< 17 May 19 May >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries yet to compete in Miss Universe pageant

[edit]
List of countries yet to compete in Miss Universe pageant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A completely OR list. Nothing anywhere to show that this satisfies notability in lists. Was draftified last year but the creator moved it back without much change. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 23:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:03, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:03, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:03, 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. Spartaz Humbug! 21:58, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Smith (motorcyclist)

[edit]
Jerry Smith (motorcyclist) (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)

Can hardly find any information on the internet about him other than first-hand accounts; his page is sloppily written too. Why? I Ask 23:19, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:57, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 01:09, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica's Guide to Dating on the Dark Side

[edit]
Jessica's Guide to Dating on the Dark Side (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)

Can find no confirmation that this book meets any of the criteria at WP:BKCRIT: #1. It has not been the subject of any significant coverage. (I only found one independent review but still rather brief review at Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, by Kerri Mathew.) #2. It has received no awards. #3. It has not been noted for any contributions to the field. #4. It has not been used as instruction. #5. The author is not historically significant, which may explain why she does not have her own WP article. This book article only reflects its listing in the typical directories; see also WP:EXIST. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 23:20, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 23:20, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can withdraw the nomination but you should avoid accusations. I stated in the nomination that I found one review but considered it to be too brief, and that conclusion could be debated. You also said you found two reviews but did not mention what they are. See what the next voter did. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 23:54, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I added the reviews to the article, which is beyond what AfD calls for. I assume you are watching the article and saw my additions, or have since noticed them. Googling simply the title, sans quotes, and "reviews" retrieves the Publishers Review. Too many book articles are nominated for deletion when the antidote is on the first page of Google. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 00:11, 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) 01:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maxpay

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

Promotional article that fails WP:CORPDEPTH Atlantic306 (talk) 22:51, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malta-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:29, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:29, 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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neuton (network)

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

Promotional article that is a borderline G11 speedy deletion, with dubious promotional sources. Note that the Reuters piece is paid advertising and the Forbes piece (since removed) is by an ex-contributor. Does not pass WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 22:49, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:25, 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 speedy keep. Duplicate AfD (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 22:23, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cagayan Heritage Conservation Society

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Cagayan Heritage Conservation 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)

this article was made and mostly edited by an editor who cites unreliable or made up sources. they have made an article for himself(seemingly) the article is very promotional and seems paid for. i have scoured the web and cannot find a single source on this other than this article. Clone commando sev (talk) 21:41, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Clone commando sev (talk) 21:41, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

that one i made but i messed it up. thats why i made this one. do you know if the creator can close a afd? Clone commando sev (talk) 03:32, 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 keep. There is a consensus that the subject meets NPROF. (non-admin closure) ——Serial # 12:02, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gustavo Stolovitzky

[edit]
Gustavo Stolovitzky (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 of this article is a researcher who does not hold a senior academic position and whose fellowships are all in non-selective organisations. Does not seem to be notable. Mccapra (talk) 21:20, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:20, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:20, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:20, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:20, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:20, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how any of those are highly selective, and an IBM fellowship does not imply any significant impact outside of that company. In fact, most IBM fellows do not have Wikipedia articles. Having a highly cited publication in Google Scholar is hardly a high achievement as you can easily fool Google's algorithm and create lots of backlinks to artificially inflate a paper's importance. I honestly think this article reeks of self-promotion and is better suited for an about.me page. --MewMeowth (talk) 01:30, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@MewMeowth: are you aware that personal attacks, both against article subjects and article creators, are as forbidden in AfDs as they are anywhere else in Wikipedia? If not, you should be. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:44, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How is *anything* I've said a personal attack? Since when is treating a spammy article as such considered a personal attack, especially in a place meant for these type of discussions like AfD? Aw, will someone get personally offended if I think their article is spam? Ridiculous. In fact, if anything, when you say I am blatantly incorrect, that is a personal attack. --MewMeowth (talk) 13:11, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You accused the article subject, without evidence, of artificially inflating his citation counts, and you accused the article creator, without evidence, of being the same person as the article subject and of creating this article as self-promotion. Those are personal attacks. On the contrary, when I say you are incorrect, I am merely stating a fact about your contribution to the discussion. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's what you're inferring. I have never accused anyone, I was simply stating a fact which is that Google Scholar is not a good metric for notability. In fact, I haven't even had a look at the article's history or creator up until now, but it's even clearer to me when I see now that it was single-handedly created by one individual (and a quick Google search would suggest they are an IBM employee as well) with no other edit history besides this article (that would at least merit a COI tag), and which was even more boastful in its original version before it was subsequently toned down by other editors. --MewMeowth (talk) 18:52, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Google Scholar is flawed but adequate for many purposes, when used judiciously. That the article was boastful in a prior form before getting cleaned up is not grounds for deletion; it just shows the Wikipedia process at work. XOR'easter (talk) 19:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You were not wrong about APS. There are over 10,900 fellows (Source - warning: your browser will struggle opening this), of which only 862 have Wikipedia articles (14%). That's hardly selective. --MewMeowth (talk) 13:11, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, there are not over 10,900 fellows. That number of fellowships has been awarded since 1921, an average of about 110 per year. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:33, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are factually wrong. Please do open the website and see for yourself. It's a list of APS fellows, not members. There are 10,900+ fellows and 55,000 members. --MewMeowth (talk) 18:52, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The very first sentence of the source that you linked says, "The APS Fellow Archive is a historical record of APS Fellows, from 1921 to the present", which is exactly what I said above. Or do you really believe that all of those awarded fellowships 99 years ago are still fellows today? And who said anything about members? Please withdraw your accusation of lying. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:16, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First, being factually wrong is not lying, it is simply stating something that is untrue. I'm making no assumptions as to what your intention is. Secondly, why is it that you are only counting alive individuals to make your point? And even then my argument stands as the list of 10,900 is only from 1921 onwards, so the majority of them are probably alive. In any case, I don't see how fellowships would be withdrawn or how is that in any way relevant to the discussion. The reality is that 10,900 fellowships were awarded by the APS since 1921 which compared to the examples in WP:PROF#C3 does not make it selective. Nevertheless, it could pass but it says it can only partially do so if the subject has had a significant impact, which is not clear in this case. --MewMeowth (talk) 19:38, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Long-standing community consensus has established that Fellowship in the APS qualifies per WP:PROF#C3, and for good reason: it represents being in the top half-percent of American physicists [1]. The IEEE, which is a specific example listed in WP:PROF#C3, has elevated an average of 283 people to Fellow status each year since 1999. That's almost 3 times more than the APS. If the IEEE is selective, the APS is selective. XOR'easter (talk) 19:47, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are only 5,887 IEEE fellows elected since at least 1934. That's almost half as many as APS. Provide a link where this long-established consensus regarding APS can be found and I'll shut up. --MewMeowth (talk) 20:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16], at which point I stopped looking. XOR'easter (talk) 20:31, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alas, I was hoping for something other than AfD comments but I suppose that'll do. I find it interesting that some of the people commenting on those examples are regulars on APS-related discussions. Maybe they're fellows, too? --MewMeowth (talk) 20:46, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Archived discussions from the WP:PROF talk page also use the APS as an example of a scholarly society that meets C3 [17][18][19]. XOR'easter (talk) 20:53, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't find more than a couple of mentions of APS there, and nothing that could be remotely considered established consensus. But, I think you've done enough to prove your point. I myself have gone to the length of installing a program to handle large text files (and look up its documentation as its regular expression syntax is not standard) in order to extract the number of APS fellows from that list. I guess it's not in their interest to show the actual number in plain sight? --MewMeowth (talk) 21:05, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Learned societies are large organizations that work by committee and not known for having useful websites, much like universities. Plus, the total count is not actually a very interesting number — as mentioned above, it includes dead people. The annual reports give the current membership and the number of new Fellows elected each year, because that's what gives a sense of how the organization is operating now. And if some professor happens to care about the total number of APS Fellows who have ever existed, they'll just turn to their student and tell them to find out. And the student will download the HTML, open it in Emacs, trim out the preamble and the epilogue, run grep "<strong>" APS\ Fellow\ Archive.html | wc, wait an hour to make it seem like the task was difficult, and then tell their professor "10,904". XOR'easter (talk) 04:19, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dead people are not fellows of anything, unless they are in a story by Nikolai Gogol. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:54, 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 redirect to Lindenwood Lions football. Spartaz Humbug! 22:05, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Lindenwood Lions football team

[edit]
2014 Lindenwood Lions football team (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 topic fails WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS. This is an article about a Division II team with a losing record. While Division I seasons typically pass the referenced standards, this is not so for Division II. In the past, Division II seasons have only been kept when there is something extraordinary about the season. I see nothing about this article to set it apart from an ordinary Division II season. Cbl62 (talk) 20:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I believe 2017 Angelo State, 2018 Angelo, and 1974 BU are the last three AfD concerning Division II teams. Cbl62 (talk) 03:31, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@KingSkyLord: "the right sources" -- Can you present two or three examples of the significant coverage in reliable, independent sources that you believe would enable this article easily to meet the WP:GNG requirement? Cbl62 (talk) 01:35, 25 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 Golden Gate Park#Lakes. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:59, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elk Glen Lake

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

Does not appear to meet notability (WP:NGEO) - other than the GNIS reference and a few local news stories about a dead body found in the lake, there's basically nothing to be found. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:38, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:59, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ETC Group (energy efficiency consultant)

[edit]
ETC Group (energy efficiency consultant) (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)

Vaguely promotional, not enough to satisfy CSD. With current sources, fails GNG and NCORP. --Puddleglum2.0(How's my driving?) 20:04, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. --Puddleglum2.0(How's my driving?) 20:04, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:55, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:55, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:55, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:55, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:36, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:59, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Travel All Russia LLC

[edit]
Travel All Russia LLC (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 per Wikipedia standards; article only gets a couple pageviews per day Wikieditor600 (talk) 18:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:35, 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. czar 02:58, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cruise118

[edit]
Cruise118 (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 per Wikipedia standards; article only gets a couple pageviews per day Wikieditor600 (talk) 18:31, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:42, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:35, 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. Spartaz Humbug! 22:06, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

T. N. Sabapathy Mudaliar

[edit]
T. N. Sabapathy Mudaliar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of any notability. Sources are very weak and do not demonstrate compliance with WP:GNG. An endorsed prod was removed before addition of very weak source.  Velella  Velella Talk   17:00, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  Velella  Velella Talk   17:00, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  Velella  Velella Talk   17:00, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:35, 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. Forbes contributor articles are unreliable and not indicators of notability. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:58, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Karen McGrane

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

No evidence of any notability. The sources are her employers profile page, a couple of blogs an advert for a book and another advert dressed up as an interview. Nothing that even hints at notability. No doubt excellent at what she does, but well below the line of Wikipedia notability. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   19:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  Velella  Velella Talk   19:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  Velella  Velella Talk   19:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:08, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:08, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:08, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve per Sweet kate. According to Forbes article she "wrote the book on .. Content Strategy for Mobile." It's a specialized area of interest, but significant in a world where many people use mobile phones for internet access. HouseOfChange (talk) 13:40, 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 delete. Spartaz Humbug! 22:07, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alley of Stars

[edit]
Alley of Stars (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)

Nonnotable tourist attraction. It is not an authentic "Alley of Stars", i.e., it has no official standing whatsoever, just a random collection of marks devoted to various stars from all over the world. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:44, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 18:47, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:47, 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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:57, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Obada Adnan

[edit]
Obada Adnan (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 actor, 0 named credits. Praxidicae (talk) 18:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 18:43, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jordan-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 18:43, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not delete Obada Adnan article , he is notable actor ,and he is credited in many movies - go search in google for Obada Adnan, you will see many websites talked about him, like:

https://www.videodetective.com/person/obada-adnan-18056322 (This is a website that not anyone can add or write something in it)

There are also the (Arabian) elcinema and IMDb, and some other websites

It literally says nothing about him that iMDb doesn't say. It's not coverage and it isn't reliable. Praxidicae (talk) 19:12, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are another websites along with IMDb that I took informations from, like arabian elcinema :

https://elcinema.com/en/person/2156931/ 

,and video detective ( https://www.videodetective.com/person/obada-adnan-18056322

Alex1981march (talk) 20:25, 18 May 2020 (UTC) comment added by Alex1981march (talk • contribs) 20:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I can write more informations about him, but I choosed the most mentioned ones Alex1981march (talk) 20:26, 18 May 2020 (UTC) ——-[reply]

Please let me know if you want me to add more informations about him(that are not included in IMDB) Alex1981march (talk) 20:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This website(popular baby names) has mentioned Obada Adnan ,link: https://www.popular-babynames.com/name/obada

Where it says “There are 3 actors and actresses with the first name Obada” And Obada Adnan WAS ONE OF THEM(Actors with the first name Obada) Alex1981march (talk) 09:16, 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) 01:57, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aruna Asaf Ali Marg

[edit]
Aruna Asaf Ali Marg (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 road does not meet WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 08:49, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:24, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:24, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 18:38, 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 and redirect to Qeleshe. Deleting unverified content, then creating redirect to qeleshe as a sensible search term. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:57, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Albanian hat

[edit]
Albanian hat (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 only sources for this stub deal with something depicted in a novel by Rabelais. This source seems to use the term to describe the qeleshe. This article should be deleted or redirected to Qeleshe. Ibadibam (talk) 18:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Ibadibam (talk) 18:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Ibadibam (talk) 18:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Ibadibam (talk) 18:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we don’t even know for sure if it was talking about that hat. Extremely vague and non-encyclopedic “article” that would not be useful to anyone. Dronebogus (talk) 04:16, 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 keep. Rename and trim required Spartaz Humbug! 22:08, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Order of battle for the 2019–20 Western Libya offensive

[edit]
Order of battle for the 2019–20 Western Libya offensive (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 by a blocked user is problematic and I am seeking consensus on what to do with it. My inclination is to delete because the whole concept of an ‘order of battle’ in this campaign seems inappropriate, and the creator has pulled together a wide variety of sources, reliable and unreliable, to create a topic which the sources themselves do not discuss. I therefore think it fails WP:SYNTH. Mccapra (talk) 18:06, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 18:06, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Libya-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 18:06, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: agreed that order of battle articles on minor, low-level battles confined to small areas (relatively speaking of course) are inappropriate and fail to meet the thresholds for articles. They're mostly mere copypastes from their main articles' infoboxes. Lightspecs (talk) 19:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree in principle, but numerous other articles do this - see Order of battle for the 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria, Order of battle for Operation Olive Branch, Order of battle for the Battle of Mosul (2016–17) and Order of battle for the Raqqa campaign (2016–17). If they are not problematic, then why is this article? Under your claims, these articles would violate Wikipedia:SYNTH also. If the issue is the name of the article, change it to List of units involved in 2019–20 Western Libya offensive. The original creator of the article being blocked is irrelevant, I do not know reason for their block but no bad-faith edits had seemed to be made on the article of discussion, so if that is the cause for concern I think it is frivolous. The purpose of the article is seemingly to demonstrate the units involved in the campaign in Western Libya (which I might add is geographically larger than Afrin, the Raqqa countryside or Mosul to address User:Lightspecs point), as those articles do for individual offensives in Iraq and Syria. There is no false statements based on the conclusions of the articles, if you bother to read the sources, each article describes or refers to each group listed regarding their participation within the offensive (just as is done on the other pages I listed). If you have issue with inclusion of one group included, due to its source, then dispute that or delete it with sufficient reasoning. There are issues with some of the sources indeed, some reliable and others not, but it would be more suited to fix the article. If the article is too be deleted, its contents should at least be transferred to 2019–20 Western Libya offensive's infobox under the "Units involved" section and the List of armed groups in the Libyan Civil War article. --PanNostraticism (talk) 10:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think a good solution would be deleting the article but moving the content into the main page. What are your thoughts on this? PanNostraticism (talk) 07:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Having an in-article list mentioning those forces which are attested to by RIS would be fine. Mccapra (talk) 09:01, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that makes sense. Renaming and removing the unreliably sourced elements will resolve this I think. Mccapra (talk) 09:13, 25 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) 01:56, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sajith Sivanandan

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

non notable business person. working for google doesn't equate to notability. no coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 17:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 18:45, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 18:45, 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. (non-admin closure) - Flori4nKT A L K 12:07, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blue justice

[edit]
Blue justice (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. Aasim 17:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article as been proposed for deletion because it does not read like an encyclopedia entry. What can I do to edit this article to better conform to an encyclopedia entry? I've included academic sources and have tried to word it in a way that doesn't promotes advocacy, but rather capture a part of the research/discussions that are occuring around sustainable ocean development in the lead-up to the United Nations Ocean Decade on Ocean Science for Sustainable Development. Dalyocean (talk) 17:47, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:32, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will address the comments above to have the article better conform to the WP:MOS. Thank you for your help. Dalyocean (talk) 16:12, 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. Spartaz Humbug! 22:09, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ceslav Ciuhrii

[edit]
Ceslav Ciuhrii (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 notability of this article subject is doubtful. He is a successful businessman but the article has been constructed around sources confirming his appointment as chair of the national tennis federation. This probably wouldn't make him notable on its own, and the sources look unimpressive. A Romanian speaker may find more to support this, but if not I think there is a good case for deletion. Mccapra (talk) 16:59, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 16:59, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 16:59, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 16:59, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wilderness (book series)

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

I can't find any coverage in reliable sources. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 16:34, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 18:47, 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. Much sadness Spartaz Humbug! 22:11, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UK Chemical Reaction Hazards Forum

[edit]
UK Chemical Reaction Hazards Forum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As the person who discovered the death of the article's author, former admin Ronhjones, I come to this nomination with a heavy heart. I fpound this page through the first version of his user page and had no idea what to do with the article ... I've come to the conclusion that deletion is the best option. I can't find any evidence that the article subject meets the notability guideline for organisations, simply because I cannot find any inndependent coverage anywhere that is at all significant; I can only find fleeting mentions of the article subject through Google/Google Scholar/Google Books ... and even in the article's own external links, which I've tried to fix to make that point clear. Of the links to the article in the main namespace, one is a disambiguation link and the other two are borderline promotional. Ronhjones created the page when he was a relative newbie to Wikipedia. He was the webmaster of the organisation's website per the article's talk page; indeed the Wayback Machine's coverage of the organisation's site stops on 3 April 2019, four days before his passing. It seems that at some point the organisation was renamed to UK Technical Process Safety Forum; I can't find any significant coverage under that name, nor can I find any by taking "UK" out of the search term of either name ... the new name should not be confused with the Process Safety Forum, which is a different organisation. Graham87 13:10, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:14, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:14, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:14, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:07, 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. If there are sources to be shown, I suggest running them past the other voters in the afd. If that persuades them, otherwise the outcome is clear. The vote concerning sources was made 15 days ago and this has had a relist and a quality vote would have provided them at the time. Spartaz Humbug! 22:14, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Conquest Vacations

[edit]
Conquest Vacations (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 only articles I can find about this company are that it was abruptly shut down; that alone does not establish notability. Most of the article's content is not encyclopedia content Wikieditor600 (talk) 21:26, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:04, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Did you by any chance look through Newspapers.com? If not, I will be happy to supply the links later today. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:18, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 22:11, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly Planet Travel

[edit]
Friendly Planet Travel (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 per Wikipedia standards; article averages only a couple pageviews per day; orphan Wikieditor600 (talk) 19:20, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:58, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:58, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:58, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:58, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:58, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:01, 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. Spartaz Humbug! 22:15, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket Ghana

[edit]
Ticket Ghana (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 per Wikipedia standards; article averages only a couple pageviews per day Wikieditor600 (talk) 18:55, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:11, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:11, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:11, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:11, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:00, 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 delete. Speedily deleted by Anthony Bradbury under criterion G5. This deletion does not prejudice recreation of the article at a later time. creffett (talk) 19:46, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arjyou

[edit]
Arjyou (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)

Run of the mill youtuber, no indepth coverage in any RS. PR mentions aside, this has nothing in any RS. period. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 15:50, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. I'm going to shorten it down as nearly the entire article is NPOV. Vermont (talk) 17:57, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Conrad Hennegar "Coon" Arbaugh

[edit]
David Conrad Hennegar "Coon" Arbaugh (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)

Probably not notable enough for an article. - RichT|C|E-Mail 14:58, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - RichT|C|E-Mail 14:58, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. - RichT|C|E-Mail 14:58, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:58, 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 redirect to Karl Rove. Must be redirected to preserve attribution post-merge. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Rove in the George W. Bush administration

[edit]
Karl Rove in the George W. Bush administration (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I've already merged all the content with the main Karl Rove article. There's no justification for keeping a separate article. There were no size constraints in the main Rove article that justified a fork. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:50, 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. Spartaz Humbug! 22:16, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Walker (Arena football)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NGRIDIRON, having never played professionally. Can't find any coverage on him (note there is another Washington State defensive back who played professionally Brian Walker (American football)). Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:02, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:02, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:02, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:02, 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 redirect to Death of Diana, Princess of Wales. The argument appears to be BLP1E Spartaz Humbug! 22:18, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Henri Paul

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

Besides being the driver of the car that crashed the day Princess Diana died, no evidence of notability. Wikipedia is not a memorial anyway and most of the content already exists in Death of Diana, Princess of Wales and Death of Diana, Princess of Wales conspiracy theories. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 13:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:25, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:25, 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 delete. Spartaz Humbug! 22:19, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shiprocket

[edit]
Shiprocket (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)

run of the mill company. Its fundrasing was discussed as a news story, as all funding is given space in newspapers. nothing in depth in any RS. Fails SIGCOV. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 13:37, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 18:51, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 18:51, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Mdvrtauseefno source gives any indepth coverage. Run of the mill companies have usual PR coverage, that does not make them pass GNG. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 17:35, 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. Spartaz Humbug! 22:19, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Gottlieb (literary agent)

[edit]
Mark Gottlieb (literary agent) (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 process. No indication of wp:notability. The number of references seems more related to a skilled wikipedia article writer. (Possibly showing literary agent expertise  :-) ) Of the 30 references given, the closest ones I found were two covering his expulsion from the trade association for ethics issues and one medium length interview.

The other references included some self-created ones, listings, plus various mentions of him or quotes of him. The latter did establish that he was or is considered to be prominent within his field locally and probably also at the state level. In a reference search I basically found the same thing. North8000 (talk) 13:17, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:06, 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 no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 22:20, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WAPDA Cadet College Tarbela

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

No coverage found, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 06:24, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WAPDA colleges are well known throughout the country. I think it is notable enough to remain in mainspace. (uSaamo 08:14, 3 May 2020 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by USaamo (talk • contribs)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:25, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:25, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:26, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:48, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 12:52, 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. No consensus to delete the article has emerged. (non-admin closure) ——Serial # 12:38, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Priyanka Fernando

[edit]
Priyanka Fernando (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 notability criteria - was a shortlived military aide attached to a mission in London AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 12:37, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 12:37, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 18:52, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of fellows of IEEE Power Electronics Society

[edit]
List of fellows of IEEE Power Electronics 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)

Reviewed as a part of new article review/curation process. If this list were created, it would have hundreds on it, and thousands on the other division withing IEEE. Basically this just makes a whole article for one particular person getting it. North8000 (talk) 11:41, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 18:55, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:00, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@XOR'easter: When I said that the actual list is hundreds, I didn't mean that it was too big / shouldn't be an article. I really meant that the article has not been created, this is just an Ali Emadi article.North8000 (talk) 21:09, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@North8000: see my response to Ajf773, below. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:28, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@North8000: It's not just an Ali Emadi article anymore. So far, I've filled in the Fellows elected in 2010 through 2013, as well as 2020, from here. Some of them already have articles, so the list has bluelinks. XOR'easter (talk) 22:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@David Eppstein: See my response above. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:10, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see a few more names have been included since I commented here. Although now I see just three names of people with articles in a sea of names without links nor any references to support their notability. We are simply not a directory of non notable people or entities. Ajf773 (talk) 01:53, 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. Spartaz Humbug! 22:21, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Glicker

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

Previously deleted in 2005 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Glicker but recreated in 2007 and not really noted since then. Declined an A7 on it today because of claims of significance however, I cannot verify any of those and especially cannot find any reliable sources talking about him or his allegedly "award-winning, multimillion-dollar company".

He has been cited as the source for a couple of articles back in 2006 [23] [24] [25] but that's been it. There is an article in the NYT from back in 1987 that might be about him [26] but I cannot access it and even if, a single source would not be enough to support an article. Regards SoWhy 10:52, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SoWhy 10:52, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. SoWhy 10:52, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SoWhy 10:52, 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. TNT case so an attempt at a properly sourced article is welcome Spartaz Humbug! 22:22, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Westernisation in Hong Kong

[edit]
Westernisation in Hong Kong (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 whole article is one big piece of original synthesis. Most of the references don't even mention westernisation or argue that what they describe is westernisation; they are just used to highlight specific topics declared "westernisation" by this article, with no general overview. Better sources exist, for example this study on westernisation (and the lack thereof) in Hong Kong. Bringing the article in line with what sources actually say about the subject would, however, amount to rewriting it completely. (This reason was copied from a comment posted in 2017 on the article's talk page, and it remains relevant) Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 10:43, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 18:56, 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. Spartaz Humbug! 22:22, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Goorm

[edit]
Goorm (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)

Advertisement of a company. No indepth coverage. Fails WP:NCORP Numan765 (talk) 10:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 18:56, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 18:56, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 18:56, 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. Spartaz Humbug! 22:23, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Alexander (basketball)

[edit]
Brian Alexander (basketball) (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, lacking multiple sources of significant coverage from independent sources. Career does not meet WP:NBASKETBALL. —Bagumba (talk) 10:33, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 10:33, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 10:33, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 10:33, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Still nothing in any of the outlets (mlive.com, freep.com, detroitnews.com) where you would expect to see it if he were notable. Cbl62 (talk) 14:36, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete (G5). (non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 16:09, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sarsai Branch Post Office

[edit]
Sarsai Branch Post Office (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 think this is an absolute GNG fail, unless I missed something in the very few Hindi results on google. Not sure why a post office would be notable anyway. 2.O.Boxing 10:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. 2.O.Boxing 10:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. 2.O.Boxing 10:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails notability and has no significant sources. Certainly there must be few or even no branch post office that are notable. Some General Post Offices and Central Post Offices are notable and have articles such as the General Post Office, Dublin and Indian ones are Chennai, Kolkata and Mumbai but nothing else. Some of the buildings, such as several US post offices, are historic monuments but this is not one. ww2censor (talk) 13:03, 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 no consensus. There is no consensus to delete this article. (non-admin closure) ——Serial # 12:45, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anne de Chantraine

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

No reliable WP:SOURCES seem to exist for this person. The article is lengthy and full of detail, yes, but the sources are AOL and Angelfire user pages, other broken links, and other unreliable sources. I have googled around and found pages that cite this Wikipedia article as their source. I have also found pages with significant blocks of text that match this page, suggesting potential copyvio, but I cannot trace the original source of those blocks of text and suspect they could be in the public domain. In any case, this does not seem like it belongs on Wikipedia unless someone else can locate some reliable sources here. Paradoxsociety 22:14, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Paradoxsociety 22:14, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:02, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are some academic sources on this but it is not clear if it was a real or a fictitious character Lainx (talk) 05:43, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to this source this was a real person used as the basis for a character in one of Françoise Mallet-Joris's novellas. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:03, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:24, 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 redirect to Ukrainian Latin alphabet. Spartaz Humbug! 22:24, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Euro-Ukrainian alphabet

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

WP:Fork from Ukrainian Latin alphabet, not notable enough separately. Zotur (talk) 09:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 18:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 18:57, 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! 22:24, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cathy Malchiodi

[edit]
Cathy Malchiodi (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 believe the subject of this article meets WP:NPROF. She has not held a senior faculty position in any university. She has published many books, but references to her in other books are sparse - as far as I could find, largely in the acknowledgements section. The sources in the article are a mix of a self-created profile, interviews, a podcast, a book she authored, and a passing mention. The strongest case I could make out for her is her regular column in Psychology Today and her book authorship, but neither seems enough to me to demonstrate her notability, especially as this is a BLP and the article seems somewhat promotional. Mccapra (talk) 08:51, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 08:51, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 08:51, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 08:51, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 08:51, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 08:51, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:22, 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. Spartaz Humbug! 22:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Fire

[edit]
Dead Fire (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 made-for-TV movie with no reviews and not much of a cast: C. Thomas Howell is probably the best known. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:51, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:22, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:22, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As these are both in one paper that has no apparently connection to the location, I assume there is some similar level of coverage out there in other papers. But they don't appear to be full-length reviews, so that won't help with film-specific notability. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 12:18, 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. Spartaz Humbug! 22:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sierra Leone national badminton team

[edit]
Sierra Leone national badminton team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable badminton team, fails GNG, never won medal in badminton tournament, and only shown the withdrawal result. Stvbastian (talk) 08:42, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Stvbastian (talk) 08:42, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:05, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Logs: 2020-05 ✍️ create
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 delete. WP:G5. Content is identical to deleted version, indication that the creator is another Abbycarroll sock. Yunshui 雲水 11:46, 19 May 2020 (UTC) Yunshui 雲水 11:46, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dujuan Thomas

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Dujuan Thomas (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 as model. Not notable as a political candidate, running as candidate for mayor of Paducah, Kentucky. Promotional. Deleted back in September 2019. Eostrix (talk) 07:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 18:58, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANYBIO "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times." It is sourced several times of Dujuan Thomas receiving the highest honor obtainable, given directly by the Governor, in a neutral, non promotional way. With the commission of Honorable Kentucky Colonal.

WP:POLITICIAN "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." Several National News sources have covered Dujuan Thomas, as well as national radio broadcast on his political candidacy.

WP:CREATIVE For his several sourced links discussing his roles in entertainment and film.

WP:ENT "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." Again several of the cited sources have discussed Dujuan Thomas having a large social following and his roles in entertainment on a national level

WP:SOLDIER Again several sources have noted Dujuan being a veteran and receiving the highest honor of Kentucky Colonel.

I urge my fellow editors to follow policy and not put personal bias in front of the greater good of Wikipedia.

When not to delete

Articles we are not interested in – some topics are of interest only to some people, but since Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, articles that interest some people should be kept.

Articles on topics you wish didn't exist for personal belief reasons – Wikipedia contains information on all topics, not just those which any person or group agrees with. Do research about the article before voting. The more you know, the better your decision will be, and the more useful your contribution will be to the debate. Assume good faith. Remember that other editors may disagree with you, but may still be trying to help the encyclopedia.

I ask you to help improve the article if you find it in error, but from the guidelines of WIKI it passes. Ty012345 (talk) 07:12, 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 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. GirthSummit (blether) 09:45, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prakash Bus Body Builders

[edit]
Prakash Bus Body Builders (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)

Local bus cabin manufacturer. Does not meet notability guidelines for companies Eostrix (talk) 07:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 19:01, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 19:01, 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. Spartaz Humbug! 22:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shelley Sweeney (actress)

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

Sources are nowhere near meeting WP:GNG, there's lots of roles in the filmography but most (all?) don't look significant so I don't think WP:NACTOR is met. signed, Rosguill talk 07:13, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 07:13, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 07:13, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 07:13, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 07:13, 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 redirect to Kalki Bhagwan#O&O Academy. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:01, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oneness University

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Oneness University (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)
(O&O Academy: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A non-notable entity. References are primary and no reliable secondary sources to establish the notability. It was Deleted earlier as well. Nothing changed much then. - The9Man (Talk) 05:53, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:52, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:52, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:56, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kalki Bhagwan, where all of this information is already contained. Mccapra (talk) 07:23, 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. Malformed nomination as two identical AfDs were created. Also it is less than a month since the last AfD which ended in keep, when it is accepted practice to wait at least six months before renominating. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 22:28, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cagayan Heritage Conservation Society

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Cagayan Heritage Conservation 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)

this article has been created and mostly edited by a user who cites faulty/unreliable/nonexistant sources. this user has also made an article for himself (seemingly). the subject of this article is also not notable enough. the article is very positive and promotional. it also seems like it was made by a paid editor. i recommend deletion. Clone commando sev (talk) 04:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 19:05, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 19:05, 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 delete as WP:G5: creation by sock in violation of block, with no significant edits by others. Primefac (talk) 15:31, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NKN (software)

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

Lowkey press release for yet another non-notable cryptocurrency software. All sources presented are either press releases or comes from unreliable, non-compelling crypto blogs and websites. WP:BEFORE turns up the same stuff. Virtually no coverage in any form of media outside of the aforementioned crypto blogs and audience specific sites. Sulfurboy (talk) 03:49, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Sulfurboy (talk) 03:49, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, coindesk is the most reputable news outlet in blockchain and cryptocurrency. And their report on NKN and iQIYI in video platform contract is a valid reference. Sebastian Sinclair (2020-04-14). "Baidu-Owned Video Streaming Giant iQiyi Taps Public Blockchain for Performance Boost". [37]. Zbruceli(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:47, 18 May 2020 (UTC) — Zbruceli (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep I'd like to note that the GSMA case-study is neither a non-reputable source, nor a press release. It's a case-study - going into fine detail on how the NKN Software worked with iQIYI (China's largest video streaming platform) and even out-performed existing content delivery offerings. GSMA are a hugely creditable association of hundreds of telecom and mobile providers globally, and share their findings and news with these members. GSMA - Future Networks: NKN Case Study [38] OMTom (talk) 17:08, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

— OMTom (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Comment ST47, the two above spa accounts will likely need to be checked too.
  • Comment I respect wiki mods spending their personal time to maintain the quality of wikipedia. NKN is lesser known, which is clear, but it does not warrant a label of "vaporware". And the developers have toiled over the last two years creating the following (just facts, no PR): over 1 million line of new source code on the GitHub NKN core repository [39]. Over 14,000 community nodes running in 42 countries and regions NKN explorer and network map [40]. And in addition, with the GSMA reference and coindesk reference, the network is used by legitimate multi-national businesses. Zbruceli (talk)
  • Comment Vapourware is a very poor description for NKN. They're one of the few telecom startup companies which has a simple but field-disruptive idea, multiple working products (free to test in browser), and multiple signed clients. They have given talks at Tsinghua University <ref>NKN Technical Seminar in Tsinghua University [41] (the top ranked University in China), Global Digital Economy Summit in China, and also at Blockchain Connect Conference in San Francisco, to name a few. If there's anything unclear, or if you believe the Wiki article needs to be brought down to a simpler reading level to be valid, I'd be more than happy to contribute and make it so. If there's anything in particular you'd like to see in response here, to show how far NKN is from "yet another non-notable cryptocurrency software", I'd love to help there too. OMTom (talk) 21:01, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    OMTom, Please do not vote multiple times. Sulfurboy (talk) 22:12, 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. No consensus has emerged to delete the article. (non-admin closure) ——Serial # 13:08, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Flemingsberg Church

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

Doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY; it exists but doesn't merit an article. Boleyn (talk) 19:01, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:19, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:19, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would like to give Bonadea time to examine the sources more carefully.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 03:44, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:29, 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. No prejudice against redirection to a suitable mention. czar 02:51, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Roland Daggett

[edit]
Roland Daggett (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)

Almost completely unsourced and has very minimal notability (does not meet the requirements of WP:N or WP:RS). I recommend consolidating this character into List of DC animated universe characters and include a concise blurb of his role in the backstories of the more notable characters such as Clayface in their articles. Michepman (talk) 21:28, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Michepman (talk) 21:28, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Michepman (talk) 21:28, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Michepman (talk) 21:28, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Rhino131 (talk) 13:39, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Related discussions: 2005-09 Germs (Batman) ✓ MERGE and KEEP as redirect
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:42, 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. czar 02:45, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1001malam.com

[edit]
1001malam.com (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 per Wikipedia standards; article only gets a couple pageviews per day Wikieditor600 (talk) 19:03, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:08, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 03:42, 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. Spartaz Humbug! 22:26, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shiblee Group of Colleges

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

Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 07:26, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The said college is a known institute in region. Though article needs improvement but it doesn't need to be deleted. (uSaamo 08:18, 3 May 2020 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by USaamo (talk • contribs)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:24, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:24, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:24, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:49, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:24, 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. czar 02:43, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Webkinz stuffed animals

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
List of Webkinz stuffed animals (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 really notable, overly large list and poorly sourced. websites such as webkinzinsider.com already aggregate these lists (on a much more relevant website too), keeping them up to date and Wikipedia probably isn't the best place for a list like this Ed6767 (talk) 02:01, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:04, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This list has been around for many years - before updating, it was 10 years out of date, and it was not removed when out of date. With the updates it is much more accurate. Improvements include addition of all released Webkinz within past 10 years. I have also fixed some mistakes that I noted and have added more sources. crazyforcats19 11:50, 5 May 2020 (UTC) 68.57.234.58 (talk • contribs)
Why are you trying to delete this page after it's been made fully functional (which it wasn't before, but it is now), comprehensive, and fully up-to-date? If you were going to delete the page, why couldn't you have done it during any of the 10 years in which the page lay dormant and was outdated? Now it's NOT outdated and there is no reason for it to be deleted. crazyforcats19 0:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC) 68.57.234.58 (talk • contribs)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:18, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete “Wikipedia is the top Google hit” is not a good reason to keep a non-notable, unencyclopedic checklist article that is already covered more appropriately elsewhere. Dronebogus (talk) 04:35, 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. czar 02:41, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ridaex Technology

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

A quick search omitting "Technology" yields a handful of results, none significant enough to sustain a notability claim. Simply non-notable per the GNG or WP:CORP. PK650 (talk) 04:16, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. PK650 (talk) 04:16, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:40, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:40, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:40, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I beleive that this page is notable and has Independant reliable source to support the same, this is the First India made televison,this company got India 5000 Startup Award in 2019 for its quality. I am providing the reliable source links for the teams perusal

https://forbesnews.co.uk/ridaex-a-little-known-brand-to-winner-of-india-5000-startup-award-2019-in-just-3-5-years/ https://www.india5000.com/winners/2019/india-500-startup-awards-2019/ridaex-information-systems-and-services-opc-pvt-ltd https://www.bignewsnetwork.com/news/260612841/grabon-cricket-fantasy-win-smart-tvs-bluetooth-headsets-and-more https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2020/04/01/2009837/0/en/2020-Televisions-Smart-Traditional-Market-Study-Presents-Industry-Size-Growth-for-2015-2030.html https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/cons-products/electronics/ridaex-tech-acquired-by-their-branding-partner-gotmatter-pvt-ltd/articleshow/62839094.cms?from=mdr Kindly let me know if I have to provide any more details.Thanks, Glittershield (talk) 12:16, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:45, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The "India 5000 Startup Award" is not a significant award. The rest of the sources provided above are either press releases or trivial. Best, PK650 (talk) 22:43, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Logs: 2020-02 ✍️ create
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Despite what the bot thinks, this does not qualify for a SOFTDELETE.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:17, 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! 22:27, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
The National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty (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)

highly promotional article created by the subject itself as evident from the history, and significant edited by staff and interns as evident I've done some simple searching. WP:TNT, WP:PROMO. Doesn't appear to meet WP:NORG. The numerous "media coverage" link drops all amounted to trivial coverage like "says Maria Foscarinis, executive director of the National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty.", thus failing WP:SIGCOV. Source analysis in article's talk page. Graywalls (talk) 04:19, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 04:19, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 04:19, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 04:19, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 04:19, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:45, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think these coverage are insufficient for notability purposes. When you go digging for books that specialize on the topic, you can find things in fair depth about obscure objects and companies that specialize in that discipline. Those things are great for facts and figures; but as far as establishing that an organization is GENRALLY notable, I don't believe that it goes far. A paragraph or two on an organization that operates in the homeless industry in books that specializes in homelessness and social science is not particularly notable. Source #4 by Hurley only has the organization in a resource directory in a directory with other organizations. That's a passing mention. One of the other books giving a paragraph or two of space about NLCHP launching a lawsuit that ended up getting dismissed doesn't go far in building notability. Those sources maybe great to augment things once general interest once organizational general notability has been established in mainstream general interest source with significant WP:AUD. This means a book that focuses on homeless advocacy is of limited interest, because it's important only within the "homeless advocacy" circle. Graywalls (talk) 03:20, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:16, 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 delete. Fenix down (talk) 06:33, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

César Vinuesa

[edit]
César Vinuesa (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 player fails WP:GNG while also just scraping by on WP:NFOOTY which wouldn't be enough to pass for GNG too. HawkAussie (talk) 03:16, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 03:16, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 03:16, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 03:16, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:12, 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. Spartaz Humbug! 22:28, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Woody Norris

[edit]
Woody Norris (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:BASIC notability requirements. I thought the comment someone left on the talk page sums it up pretty well: Who is this person? Why do we care? If you hunt through this 900-word article you can find exactly one thing that this "inventor" claims to have invented, which appears to be a typical infomercial-hyped speaker system that may or may not actually be available for purchase anywhere. Is this person really important enough that we need a list of all the alleged corporations he has founded (many of which seem to have no web presence or products - anyone can register a corporation with their state government for around $100, it doesn't mean anything) and a bunch of people who are listed solely for being his "associates?" This really reeks of someone with nothing to promote self-promoting. Predestiprestidigitation (talk) 18:46, 19 March 2020 (UTC) Rusf10 (talk) 03:14, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 03:14, 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! 22:28, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Brinkenstjärna

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

Fails WP:GNG. Unable to find any coverage. KidAd (talk) 03:14, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:22, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:22, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:22, 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 keep. No consensus to delete this article will emerge. (non-admin closure) ——Serial # 13:19, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Juls

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Juls (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 music guy. Cannot meet GNG or MUSICBIO. He is not even run of the mill. Ignore the first AFD notice on the side it is a totally unrelated dinosaur from 2004, no idea how it was linked to this debate. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 19:34, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 19:56, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 19:56, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 19:56, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:37, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:14, 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. (non-admin closure) ——Serial # 13:21, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Centerville, Alpine County, California

[edit]
Centerville, Alpine County, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

this is one of the biggest messes I have come across in reviewing these GNIS-dump artcles, and about the only thing I am sure of is that this article needs to be deleted no matter what else gets done. To begin with, the name of the place is "Centerville Flat", not Centerville. Not being able to get to the map that GNIS cites, the phrase "State Historical Landmark" suggests that there is some sort of marker on the side of the road. And indeed there is, and since it's in California the Google Car got there, and you can read the classic white-on-brown wooden park service sign, and it says, "OLD MINING TOWN SITE OF CENTERVILLE FLAT". Only this is not the end of the story, because this page says that it is the site of an old sawmill town, except that this references says that, yes, it was a sawmill, but places it on the opposite side of Markleeville. What it is now is a campground. Maybe an article needs to be written on Centerville Flat, but the present article is absolutely wrong. Searching is extremely hindered by the existence of no less than nine other Centervilles in California, but as soon as I do anything to limit searching to this county, I get a very few hits, and the only informative ones all say Centerville Flat and not Centerville, including the topo maps. Mangoe (talk) 04:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. userdude 05:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. userdude 05:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Regarding the location, I interpret "above Markleeville" to mean "upstream of Markleeville" which would be consistent with its location on the North-flowing East Fork of the Carson River. If there was significant coverage, a move to Centerville Flat would be appropriate, but I'm just not finding anything to support a standalone article for this run-of-the-mill (heh) timber/mining camp. –dlthewave ☎ 13:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC) Striking for now since new sources clarify that it was a town/village. Will reassess notability after expansion. –dlthewave ☎ 02:05, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Deletion: in this case now would be "move and do not leave a redirect." My thought was that someone would write a new article at the correct name but in any case there is no Centerville in Alpine County. Mangoe (talk) 18:17, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@CJK09: I'm curious why you call this a "run-of-the-mill work camp" when four of the sources cited specifically state that Centerville was not a mining or timber camp, and nothing in the article states that it was? Magnolia677 (talk) 22:00, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Magnolia677: I was saying the opposite - that it's not a run-of-the-mill work camp. CJK09 (talk) 22:09, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@CJK09: My apology, it was User:Dlthewave that said that. I'm curious why you would change the name to "Centerville Flat", when all of the sources cited call this historic town--with its tavern, stores, homes, streets, and hotel--"Centerville"? Magnolia677 (talk) 22:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck my vote since I was mistaken in my assessment. "Centerville" and "Centerville Flat" both appear in the new sources that have been added; let's wait til the editing has settled down to see which one is more prevalent. –dlthewave ☎ 02:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:10, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not good enough to talk about references to "Centerville". As I noted above, there are nine other sites called "Centerville" in California, so any reference has to be shown to be referring to this spot and not one of the others. Mangoe (talk) 12:15, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mangoe: I have carefully scrutinized each reference, and each is about the location in Alpine County. Please see this source which states: "Centerville, Alpine County, small village with stores and a tavern..." Moreover, all of the sources corroborate each other, and some either give directions to this location, or include a map to this exact location. If you have reason to suggest this in incorrect, please state your reasons. If you're just saying stuff because other editors have found multiple reliable sources to support the existence of a place "the only thing I am sure of is that this article needs to be deleted no matter what else gets done", then I'm not sure how to respond. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:07, 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. There is a consensus to keep the content but not entirely clear what should be done with it Spartaz Humbug! 22:31, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Second American Revolution

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

This is a non-notable topic that at best deserves a sentence in the main American Revolution article. Previous PROD attempt was removed. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:30, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. userdude 05:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. userdude 05:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with both of the above comments. As I said on the WikiProject United States talk page], the "Second American Revolution" article says: "Rhetorical or hyperbolic references to a Second American Revolution have been made on a number of occasions throughout the history of the United States." That's thin gruel to justify an entire article, and actually misleading, as the title gives the impression at first sight that two American Revolutionary Wars were fought. Carlstak (talk) 05:48, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the content ought to be included somewhere, and it doesn't fit in on American Revolution. If the current title is misleading, would moving the page work? Maybe to something like, List of conflicts referred to as Second American Revolution or List of events referred to as Second American Revolution?— Preceding unsigned comment added by UserDude (talk • contribs) 20:12, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Second American Revolution (historiography), as proposed by CJK09. userdude 00:16, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:09, 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 redirect to Túrin Turambar. Seems logical to redirect to where her story is discussed Spartaz Humbug! 22:33, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Niënor Níniel

[edit]
Niënor Níniel (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)

Can only find one reliable secondary source discussing this character in depth, the source is [44]. We need more than this. If additional sources can be provided to demonstrate the level of coverage needed for a WP:GNG pass, I will withdraw this nomination. Hog Farm (talk) 20:21, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 20:21, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 20:21, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 20:21, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:07, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
About Tolkien Sidelined: Constructing the Non-Combatant in The Children of Hurin: The quoted sentence on p. 95 is only the first, not the only treatment of Niënor Níniel, here mostly spelled Niënnor. It continues on p. 98, and get's into more analysis in to following pages. 99: "Niennor is another study of the lives of women during wartime. ..." "To understand Tolkien's grounding for his handling of Morwen, Aerin, and Niennor, and for that matter his insightful portrayal of Eowyn's frustration at her situation, a turn to some of the shaping events in his life, however little he may have approved of such approaches, proves instructive." Then the author goes on until p. 104 about the women in Tolkien's life during wartime, not mentioning the fictional characters by name again, but the author did relate to them in the quoted introductory sentence. Then he talks about Tolkien's own fate and relates it to these female figures, finishing in p. 108: "One hears echoes [...] of Niennor's desperate wish either to keep the man she loves from danger or to die with him [in a quoted letter by Tolkien]. Tolkien shows that these women have no more, and no less, wisdom, virtue, or insight than any other human being in difficult circumstances, but he also cannot exempt them from the suffering of war." And the article goes on another paragraph about Tolkiens view of these women collectively. So even if the Niennor's name appears not at every turn, there's still a lot of analysis (which is not in the Wikipedia article yet). Daranios (talk) 20:46, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
About A Companion to J. R. R. Tolkien (thanks for creating that article): I was referring to the book itself, sorry for causing confusion. Nienor Niniel gets a short mention in "The Lays of Beleriand (1985)" p. 150 with a remark about the name's aliteration. The important chapter is "Tolkien’s “Great Saga”: A “Long Defeat” That May or May Not Include a “Final Victory”", p. 154-159. That chapter calls the story of Hurin and Nienor central and "Tolkien's "Great Saga". It further gives details about the development of the text over time, including a very different ending and that endings implications. So that's all not plot-summary. Please also note that Nienor is sometimes not called by name but together with Turin as "children of Hurin". That phrase appears many times in the book, but usually only as the title of the poem. Lastly, on p. 476 the book cites another source that Turin and Niniel are one of only four couples "whose love gets much space" in Tolkien's work. Daranios (talk) 21:23, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, not bad, but I'd like to see the reception/analysis section actually expanded to see if there is really more to be said than 2-3 sentences. I do wonder if Chap's idea below isn't a better solution. Or perhaps both fictional character's bios could be merged into the article about the story of the children of Hurin? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:01, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I also would like to see that expansion, but that won't be done by me, as I still have, at my pace, decades worth of homework from other deletion discussions. But I think according to the guidelines of Wikipedia like WP:ARTN and WP:PRESERVE an article should not first be deleted, than improved, but the other way round. And if noone is ready to put in the time for improvement, well, that's that, the imperfect article should remain. That said, having the material here merged and redirected into a Children of Húrin article seems preferable to deletion. Though Turin is clearly the protagonist, it would befit us to not underestimate the importance of female characters. Daranios (talk) 12:26, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Allright, I postpone other things an try to add some material based on secondary sources in the forseeable future. Daranios (talk) 21:23, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This Wikipedia guideline states that a deletion decision should be made based on existing secondary sources, not on the current state of the article. Please see above about what secondary sources exist. Daranios (talk) 21:23, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above commentators have shown there are no substantial secondary sources that would be enough to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:26, 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 delete. Spartaz Humbug! 22:34, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aeroflot Flight 846

[edit]
Aeroflot Flight 846 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:GNG, completely non-notable incident, wasn't even an accident as engine failures are an operational hazard and therefore NEVER get articles unless notable for something else. The assertion that this incident was the sole cause of Aeroflots decision to scrap the Tu-154s is laughable. It may have hastened its demise, but was NOT a cause. Petebutt (talk) 04:02, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:53, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:53, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:53, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:53, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My Russian is not good enough to go through the one source that might support a claim that this incident brought about the retirement decision, but the wording of the paragraph in question tends to support the view that Aeroflot was already looking to replace this model with newer aircraft, and that insofar as the incident contributed to the decision, it was only one of a host of such incidents. Mangoe (talk) 03:14, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:06, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
no evidence that THIS incident was the sole cause of removing the Tu-154, which was due to retire in any caase!--Petebutt (talk) 15:10, 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. Spartaz Humbug! 22:35, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zoom Vacations

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

Fails WP:GNG\WP:NCORP. Kleuske (talk) 18:14, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Kleuske (talk) 18:14, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Kleuske (talk) 18:14, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:32, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:32, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:32, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment All of those Out Traveler would collectively considered ONE SOURCE, and it's not totally an independent source especially if Zoom Vacations has a business relationship with the publication as an advertiser. NBC only has a trivial mention. See WP:MULTSOURCES. Graywalls (talk) 10:35, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:05, 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. Spas were given exactly the weight they deserved. None. Spartaz Humbug! 22:37, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Colin R. Turner

[edit]
Colin R. Turner (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 does not meet WP:AUTHOR, WP:ANYBIO, or WP:GNG. Its has been repeatedly edited by a confirmed COI account - the article subject himself editing under Silkfield (talk · contribs) - to include quotes, links, and summaries of his own primary sources such as self-published books and website. There is a single event (a "moneyless" walk around the world) for which there is a BBC source and a couple others, but this coverage is not significant and seems based on a purely promotional stunt. Editing this article seems to be another such promotional effort to push his economic theories. Overall, I see no reason that this article merits inclusion in the encyclopedia. -- Netoholic @ 03:02, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are in fact 17 contributors to this article, including myself and excluding bots.[1] As mentioned, I previously acknowledged potential conflict of interest and have endeavoured to maintain neutrality in my contributions.[2] Being the subject myself does not nor should preclude me from writing about myself. There are aspects of my personal life for example that no-one else would know better than I to write about, and that readers may be interested in[3]. If there are particular sections that you think are distorted or unfair, please direct me to them so I can improve the article instead of deleting it.
I contend that I am an author who meets the WP:AUTHOR criteria. I have developed a modicum of new thinking in the field of socio-economics, especially an open access economy, on which I have published two books, one of which (Into The Open Economy) has been cited twice in scholarly publications and translated into nine different languages.[4][5][6] I have gained significant reputation for my work among a particular anticulture community, which you may or may not agree with, but is no less significant.[7][8] (This Wikipedia article has received over 8,000 visits)[9]
The BBC source relating to the ‘moneyless walk around the world’ was carried by many other media as well, including AFP and Yahoo News. (many other links have since deceased)[10][11] It was not a ‘promotional stunt’ insofar as there was nothing to promote apart from the idea itself. Apparently it was newsworthy at the time. (2013) I have since also given a TED talk on the subject.[12]
I admit to being a novice somewhat in Wikipedia contributions, and am happy to address whatever issues with the article you deem appropriate in order to improve it rather than delete it. Thank you. Silkfield (talk) 12:11, 21 May 2020 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Silkfield (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
  • I have since also given a TED talk on the subject...
  • Except it wasn't actually a [TED Talk: the presentation was made at TEDxGalway, which was an independent local event. ("TEDx are independent events similar to TED in presentation. They can be organized by anyone who obtains a free license from TED, and agrees to follow certain principles.") --Calton | Talk 04:54, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
references

References

  1. ^ "Colin R. Turner: Revision history", Wikipedia, retrieved 2020-05-21
  2. ^ "Talk:Colin R. Turner", Wikipedia, 2018-06-05, retrieved 2020-05-21
  3. ^ "Colin R. Turner", Wikipedia, 2020-05-18, retrieved 2020-05-21
  4. ^ "Amazon". www.amazon.com. Retrieved 2020-05-21.
  5. ^ "Google Scholar". scholar.google.com.au. Retrieved 2020-05-21.
  6. ^ "open access economy - Google Search". www.google.com. Retrieved 2020-05-21.
  7. ^ "Best Alternate Economy Books (17 books)". www.goodreads.com. Retrieved 2020-05-21.
  8. ^ Wiley, Troy (2017-07-17). "Money Free Movements, Projects & Initiatives". Medium. Retrieved 2020-05-21.
  9. ^ "Pageviews Analysis". tools.wmflabs.org. Retrieved 2020-05-21.
  10. ^ "'Moneyless Man' attempts to walk round the world". en-maktoob.news.yahoo.com. Retrieved 2020-05-21.
  11. ^ "Irishman Colin Turner aka Freeworlder and his girlfriend are..." Getty Images. Retrieved 2020-05-21.
  12. ^ Turner, Colin R., What would happen if everything was free?, retrieved 2020-05-21
  • Most other editors of the article are performing maintenance edits that do not add to the substantive content, or removing overly promotional text added by you. Guy (help!) 13:57, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not going to belabor it much, but I have a couple things to point out since you brought them up. Firstly, it was a local TEDx talk independent from TED, and misleadingly stating in the article (as you did here) is exactly what prompted me to finally take this step. Second, all the coverage around the "moneyless walk" seems to originate from the AFP news agency (and then reproduced on BBC and Yahoo) which has an "on-demand" service that will "tell the stories that bring your message to life" for "dedicate a team of journalists to the production of tailor-made content" to "ensure reactivity, quality and top-of-the-range SEO". This service "creates the original content you need: videos and photos; text reports". They are a "news agency" for hire. -- Netoholic @ 14:14, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:13, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:13, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nick9tap above is an editor with 3 total edits prior to this vote, from over 10 years ago. I contend this is a WP:SLEEPER vote. -- Netoholic @ 01:53, 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. Spartaz Humbug! 22:38, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kafayat Sanni

[edit]
Kafayat Sanni (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)

routine news item, BIO:ONEEVENT. The first woman pilot in the Nigerian Air Force (Blessing Liman) might possibly be notable, but going beyond this into various specialities is getting indiscriminate. DGG ( talk ) 00:28, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:08, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:08, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:09, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:09, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:02, 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. Spartaz Humbug! 22:40, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TierZoo

[edit]
TierZoo (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)

Youtuber with trivial coverage. Not notable enough. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 09:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Devonian Wombat apart from the Kotaku article, others are simply single para mentions in blog style lists from sources that are not reliable in this regard. The bar for GNG is not this low. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 10:22, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:18, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:11, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:57, 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 no consensus. What a mess Spartaz Humbug! 22:41, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Human rights in Asia

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Human rights in Asia (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)

General notability guideline:

Original research is also a concern since the intended subject of the article is analysis or synthesis of not stated by the sources. All of the content does not establish notability of the subject as discussed at WP:CONTN.
Sockstrike clean up squadron! ——Serial # 14:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

}

  • Human Rights Watch is used for 16/48 sources, or roughly 60% of the text. The NGO is a source not "Independent of the subject" with its bias towards action and does not intend to pretend to be neutral. Please see their mission statement: "Human Rights Watch defends the rights of people worldwide. We scrupulously investigate abuses, expose the facts widely, and pressure those with power to respect rights and secure justice." About half the article reads as if it is someone's pet project to summarize their website's country profiles. The content and tone is more emotive than in an encyclopedic factual voice.


Readability:

The intended scope of this article is not manageable. Adding suitable information to the "Significant human rights violations" or adding the Middle East in the "History of human rights in Asia" would hamper readability as discussed at WP:LENGTH.


General clean up:

Besides the point of view concerns, the "See also" and "External links" sections are misused to inappropriately direct traffic instead of truly building Wikipedia. Note that the "See also" section contains links to articles already linked in the prose, while the "External links" section shows what could be better used as sources. I am not accusing any editors of having nefarious motives. This is important information but it needs to be presented within Wikipedia's standards.

Alternatives to deletion:

This article is not suitable for the main space in its current form, and it is doubtful it will ever be due to its potentially huge scope. I believe the best option would be to split the usable information off in to regional articles such as Human rights in the Middle East and Human rights in East Asia, or maybe the country specific articles like Human rights in China. This article might even be suitable as a list directing readers to the various pages. I suppose it could be relegated to user space or incubation, but there has not been substantial improvement since the first deletion discussion over a year ago. Orangejuicedude (talk) 08:49, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Orangejuicedude (talk) 08:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Human rights. Orangejuicedude (talk) 08:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)>[reply]

References

  1. ^ Randall Peerenboom; Carole J. Petersen; Albert H. Y. Chen, eds. (2006). Human Rights in Asia: A Comparative Legal Study of Twelve Asian Jurisdictions, France and the USA. Routledge. ISBN 1-134-23880-0.
  2. ^ Leena Avonius; Damien Kingsbury, eds. (2008). Human Rights in Asia: A Reassessment of the Asian Values Debate. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-0-230-60639-5.
  3. ^ Thomas W. D. Davis; Brian Galligan, eds. (2011). Human Rights in Asia. Edward Elgar Publishing. ISBN 978-1-84844-680-9.
  4. ^ Vera Mackie, ed. (2015). Ways of Knowing About Human Rights in Asia. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-138-83825-3.
  5. ^ Fernand de Varennes; Christie M. Gardiner, eds. (2019). Routledge Handbook of Human Rights in Asia. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-138-85570-0.
And again... ——Serial # 14:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

::I believe you inadvertantly made my point. It is easy to assume notability, but we do not have an article Human rights in South America. Instead we have a category and Human rights in Colombia.

  • Human Rights in Asia: A Comparative Legal Study of Twelve Asian Jurisdictions, France and the USA.: Southest Asia, China, India
  • Human Rights in Asia: A Reassessment of the Asian Values Debate: China, Southeast Asia
  • Human Rights in Asia: This appears to be the same exact text as book 1.
  • Ways of Knowing About Human Rights in Asia: Focuses on Japanese occupation of lands in WWII.
  • Handbook of Human Rights in Asia: Primarily Southeast Asia, Sri Lanka
There is Human rights in East Asia or even a split to Human rights in Southeast Asia where most of these sources can be used. Asia is too broad. Add the problematic use of the current article and deletion + splitting + maybe incubation is the only viable answer here. Orangejuicedude (talk) 18:12, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

::Again, these sources are prominently about East Asia where "Asia" does not mean the entire continent. The sources are fine, but we have a different broader of "Asia" here.Orangejuicedude (talk) 05:19, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, none of the sources covers every territory, and East Asia is usually the focus, but they intend to cover whole Asia. Besides, there is an organization, Asian Human Rights Commission that was mentioned in these books and publish something itself. My very best wishes (talk) 15:36, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:03, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Too broad" is not a good argument. We do have pages on general subjects like Asia, and they are just fine. It should be improved? Yes, certainly. Not a reason for deletion. It is important there are many books on this broad subject as a whole (see examples above). My very best wishes (talk) 01:36, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
More... ——Serial # 14:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

:::This article is not "just fine", though. We have had over a year for improvement and none have been made. As mentioned, it would be fantastic if the article as userfied for someone to bring up o an appropriate standard. I believe it would languish due to the over broad scope and eventually be split while a list would be needed to point readers to the appropriate locations. The article is not suitable for the mainspace as is. There has got to be a point where it is broken down and retried a different way since allowing it to stay has proven to provide little value to the project as a whole. I would actually argue that allowing it to stay has resulted in a worse article since any attempts to remove MoS deficiencies result in instant reverts by editors who simply assume it is a worthwhile piece.

And the issue with notability of the topic as a whole. Why not Human Rights in the Eurasion Continent? Iraq is wildly different than Japan. Human rights in The Philippines is not relatable to Tajikistan any more than it is with Peru. Attempting to compartmentalize it by continent over region doesn't give the reader a better understanding of the general topic of human rights. Orangejuicedude (talk) 06:09, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, one should simply check books on the subject (like that one), and they explain why combining different countries in Asia was appropriate. This is not about territorial compartmentalization, but about common history or common problems with human rights in certain parts of the world. No, I do not see enough sources on Human rights in Eurasia because Europe is very different from Asia in terms of human rights. But about Asia, - yes, there are multiple sources. My very best wishes (talk) 23:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. ——Serial # 14:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

::No I am not a new user. I have a dozen FA and GAs under my belt, probably well more than you. COVID-cation has presented an opportunity to edit on Wikipedia. I chose to honor the whole "fresh start" thing by simply logging in and and attempting to make edits in topic spaces I was never previously involved in. So thanks, a lot of us are bored as fuck and trying to pass time during a pandemic--the last FA has to be at least 5 years old and was about sports, if I am not mistaken. I don't see how any of that is your concern or not an argument solely directed towards ignoring the reasoning I have presented to instead rely on a personal attack. You should actually feel bad and be admonished for steering the discussion towards the person making the argument instead of the context, nerd. "Winning" is not the goal of Wikipedia. I can say we were better than you when I was active.Orangejuicedude (talk) 04:20, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck through Orangejuicedude's comments. Not only is this not a fresh start, he's shown that his indefinite block for harassment was justified at his talk page and by harassing another editor. Doug Weller talk 13:56, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:51, 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. Spartaz Humbug! 22:44, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Putu Ayu Saraswati

[edit]
Putu Ayu Saraswati (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)

local beauty pageant winner. Fails GNG MistyGraceWhite (talk) 14:49, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Are you sure she is non-notable beauty queen"??? she is popular not only in Indonesia. You can check her page, all of the references from reliable sources (via RS) is not only using Bahasa Indonesia Article on websites but also an english article, french article and also some Indian website that posted about her. How come she is non-notable beauty queen like you said?? You're the one that don't want to check first before deleting the article pages. Plus Putu Ayu Saraswati has been reviewed already by User:Darwinek a long time ago, so many wikipedian has been contributing to give a hands for the page. I don't know why you guys dont want to check first instead of report and report deletion.I Nyoman Gede Anila (talk) 19:47, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Pack Lambert >>> For your information she is an Indonesian People's Consultative Assembly Ambassador.[1][2] Which she is part of our Indonesian government parties beside of being a beauty queen. You should check first before commenting and propose deletion for her page.

References

  1. ^ "Ayu Saraswati Dkk Jadi Duta MPR RI" (in Indonesian). Nusa Bali News. Retrieved March 13, 2020.
  2. ^ "Puteri Indonesia Jadi Duta MPR RI" (in Indonesian). Detik News. Retrieved March 12, 2020.
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:44, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:44, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:44, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:44, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:44, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 16:49, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:42, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gunkarta please help to fix this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.74.92.171 (talk) 13:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ User:I Nyoman Gede Anila One line mentions are not enough to pass GNG. Notability is not inherited. SIGCOV required in RS. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 10:54, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ User:MistyGraceWhite SIGCOV in RS is already mentioned and included on References, so what else? Its weird to see Yuridia Durán article can passed from the deletion while this page cannot. It's very biased. Both of the article already has a SIGCOV on RS. To be honest Putu Ayu Saraswati also more recognized as a oublic figure than Yuridia Durán, all of the social media of Putu Ayu Saraswati is verified already just like her instagram, while Yuridia Durán is very lack of reliable sources than Putu Ayu Saraswati article. And what do u means by saying "ONE LINE MENTIONS"?? She is the main headline topic in every article I mentioned here, its just all her SIGCOV of her, nobody else mentioned in the article. You better check it out first>>>Kompas Newspaper Article, Indonesian Times, Liputan 6 article, Insert live Infotainment, and many ReferencesI Nyoman Gede Anila (talk) 14:22, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@User:I Nyoman Gede Anila only one vote per account is allowed. An ambassador for a country may be notable if mentioned in RS, but she is not a true ambassador. so not be confused by the word ambassador, it is just a trumped up title of no political bearing. she is not an elected member of the parliament, nor a true ambassador. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 16:43, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist to allow for further consideration of sources presented.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:42, 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. Spartaz Humbug! 22:45, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Karan Singh Chhabra

[edit]
Karan Singh Chhabra (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 fails to pass notability (WP:GNG) and the content is written in a promotional format (WP:PROMO). Hatchens (talk) 06:35, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 06:35, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 06:35, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
→https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/archive/lifestyle/script-of-a-lifetime-789394 – The source is The Tribune, for which I haven't been able to find a consensus as to reliability, although I haven't found any claims that it is unreliable, either; and the coverage goes beyond what I would consider to be trivial.
→https://www.ibtimes.co.in/raabta-movie-review-ratings-by-audience-live-updates-sushant-singh-rajput-kriti-sanon-director-730009 – The source is International Business Times, which has an average rating in terms of reliability, and the coverage here is just some very brief praise.
→https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tv/news/hindi/karan-singh-chhabra-shoots-for-half-girlfriend-on-ye-hai-mohabbatein-set/articleshow/58772055.cms – This is an article dedicated to the subject—however, the source is The Times of India, which, following the recently consensus, is a source we have to be wary of.
There are several other Times of India write-ups, too, as well as The Indian Express and The New Indian Express articles which provide mentions. Given that I believe there to be a good WP:NACTOR case, I think that the average WP:GNG case is enough for a "Weak Keep". Dflaw4 (talk) 13:21, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:19, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:38, 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. Noone argues they pass gng and demonstrated not to meet prof. Argumente about scholorships are not compelling on their own. Spartaz Humbug! 22:48, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rifaat Hussain

[edit]
Rifaat Hussain (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 profile, WP is not a LinkedIn. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 07:58, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:17, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:17, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 08:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:52, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:52, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If someone would show me how he meets WP:NPROF, which is the same as WP:NACADEMIC, I would be happy to change my vote. Papaursa (talk) 18:31, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 14:54, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Qualifies for a relist to try and provide clarity about which NPROF/NACADEMIC criteria, if any, this person meets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An average professor can likely arrange to be a visiting professor at Stanford, if she knows someone there and can swing it financially. And WP:NPROF C6 is not met by department chair. Are you arguing for WP:NPROF, or something else? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 01:13, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Aaqib Anjum Aafī, a google books search is not so relevant to WP:NPROF. Do you want to argue for WP:NAUTHOR? That would generally require multiple reviews of his books in independent reliable sources. I didn't quickly find any, but would be interested if someone else did. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for providing a more detailed explanation than I provided. No one has yet provide any evidence that he meets any WP notability criteria. Papaursa (talk) 02:06, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See here for some previous discussion on Fulbright notability. I'd generally agree that a Fulbright per se does not confer notability, but it certainly adds to it. However, given the pool of potential applicants for a Fulbright is in the millions and 800 visiting scholar awards are given annually, someone who has one represents a very, very small minority and they are simply not easy to get. I think it is important in this case to see the Fulbright as contributing towards notability rather than taking a reductive approach and trying to find a single element signifying notability.--Goldsztajn (talk) 19:35, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response. I agree that getting a Fulbright is an achievement, but the problem I'm having is that I'm not seeing that he meets any of the notability criteria for academics nor does he seem to meet WP:GNG. Being successful in your profession is not the same as being WP notable. There are many successful people who aren't considered WP notable. Papaursa (talk) 19:52, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I won't say anything more than quote WP:BASIC for your consideration: If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability.... Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 20:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 22:49, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ShortScience.org

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

Seems to be spam. The sources aren’t very good either. Signed,The4lines |||| (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 02:25, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Signed,The4lines |||| (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 02:25, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 11:56, 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. Spartaz Humbug! 22:49, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Angol

[edit]
Derek Angol (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, no good references (BLP issues) JamesHSmith6789 (talk) 11:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:41, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 02:22, 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. Spartaz Humbug! 22:49, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Engineering and Technology (Pakistan)

[edit]
Institute of Engineering and Technology (Pakistan) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No coverage found, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 16:57, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:29, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:34, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 02:22, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We can't keep articles on the base of assumptions. Your comment is not policy based as it changed after RfC. The article has to pass WP:GNG for which it need WP:RS. Störm (talk) 18:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The highly controversial RfC only referred to secondary institutions. It most certainly cannot be extended to tertiary institutions when they were never mentioned in it just because some editors would like it to be. No assumptions here, just consensus, which has always been as I said. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:54, 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 redirect to Mark Warner#2001 election. Spartaz Humbug! 22:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Ballad of Mark Warner

[edit]
The Ballad of Mark Warner (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 campaign/novelty song; fails WP:NSONG. KidAd (talk) 02:02, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:57, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:57, 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. Blps where the subject clearly does not pass gng are not usuwlly kept for technical sng passes. Producer grammys are a weaker argument anyway Spartaz Humbug! 22:52, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Someillan

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. The subject has added a fair bit to the article over time, as "Joelsom", but the content is mostly unsourced and feels like a personal web page for the subject, not an encyclopedic entry. I can't find sources to support GNG and the references present mostly mention the subject in passing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:25, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:25, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:25, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not forbidden but heavily discouraged, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but upon a search of him I couldn't find articles written. His references #2, and #3 don't work, and most are passing mentions. Sweetteaplz (talk) 01:43, 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. Spartaz Humbug! 22:52, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ZingSoft

[edit]
ZingSoft (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)

Data visualization company with no reliable secondary sources or notability as far as I can tell. Article currently unreferenced. Nanophosis (talk) 00:59, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Nanophosis (talk) 00:59, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:55, 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. Spartaz Humbug! 22:54, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Kennedy: One Man's Journey

[edit]
Matthew Kennedy: One Man's Journey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD but original reasoning still applies. "Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Article was created by the film's director, who has a long history of promotional editing. All of the reliable sourcing either is actually about the subject (AKA doesn't mention the documentary at all) or are passing mentions in relation to a non-notability conferring award it received at the Nashville Film Festival." Two new sources have been added, an NPR interview and post by a Huffington Post contributor (i.e.: non-reliable). Deleting and then redirecting to Matthew Washington Kennedy might be most appropriate course of action. GPL93 (talk) 00:07, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 00:07, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 00:07, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
COI is not grounds for deletion, afaics: Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion & Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#List of criteria --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:35, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you delete this article, you will be contributing to the lack of diversity on Wikipedia. One would be left to conclude that this lack of diversity is intentional and deliberate.[1] Nina07011960 (talk) 15:11, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_bias_on_Wikipedia
doesn't the racial bias article have serious Original research problems? Clone commando sev (talk) 00:00, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nina07011960 If the article is deleted because it doesn't meet the requirements for inclusion, then one will be left to conclude that it was for the reasons abundantly spelled out in the deletion discussions and in the guidelines on which those discussions were based. They will also be left to conclude that we don't make exceptions for articles posted by authors who ignore the pointers to Wikipedia guidelines that make it amply clear why these articles are getting nominated for deletion and who choose, instead, in bad faith, to attribute other editors' actions and comments to ulterior motives rather than to those guidelines. Largoplazo (talk) 15:58, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I second Largoplazo's comment above, and concur that the accusation from Nina07011960 was made in bad faith. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:32, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nina07011960: after reading your comments here and on the talk page, I'd like you to please read WP:RGW. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 01:34, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
we have always had difficulty in covering material from areas and fields for which there are not mainstream sources. This is due to the basic orientation of WP on determining coverage by the existence of sources, and sometimes our own ignorance, not a deliberate attempt to decrease diversity. If anything, we make a special effort to be flexible in order to increase diversity in all its aspects--- at least in the fields where I usually work. -- FloridaArmy, perhaps you can help here--you work sometimes on similar films and people connected with them. -- Nina07011960 I would advise serious consideration to a merge with the article on Matthew Washington Kennedy--this material can always be expanded to a separate article when more sourcing is found. DGG ( talk ) 23:48, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • DGG, we weren't saying Nina was acting in bad faith, we said she was implying that those who are recommending deletion are acting in bad faith. "Assuming good faith... is the assumption that editors' edits and comments are made in good faith," with "good faith" linked to the Wikipedia article that explains it in the ordinary English sense. Nina was implying our edits and comments have not been made in good faith. Further, "Rather, editors should not attribute the actions being criticized to malice unless there is specific evidence of such." For example, attributing the prospective deletion of an article to an intentional opposition to diversity, i.e., malice, to nefarious motives not in Wikipedia's interest. Largoplazo (talk) 00:35, 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.
More