as he put it, is to bridge the gap between the people with good ideas and no money and the people with no ideas but lots of money. Homes for the Homeless works with the Cathedral of St. John the Divine. There are two phases to the project. In phase one, homeless people move into family inns. There are now three family inns that house 1,500 people a night. Mr. Stern described a Homes for the Homeless Inn to us. Lueck, Thomas J. (1989-04-30). "Breaking New Ground in Housing Policy". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2020-05-17. Retrieved 2020-05-17. The article notes: "The reality is that there are a lot of good ideas for the long term, but very few practical solutions for the short term," said Leonard Stern, chairman of Hartz Mountain Industries and a major real estate developer who has formed Homes for the Homeless, a nonprofit group operating 420 transitional-housing rooms for homeless families. Mr. Stern's program, like more than two dozen other temporary housing projects, is at the center of a controversy among advocates for the homeless, some of whom argue that the temporary programs divert money and volunteer resources from efforts to create permanent, subsidized housing. THE buildings used by Homes for the Homeless include a former Holiday Inn in Queens, a hospital in the Bronx and a nursing home on Staten Island. It is providing day care, an alternative high school for residents who have dropped out, exercise equipment, arts and crafts classes and other programs designed to make families more independent and better able to manage an apartment of their own. It charges $100 a night per family, with the bills paid by city, state and Federal agencies. "Shelter on Staten Island Opens With Opposition". The New York Times. 1987-09-27. Archived from the original on 2020-05-17. Retrieved 2020-05-17. The article notes: Despite the opposition of neighbors, a privately run temporary residence for homeless families was opened last week in a four-story building on the south shore of Staten Island. So far, 15 single-parent families have moved into the brown and white brick structure just off the waterfront in Midland Beach, a working-class community that was a resort area in the 1930's. The residence is owned by the Manhattan-based nonprofit organization, Homes for the Homeless. Officials of the organization said about 100 more families are expected to move in within two months, reaching a capacity of up to 350 people. ... After an anonymous caller made threats against the building, officials of Homes for the Homeless asked the police to provide 24-hour protection. For the last two weeks, at least one police car has been parked in front of the building, keeping regular watch. ... Homes for the Homeless bought the building in April for $3.5 million with the aid of Leonard Stern, head of Hartz Mountain Industries and the owner of The Village Voice. The organization received two loans from Chemical Bank totaling $4.5 million for the sale and renovations. The loans were secured by Mr. Stern.

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

  Cunard (talk) 08:05, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment Just FYI The second reference fails ORGIND in that it points to a *review* of a book. While the review was written by Lehmann, the *book* was written by the CEO of the topic company - so fails ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:50, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homes for the Homeless participants: Theroadislong (talk · contribs), Skeletor3000 (talk · contribs), Wm335td (talk · contribs), Doncram (talk · contribs), and Bearian (talk · contribs).

  Cunard (talk) 08:05, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• comment are those items in the list automatically populated from phrase search? Appearing in a list of "organizations to contact" that lists out numerous businesses don't count towards notability. WP:NCORP is the more appropriate standard for companies and non-profits, because this is a category that is especially prone to promotional and public relations editing. See WP:ORGCRIT. "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. These criteria, generally, follow the general notability guideline with a stronger emphasis on quality of the sources to prevent gaming of the rules by marketing and public relations professionals"Graywalls (talk) 16:14, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I see lots more sources found. What's with this? We just went through the process, got it up to WP:HEY, it was nominated a second time, and then more sources were found. Bearian (talk) 19:13, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep More than enough references that meet the criteria for establishing notability can be found. From the list posted by Cunard above, references 1, 3 and 5 (didn't bother to check any others) are satisfactory. Topic is notable, meets GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:50, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Denton, Texas. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:49, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Green Tree Estates water crisis[edit]

Green Tree Estates water crisis (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 curation process. This is a news story that a neighborhood with 50 residents is experiencing a water crisis. IMO does not satisfy wp:not news. Of course it has received extensive local coverage which is listed in the references. North8000 (talk) 23:16, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:17, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and Redirect I think this article has been created to support a local campaign, which certainly seems to have done a good job of getting local press coverage. The topic is too local to have sufficient notability but, stripped right down, could form a section in Denton, Texas. Mccapra (talk) 02:46, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or Redirect to section in Denton, Texas seems reasonable given the local press. Bioforce12 (talk) 01:47, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RUBEN XYZ[edit]

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

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

I am completing the AFD nomination for User:122.25.51.56, who's rationale was on the article talk page, and appears below. This is a courtesy only, I have no opinion on the matter. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:10, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:CREATIVE. There are 17 sources cited in the current revision of the article. However, any of them does not prove the notability of Ruben XYZ; some sources are self-published; some sources only contain passing mention of Ruben XYZ; some sources don't even mention Ruben XYZ at all. I googled the subject's birth name and his pseudonym, but couldn't find "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (WP:GNG). PROD was declined by the article's principal author. 122.25.51.56 (talk) 22:54, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:46, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:46, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails any and all inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:42, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the IP nominator's rationale is spot on. -- Whpq (talk) 02:00, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not an iota of notability. Graywalls (talk) 23:32, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Can't say it any better than the nominator; no indication of notability whatsoever. --Jack Frost (talk) 11:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger sauce[edit]

Tiger sauce (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 process. No indication of wp:notability for this name for this combination of ingredients. There are other much more widespread meanings for "tiger sauce" and this is a common combination of ingredients that does not generally go by that name. No references except to a sales page of someone who sells it by that name. North8000 (talk) 23:02, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding on one point, there is a nationally distributed product called "Tiger Sauce" which is the far more common meaning of the term which is completely different than this; it is a pepper type sauce. The symbol on the bottle says that "Tiger Sauce" is a registered trademark.https://reilyproducts.com/products/tryme-tiger-sauce-10-oz/ I've been buying that stuff for years and it's on the shelf in many grocery stores. So I think that a redirect would not be a good idea. North8000 (talk) 19:49, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:18, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:18, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 02:49, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No indication of notability in the article and my search didn't show the significant and independent coverage required to meet WP:GNG. There appear to be lots of condiments with this name with a wide variety of ingredients. Papaursa (talk) 14:39, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirectto Pit beef. This appears to be a popular in Baltimore as an accompanying condiment. See this, and this. -- Whpq (talk) 02:15, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Given multiple non-notable uses for the term, I am now convinced that a redirect is not the most appropriate choice. -- Whpq (talk) 13:59, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - by its description, this used to be somewhat popular across the United States in the 1970s, but finding anything more than anecdotal evidence is going to be difficult. Bearian (talk) 16:39, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 22:11, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Pérez Doval[edit]

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

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:NFOOTY or WP:GNG, coverage is entirely WP:ROUTINE and limited to sources that do not look reliable (no bylines, and denoted by Google News as both press releases and blogs) _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:00, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:00, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:00, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:00, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:25, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 12:26, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:33, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• ApproveI think it should not be eliminated because it has debuted professionally — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlopglez (talk • contribs) 01:58, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Approve He has played in the First Division. I have watched the game from my television. It is a talent and it is relevant. --Dlop75 (talk) 14:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The globestats article claims Doval played against Valencia but this doesn't tally with soccerway's report of the game. Article's claim that Carrillo was subbed and Doval brought on is a lie - the sub was Youssef En-Nesyri. GNG is failed also. Dougal18 (talk) 19:53, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawing nomination, additional reliable sources were provided to satisfy notability concerns. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:49, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jul på Vesterbro[edit]

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

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

I can't find any significant coverage of this subject in reliable, independent sources. The "Expand Danish" tag is a dead end, as that article does not have any useful references. I'm not familiar enough with Julekalender to assess whether applying WP:NSERIES is reasonable, so I'm bringing it here to AfD following my unsuccessful attempt to find sources online. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:49, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:49, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:49, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:49, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Definitely notable; one of Anders Matthesen's most well-known productions. A TV-julekalender is a TV-series with 24 episodes, one broadcast every day from 1 to 24 December, so WP:NSERIES applies. This calendar was broadcast on DR2, which covers all of Denmark. I will try to see if I can find some sources. ― Hebsen (talk) 19:33, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rosguill, I have added a number of sources now. Are these sufficient to establish notability? ― Hebsen (talk) 21:18, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Hebsen, yeah, those are enough, I'll withdraw this discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:48, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to John Craigie (musician). bibliomaniac15 06:23, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I Wrote Mr. Tambourine Man[edit]

I Wrote Mr. Tambourine Man (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:NSONG. The Billboard source was an exclusive given to the magazine, so it's not a particularly independent source, even if it's a reliable one, and the Broadway World source isn't generally considered reliable, and basically parrots the Billboard article (it says that Billboard "praised" the song, which isn't true at all). There aren't any other reliable sources covering the song in detail, just reproducing the press announcement that the song will be released and its proceeds will go to Johnson's foundation. I can't see an obvious redirect target: it's not mentioned at Craigie's article, and it's only included in Johnson's discography under "other songs"... but it's not his song, why would anyone look under his discography for another artist's song? The Jack Johnson discography also states that the song is included on the deluxe version of Craigie's Scarecrow album, but the article for that album has no mention of the song, and I can't find any "deluxe" version of the album, so that's not a viable target either. Richard3120 (talk) 22:35, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 22:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 22:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect: not notable. It should also be noted that the user who created the page has also created other pages for Jack Johnson regardless of notability. Daerl (talk) 07:30, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to John Craigie (musician): Per nominator. There's no way it can be expanded. It's best to move the contents to the artist's article. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 00:51, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moving the contents is not a redirect... Richard3120 (talk) 01:39, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Richard3120, whether I voted to merge or redirect the article, it's just the same thing. If it's decided for the article to be redirected, it's up to anyone if he can move some of the contents there. So, don't bother arguing with me. My vote stands no matter what. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 03:14, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing with your decision, you can vote how you want. I was just saying that merging and redirecting are not the same thing at all, so your statement is confusing. Richard3120 (talk) 13:42, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Richard3120, it doesn't look confusing. The page would still be converted to a redirect page once it's agreed to redirect or merge to the targeted article. They may be different, but that's one thing in common. I won't reply any further. Period. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 01:40, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There is significant disagreement as to whether the subject's two roles as Daphne Blake in the two Scooby-Doo! television movies are sufficient to establish her notability. Some editors argued that the two roles were enough to satisfy the significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows part of WP:NACTOR, while other editors argued that these roles were not distinct or significant enough because of the relative difficulty in finding in-depth coverage in reliable sources about the subject. Mz7 (talk) 21:16, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Melton[edit]

Kate Melton (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)

Actress possibly fails WP:NACTRESS and WP:GNG. Lack of third-party sources found. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:33, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:33, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:33, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:33, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:33, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: She has a significant role in two notable TV-movies, Scooby-Doo! The Mystery Begins and Scooby-Doo! Curse of the Lake Monster, which aired on Cartoon Network. I believe that satisfies WP:NACTRESS point 1. — Toughpigs (talk) 23:55, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Toughpigs, well it's debatable that the Scooby Doo movies are notable since they are direct to television movies. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:34, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The films have Wikipedia pages, which suggests that they are notable. TV-movies can be just as notable as any other movie; I don't think there's a policy that treats them differently. — Toughpigs (talk) 00:38, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Toughpigs, then there's the issue of the lack of third party sources. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:45, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tyw7, where did you search in WP:BEFORE? I get 14 results for her name and Scooby in one database alone. Will review them and add relevant info to article tomorrow. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 00:17, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DiamondRemley39, well I count those mentions as 1 source. Are you counting every "hits" as different sources?

Google is hitting Wikia, Amazon, LinkedIn, etc.

Google News is hitting reviews for the Scooby-Doo movie. And a different Kate Melton. https://rbj.net/2019/10/24/mary-cariola-founded-center-to-give-more-meaning-to-kids-lives/ --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:09, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tyw7, thank you. How can you count what I am looking at and you have not as one source? You haven't seen it. You don't know what database I used. It was Proquest Global Newsstream, a newspaper database, not a simple search engine. The articles wouldn't count as one source if they have different authors and publishers. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 01:23, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DiamondRemley39, Well you said you found 14 results in one database alone. You didn't mention that it's a search engine. I was thinking more of a database like IMDB.

If you're talking about https://search.proquest.com/results/4E25B38D244F408FPQ/, I had a check and none of them are for the right Kate Melton. https://search.proquest.com/docview/1324257594 talks about an 86 year old.

https://search.proquest.com/docview/862978601 talks about a Kate Melton that lived through the 1920s.

https://search.proquest.com/docview/1418736984/4E25B38D244F408FPQ/10?accountid=10297 is not relevant either. It mentions a "Kate Melton" from Virginia. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:32, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tyw7, as I don't have your login, those links are inaccessible to me (and anyone else). Global Newsstream is not a search engine but a newspaper database. There are various types of databases. Getting away from semantics: my comment was: "I get 14 results for her name and Scooby in one database alone." I am highly confident there was not another Kate Melton in Scooby Doo movies. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 01:38, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DiamondRemley39, care to provide the link to the source?

You sure it's not just passing mentions like Kate Melton stars in the movie. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:41, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot do that, as it requires a subscription and login. I never said it was something other than passing mentions. I never said it was passing mentions. As I stated earlier, I will add relevant info and sources to the article tomorrow, after I have had a chance to review them. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 01:44, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DiamondRemley39, https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2009-sep-11-et-scooby-doo11-story.html is your source? It's more of a review than a critique of the actress. There's only 1 line devoted to Kate: "But Hayley Kiyoko, Kate Melton and Robbie Amell, as brainy Velma, resourceful Daphne and square-shouldered Fred, respectively, do splendid work as well." --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:48, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As you have quoted, and as I have said, it comments on her performance. I don't know where you find "critiques of actresses," except for grand dames or character actresses, and those come in books and are critiques of careers rather than of people. Reviews are typically about a film with some information about performances. Another thing: unless you know her personally, would you refrain from referring to Melton by her first name, as we do in articles? Ok. I've spent too much time answering your many questions in this AfD--and it's partly my fault for deigning to respond--but I have more constructive things to do here. Do not ping me again for this AfD. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 18:39, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first you accuse me of failure of doing a BEFORE. Then you said you found "14 results" in one database alone and you refuse to link to the articles. And when you did, it's a link to a newspaper review of the movie itself with only 1 line mentioning the actress.

You were being belligerent and assuming bad faith of me. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:09, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is inflammatory to accuse an editor of bad faith. See WP:AOBF. I request you strike that comment and amend it to something civil before an admin closes the discussion.

I asked where you completed BEFORE, which is a clarifying question that is ok to ask in deletion discussions, to learn whether you used anything specialized or only the almighty Google. I said I found 14 hits and would add anything relevant to the article later. I never said you didn't look or that all 14 were useful. It was merely a comment; I didn't even vote until hours later. Do point out where I was belligerent or strike that adjective as well. I only see relies to your questions.

Those subsequent questions demonstrate that you are unfamiliar with periodical databases and how they work. That's OK--doubtless many editors haven't taken a research and writing class in high school or in university, at least not in the digital age, or are uninitiated in terms of newspaper research, and don't get that it's a different animal from Google... until someone explains it to them. Then they usually get it that the URLs are useless without a login; "via" is in the citation template so people aren't met with a subscription wall they can't hope to overcome. So let's try this again... In what I hope is my final attempt to placate you on this issue, copy and paste the URLs (my institution extension redacted) into your browser: https://search.proquest.com/globalnews/results/F7615BA7DD0F4B41PQ/1

https://search.proquest.com/docview/422258644 DiamondRemley39 (talk) 14:52, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DiamondRemley39, well I can view the second URL. By asking where I have completed my before you seem to be insinuating I didn't do any before since you said "I got 14 hits" which means I wasn't looking hard enough. This is a common accusation seen on AFDs.

I did look at Google News, which often brings up hits to news articles. That said your article only has 1 line relating to Melton, and that is being lumped in with her other co-workers. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you have a login or access to an institution's server, or perhaps access in your country is more liberal than in mine. Proquest can be helpful on Wikipedia. "Where did you complete BEFORE?" is a normal question to ask when the nominator has not provided details of that in the nomination statement, as you did not. It's important to explain your reasoning. Thank you for your last comment; it's now clear enough that you have your own lens and narrative when you interpret simple questions as accusations based on other AfD experiences. You didn't strike your comment and you didn't directly address my request to tell me where I was belligerent. If you do not retract or reply, I will assume you stand by them. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 16:11, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DiamondRemley39, I am at a University, which explains why I have access. That's why I was trying to see which Proquest link you were talking about. Since Wikipedia frowns upon commenting on other user's actions and commenting further will probably extend into WP:PERSONALATTACK category so consider this matter closed. Agree to disagree. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:49, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What we have here is a failure to communicate. I did not speak of links; I wrote about an article. Anyway, now you know a thing or two about Proquest and so does anyone else who read this thread, and that is excellent. This is unresolved until you acknowledge that you crossed a line when you accused me of bad faith and belligerence. Bad faith is a serious accusation. Now I am to take it that personal attack is on your mind. Well. Yes, we shall agree to disagree: closed for you, open for me. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 22:21, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Except the usual social media pages, I could not find any mention but this very trivial mention in a Portuguese language article... Fails WP:GNG; and given that no coverage could be found, all three criteria of WP:NACTOR (since, if her role was significant and those movies too, then there would be some kind of coverage...) RandomCanadian (talk | contribs) 02:07, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per User:Toughpigs. "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Played a named character (a character notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article, apparently) in two films. That is significant. I found several articles in one newspaper database, adding one source, the LA Times, which comments on her performance. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 14:38, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  DiamondRemley39, the line in question merely says "But Hayley Kiyoko, Kate Melton and Robbie Amell, as brainy Velma, resourceful Daphne and square-shouldered Fred, respectively, do splendid work as well." --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:51, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Do you have a point, Tyw7? I see you commented about this above as well. How about we both stop cluttering up the page? Don't ping me again in this AfD. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 18:39, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Looking at WP:ANYBIO: "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards" as relates to WP:ENT. So: it does not need to meet WP:GNG. She played a notable character, Daphne Blake, in two films, and there is at least one review out there that talks of her performance in one of those popular films. The article now has a reliable secondary source. Still could use more sources, but that's a whole different animal. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 14:45, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:38, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The criteria is "multiple" significant roles in notable productions, she only has at best 1 significant role, Just because it is 2 productions does not change it from being 1 role and so cannot create notability. I also have long argued that it takes more voice roles for notability to be met than live action roles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Johnpacklambert, she has not performed in any voice roles, so why bring that into this discussion? DiamondRemley39 (talk) 22:05, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I misunderstood the role in the films in question. On further thought considering they are direct to video that is the main issue. I may have seen one of them as I think about it more. I still stand by my view that it is one role not the required multiple roles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:23, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. And FYI, the mode of the films as well, as they were not direct to video. The first broke ratings records on the channel on which it aired. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 18:39, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep: Arguments have already been made above regarding WP:NACTOR. There do appear to be some sources, too, a few of which I'll get clipped and post here. Dflaw4 (talk) 11:52, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• This is the most in-depth source I found: here. Dflaw4 (talk) 12:52, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for searching for that and clipping it! I didn't find that in my newspapers.com search! I added one bit of information to the article and sourced your clipping. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 14:58, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per (probably/hopefully) WP:TOOSOON. To address the only non-per X !votes, the subject has clearly only had one substantive role, and thus does not pass WP:NACTOR, while the source presented above (and those revealed by a thorough WP:BEFORE search) are insufficient to pass WP:GNG. Indeed, wrt the latter, if that is the most in-depth source found, then GNG is some time (not to mention persistent covergae) away yet. Cheers, ——Serial ^# 13:46, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep based on her major role as Daphne Blake passes WP:NACTOR Lightburst (talk) 15:19, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don’t have any prejudice toward keeping or deleting (though I do lean on the side of delete), but at what point do we decide which TV show or movie is “big enough” to supersede what the NACTOR criteria is supposed to be? Take a case like Melanie Liburd... appearance on two extremely popular shows, sure, yet absolutely no sources to verify even the most basic BLP reqs. When will we put a lid on this kinda stuff? Trillfendi (talk) 18:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not super relevant, but I'll answer anyway. The sources on the Melanie Liburd article are adequate to support the information that's there, which is that she's an actress and a list of her roles. It's only a BLP concern if somebody adds information about her that doesn't have a source. — Toughpigs (talk) 22:31, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Two BLP related items are there. 3 sources are given for the whole article: one of them being some random person’s wordpress blog and the other two being Deadline used to source a role and that’s it? That’s supposed to uphold notability standards? I have to wonder why the bar has sunk so low to this nadir of a standard. Hence why articles such as this get put up for deletion everyday. Trillfendi (talk) 14:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdraw. Sorry, first step should have been to convert to a redirect. We can have an AfD discussion if it's contested. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:21, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Las Canciones de Mis Viejos[edit]

Las Canciones de Mis Viejos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NALBUM. Most of the provided sources don't even mention the album. It's possible that some of the songs are notable, as several appear to be folk songs that were not originally written for this album. Notability, however, is not conferred through this sort of association. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:21, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:21, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:21, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. bibliomaniac15 01:26, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blow Your Mind (Tiësto and MOTi song)[edit]

Blow Your Mind (Tiësto and MOTi song) (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:NSONG. The notability for this song rests on one thing, charting on Billboard's Electronic Songs chart, but unfortunately it's false. There's a reason why the author couldn't find the position on the Billboard archives, and had to add another link from DJ Mag for its supposed number-one position... the DJ Mag source actually says it reached number one on the "Electro House Charts". This isn't a Billboard chart... it probably relates to the Electro House Top 100 tracks on Beatport, although this isn't clear. In any case, this isn't a valid chart, failing WP:SINGLEVENDOR, and therefore there aren't any reliable sources that demonstrate notability of this song. And because both artists are notable, there isn't an obvious redirect target, per WP:XY. Richard3120 (talk) 22:14, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 22:14, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 22:14, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: There are a few sources which mention the song, but barely talk about it. Not to mention there are several songs which bare the same title. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 05:11, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 18:35, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. I apologize - my interpretation of NPOL was a tiny bit off - sources have been added to the article therefore I am withdrawing this. Thanks Ingratis for your notes. Cheers (non-admin closure) -- puddleglum^2.0 05:19, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

George Fludyer, MP[edit]

George Fludyer, MP (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 don't see this person as being at all notable - an MP from the 18th century that, according to this article, did nothing coverage-worthy. No citations either; the whole article is who his ancestors were. I don't see this passing GNG or NPOLITICIAN. -- puddleglum^2.0 21:45, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- puddleglum^2.0 21:45, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - MPs are notable - WP:NPOL.Ingratis (talk) 23:43, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi Ingratis, hope you're staying well. Are all MP's inherently notable? The way I understood NPOL was that GNG must also be met - therefore, an MP who has received absolutely zero significant coverage (like this one), would be deletion-worthy. Without any citations, we don't know if any of the information contained in this article is true. I'm sorry, this just may be a misunderstanding on my part, but I'm curious nonetheless. Thanks for your time and !vote. All the best, -- puddleglum^2.0 00:00, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you're well too. My understanding, as far as it goes, is that being an MP is enough in itself, which is how I take NPOL: "the following are presumed to be notable: politicians... who have held international or national ... office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels." His entry from the authoritative "History of Parliament" has now been added, which confirms that he was an MP (and also that his was not an interesting career) and there will be other sources for someone of that status. All best to you! Ingratis (talk) 00:12, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per WP:NPOL. Mccapra (talk) 03:12, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. MPs are notable and meet WP:NPOL. --Kbabej (talk) 03:28, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Clear consensus that this meets NSPORTS criteria, no need to belabor the point further. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:03, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Wyatt (skeleton racer)[edit]

Marcus Wyatt (skeleton racer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG, the only significant coverage is in non-independent sources. Top 10 finishes at international skeleton racing events are impressive, but without any podium finishes I don't think we're in WP:ANYBIO territory, and we don't have an SNG for this sport. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:44, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:44, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:44, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep He is the highest qualifying British Skeleton racer of all time.  He finished in the standings well enough to be in the world cup top finishers for the year.. well enough to be listed on the world cup pages. Similarly ranking racers have pages. In 2018-19 he finished sixth in the world for Great Britian which is not a traditional winter sports power, and number seven has a page. 

He is product of the skeleton training center at the University of Bath which is itself a story. Skeleton is an Olympic sport and he is the top male finisher in its history from the UK.Williamsdoritios (talk) 22:22, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I should have thought that competing in the Skeleton World Cup, the top-level international competition for the sport, makes someone notable per WP:NSPORT. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:50, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Back to back top ten finishes in the world championships in an established Olympic sport should be enough. If not GNG: from Eurosport, about him going to Pyeonchang as an observer, in depth coverage that is from an organization centered on the sport, but independent of the IBSF and British authorities.18abruce (talk) 18:32, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes WP:NSPORT based on "...highest qualifying British Skeleton racer of all time."Lightburst (talk) 15:24, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lightburst: While I did try to make a case for keep, I believe it to be a borderine WP:TOOSOON. He is not even close to whatever the "highest qualifying British Skeleton racer of all time might mean", Britain won half the Olympic medals in the sport in the last Olympics and he was passed over for it by his own federation. @Williamsdoritios: wildly exaggerated Marcus Wyatt's standing within a country that has had both male and female world champions, and I misspoke myself about his accomplishments (only 12th in 2019 worlds). It is fortunate that (I believe) there is a case for GNG because any other claim for notability is tenuous, and it does not help a case at AFC to misrepresent the facts.18abruce (talk) 16:38, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@18abruce: Nonetheless he appears to be quite competent and accomplished in his area of expertise. 2019/20 season ranked eighth in the overall world standings and fourth place at the World Cup event in Igls in January. He passes WP:SPORTCRIT Lightburst (talk) 17:40, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to UNHhhh. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:58, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trixie and Katya Save the World[edit]

Trixie and Katya Save the World (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Reviewed under new article curation review. IMO "web series" with zero indication of wp:notability under either wp:GNG or the SNG. Zero references. Article has been tagged for this since April 13th North8000 (talk) 21:26, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:39, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:41, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (or merge) - user:Kbabej has done good work adding sources. It’s also being mentioned in several round-ups of ideas for quarantine entertainment such as this. I believe it’s notable enough for its own article, but if consensus disagrees, could be merged with UNHhhh as this has been replaced with this during quarantine. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 07:22, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well two of the three sources at the article are "WOW" the service that sells/carries this, but the third one newly added is certainly relevant to this conversation. I think that one more solid wp:GNG type one added to the article would do it. North8000 (talk) 09:46, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are now five sources, including Vice, a podcast, and Socialite Life. --Kbabej (talk) 17:48, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge per Cardiffbear88, I was thinking the same thing. Gleeanon409 (talk) 11:39, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, I don't think it would be notable to merit its own article, but it would be relevant to include it in the articles of Trixie, Katya and WOW. Not A Superhero (talk) 15:02, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I don't think a WP:BEFORE was done on this. There are sources. Even removing the WOW Presents articles, there's still a review by The Queer Creative and then coverage by Vice and Socialite Life. I'd also argue for a weak WP:HEYMANN here; it went from zero sources to five; no reviews to two; and an added external links section. --Kbabej (talk) 17:46, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into UNHhhh. per the article it is very clearly "a replacement for their popular webseries UNHhhh, which is on hiatus due to the COVID-19 pandemic." It is for all intensive purposes the same show just in a diferent format due to filming restrictions. We should not have 2 articles about the same topic.Found5dollar (talk) 20:16, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:16, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Van Laethem[edit]

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

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

Not notable with very little sources. PoliceSheep99 (talk) 21:24, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PoliceSheep99 (talk) 21:24, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. PoliceSheep99 (talk) 21:24, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable town crier.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:48, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep. withdrawn by nominator, no other delete !votes. (non-admin closure) SportingFlyer T·C 02:13, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Condon[edit]

Anthony Condon (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)

unnotable, BLP issues, lack of sources Ed6767 (talk) 21:02, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:43, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:43, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Did you do the steps outlined in WP:BEFORE? If you did you would see that the subject easily meets the subject-specific notability guidelines and would have found numerous sources exist. Jevansen (talk) 23:50, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep a 10-year, 145-game player who played in two premierships at the highest level of Australian rules football very clearly passes WP:NAFL. This AfD reflects poorly on the nominator's diligence. – Teratix ₵ 08:44, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Teratix, thank you for your kind comments - I'm still fairly new to AfD, this nomination was my mistake here. I 'm sorry I've only just got the chance to re-review my AfDs and have retracted my original nomination. Ed6767 (talk) 01:39, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, per Teratix. Cavalryman (talk) 10:47, 17 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep Was surprised this article was in this state, less surprised decent articles on Condon were hard to find on the internet given the years in which he played for the Hawks. Easily passes WP:NAFL and clearly notable. It was sourced, but only to directory websites, so I've quickly added two more - neither are great, it's an article from the Hawthorn website, but it's impossible he's not notable. SportingFlyer T·C 08:17, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• comment - on further review, I am retracting my original nomination for deletion. Ed6767 (talk) 01:37, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. bibliomaniac15 01:20, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Subway Princess Runner[edit]

Subway Princess Runner (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)

100 million downloads on Google Play is not enough for the article to meet WP:GNG. Aasim 20:45, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Aasim 20:45, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I wasn't able to find much in reliable sources about this game besides a short mention in The Times of India [1], which seems like a blatant Subway Surfers ripoff. Fails WP:GNG. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:19, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Yup, a non-notable Subway Surfers ripoff which probably had its top-5 appearance coming solely from a bunch of bulk downloads. Nate • (chatter) 22:56, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:12, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Marten[edit]

Alexander Marten (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. Not real evidence of notability Rathfelder (talk) 20:33, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 20:33, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 20:44, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is pretty clearly an autobio as I don’t think any PR would write something as thin as this. It is an extended essay of self-praise, mostly unsourced. The sources which aren’t dead do nothing to support notability. This is just promotional spam. Mccapra (talk) 03:22, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:09, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG. Likely autobio or the guy really cheaped out when hiring PR. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:24, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. bibliomaniac15 06:24, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Rayevsky (Japanologist)[edit]

Alexander Rayevsky (Japanologist) (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 lacks reliable independent sources to establish notability. It's not really clear what the claim of notability even is: as an academic, it's a clear WP:PROF fail; as a YouTuber he's about number eleventy million in the rankings; he plays in a completely non-notable band. Guy (help!) 10:58, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:14, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:14, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:07, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. He very frequently appears on various Russian language TV and radio channels [2] with comments about Japanese culture. This is the only indication of notability. I agree with people who commented above that he is not notable for his scientific work, as a blogger or as a performer. My very best wishes (talk) 01:17, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - appearing on TV as a commentator is not an indicator of notability. We need reliable sources about him, not commentary made by him. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:41, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:12, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Synch roll[edit]

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

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

I can't even understand what this article is or how it's notable. The article obviously contains original research and it has been unsourced since November 2006. Kori (@) 03:44, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I found one seemingly relevant use of "synch roll": [3]. However, the meaning of the term in this context may not be the same as in the article. Besides a bunch of WP:CIRCULAR mentions, I could not find any other relevant use of "synch roll" or "sync roll". userdude 03:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:29, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Video tape recorder or Vertical Roll as preferred WP:ATD. ~Kvng (talk) 15:17, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - there are lots of specialized terms in the world that are not notable, and this is one of them. Bearian (talk) 16:43, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:20, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky Concha[edit]

Ricky Concha (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 boxer that fails NBOX and GNG. ².O.^Boxing 20:19, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 20:19, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 20:19, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 20:19, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable boxer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:46, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This is a low-participation discussion, but also a fairly clear call and a discussion that has already remained open beyond the normal time for an AfD. Basically unsourced stub on a topic with little actual coverage. Redirecting the title to the sole relevant article, as redirects are a bargain in this economy. BD2412 T 04:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ChaseLinx[edit]

ChaseLinx (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)

Little to no significant coverage in reliable sources. All I could find mentioning it were 2 local news sources. SK2242 (talk) 20:13, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 20:13, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 20:13, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 03:25, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep - After re-listing, it is quite clear there to keep the article. If there is a desire to rename it as suggested in the extended discussion, that should be done on the talk page. Fuzheado | Talk 16:32, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Southwest Airlines Flight 1392[edit]

Southwest Airlines Flight 1392 (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 don't see what's notable about this. One person got killed by a landing plane, that's extremely unfortunate but I don't see how having a full article about this contributes anything useful to the encyclopedia. If multiple people were killed, it would've made more sense to make a article. ShadowCyclone talk 12:41, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ShadowCyclone talk 12:41, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The incident involved a large transport-category aircraft and has attracted substantial national press coverage, so it meets general notability guidelines, despite the absence of injuries to persons aboard the aircraft. To cite two examples, Delta Air Lines Flight 89 and American Airlines Flight 910 meet WP:GNG and have Wikipedia articles despite a lack of onboard injuries or significant damage to the airliner. Carguychris (talk) 14:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or redirect - Keep, or redirect to History of Southwest Airlines#2020s or Southwest Airlines#Accidents and incidents. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Unusual incident. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a major contributor to the page. It meets GNG threefold, and plenty of other articles are also about an airline fault resulting in 1 death or less (per Carguychris). dibbydib ^boop or _snoop 00:38, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I cant see how a sucide is the fault of the airline. MilborneOne (talk) 18:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - While there have been a few incidents in the past couple of years of people in the US climbing over airport fences and climbing onto or trying to climb onto a transport category aircraft while on the runway or taxiway, this is the only incident I can recall where someone has actually been killed. In addition, according to CBS, the plane did sustain very noticeable damage to its #1 engine. - Omega13a (talk) 03:24, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I am usually very quick to nominate articles unworthy of mainspace, but this one patenetly is. All sorts of questions and all the likely answers will confirm the notability of this article!--Petebutt (talk) 03:35, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• comment This is a good example of why articles on this sort of incident shouldn't be written on the day they happen. If the only additions to the article, in a year, are the name of the victim and "authorities could not determine what he was doing on the runway," are we going to go through another AfD in which a burst of routine coverage is used to argue that every plane incident is notable? Really, this is a case of WP:TOOSOON: too many responses above are saying that it might prove notable based upon ongoing coverage which hasn't had a chance to happen yet. I'm not going to argue for deletion because it's obvious that's going to be ignored as it stands, but the incident is not, from what I've seen here, notable yet. Mangoe (talk) 17:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - There is nothing here to indicate that there will be any lasting effects to this incident beyond the one death and some bent metal (which has likely already been repaired). This is exactly why we have the policy of WP:NOTNEWS. - Ahunt (talk) 17:18, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not particularly notable and really falls into WP:NOTNEWS, wikipedia is not a tabloid. MilborneOne (talk) 18:11, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply - @Ahunt:, @MilborneOne:, so why can't we redirect with history? --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:01, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Because of the policy WP:NOTNEWS - it is just a news item, not notable in the overall history of the airline. - Ahunt (talk) 21:01, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply - Actually, it does fit well here. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:45, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I see that it has already been added there. Keep in mind that the airline has had hundreds of incidents in its history and only a few are listed there. This one is too minor to even be included and also note that it really has very little to do with the airline. It was not any failing on the part of the airline and is not going to result in any changes in airline procedures (airport maybe, but not airline). It could have been any aircraft he stood in front of, so hardly bares on the history of this airline, in any notable manner. - Ahunt (talk) 23:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - Redirect to History of Southwest Airlines#2020s or Southwest Airlines#Accidents and incidents. 75.176.100.61 (talk) 00:55, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (and possibly Rename Austin–Bergstrom International Airport runway incident) When there's a post-9/11 security breach at a major American airport that allows an unauthorized person to literally wander out on a runway and cause death or injury to either passengers, aviation employees or themselves, it would be willful ignorance to believe there will no thorough review and revision of security regulations and practices at all a major airports. Oakshade (talk) 04:37, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If we can keep the article for Southwest Airlines Flight 1248, we should also be able to keep the crash for this incident. Scorpions13256 (talk) 18:54, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Too soon to keep This accident was notable as very unusual as involving a big airliner and with the location of the accident on a runway. But there is yet no proof of what really happens and if finally there is something interesting to learn so WP:TOOSOON unless we have significant continuing news coverage. Wykx (talk) 20:28, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very few people actually read the non-guideline WP:TOOSOON before referencing it. WP:TOOSOON is about not creating articles of subjects that have not yet had significant coverage by reliable sources and passing WP:GNG which doesn't apply to this article. It's not about banning topics that only recently had significant coverage. Oakshade (talk) 23:26, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a notable security incident; thus rename to Austin–Bergstrom International Airport runway incident. The incident is not related to the safety of the airline or the aircraft, so I would oppose a redirect to the airline's history. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:04, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Concur with suggestion to move the article, although I suggest naming it 2020 Austin–Bergstrom International Airport runway incident per WP:DAB. With no injuries aboard the aircraft, no mention of NTSB involvement in major sources, and the aircraft back in service only 3 days later, this barely even meets the definition of an aviation incident, much less an accident. What makes this event notable is the security breach, and the article should discuss it as such. Carguychris (talk) 19:00, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is an unsusual aviation accident. The person wasn't an airplane employee either, making it more unusual as well, as only airport employees are allowed on airport grounds.ThatOneWikiMaster (talk) 23:03, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the arguments for deletion made here don't convince me, sorry - an incident's death count has little to do with its notability or lasting notability. The coverage received about this very unusual incident is more than routine or trivial, and easily passes WP:GNG. The fact that a security breach of this extent can happen in an airport in the United States, especially since the existence of the TSA, is alarming and adds to its significance. There is no doubt the findings of the ongoing investigations [4] will be extensively discussed by major media sources. Zingarese talk · contribs 02:56, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'll be quite happy to step up and doubt away. If such ongoing coverage appears, then I will not oppose recreating an article; until then, we're in WP:CRYSTAL territory. Mangoe (talk) 20:47, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What does WP:CRYSTAL have anything to do with this incident that already occurred? Zingarese talk · contribs 02:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Um, basing notability on coverage that hasn't happened yet? Mangoe (talk) 03:09, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry- but where did I base notability on “coverage that hasn’t happened yet?” I said above The coverage received about this very unusual incident is more than routine or trivial, and easily passes WP:GNG. Certainly the coverage vis-a-vis the investigation’s findings could further strengthen this incident’s notability, but its notability at present is already clear enough. Zingarese talk · contribs 13:30, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Except that isn't the case here. Sure it made the news when it happened, as the news stations jumped on it, then nothing. Classic case of WP:NOTNEWS. - Ahunt (talk) 16:35, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then something. A week later the NYT and other outlets reported the FAA is doing a thorough investigation of this and it's considered "rare."[5][6]Oakshade (talk) 20:07, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All accidents are investigated, nothing notable there. - Ahunt (talk) 20:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your contention was there was a spurt of coverage and then "nothing." That was wrong. Not all accidents are this unusual, have this much WP:GNG passing coverage nor are all accidents as rare as this one. Oakshade (talk) 17:33, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There's enough coverage and investigation of this incident to justify the article's existence. Maximajorian Viridio (talk) 00:15, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The subject clearly meets WP:GNG and the three is adequate wide coverage about this subject. Abishe (talk) 11:12, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - per the above arguments, article seems to meet basic WP:GNG. Inter&anthro (talk) 15:30, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:20, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of public venues and institutions closed during the COVID-19 pandemic[edit]

List of public venues and institutions closed during the COVID-19 pandemic (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 has outlived its usefulness. Created when things were just starting to close, but now you can basically say everything everywhere closed. What's here is a *very small* selection of news tidbits that is not worth keeping up to date or expanding to include virtually every venue and institution: more detailed and contextual information is at respective country/place articles. Reywas92^Talk 19:47, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:51, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:51, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:51, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:51, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agree with nominator. The scope of closures is such as to overwhelm any attempt to have an article about them. The article is hopelessly out of date (in most countries a single item is listed) and that cannot be avoided. It would be impossible to keep this article current and accurate because things change so quickly. It would be better to have no information at all than inaccurate/incomplete/out of date information. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Might be more useful to move and rewrite to be about the general topic of Closures during the COVID-19 pandemic, rather than a list of specific closures. buidhe 19:58, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Just go ahead and delete it. Every time a relevant article such as this one without much editor input other than the author gets nominated, it leads to it being nominated for deletion over and over. Discussed over and over. Its exhausting. The deletion police win this one. And my loss of participation. Thanks.Juneau Mike (talk) 20:17, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Unworkable and indiscriminate. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:22, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:LISTCRUFT sums it up as to why such lists don't belong in an encyclopedia. Kerberous (talk) 09:44, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. There are literally going to be thousands of closures in response to this pandemic, we do not need to list every single one in the world. Notable closures should be considered on the country's article relating to its own response. Ajf773 (talk) 20:52, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not every public place closed due to the pandemic needs to be listed here. Hansen Sebastian^Talk 05:56, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Why did this discussion get taken over by discussion of a song?John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:48, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is an extreme example of recentism. It also is almost certainly going to always be too short. Considering that in almost all the world this was at time every single public venue and institution, that is a crazy thing to make a list of. In theory this should include every Church and other religious place of congregation that we have an article on, cover the various stages of closure in every Catholic diocese that did so we have an article on (which is virtually all 3000 of them) cover not only every state that we have article on, but should include at least any early closing or late opening of every school district and school we have articles on, cover every single college and university we have articles on (which is all of them) and so much more. The problem is that most of these variations will be only slight from government directives, at least in the US. I think these issues will better be served by articles like The Catholic Church and Covid-19 or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Covid-19 etc, then a huge scope list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:43, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, but without prejudice to recreation as a more general Closures during the COVID-19 pandemic per Buidhe. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 04:34, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:02, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

YungBlnkz[edit]

YungBlnkz (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 about a non-notable musician that fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Most of the additions on the article are unsourced or barely sourced. It should also be noted that the creator of the article is a single-purpose account who only registered to drop this. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 19:40, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 19:40, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 19:40, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — A source used in the article described him as a “fast rising act” which implies he isn’t notable just yet. Ultimately falls short of WP:MUSICBIO and other basic notability guidelines. He may be notable in future. Celestina007 (talk) 00:22, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Celestina007. The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. There isn't any indication that he will become notable anytime soon.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 22:47, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable rapper.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:06, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:02, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fehmida Jamali[edit]

Fehmida Jamali (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 non-elected politician with no significant coverage in reliable sources and fails WP:NPOL. GSS ^💬 19:18, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 19:18, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 19:18, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the newly added 4 links from reliable sources by the creator of article - User:Ithad. Let's give this article , a fair chance because the person has significant news coverage. In my view, it deserves it because it has 2 references from 2 major newspapers plus 2 other reliable sources from the Pakistani news media. Ngrewal1 (talk) 23:31, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ngrewal1: None of the sources discuss the topic in depth, as required for notability. GSS ^💬 02:54, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG, and WP:NPOL. Störm (talk) 01:41, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nothing here passes WP:NPOL as an "inherently" notable office, so it's all about the quality and depth of the sources. GNG is not just "count the footnotes and keep anybody who gets past two" — GNG also tests sources for depth, range, quality and the context of what the person is getting covered for, so every potential source that exists is not automatically a GNG-building source. For a source to contribute toward getting over GNG, she has to be the subject that other people are speaking about, not the person who's doing the speaking about herself or any other topic. Sources that are actually "about her" are not the same thing as sources that happen to have her name in them — if the source just quotes her speaking about some political issue, while its core subject is that issue rather than her, then it is not a notability-assisting source, but unfortunately that's all of the sources present here. Bearcat (talk) 15:45, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete an unelected politician. Sourcing can be found for virtually every candidate but we have decided we do not want article on every candidate.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:42, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails basic GNG as well Wikipedia:POLITICIAN. --Saqib (talk) 20:46, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:02, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shrill Society[edit]

Shrill Society (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)

Lack of notability. The sources cited in the article are mostly trivial mentions of the company or its products. Some sources go into more depth on the products, but only a few discuss the company in any significant detail. Those that do are not independent or reliable, with the exception of two borderline sources (people.com and the second bustle.com). I have made a more detailed analysis at Talk:Shrill_Society#2020-04-30_source_assessment. No more suitable sources were found. Overall, I do not believe that the criteria in WP:NORG have been met for this subject. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 23:10, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 23:10, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 23:10, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:19, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:19, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per WP:NOTINHERITED. Subject lacks notability on its own. Srijanx22 (talk) 06:55, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Nasty_woman#Movement per WP:NOTINHERITED. No evidence of independent notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:43, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or merge, per the nom's extensive analysis on the talk page. The sources are shaky and NORG is far from being met. SD0001 (talk) 16:25, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As has been pointed out via the analysis on the Article Talk page, the references fail the criteria for establishing notability. Topic fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:36, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) SD0001 (talk) 06:49, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Carlos Ernesto Escobar Mejía[edit]

Death of Carlos Ernesto Escobar Mejía (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 very definition of WP:BLP1E. Natureium (talk) 00:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:09, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Seems that this could be redireced or merged into an article about 2020 coronavirus pandemic in ICE detention centers? buidhe 02:18, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Maybe a mention can be made at Immigration detention in the United States or U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Mohanabhil (talk) 06:01, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Ref ^(chew)(do) 05:01, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep news article yesterday from The Guardian here states his death is causing an ICE agency-wide review. Also seen other articles mentioning vigils and protests in different cities across the US. Seems like this death goes beyond BLP1E territory. Rab V (talk) 14:16, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Leaning keep per Rab V, or possibly move to draft pending likely additional reporting. I will add the Guardian reference to the article. BD2412 T 00:47, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Rab V. "The lawmakers demanded that ICE give a briefing and documentation by May 22 on the death of Carlos Ernesto Escobar Mejia, who died of complications from COVID-19 while in custody." (Source) Xicanx (talk) 01:11, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:SIGCOV. I disagree with the nominator's assertion that this meets all three requirements listed in WP:BLP1E (specifically conditions 2 and 3). Point 2 states that a biography for an otherwise low-profile individual should be redirected to the event which is exactly the case here: Carlos Ernesto Escobar Mejía. The significant coverage in WP:RS and responses by numerous WP:N organizations and officials seems to contradict the claim that "the event is not significant." TJMSmith (talk) 01:19, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of El Salvador-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 01:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - his death will be investigated by the United States Senate. Bearian (talk) 16:45, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:40, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This 15 Me World Tour[edit]

This 15 Me World Tour (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)

Easily fails WP:GNG. Prose and content is a quick fail. Generally unaccepted standards per WP:MOS. Insufficiently sourced and ridden with fancruft, puffery and issues of neutrality (WP:NPOV, WP:FAN, WP:PUFF),. It doesn't require it's own article per WP:CONCERT. Itssheenabautista (talk) 18:03, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:53, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:53, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Sarah Geronimo: Per nominator. Some of the content can be merged to the artist's article. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 06:54, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as the concert has received multiple reliable sources reviews such as Rappler and others. There is also a claim of significance that it is her most succesful tour and there is enough referenced content to justify a stand alone article, passes WP:GNG imv, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:35, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Easy keep. Almost ten WP:RS? And using WP:MOS as a deletion reason? Seriously? AFD is not cleanup. Nominator surely didn't read WP:BEFORE. Howard the Duck (talk) 05:58, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Changed my vote, per above. The article needs some clean-up with parts which need citations. Other than that, with a lot of reliable sources there, the article easily passes WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 04:06, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:01, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RMJS[edit]

RMJS (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 dj. sourced to pay for pub interview sites, never charted and has no coverage. fails NMUSICIAN Praxidicae (talk) 17:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Well I don’t know.... I mean... he’s had guitar lessons since 2007. Mccapra (talk) 19:45, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:36, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:36, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The nominator is correct. The article currently cites two interviews but they are both self-written and probably paid vanity press pieces. He has put his songs onto all the usual streaming and promotional sites, but he has achieved no reliable media coverage or any other recognition as required per WP:NMUSICIAN. This WP article is most likely an attempted promotion. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:27, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:TOOSOON with no claims of significance and only promotional sources, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:20, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (Self) promotion of a non notable individual. Mccapra (talk) 02:53, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable DJ.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:11, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can be userfied (by someone other than me). Sandstein 08:26, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery of mathematical correspondences[edit]

Gallery of mathematical correspondences (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 read like an encyclopedic article and possibly contains WP:OR Aasim 17:46, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Aasim 17:46, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, also per WP:NOTTEXTBOOK and WP:CFORK; this duplicates existing material at other articles like Function, Cardinality, etc. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think it is a shame that there are only template messages on the article creator's page, and not any human-written messages. --JBL (talk) 18:05, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just left a human message on their talk page about what they could possibly do with their article. Aasim 18:08, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy - it needs more work - I started to link it to other articles - but it's not WP:TNT. If the other editor won't (or can't) work on it, I will do it as a project. Bearian (talk) 16:51, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:57, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

North Star Entertainment[edit]

North Star Entertainment (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 entertainment company with no meaningful coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 17:30, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Non-notable film production company. No WP:CORPDEPTH. Trivial coverage of the production company which is not sufficient to establish notability. - FitIndia ^{Talk Commons} 18:49, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Searches find passing mentions of this firm in Indian media coverage during 2016-18 of film releases, but I am not finding substantial coverage of the company itself. Fails WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 08:51, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:57, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aderonke Adeniyi Esther[edit]

Aderonke Adeniyi Esther (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 has not been discussed in reliable secondary sources. The article's sources do not work; the first two redirects to Amazon and the third is a broken link. A Google search of the subject doesn't show reliable sources. She might be prominent in the Yoruba movie industry but the internet doesn't show this. If this article is going to be kept, offline sources need to be cited.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 17:28, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 17:28, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 17:28, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 17:28, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — Falls short of WP:NACTOR & doesn’t satisfy our general notability guidelines. Celestina007 (talk) 00:18, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - agree with above, had a quick look for reliable sources and didn't find any Mujinga (talk) 21:04, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:08, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:04, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Clendenin[edit]

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

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

Minor actor, fails WP:GNG. Article was deleted without participation, so undeleted via WP:REFUND. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:32, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:32, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:32, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:13, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not have adequate reliable secondary 3rd party indepth sourcing to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:09, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The actor has 111 roles to date. He recurred on Scrubs; was recurring, then regular character on Cougar town (the actors who were main cast members in long-running shows are notable). Also was regular on 10 Items or Less. Among other shows he recurred on are Mixed-ish, The Middle, My Name is Earl. Appeared, among other films, in Star Trek, where he played a ship yard worker to whom Kirk gives (actually throws) the motorbike keys. This moment was featured in couple of trailers. Кирилл С1 (talk) 12:08, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I've also added references in the article. There are several others:^[1][2]. Кирилл С1 (talk) 12:08, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]