< 19 May	21 May >

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

The result was WP:SNOW delete. BD2412 T 14:29, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Animal Equality[edit]

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

This should really be speedied for being advertisement, but it's been here a while and after all that time, what's another week. The article lacks all secondary sourcing, and while it is possible that there is something, a quick source for the name and the name of the founder delivers nothing. Moreover, I think that this is a case where BEFORE should really apply to the article creator, JesseClifton, and the person who paid them, Vipul: click the link to see to which extent WALLED GARDEN might apply as well, esp. in connection to articles like Jacy Reese Anthis, Sentience Politics, Sentience Institute, and Effective altruism.

The article is almost irredeemably promotional, and might as well be copied and pasted onto the organization's website. For all I know that's where it came from. Drmies (talk) 23:24, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no references, unlikely to be any dibbydib ^boop or _snoop 23:47, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:11, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:11, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:13, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:13, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:13, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:14, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:14, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:14, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:15, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, reads like a PROMO. Cavalryman (talk) 04:32, 21 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Promo garbage. -Indy beetle (talk) 09:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There seems to be some degree of coverage, but the sources I could find are rather WP:QUESTIONABLE, and wouldn't count towards GNG. In any case, the text of the article is IMO too promotional to be of any use in a rewritten article — WP:TNT applies. (and I don't mean just in favour of the organisation. While it might be a noble cause, well...) I did find a Wired article that I was hopeful about, but it turned out to be a passing mention mainly about another animal rights group. At least there seems to be no new copyvios since it was RD1ed back in 2018. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:13, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A promotional text. Nika2020 (talk) 23:41, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As others have said this reads like a promotional text rather than a Wikipedia article. Dunarc (talk) 20:06, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional content --Wario-Man (talk) 04:47, 27 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! 12:54, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Strom[edit]

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

Non-notable journalist. Notability tag has been on article for 4 years. 2 references were added in good faith after article was PROD'd, but they still aren't WP:SIGCOV significant coverage. Only referenced facts are where she was born, that she started in the NYT as a clerk, and that she worked for the NYT for ~15 years. Okay for a LinkedIn profile, but not enough for a Wikipedia article. Based off a Google search, I don't think there's untapped reliable sources that would indicate a possibility for long-term growth. SnowFire (talk) 19:22, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyTheTiger:, @Pburka: from the PROD discussion. SnowFire (talk) 19:27, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 19:58, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 19:58, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 19:58, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 19:58, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Passes the minimum bar for notability per WP:BASIC.
- Notability tag has been on article for 4 years.—there is WP:NOTIMELIMIT.
- WP:SIGCOV—""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material."—Both of the sources I added contain significant coverage.
- not enough for a Wikipedia article—There is no minimum length for a Wikipedia article. It's acceptable for a reliably referenced biographical entry to be a permastub.

pburka (talk) 13:53, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Yes the nomination points out that sources exist for biographical sketch. Hence this passes either WP:BASIC or WP:GNG.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:17, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, an interview/fluff piece from a limited-audience magazine and a brief announcement from an industry site does not WP:SIGCOV make. WP:N demands attention from the world at large, not simply foodies in Manhattan. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:19, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 23:07, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weal delete Source #3 is a NYT interview with their own reporter, #1 is an interview, which is iffy as a rs and even iffier for establishing notability as interviews are "both primary and non-independent" (WP:INTERVIEW), but of course the fact that edible Manhattan thought to interview them could be construed as contributing to notability. However, reading the introduction and interview, it is clear that the article isn't about her, but about food. Sure it talks a bit about her work, but the title tells all: "In the Kitchen with Stephanie Strom". It's really more about cooking then it is an in-depth profile of her life. Source #2 is a very short mention of her leaving the Times in a rather minor website (No wikipedia article). So in summary, three sources, none of which is clearly significant, reliable, and independent. Sourcing not in this article is all passing mentions, so she seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. May satisfy WP:NJOURNALIST if it can be substantiated outside of a blog's claim that she was "the most influential food business journalist in the country", but I don't really see that happening. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:33, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:55, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kidnapper (2013 film)[edit]

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

The film doesn't seem to be notable, because it lacks in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources. Plus, the article is mainly a plot summary that goes against the rule about them not involving narration. Adamant1 (talk) 10:16, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:05, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:05, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as there is one full review by The Times of India referenced in the article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:23, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 22:56, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NFILM#1 that require "full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics". GSS ^💬 06:00, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:10, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hussain Manawer[edit]

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

Non notable person. Not a current record holder, his record was as a part of a collaboration with Kings College London and Hackney Empire. Run of the mill guy, fails GNG, AUTHOR and NACTOR. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 13:11, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable as a poet or anything else.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:08, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:22, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:23, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:23, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:23, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:23, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 22:55, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable poet. Sources do not meet the definition of RS. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 19:00, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Not notable as a poet, Alex-h (talk) 08:56, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator was blocked as a sockpuppet, however I am leaving the nomination open because it has some merit. MER-C 17:14, 27 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! 12:57, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Schweitzer Foundation[edit]

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

This article was nominated, if I read it correctly, just after a discussion about its creation--it's one of those "paid by Vipul" articles--but the AfD died for lack of attendance. I suppose that's neither here nor there, but it is also a bad article.

First of all, the secondary sources are just incredibly thin--mere mentions, really, and the aforementioned CBC article on which its notability really rests is a shoddy piece of writing--note the opening sentence, "A German animal rights group says its campaign to ban the sale of lobsters in the country’s supermarkets has been very successful." (It is not even clear whether this is true--it's possible that supermarkets stopped selling live lobsters, but even that is hard to confirm.) It is true, as Eggishorn pointed out in the previous AfD, that it is mentioned in a MeteoWeb.eu article--but as one of four organizations who were engaged in a campaign, and what on earth is MeteoWeb anyway? One finds it cited on Wikipedia, in weather reports. So the coverage is as thin as can be, though it is beefed up some by some spurious references to Albert Schweitzer.

The article itself is still a piece of terrible puff writing, sourced mostly to the organization ("...states that its mission...", that sort of stuff). It claims all kinds of corporate changes have been made due to its activism--sourced to Animal Charity Evaluators, which bases its conclusions on documentation supplied by the organization. So no, I don't doubt the organization exists, but this is all just too thin. There is no (reliable) in-depth discussion of this outfit in secondary sources: not notable by our standards. (Pinging VQuakr, who previously nominated this.) Drmies (talk) 21:32, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the ping. The previous discussion was at WP:Articles for deletion/Albert Schweitzer Foundation for Our Contemporaries; I don't immediately see it linked above. VQuakr (talk) 22:36, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right--that's probably because the article was renamed? Drmies (talk) 23:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment trying to look at this with fresh eyes since it has been a few years. I see there is a de.wiki article on this subject with 27 references; would it be worthwhile to ask someone who is bilingual in German to review those to determine if some can be used to establish significant coverage here? Beyond that, there have been no significant changes to the article since I nominated it for deletion in 2017, so the same deletion rationale would apply. VQuakr (talk) 22:43, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Had a look through the sources on .de; unfortunately they are not great. Most are either in-house, passing mentions, or write-ups in decidedly partisan online sources. There's two items of local coverage, one dead and one here. And this I suppose counts as an industry newsletter. Nothing else that could sensibly be added to what's already in our article. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:43, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Based on this, I maintain my opinion of delete due to the lack of WP:SIGCOV. VQuakr (talk) 06:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update--thanks to Black Kite I learned that this article was worth $32. Drmies (talk) 23:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:19, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:19, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not seeing the required non-trivial coverage in secondary sources for WP:CORP or WP:GNG. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:40, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Straight NPOL pass given that he held state office. Permastubs are not illegal. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:16, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan McDougle[edit]

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

Reason Delta fiver (talk) (UTC) 20:58, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The page seems to fall under WP:NTEMP considering the fact that I tried to aid the article on my own but to no avail, as there were only passing mentions reported on the subject, there's no sufficient evidence on articles outside the Wikipedia to help improve and move this page past the stub class. Another factor to consider, is the last time an editor worked on the article was in 2018 to switch categories, not even to improve the article and the article was updated a year and a month later by a bot attempting to fix a dead link. I feel it should be deleted but would like to hear other opinions as well.

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 May 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:10, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:20, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:20, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:20, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NPOL. NPOL states that politicians who have held office in state legislators are inherently notable. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:37, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm a little confused, even if the article can't be updated due to no proper sources and hasn't been updated for the last two years, it can still be there?, won't it remain a stub forever in this case?

Keep. Yes, the article needs some improvement, so by all means tag it for ((refimprove)) — but state legislators have a straight pass of WP:NPOL #1. For a person who's been in office since 2002, not all of his potential sourcing will Google well — Google is not a good way to find any media coverage older than the past couple of years, and is a complete waste of time for even attempting to find coverage that would have existed 15 or 20 years ago. But we don't actually have any rule that our sources have to be web-published — rather, we are allowed to cite print-only sources, such as 20 year old newspaper or magazine articles or books, without hotlinking them anywhere. When it comes to politicians, we do have a tendency to be somewhat lazy about actually writing substantive or well-sourced articles, and too often just rest on "s/he exists as a politician, the end" — but we also consider it part of our core mandate to be as complete as feasibly possible a reference for all NPOL-passing officeholders rather than just an arbitrary subset of them. And we don't have a deadline, either: the fact that the article hasn't been worked on lately is also not a deletion criterion. So the current quality of the article is not controlling: the fact that he held an NPOL-passing office is. Bearcat (talk) 18:30, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep member of the Senate of Virginia. Passes WP:NPOL by virtue of his position in the Virginia legislature. --Enos733 (talk) 04:42, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly a notable politician. More sourcing and more substantive materials are needed. However Wikipedia is not supposed to be presentist. It is, we have way, way more coverage of people elected to state and national legislatures since 2000 than for any point before that, but our goal is something else, and we need to move towards that goal not delte articles a little lacking in sourcing. If you want a real good project try digging up some good sourcing on Norman Kaumosi. He was a member of the national legislature in Zaire, and might pass notability from his role as an airline executive. I have not really ever found sources that under normal conditions would pass GNG, but they are enough to show he exists, and we need more sourcing on him. If there are sources they are probably in French or Lingala, except I do not know much of anything gets written in Lingala, so almost certainly French.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Member of the Virginia State Legislature, to quote WP:NPOL: Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 20:27, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:10, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Raj Chakraborty Entertainment[edit]

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

References fail the criteria for notability as per WP:NCORP. Also notability is not inherited so even if some of the case or movies are notable in their own right, it does not confer notability onto the company. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:08, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:08, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:22, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - Hatchens (talk) 14:41, 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. Fenix down (talk) 21:31, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2009 African U-17 Championship squads[edit]

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

Contested PROD. List of mainly non-notable youth players. Fails GNG JMHamo (talk) 20:07, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 20:10, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability; lists of youth players at tournaments are generally not notable. Giant Snowman 20:18, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:05, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:05, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:05, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not sure how this is any different than 2009_FIFA_U-17_World_Cup_squads or 2009 UEFA European Under-17 Championship squads. This a continental competition that served as a qualifier for the World Cup, some of the players have gone on to play professionally and represent their country. The article just as notable as the other 2 above, number of notable or non-notable players is just some arbitrary measure that should not impact on the notability of the page. This is not a list, it's an article about a tournament. TonyStarks (talk) 03:36, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add, I've gone through the article and many of the players are indeed notable. Their names were either spelled incorrectly so it did not like to their articles or their articles have not been created, but many have gone on to become full internationals. TonyStarks (talk) 04:25, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. What makes this topic notable - where is the significant coverage? Notability is not inherited. Giant Snowman 11:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of sites and news sources that covered the tournament including CAF, BBC [1], DZFoot [2], AllAfrica [3], 11DesEtalos [4]. There's tons of sources that covered this tournament. TonyStarks (talk) 14:45, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is coverage about the tournament, which already has an article - not about the squads. Where is the significant coverage about the squads? Pinging !voters below to reconsider @BlameRuiner, Nehme1499, Ortizesp, REDMAN 2019, and Kante4:. Giant Snowman 15:45, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: You could say the same about the 2009 UEFA European Under-17 Championship squads. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 15:50, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You absolutely could, and I'm sure there is consensus from a while back that youth tournament squads are not notable - hence why they don't have any navboxes. Only World Cup/AFCON/Euros etc. Giant Snowman 15:52, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You might not find that many people agree with you there. Hence why all the pages still exist. Also no one objected to it's undeletation. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 15:58, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: Also what about this? REDMAN 2019 (talk) 16:03, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also likely non-notable as well! I don't understand what point you're trying to prove here? WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument for keeping a non-notable article. Giant Snowman 16:04, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: Sorry for the delay. Basically currently in this discussion there is a consensus to keep the page and there's not much to be done about it. You can't delete the page against what is currently a overwhelming vote in favour of keeping the page. And as the 2009 African U-17 Championship is currently considered notable I see no reason why it shouldn't have squad lists like all the other tournaments. If you feel that such youth tournaments aren't notable then that is discussion for another time. Also could you ping me next time? I'm not watching the page constantly and it may mean that I may not see any replies at first. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 16:38, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ping you when you start pinging me *thumbs up* (pings only work when you sign). Giant Snowman 18:58, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the real issue here isn't the fact that the article is inherently not notable in and of itself, rather the fact that only 2 out of 8 squads are sourced. If we can find sources for the other 6 squads, I don't see why the article shouldn't be kept. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 19:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Tony's arguments. --BlameRuiner (talk) 07:26, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TonyStarks. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 19:52, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tony.--Ortizesp (talk) 00:39, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 11:20, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Kante4 (talk) 11:40, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:15, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Jones (radio DJ)[edit]

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

Curiously written by a RobertFJones and reads very much like a promotional resume, relying substantially on name-dropping. I suppose there's a slim chance news coverage about him might exist from the 1970s/80s (I can't find anything of substance online today). But considering there's so little sourced, neutral content about him here, I think deletion is the best option. Fails WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 20:06, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:07, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:07, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:08, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable DJ.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:11, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found any secondary sources about him. Article is definitely WP:PROMOTIONAL. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 07:24, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable DJ and article looks like Ad/promotion. --Wario-Man (talk) 05:17, 27 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) 22:15, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leon Paulino[edit]

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

Article is an WP:AUTOBIO, he went around canvassing for someone to create an article on him and created the article himself when no other editor would do it for him. Fails WP:NBASE and while he received a little coverage during the beginning of the MLB shutting down due to the COVID crisis I don't think it is enough to pass WP:GNG. Maybe redirect to Boston Red Sox minor league players, but I don't think there is enough in terms of notability to merit a standalone article. GPL93 (talk) 19:27, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 19:27, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 19:27, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 19:27, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Low round draft pick in the rookie leagues... not notable yet. Spanneraol (talk) 20:56, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't see anything in the sources that rises above routine sports coverage -- especially at this time where frantic sportswriters are looking for something, anything to submit. (And that being said, the prospects for further advancement of a player who in a rookie league hit nearly a hundred points below the Mendoza Line with zero HRs, one SB and half of his bats being strikeouts are not what I'd consider high.) Ravenswing 07:24, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Boston Red Sox minor league players. Generally what we do in these situations. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 17:00, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Autobiographical article of a barely notable entity. Celestina007 (talk) 22:04, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we need to proactively not allow articles that are autobiographies.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:44, 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. Black Kite (talk) 23:57, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Williams (rugby player)[edit]

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

Rugby player whose present sources seem to be nonfunctional/useless. Google searches give me absolutely nothing responsive (Strings: "Matt Williams" "Doncaster Knights"; "Matt Williams" "Bristol"; "Matt Williams" "Bristol Rugby"; "Matt Williams" "Sale Sharks".) —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{2020's a bust; thanks SARS-CoV-2} 19:22, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:55, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:55, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:56, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A draft, Draft:Matt Williams (rugby player), has also been submitted, and declined as duplicating this article. If this article is kept, the draft can be redirected to the article. Any information in the draft can be used to improve the article in the next seven days. (However, it does not appear that folding any information from the draft into the article is likely to change whether the subject meets sports notability.)
Comment to Closer - On closing, please take appropriate action on the draft. If this article is kept, please redirect the draft. If this article is deleted, please decide whether to keep or delete the draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:53, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The draft is about a different rugby player. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{2020's a bust; thanks SARS-CoV-2} 23:20, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have found and added some sources. He has played most of his career in the 2nd level of English rugby and meets the WP:NRU criteria. noq (talk) 15:04, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has played in a team in a fully professional rugby union competition, namely the Greene King Championship, thereby meeting WP:NRU. Stifle (talk) 10:50, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Beritagsier (talk) 22:08, 28 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) 22:15, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sandip Bista (Mr. D)[edit]

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

Non notable rapper who falls short of WP:MUSICBIO. Optimizing the Google Translator for the sources provided I observed that the first is not independent of him as it’s a Q & A, the second source isn’t a reliable one and so is the third. A before I conducted shows he lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources hence doesn’t satisfy GNG. Per WP:ANYBIO he also doesn’t qualify. Celestina007 (talk) 19:17, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:17, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:17, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:17, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:17, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources found are not reliable, fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:MUSICBIO. Lapablo (talk) 20:22, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable singer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:25, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources are reliable as they all are the national media of Nepal & follows reliable . He passes WP:MUSICBIO no 1 & 4 as he has coverage about his concerts. [5] [6] [7] Owlf 06:41, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment— noting Owlf above is the article creator.Celestina007 (talk) 07:24, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- per nom. This and this are the same source. It is an interview whose introduction gives his real name, names a song that was "trending" at the time, and three more that had previously gone "viral". The other reliable sources are this, that says "[according to the organisers], ..., Rapper Mr. D, ..., are among the artists performing at the [local town] festival", and this, that says that according to the organisers, Mr D was one of those who performed in the evening session in the Pokhara town festival. That's all the reliable coverage the article currently cites. Independent search doesn't yield any better. I will add that town festivals go on for days and accommodate almost everyone who is up for public performance. Those include one or two notable artists if luck favours, but otherwise struggling artists, local artists, aspiring amateurs and school/college students. Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:13, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Fails WP:GNG, Alex-h (talk) 09:06, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:14, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mery Racauchi[edit]

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

Time to establish whether or not this person is sufficiently notable to have a page in Wikipedia. I'm not seeing it: she gets no verifiable hits on Gbooks, about 38 on Gnews. Of those, a good proportion are press releases, or crap sources such as the Daily Fail; I'm not convinced that there's enough among the remainder to justify having an article. The page has been blatant WP:COI/WP:PAID editing from the outset; it's already been moved three times to draft space (twice by me), and there seems to be little point in doing that again. The draft has never been submitted for independent review. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:08, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 19:40, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 19:40, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 19:40, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete fails WP:NMUSIC, WP:NACTOR, and basically any other notability check for their professed accomplishments. All the sources provided are paid/fake PR release sites, I couldn't find a single reliable source that would warrant this person an article on Wikipedia. She does not appear in any of the IMDB entries of the listed films and TV shows where she was supposedly part of the cast (1 2 3 4 5), in fact she does not even possess an IMDB entry, either under her real or stage name. --MewMeowth (talk) 22:32, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as seems to be a promotional entry based on promotional sources. The two singles do not seem to have charted so it seems WP:TOOSOON imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:47, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable performer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:53, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Guardian, RESPECT magazine and Galore Magazine are well-known, reliable sources. A simple search of this person also brings up many articles written to satisfy WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sweetteaplz (talk • contribs) 22:59, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian? There are literally no results when searching for this persons name and The Guardian. --MewMeowth (talk) 00:18, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, adding the Guardian was a mistake. The other sources hold true though. Upon another search, The Hype Magazine popped up as well. Sweetteaplz (talk) 00:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken about the veracity of some of these sources. Galoremag.com is not a reliable source; it is a branding service (see this: [8].) Hype Magazine offers a pay to play service (see: [9].) The way to distinguish it from legitimate coverage is in the byline. Paid content is credited to "guest editors," which is the case here. Respect is the only legitimate source among those you are identifying. And even it is a promotional announcement of a release, using PR language. It's not particularly substantive. ShelbyMarion (talk) 18:37, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying but, I recently learned Wikipedia claims reliability of sources fall on a spectrum and editors use their judgement to determine. WP:REPUTABLE Many articles actually use The Hype Magazine as a reliable source I've also found and it's clearly :known. There isn't a way to determine the pay for promo for this particular person. And Flaunt Mag isn't a reliable source as well? Sweetteaplz (talk) 02:02, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete See my above post among the comments with the Keep vote. ShelbyMarion (talk) 18:39, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:22, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete paid for spam as per my comments at related AFDs. I'm beginning to doubt the integrity of The Source given their covert paid publications without disclaimers. Praxidicae (talk) 17:30, 27 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Goss's School of Rock[edit]

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

Non-notable local business. Both sources are the same author and the same newspaper, which WP:GNG considers to count as a single source for the purpose of notability. No other independent sources located. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:06, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:06, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:06, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:06, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't find any evidence this is a notable organisation. The articles that have been linked to article are no longer published. Ajf773 (talk) 03:32, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about the business. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 06:12, 28 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.

Deleted as WP:G12. Copied writings of Graeme R Gwin from here (site dead now); see also The Bow the Heart and the Harp (Poem). Abecedare (talk) 01:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of the Harp[edit]

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

This "article" (if you can call it that) does not meet G1 or A1. However, it is not at all readable, and the words are compacted together so much that I can't make head or tail of it. It's not gibberish, though, because it does mention psalms and quotes. If somebody could rewrite this article to make sense, that would be great. Thank you. --Stay safe, ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 19:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No idea what this is, might be some poem or essay, in which case deletable per WP:NOTESSAY or WP:OR. For those who are unaware, there's a discussion on this article here. This, to me, is a classic example of an article which (I believe) most see as un-encyclopedic, yet (strictly speaking) not caught by any of our CSD criteria. --Dps04 (talk) 19:12, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I put a link from that discussion to this discussion. --Stay safe, ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 19:27, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Harp#Origin which, unlike the present article, contains referenced text about the title subject. The article as it stands appears to be an WP:OR synthesis of psalm texts and speculation. Nothing there is worth preserving by merger. (CSD A10 might be possible?) AllyD (talk) 19:42, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article text appears to consist largely of the lyrics of a song by one Graeme R. Gwin: as can be heard here, so it appears to be a WP:COPYVIO apart from everything else. AllyD (talk) 19:58, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It’s not an article, and I can’t see how it can be turned into one. Mccapra (talk) 19:44, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't understand why we don't have a much quicker process for this. scope_creep^Talk 19:53, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per AllyD or delete (I know! We can move it to userspace and then U5 it! Genius! ...please don't actually do that). WP:NOTWEBHOST applies (but not in userspace or else I'd U5 it in an instant), appears to be a poem, song, essay or something like that. The suggested redirect makes sense to me - not a super likely search term, but plausible. creffett (talk) 20:35, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Creffett, The same article IS actually on the author's userpage. I'll tag with U5. Dps04 (talk) 20:40, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And the author's userpage was deleted... by Creffett!!! (Seriously though, good job.) --Stay safe, ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 21:14, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's not an article, and there's nothing to salvage. North8000 (talk) 21:44, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a poem/song lyric, not an encyclopedia article. There ought to be a CSD for "not an encyclopedia article or anything which could plausibly become one". Can we invoke WP:SNOW to close this AfD and avoid this stuff cluttering up the encyclopedia any longer? PamD 21:52, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The entire text after a rather garbled introductory section is a set of rhyming couplets:

A long, long time ago, in days of old:

Before “civilization” began to unfold:

Primitive tribes did roam the world:

In primitive ways before words unfurled:

Grunts and groans portrayed their voice:

In hope to convey the meaning’s choice: etc

PamD 21:57, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You know, it does look like a poem to me. --Stay safe, ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 22:00, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy A-10 perhaps on the basis that we already have Harp#Origin? PamD 22:03, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PamD, Origin of the Harp has nothing to do with Harp#Origin. Origin of the Harp is a sort of poem, while Harp#Origin talks about the creation of the harp itself. No, I don't think this is an A10... --Stay safe, ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 22:20, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well it purports to tell the story of how the harp originated, albeit unsourced! And we need to find some grounds to get rid of something so completely unencyclopedic. But copyvio seems another worthwhile approach. PamD 22:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy A-11 Unsourced, obviously made up by creator, and no claim of significance. Schazjmd (talk) 22:40, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus appears clear that WP:ANYBIO is met, sockpuppet bad faith nomination notwithstanding. (non-admin closure) Ifnord (talk) 21:24, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Smriti Morarka[edit]

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

The subject clearly fails WP:BASIC, WP:GNG, notability for individuals, WP:BLP1E: Clause 1 and falls under 15 minutes of fame. The article appears as an attempt to create a backlink to promote "Tanruvi", a brand operated by the subject as the subject individual has no standalone internet presence apart from the brand. The article is prominently highlighting one award which was also awarded considering the output of the brand of the subject. Further, 5 refs have been mentioned out of which ^[1], ^[2] belong to the award coverage and conspicuously mention the conferment of the award for the brand being operated by the subject individual. It is to be duly noted that while the first ref is from Twitter (Social Media), the second ref is just an image. Further, ^[3] is not based on the subject and seems like it has been inserted to increase the number of refs. Further, ^[4] & ^[5] are interviews being given by the subject and hence they will be considered as WP:PRIMARY and violating WP:INDEPENDENT.

References

^ WCD, Ministry of (2019-03-08). "Ms. Smriti Morarka - #NariShakti Puraskar 2018 Awardee in Individual category.pic.twitter.com/ymtdopI9Hq". @ministrywcd. Retrieved 2020-04-29.
^ "Nari Shakti Puraskar - Gallery". narishaktipuraskar.wcd.gov.in. Retrieved 2020-04-11.
^ "Ministry of Women & Child Development, Government of India". www.facebook.com. Retrieved 2020-04-26.
^ "We should provide Indian crafts a secure environment to thrive: Smriti Morarka". The Indian Express. 2018-12-11. Retrieved 2020-04-28.
^ "Restoring the old Varanasi weave to its original glory". The Sunday Guardian Live. 2018-12-15. Retrieved 2020-04-28.

Yourmasterishere (talk) 18:21, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The user who created this article is adding irrelevant information to influence the number of refs and cites. For instance, in the Life segment of the subject article, the user added - Varanasi or Kashi is known to have been, and continues to be a famous weaving center for luxury textiles. The Varanasi handloom sector has been in a state of decline, and has been the subject of efforts of films like Bunkar: The Last of the Varanasi Weavers and work to revive it by the government of India.^[1]^[2] If the user intends to talk about Varanasi, it should be done at Varanasi and NOT in the life segment of subject article which is undergoing deletion.

References

^ Panicker, Anahita (2018-05-05). "In this documentary, Varanasi's sari weavers talk about their craft and its present state of decline". The Hindu. ISSN 0971-751X. Retrieved 2020-05-21.
^ "Hanging on a Thread". The Indian Express. 2018-08-08. Retrieved 2020-05-21.

Yourmasterishere (talk) 04:17, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable activist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:29, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:20, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:20, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:20, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ANYBIO#1. See also the apparent consensus that Nari Shakti Puraskar qualifies individuals for ANYBIO#1 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sonia Jabbar. userdude 05:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC) Note: this may be considered a canvassed !vote from IP136.228.175.221 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sonia Jabbar. userdude 11:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep I have previously argued that Nari Shakti Puraskar is enough for ANYBIO#1. Someone had mentioned that this nominator was targeting Nari Shakti Puraskar winners. Now that they have been blocked as a sock, with the SPI casepage specifically mentioning bad conduct at AFDs, this should be speedily kept. On article's merit, it is still a Keep from me per ANYBIO#1. Usedtobecool ☎️ 21:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nari Shakti Puraskar is enough for WP:ANYBIO#1. VocalIndia (talk) 05:25, 28 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 - Special:CentralAuth/Suwanda Sitorus Cabayi (talk) 09:32, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suwanda Sitorus[edit]

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

This article was made by related subjects and indicated using many accounts. Adrizky (talk) 18:22, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Adrizky (talk) 18:22, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The first three sources are unreliable, and the last three barely mention the person. Koridas (...Puerto Rico for statehood!) 20:14, 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. Fenix down (talk) 21:32, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eksho Bochor[edit]

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

violates WP:PROMOTION, WP:NOTNP, WP:BK along with failing WP:RS Drat8sub (talk) 17:58, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Drat8sub (talk) 17:58, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my instinct. dibbydib ^boop or _snoop 23:50, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:22, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 11:23, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability with no google searches to say that this is notable. HawkAussie (talk) 11:59, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is a single sung by Arijit Singh on the occasion of the 100 years completion of East Bengal F.C.. All citations have been provided with YouTube links for the song. It is for the encyclopedic knowledge about the Football in India and East Bengal F.C. as a whole. -SabyaC (talk) 10:58, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Add reliable sources rather than a youtube video and a citation in local languages, that surely not helpful for readers. Drat8sub (talk) 11:08, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: reliable source ❯❯❯ S A H A 06:11, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for deletion is not about reliable source, it's about notability or promo. Along with that your source does not describe everything written in the article. Drat8sub (talk) 09:04, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- I just found out SabyaC, the creator of the article did a gross violation of WP:CANVAS by directly asking ArnabSaha to vote for keeping the article here, a violation of important guidelines of WP:CONS. Drat8sub (talk) 09:18, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of notability. Fails WP:GNG. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 16:06, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:, Per above, no sign of notability Alex-h (talk) 09:16, 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 speedy keep , Nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) Koridas (...Puerto Rico for statehood!) 05:12, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blanket party[edit]

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

The first source is primary to the sentence that cites it, and the second one doesn't even mention whatever this is. Just because it was used in Full Metal Jacket doesn't notabilize it. Koridas (...Puerto Rico for statehood!) 17:48, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion disWicussions. Koridas (...Puerto Rico for statehood!) 17:48, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet WP:GNG. There's an entry in Wiktionary, which is all we need.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 19:20, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG its just a name for a form of hazing/discipline. Mztourist (talk) 04:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. As there are a variety of possible targets – basic training, bullying, peer pressure – I reckon it's simplest to leave it as is for improvement per WP:IMPERFECT. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:36, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
keep Searching gives lots of hits, most of them describing the practice. Two relevant federal sources are this and this, the first of which describes the practice. Both predate the movie, and I found another mention stating the practice occurred as far back as WW II. The article is never going to be much longer than this, but other than the sourcing I see no issues with it and its notability is inarguable from the sources I see. Mangoe (talk) 04:44, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:11, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Global College International[edit]

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

It's been five years now, and this advertorial has yet to have anything even pretending to be a reliable source. I appreciate sources may be harder to find for Nepalese institutions than their equivalents in India or Pakistan, but that doesn't absolve the articles of the need for sourcing. I can find no mentions of this institution in any source other than the college's own website for anything other than the most trivial of things such as the fact that they fielded a team in a sports tournament, while some of the material stated as fact in this pseudo-article is straightforward lies (the A Level is not an advanced international degree designed for academically inclined students, it's a certificate for schoolchildren and the Commonwealth equivalent of the US high school diploma, I can find nothing to suggest that it's affiliated to Cambridge University but instead just that it uses Cambridge Assessment International Education's standard exams…) There's no such thing as an automatic right to a Wikipedia article—WP:GNG doesn't give blanket immunity if the sources don't exist, and I can't find anything to suggest that they do. ‑ Iridescent 17:47, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ‑ Iridescent 17:47, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. — J947 ^[cont] 18:26, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:37, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we need to stop treating educational corporations as if they are an exception to notability rules. Having read lots and lots of articles on schools, we also need in many cases to have the articles focus more on the broad sweep and history of the instituion and not so much on what it presently looks like and functions like. This is true of many US high schools that have existed over a century but the article mainly lists current sports teams etc.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:43, 28 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. Black Kite (talk) 23:54, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What Now (band)[edit]

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

Not a notable artist. Speedy deletion was contested as previous version of the article (created by the person asking for deletion) had credible references to establish notability such as Rolling Stone, however the page was since cleaned up by people close to the band claiming the information was false. Mayast (talk) 15:55, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Mayast (talk) 15:55, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To add to the above, the band has since changed the name, no official sources for it exist anymore and albums released under the name What Now are no longer available. — Mayast (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:08, 12 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)} 17:44, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing notability guidelines at WP:BAND. Ifnord (talk) 21:27, 28 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) 14:12, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Foley[edit]

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:JOURNALIST. He lacks in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources and does not have a career to speak of. Covering a notable event as a TV presenter doesn't make one notable. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 17:38, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 17:38, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 17:38, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. Celestina007 (talk) 08:05, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above, lacks notability. Nika2020 (talk) 23:47, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject is a notable journalist in Ghana well recognized, has credible sources backing the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruby D-Brown (talk • contribs) 20:56, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:14, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Essien[edit]

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:JOURNALIST. He lacks in-depth coverage in reliable sources. All of the radio stations he has worked for are all non-notable, including Focus FM (whose article is up for deletion). The subject doesn't have a broadcast career to speak of and the awards he is a recipient of are non-notable. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 17:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 17:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 17:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There are few reliable sources. Most of them are passing mentions, which are not reliable, and some of them have nothing to do with the non-notable radio host. Koridas (...Puerto Rico for statehood!) 17:51, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them.Celestina007 (talk) 08:09, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:10, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:13, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Kwadwo Jantuah[edit]

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:JOURNALIST. He lacks in-depth coverage in reliable sources. All of the radio stations he has worked for are all non-notable, including Focus FM (whose article is up for deletion). The subject doesn't have a broadcast career to speak of. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 17:27, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 17:27, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 17:27, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Subject of article doesn’t satisfy WP:JOURNALIST. Celestina007 (talk) 08:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:24, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:13, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relational approach to quantum physics[edit]

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

To quote the proposed deletion rationale by Metaquanta, "This appears to be an essay supported by original research". I endorsed that PROD, as the article is a vague and rambling promotion of a paper that has vanished into obscurity (only 3 citations in a quarter-century, and all three of those are merely passing mentions). The PROD was declined because deletion had been proposed before, in 2008. The problems identified in 2008 still exist, and they're not going to be fixed. XOR'easter (talk) 16:43, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 16:45, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: One could improve the article to make it factual and precise, but the fundamental problem can't be fixed: it fails WP:GNG. As the nominator noted, the paper upon which the article is based has only been cited three times. If I may add a personal observation, I'm a researcher in the field of quantum foundations, and I had never heard of this. Upon seeing the title I assumed it was about Rovelli's Relational quantum mechanics, and was surprised that it was being AfD'ed. I'm not a fan of Rovelli's interpretation, but it is undeniable that it is notable. Tercer (talk) 21:18, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I discovered this page because there was a "not to be confused with" notice in the Relational quantum mechanics article, which is about something different and definitely notable. XOR'easter (talk) 22:52, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The average daily page-view count for the first four months of 2020 was 4.[10] And those views are probably from people who were looking for RQM. No one cares about this article. -Jordgette [talk] 16:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:13, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harihara Bukkaraya[edit]

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

The page title, header and contents of the subject do not match. Also most of the references remains unverified ~Amkgp ✉ 16:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. ~Amkgp ✉ 16:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~Amkgp ✉ 16:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @TheodoreIndiana, Shanze1, Dey subrata, Kautilya3, and Goldsztajn: Request for help and review if interested. Thank you ~Amkgp ✉ 16:40, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This looks like a picture book story. There are already well-established historical pages for Harihara I and Bukka Raya I. We don't need another page for the two of them together. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:45, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ... and Vijayanagara Empire already exists as well. I struggle to determine whether this is intentional or unintentional, but it's either WP:REDUNDANTFORK or WP:POVFORK or both. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 17:02, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm convinced by the argument of Goldsztajn. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 06:45, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Just a redundant content fork. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shanze1 (talk • contribs)
Delete. I'm genuinely confused about what this page is supposed to be about, but all of the topics it could be covering already have standalone articles. I'm not seeing evidence that this is a helpful search term. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:15, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All the prose was copied from Vijayanagara Empire. — Diannaa (talk) 18:40, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:13, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EthanGamer[edit]

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

very poorly sourced article about a minor, seems to be an up and coming youtuber but otherwise lacking in required coverage for a blp. Praxidicae (talk) 15:00, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DannyS712 (talk) 15:49, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: I'm finding a *bunch* of passing mentions, but I'm just not finding that much which passes muster at WP:GNG. Sources that I found are listed below. Nomader (talk) 16:22, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Tech Times, 6-Year-Old South Korean YouTuber Boram Buys $8 Million Property In Seoul ([11]): Passing mention for being a YouTuber who earns a bunch of money.
- South China Morning Post , Coco, Ethan Gamer, Taytum and Oakley, Hyun-ho, Gabe and Garrett – which kid influencers will find fame as adults?([12]): Has a section dedicated to Ethan Gamer and interviewing him, but it's not exactly major or explaining of notability.
- Manchester Evening News, Even more Minecraft megastars to take centre stage at Manchester's Digital Kids Show ([13]): Passing mention which describes Ethan Gamer as one of the Minecraft "megastars"
- Manchester Evening News, Digital Kids Show under fire from parents who say it 'wasn't what was promised' ([14]): Talks about how Ethan Gamer did a great job at a terrible event (IMO kind of an entertaining article to read but doesn't establish notability)
- Mediated Interfaces: The Body on Social Media ([15]): The book has a pretty long section about how Ethan interacts with folks on his channel.
Delete As per norm. Fails WP:GNG. DMySon 02:18, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we need way, way, way, way better sourcing to justify having an article on a 13-year-old.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:05, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:58, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources aren’t good enough. SK2242 (talk) 14:20, 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) 22:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Meezaan Jaffrey[edit]

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

PROD by User:Celestina007 was contested by the article's creator without any improvement or given reason. The PROD reasoning still stands: "Per not inherited his father does seem to be notable but notability isn’t inherited. Subject is mentioned in a couple of sources but most of which are unreliable. He is mentioned in Times of India but of recent even TOI is no longer regarded as a reliable source." GPL93 (talk) 14:42, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 14:42, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 14:42, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Falls short of GNG & doesn’t satisfy WP:NACTOR. Celestina007 (talk) 14:50, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Single film and one filming? Fails WP:NACTOR - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 06:47, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a total failure of GNG and actor notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:51, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability not inherited Spiderone 10:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep or Draftify or Redirect: There appears to be a lot of coverage of the subject, and not just in The Times of India, so I wouldn't say that WP:GNG was failed. However, I think that the consensus emerging with regard to WP:NACTOR—essentially, that it is WP:TOOSOON in that respect—is fair, and while I wouldn't be averse to letting the article stand, I suggest, as alternatives, "draftifying" the article or "redirecting" it to the subject's debut film, Malaal (film). I invite the above editors—Celestina007, AaqibAnjum, Johnpacklambert and Spiderone—to consider these alternatives. Dflaw4 (talk) 01:49, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My preference is still to delete for now but redirect to Malaal would be my second choice Spiderone 21:14, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response! Dflaw4 (talk) 11:20, 27 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. G11, A7, A11, take your pick. Not work including, and not worth a week of discussion. Primefac (talk) 14:32, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Corina'sWorld[edit]

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

utter nonsense about a random youtube show. completely and utterly unencyclopedic. Praxidicae (talk) 14:09, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Has any attempt at a WP:BEFORE search been made? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:17, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not new here, of course it has. It's some random child's channel, there are exactly 0 sources about it. Praxidicae (talk) 14:18, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete There is no indication of significance whatsoever. This is a web cartoon by an account with 59 subscribers, which has had 31 views. There is no independent coverage about it anywhere I can see. The author's account matches the name of the YouTube account. The YouTube description links to this article. I think I'm seeing COI, promotion, and a complete lack of significance, let along notability. G11 / A7. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:24, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I tagged it as g3, perhaps it should've been a11 as it's an AU (alternate universe in fanfic land) literally made up by a child. It's fanfiction based on Eddsworld. [[Category:Extra-fictional fiction]] Praxidicae (talk) 14:26, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Amemiya[edit]

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

The article subject does not meet WP:NPOL criteria as they have not won their respective race. Looking at the article, all of the sources cited seem to be routine mentions in the press (3/4 are about the subject announcing their candidacy) - none put forward any claim to encyclopedic notability for the subject. Should Amemiya win the topic can be revisited, but for now it is WP:TOOSOON. SamHolt6 (talk) 13:51, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:21, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:21, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:22, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. People do not get articles just for running as candidates in future elections that have not been held yet — the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable political office, not just running for one. And no, non-winning candidates do not clear WP:GNG just because you can show a blip of "candidate announces candidacy" in his local media, because every candidate in every election everywhere can always show that — to actually clear the notability bar, he would have to show that either he already had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten him into Wikipedia anyway, or that his candidacy is so much more special than everybody else's candidacies in some way that would pass the ten year test for enduring significance. But neither of those things are on offer here. No prejudice against recreation on or after November 3 if he wins the election, but nothing here is already grounds for a Wikipedia article today. Bearcat (talk) 15:14, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable political candidate.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:42, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 11:38, 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 no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 00:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of vegetarian festivals[edit]

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

this is a completely indiscriminate list that has grown so unwieldy and serves only as a directory and advert for every Joe's festival, it needs to be nuked from orbit. Should we recreate it, a list with only notable veg festivals should be included (ie. those that appear here) Praxidicae (talk) 15:27, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:43, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:43, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:43, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and endorse the nominator's plan to improve the list. pburka (talk) 16:01, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is silly. There is no point in keeping a list that would only have a handful of useless entries that are more than adequately covered by the category. Praxidicae (talk) 17:06, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What's silly is suggesting that a page which has been edited by hundreds of editors over 16 years should be peremptorily torn down just so that we can start the process all over again. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:34, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The list is too large to keep and too small to save! I applaud the nominator's novel argument. pburka (talk) 00:44, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It also omitted (perhaps without reading the entire article?) the Toronto Vegetarian Food Fair, which is the original event from which every other event had been copied, first by Boston around 1995-1996, then quickly by others until 'the idea was out there' for others to replicate without crediting anyone else (except their own 'ingenuity'?). Let's look at this:

"Held every September since 1985 at Harbourfront Centre in Toronto, the organization's Annual Veg Food Fest attracts over 40,000 visitors annually and is the largest event of its kind in the world^[1] and is credited with having inspired a copycat VegFest movement in the United States, where over 120 such events are scheduled for 2018.^[2] The event provides opportunities for visitors to learn about vegetarian issues and to sample vegetarian foods from diverse cuisines."MaynardClark (talk) 02:11, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Van de Ven, Lisa (2010-03-23). "It's a (no) meat-and-potatoes initiative". Toronto Star. Retrieved 2010-08-20.
^ VegFests, American Vegan Society E-Newsletter, January 20, 1018, American Vegan Society, accessed January 20, 2018

Don't tell me. Add it to the list with a high quality reference. (The Star article is a good start, but the coverage isn't really significant and doesn't support the claim that the festival has been running since 1985.) pburka (talk) 03:33, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Almost all of these events are non notable and are referenced only by their official website or a social media link. Ajf773 (talk) 20:07, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Ajf773. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:55, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:LISTN: [16], [17], [18], [19]. If the list needs pruning then this is best done in situ, per our editing policy, to maintain attribution and accountability. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:27, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The demand for the page is really high; its potential utility is far greater. The organization of the page could be improved, but perhaps it ought to become its own project or part of a pre-existing project with lots of energy. The variability of the definition could be an issue (an occasional folk music festival shows up in the list). MaynardClark (talk) 13:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment on ~~keep~~ - The truncated list fails to include the Toronto Vegetarian Food Fair, the 'mother of all North American vegetarian food fairs' from which Boston (North America's first and largest food fair) was copied in 1995-1996, from which most of the others in the USA were later copied). Criteria for truncating list was not well considered. I suspect that the 'editor' who decided to 'reduce' the previously very useful article is not 'in the know' (there is an inherent 'conflict of interest' in not knowing the subject matter, and the COI policy needs to be revisited in light of the grievous judgment error 'the contending editor' evidenced in trying to eviscerate good work by many editors (admittedly, of varying degrees of competence, thoroughness, and professionalism). MaynardClark (talk) 20:36, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  Note: Duplicate !vote struck. One bolded keep/delete/whatnot per person please. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:14, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the 'editor' in question. I retained every festival which had references to reliable secondary sources or which had its own article. You'll find that the deleted festivals are easily found in the history and can be reinstated, if you can find reliable sources to demonstrate notability per WP:GNG. The idea that non-experts have an inherent COI is contrary to Wikipedia's principles. pburka (talk) 20:57, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A legitimate sourced list with clear selection criteria. My very best wishes (talk) 17:02, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My very best wishes can you clarify what legitimated sources there are? Thanks a million. :) Praxidicae (talk) 22:45, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They are easy to find simply by a Google search [20]: see articles in BBC, Fuffington Post, Reuters [21]. There are also relatively poor quality sources, some of them are used on the page, such as this, but I think they are sufficent to establish that a festival X does exist and a few detail about it. Nothing else is needed for a list. My very best wishes (talk) 00:09, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:12, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Something other than MERELY a 'list'. The point that ought to be noted is the popularity of such an annual event (and its ability to generate revenue, also), and the large numbers of attendees. Police estimates (not always accurate, but not unreasonable) (for events notable to police) were used in early events, showing thousands of attendees. It may not compare with sports events, that generate revenue, also. They are advertised in radio and television and in subways and buses. MaynardClark (talk) 22:30, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Further, the nature and purpose of such events needs to be listed, and the (seemingly) inadvertent result is a concurrent representation of an array of different vegetarian and vegan practices - religious, compassionate, health, political, animal advocacy, etc. It should have been listed as part of projects on vegetarianism, veganism, animal advocacy, and culture. MaynardClark (talk) 22:33, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Andrew, MaynardClark and My very best wishes. Ajf773 is clearly incorrect that all festivals listed are 'non notable', as many have their own independent articles. Moreover, items on lists don't need to have their own independent articles to be included on a list (WP:LISTN: 'Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable'), so nom's plan B to limit the list to the items in 'Category:Vegetarian festivals' is unwarranted. Most festivals on this list without their own articles are mentioned in reliable mainstream media or other RS, so these can stay. However, festivals that can only be found on their own website or social media can be justifiably removed per GNG. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:45, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say they were all 'non notable' but I did say that almost all were non notable. Secondly we are not a directory so we have no business listing every single festival that has a bare mention in primary sources. Ajf773 (talk) 20:50, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - So here's the thing. As far as I can tell, there is one notable festival on this list. If we also include very strange articles that seem to be about a group of non-notable festivals that share a name (kind of a misguided dab page), then we have a total of three. All the rest either have no notable subject or link to an article about an organization or tangentially related music festival. For this to be a viable list without falling into WP:NOTDIRECTORY territory, we need entries for it. As it stands, this is going to be a collection of press release blurbs for any non-notable event that, gets some local coverage. That's a clear WP:NOT issue. There is sometimes an argument to have a list with entries that are explicitly not notable (as per WP:CSC), but this is not that kind of subject. That kind of subject would be more limited and not turn Wikipedia into eventbrite. Importantly, though, no prejudice against recreation if more notable examples pop up (there are likely a few that can be created). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:12, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like there are a couple passionate editors trying to improve this, which is always a good sign. As my primary problem with the article is that there just aren't enough notable examples to justify an encyclopedic list without becoming an event directory, if people intend to create more articles on vegetarian festivals (which is likely quite possible), I would also support userfying. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:14, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE to everyone: I've done a thorough improvement and expansion of this article, giving secondary RS to mainstream media about each veggie festival. If there were no such sources to be found, I deleted the entry. My focus has been on Europe, where the backbone of these events is formed by Veganmania and VeggieWorld (whose articles I concurrently updated and improved) that form distinct sets of festivals with a common mission/vision/identity. Many of these editions attract more than 5,000 visitors and some even more than 10,000 a year. The encyclopedic relevance of such a big group of large-scale festivals can hardly be ignored. The problem was that previous editors were either too lazy or too inexperienced to provide RS to show this to be the case, but the RS are all over the place if anyone really takes the effort to look, especially beyond English-language sources. You might be surprised how many French, German, Dutch, Polish, Austrian, Swiss, Croatian etc. mainstream newspapers have been covering these veggie festivals in the past decade. Even if you've never been taught any of these languages, Google Translate may be your friend (unless it messes up sometimes, haha). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:20, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I've also created the c:Category:Vegetarian festivals to organise the dozens of media files produced at these events around the world. It looks like most people who uploaded them were inexperienced with Commons/Wikipedia and failed to properly categorise these photos and videos, making it harder for others to find them. The photos show these festivals are taking place all over the world, each in their own way, sometimes as part of a larger festival that is religious or musical/dance in nature rather than centred around the veggie/vegan food itself. I uploaded some CC videos I could find on YouTube to add to this multimedia collection; some of these videos have been included in this list. I decided not to include videos from vloggers who went to festivals, as these are too personal and do not have enough encyclopedic value to illustrate what a veggie festival is like. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The changes don't address the primary issue, which is that Wikipedia isn't a directory or indiscriminate list of things/events. All the changes have done is turn a list of redlinked/non linked festivals into blue links of the location they're held in where the target articles say absolutely nothing about the subject. Praxidicae (talk) 17:39, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As noted, WP:LISTN clearly states that 'Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable', overruling WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The events that are not mentioned in RS have been removed and/or will not enter the list (again). Moreover, WP:NOTDIRECTORY clearly states that 'mention of major events (...) may be acceptable'. In the secondary RS I have consulted, the number of visitors, if mentioned, has always been between 3,000 and 13,000 people. This is not 'every Joe's festival', as nom put it. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:50, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm a little on the fence here, but I'm looking down this list and seeing mostly festivals that are music festivals or some other type of festival where they happen to not serve meat products for various reasons. That is not a "Vegetarian festival". The lede attempts to wave this off by saying "Many of these events are also food festivals and/or music festivals and can also contain edutainment", but this isn't the case. As this list appears to be lacking specific criteria for what constitutes a "Vegetarian festival", I believe it fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY and agree with the nom and Rhododendrites on this. Anyway, that's my two cents. Waggie (talk) 18:00, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How does the list feature 'mostly festivals that are music festivals'? Currently there are 45 festivals listed, only 6 of whom are primarily music/dance festivals that only serve vegetarian/vegan food (all held in the Netherlands and Czechia). 2 entres on American festivals that are centred on vegetarian/vegan food also mention they feature music, but are not 'music festivals'. Thus, 87% of the items mentioned here are primarily food festivals. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:17, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nederlandse Leeuw thanks for your inquiry. I appreciate your detailed reply. I did look more carefully and there certainly are other specifically vegan/vegetarian food festivals in the list, more than I realized from the random sampling I performed initially. However, I note that many of them are only supported by press releases, simple event announcements, and other similar poor quality sources that do not confer notability, and list items are supposed to be demonstrably notable. I suspect that if I dug through them and eliminated the ones without WP:SIGCOV, there wouldn't be too many left in the list. Per WP:CSC, selection criteria should either be all notable, all non-notable (which should be considered in the context of a parent article instead), or items that verifiability (with RS) clearly are included in the group. So, while I think you made a good point about my initial post, I still must stand by my initial decision. I'm sorry that you couldn't sway my belief, but I appreciate very much the dialogue with you. Waggie (talk) 05:09, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Waggie, I very much appreciate your constructive criticism, and the revision of your standpoint on the mostly musical nature of these festivals (quod non). I wonder what you base your claim on that 'many of them are only supported by press releases, simple event announcements, and other similar poor quality sources that do not confer notability'? As I wrote pretty much all information about the European festivals, I can take credit for about 30/65 references in this article. They are all mainstream media articles, most of the media even got an English Wikipedia page that I linked to to show this. Most of them are written by journalists or reporters who actually attended the festival and/or put the festival in a larger socio-economic, cultural and perhaps even political context. I hope I don't have to argue here whether Der Standard, Večernji list, Le Figaro, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Trouw, Gazeta Wyborcza, 20 Minuten, The Independent etc. are top quality newspapers in their respective countries, virtually all of the others I cited are notable enough for their own English Wikipedia page as well. Moreover, WP:CSC says 'These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles', it's not ' either be all notable or all non-notable'. I think you'll be able to agree that the European events cited by me are all verifiable by RS.

For the moment, I'm not willing to go through all North American festivals to weed out any non-RS and replace them with RS, because frankly that's not necessary to demonstrate that this article can be wikified and properly cited in the way I did for the European half of it. I'm even willing to have the North American content deleted for now and have everyone here only judge my text, I'm pretty sure it would fulfill all the criteria then. What I'm a little tired of is a repetition of the same arguments that have already been refuted as invalid and no acknowledgement that they have been refuted as invalid. You're the only one who so far seems to have been willing to admit they were wrong, and yet proceeded to repeat arguments others have made (especially about earlier versions of this article, before I came along and overhauled it), and also have already been refuted by the Keep camp. I hope you're still willing to look at the article again and open to revising your opinion. I also very much appreciate this dialogue with you. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:09, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:LC items 2 and 7. Stifle (talk) 09:52, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Invalid~~ Wikipedia:Listcruft is an essay, not a policy. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:19, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make a vote invalid, Nederlandse Leeuw. AFDs often cite essays that aren't policies because they are consensus based guidelines and community norms. LC is one of them. Praxidicae (talk) 12:41, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines". Essays are the opposite of 'consensus based guidelines and community norms', they are opinion pieces. The vote is meaningless because it doesn't constitute a valid argument. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:52, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Often essays are cited in AFDs. It does not mean you get to invalidate someone's vote because you don't like it and especially means you shouldn't be throwing around templates. Praxidicae (talk) 13:09, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't know that, I struck the template. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I mean... this !vote is pretty poor though (sorry, Stifle). #2 is clearly inapplicable (it's not like we're talking about the stats of one particular obscure fictional element or something -- it's of interest to vegetarians and people who like food festivals... that's really broad) and #7 is the opposite of the problem, which is that there aren't enough relevant articles to justify this list. #7 is actually an example of how this essay is outdated. Beyond there being a trend of pushback against calling other people's contributions "cruft," there's more acknowledgment of the principle summarized by WP:NOTDUP now (i.e. that lists of articles are perfectly fine navigational aids as long as the topic is appropriate, inclusion criteria is clear, etc.). That said, Nederlandse Leeuw, pointing out that it's an essay doesn't usually help. You'd want to emphasize why policy is on your side rather than on the !voters. It's not invalid to cite an essay. There are lots of essays that act as stand-ins for particular interpretations or applications of policies and guidelines. Some are far more used than others. There are some policy/guidelines at the root of WP:LC, though, regardless of whether you agree with it. If you just draw attention to the shortcomings in a !vote, ideally the closer will take that into account rather than just count votes. Please strike the invalid template. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:11, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. Your elaboration makes some sense and is much more useful than the vote itself, that isn't technically invalid so I struck it per request. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:17, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE to everyone: I've replaced all weak sources with RS for all sections except the US. Reference 35 to 62 may still be checked for reliability and the adjoining text for notability and relevance, e.g. KBPS Public Broadcasting is an RS but the fact that dogs were not allowed may be too trivial to mention, even though the source mentions it. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:06, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 13:27, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE to everyone: the overhaul of the article is done! I now removed all remaining weak sources, eventbrite-y sites, press releases etc. relating to the United States and replaced them with reliable sources where necessary. I've also removed lots of information that is not relevant for the events in a list article like this or for Wikipedia in general, such as the exact address where it was held or whether dogs were allowed or whether the co-organisers are married. It really should be kept at the basics. I understand that the fluff that was originally there is an important part of the reason why many here felt it should be deleted, but that is now pretty much fixed. I am also still open to trimming it further down, such as which allegedly notable people showed up at the Detriot festival. I've left the question of whether the Boston festival is the oldest and has been copied from Toronto open for further verification, because it may well be true, but couldn't be established by the sources provided because they were weak, so I removed them. I remain open to your suggestions and constructive criticism. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:41, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per recent edits by Nederlandse Leeuw. There are reliable sources on the article, enough to establish notability. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:47, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Nederlandse Leeuw has done an excellent job of fixing an "unfixable" page. — Toughpigs (talk) 23:34, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete Materialscientist (talk) 13:21, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rajmuzik studio[edit]

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

WP:NOTABILITY Looks like spam, doesn't appear to be notable, and article is not ready for publication in terms of formatting, citations, etc. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 12:08, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as blatant advertisement. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:12, 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 Speedy Delete as a copyright violation.DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Chambers[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keith Chambers, but given how long its been since then it may not be substantially similar to qualify for speedy deletion. Doesn't appear to have significant coverage by independent sources. DannyS712 (talk) 10:23, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DannyS712 (talk) 10:23, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no criteria of WP:MUSICBIO. The article is merely an ad. Hekerui (talk) 11:17, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Earwig shows it’s a 91% match for this page. Mccapra (talk) 11:43, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:54, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:54, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under WP:G12 As CAPTAIN RAJU said, it's a 91% match to [22]. If it is reworded and gets more reliable sources, it no longer qualifies for G12. --Stay safe, ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 12:10, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Tagged for G12. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:47, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:49, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of things named after Bangamata Sheikh Fojilatunnesa Mujib[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:LISTN or WP:GNG. DannyS712 (talk) 10:18, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. DannyS712 (talk) 10:18, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing indicating notability, list of one, no WP:LISTN. FOARP (talk) 12:10, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One item on a list is not a list. Ajf773 (talk) 23:58, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too short for keeping as a standalone article. Tessaracter (talk) 12:17, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 20:46, 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. Black Kite (talk) 00:12, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adios Vaya Con Dios[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

fails WP:NFILM. The sources are spam/SEO work and PR pieces Praxidicae (talk) 13:56, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM due to lacking sustained WP:SIGCOV in multiple independent reliable sources. The article was created by an editor indef blocked a few days after creating this article, most of whose edits were struck for copy-vio issues. Was already deleted once before in a well-attended AfD for lacking notability. Newshunter12 (talk) 04:09, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 09:15, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Stifle's persuasive argument on the results of the previous AfD. Ifnord (talk) 21:35, 28 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. Stifle (talk) 10:52, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prism3D[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable video game engine that fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. All sources currently used are either pages from the developer's (SCS Software) website or unrelated statistics about a game that uses the engine (but does not include information regarding the engine itself). Using WP:VG's custom search engine, I was only able to find two reliable sources pertaining to the topic, both from Shacknews:

"Prism3D Editing", which is two sentences about how SCS Software created a blog post.
"Prism3D Interview", which is two sentences referring to this (very brief) interview on HomeLAN Fed.

This interview, then, would be the only thing coming close to GNG's "significant coverage" requirement, but is far from sufficient. It is also unclear whether HomeLAN Fed is a reliable source anyway. IceWelder [✉] 15:06, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. IceWelder [✉] 15:06, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. IceWelder [✉] 15:06, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. IceWelder [✉] 15:06, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews are not considered sufficiently independent anyway. --Izno (talk) 15:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ — why I think it should be kept
- Two secondary sources were added into the article to establish its notability.
- The prose part of the article were majorly translated from Russian Wikipedia, with another version available in Ukrainian Wikipedia, which I believe it proves its notability somehow.
- If it is 2008, I would agree the engine is not notable. However, this is 2020, with the huge success of Euro Truck Simulator 2 and American Truck Simulator — both of them are on the million-level sales — I don't think the engine is non-notable at all.
- While some websites are inappropriate to use as sources, the engine does receive its individual page. For example, igdb.com, mobygames.com, etc. It can be more if googling it. Unnamelessness (talk) 13:43, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of the two secondary sources added, one is a review of a game that uses the engine, while the other is a rehash of a news piece from SCS themselves about a tool set for the Blender modelling program. Neither constitutes significant coverage of the engine as it only appears as a passing mention in both (PC Invasion even only refers to a "Prism Engine", not "Prism3D"). Other-language versions of the article do not make for notability either, especially when the Russian one only uses SCS as a source, and the Ukrainian has no sources at all. They should be subject to their native deletion processes instead. MobyGames, IGDB and the like are user-authored and unreliable, and include a plethora of non-reviewed entries, as the sites have no notability standard (after all, they act as databases, not encyclopedias). Sales of games using an engine do not make the engine notable – notability is not inherited. Even the games themselves wouldn't be notable from sales alone; they would still need significant coverage, although high-selling games are usually covered frequently in reliable sources. Unless this engine is independently notable, which it is not, an article for it has no place on Wikipedia. Maybe the Truck Simulator Wiki would be a better place for it. It might also be necessary to point out that Unnamelessness is the primary author of the article. IceWelder [✉] 14:02, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, in this article, primary sources with significant coverage and secondary sources but less significant coverage work as a whole. On a certain level, it meets WP:GNG, though not strictly. If we do strictly follow the policy of proving the subject independently notable here, I would say it prevents us from improving Wikipedia. For example, I would not agree with the perspective that games wouldn't be notable from high sales. High-selling games must be notable in the video game industry; this is WP:COMMONSENSE. If strictly following WP:GNG is still required, I would put WP:IAR here.
Secondly, notability is not inherited is not a content guideline or policy. Plus,

Subjects can still be notable by other means and even when they are not, often such articles can be merged or redirected to the article on the associated subject.

I totally don't believe the article has already reached the level where it must be deleted.

Moreover, as per WP:NSOFT:

Self-published citations, including press releases, product listings, and other non reliable sources may not be used to establish notability.

It does not fully restrict the usage of primary sources in terms of establishing notability. Also,

Primary sources should only be used to verify non-contentious objective content such as release dates, features, etc.

Which is exactly how the article uses primary sources right now.

Last but not least, I would not say I am the primary author of the article — it seems like implying I have no rights to comment here, which for me, this feels like bureaucratism. I do not own the article — I am just one of the article's contributor. Unnamelessness (talk) 03:07, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Next to no coverage in reliable sources = no notability = no article. Pavlor (talk) 04:18, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I already expressed a poosible redirect/merge if keep is infeasible before, but I really don't think the article should be deleted. Unnamelessness (talk) 05:09, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be misinterpreting the very line from NSOFT that you are quoting. Primary sources "may not"—as in, "cannot"—be used to demonstrate notability. As all significant coverage comes from primary sources, therefore there is no notability due to lack of proper coverage in reliable secondary sources. Features may be sourced to primary sources (of course, why not?), but only for topics that are already notable otherwise. Merging/redirecting might still be feasible but the NPOV would have to heavily be cleaned up. I would still favour deletion, which was also the result of the prior AFD. IceWelder [✉] 12:30, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a suitable redirect/merge target SCS Software. It may be hard to prove notability for a niche game engine, a selective merge looks like a fine "alternative to deletion". Pavlor (talk) 16:26, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the nom. Fails WP:GNG due to lacking any sustained WP:SIGCOV in independent reliable sources about the subject itself, let alone from multiple sources. The article is basically just as unnotable as it was when it was deleted in 2008. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:37, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 09:14, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and does not have enough sources. --Stay safe, ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 12:51, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:50, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yokouma[edit]

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

Only source is apparently non-existent. RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 09:06, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Merging may be an appropriate alternative since only the location and population are known. RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 02:59, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 09:06, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wikipedia:GEOLAND. The source is existent. I have now repaired the broken link via the Internet Archive. See [23]. Voceditenore (talk) 09:28, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into list - It's notable but unfortunately most Burkina places have zilch info online. I want to merge all of the ones like this into a tabled list with population until there is info available on them.† Encyclopædius 11:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:55, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly passes WP:GEOLAND as a recognised settlement. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:19, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge When the sources are in table form, having our coverage in table form may also be appropriate when nothing else is known. Reywas92^Talk 20:44, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not much known about this small village, but more may turn up. There is a list of villages in Zabré Department. We could turn the list into a table, and make the entry for this village like

Municipality	Coordinates	Population	Pop. Year	Notes
...	...	...	...	...
Yokouma	Unknown	139^[10]	2005	"Yokouma" mean "Solidarity" in the Bissa language.^[11] During the 2012 elections the village had 63 registered voters. A shed in the village was used as the voting station.^[12]
...	...	...	...	...

The entry would have an ((anchor)) named Yokouma, and Yokouma would redirect to Zabré Department#Yokouma. But I think the reader would be a bit surprised to jump to the table entry, and an editor wanting to add some detail might find it harder to deal with a table entry than an article. I see no advantage to readers or editors to make this a redirect. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:00, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah the issue though is that editors don't just turn up and expand stubs from rural Burkina Faso. A tabled list would be suitable if there is no information except population but you managed to find some scraps on this making it borderline worthy in its own right.† Encyclopædius 13:08, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets GEOLAND, legally recognized village. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:20, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GEOLAND. SportingFlyer T·C 06:31, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the village clearly exists as a distinct community, and it has a population, so it meets WP:GEOLAND. CJK09 (talk) 17:18, 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:50, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Pirotta[edit]

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

PR for Non notable. Lacks notable productions. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:23, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:57, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:57, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:57, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable filmmaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:00, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no evidence of notability MarylandGeoffrey (talk) 23:55, 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. I'll also note that "deletion and content transfer" is not often done due to legal attribution issues. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Historic recurrence [edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Multiple issues; committed changes from first AfD request unresolved and I see no way to view this article in a way that could be improved in the future. Recommend deletion and content transfer to other, more notable/well sourced topics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClaudeDavid (talk • contribs) 11:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 May 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:15, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:58, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Yes, it has issues; it is not a good article, but suggesting deletion is mere destruction. The complaint of the lack of in-line citations is overstated as there are a lot. "Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it": probably not quite an accurate quote, but certainly relevant. This is a topic in historiography that would need an expert on the topic to turn it into a good article, but what we have is better than nothing, which is what nom proposed. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:11, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AfD is not cleanup. The articles topic is notable, just needs some work. The previous AfD was closed as 'keep' and I don't see any unresolved issues making deletion needed. The article could certainly be cleaned up. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:21, 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 no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 00:14, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Artech (staffing company)[edit]

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

Fails the notability guidelines for organizations (WP:ORG) - Google research of the company fails to turn up any compelling notability. That's why recommending for an AfD discussion and derive a consensus. - Hatchens (talk) 12:22, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 12:22, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 12:22, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Important entity regarding women in tech, which is an underserved community in terms of representation on Wikipedia. Isingness (talk) 18:22, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've also added some additional sources, including PBS, New Jersey Business magazine, and industry coverage of their focus on diversity in tech hiring. Isingness (talk) 18:41, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 06:08, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think that the Crain's New York listing is significant. The NJTV article/report is good, and specifically about Artech. The Wired article is a mention, but cites the company in the context of a larger trend. I believe there's enough here to satisfy notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 23:43, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources listed in the reference section in this version are enough to pass it WP:GNG. - Ivan hersee (talk) 10:42, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The criteria for establishing notability is a tougher standard for references than those used to support facts within an article. Most of the references are based on interviews with the CEO (who happens to be female) or mentions-in-passing. I am unable to locate any referencess with Independent Content *and* in-depth information on the *company*. The PBS reference is based on "President and CEO Ranjini Poddar sat down with NJ Today's Desiree Taylor to discuss her business" - fails WP:ORGIND. The NJBiz article is a puff piece based on an interview with the CEO, also fails ORGIND. This Crain reference showcasing their "fast 50" is a video interview with the CEO and this is the supporting listing, both fail WP:ORGIND. The Wired reference is a mention-in-passing and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. And searching for any good references appears futile, I am unable to locate a single one. Topic fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:34, 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 keep. Stifle (talk) 10:52, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sibley County ICTV System[edit]

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

Listen, I know I've been doing this a lot and getting yelled at to slow down, but I don't think a TV article serving a small community in Minnesota deserves its own article. The communities are just too small for this article to comply with WP:GNG. JTZegers (talk) 12:58, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable early telelearning effort; project has been defunct for thirty years so it's certainly not a PROMO of anything. Nate • (chatter) 17:37, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:27, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:27, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:27, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 06:05, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep This system apparently attracted enough national attention, including from the National School Boards Association—I just added a source mentioning this. More sourcing is needed on the system details. There is also another source that someone with the right WP:TWL access might be able to obtain: David Czech, "Fax TV and the Remote Classroom," T H E Journal, Vol 16, No 8, April 1989, pp 69-72. Raymie (t • c) 00:01, 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:50, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kavita Nehemiah[edit]

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

No significant coverage found in reliable sources. Some of the sources don't even mention her. The promotional tone makes it obvious that the article creator has some conflict of interest. M4DU7 (talk) 05:52, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 05:52, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 05:52, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 05:52, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — per nom. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 06:57, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Hatchens (talk) 14:40, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:41, 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. Stifle (talk) 10:53, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Two Guys from Andromeda[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I'm looking through the sources and I question that this group, as a business entity may not meet NCORP notability given the sources Graywalls (talk) 02:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 02:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 02:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 02:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it was previously discussed at AfD and the result was keep. --Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussions: 2012-08 ✓ keep

Logs: 2012-06 ↻ restored, 2012-06 ↻ restored, 2012-06 ✗ G6, 2007-12 ↻ restored, 2007-10 ✗ deleted

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 05:45, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete This article was kept at afd in 2012. The subject has received little to no coverage since then, and their website hasn't been updated since 2015. This company was formed to produce one game that hasn't been released and probably never will be. The game itself has received coverage and is probably notable, but the company probably not. Weak Delete because the duo that formed this company made some popular titles in the 1980s, so they 'might' be notable. The article would need a rewrite to be about the duo and not about the company, and even then it's a bit borderline because they seem to be credited as Mark Crowe and Scott Murphy not Two Guys from Andromeda on the games they made. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 13:40, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only references I can locate (including those in the article) are either based on an announcement or are updates on their Kickstarter campaign. References fail WP:ORGIND, topic fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:06, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify. This seems to be the best plan to retain the article and its history until/if RecycledPixels can work on it. Black Kite (talk) 00:16, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pacific Flying Club[edit]

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

Purely promotional WP:SPAM article, tagged for six years, non-notable organization, fails WP:ORG. Ahunt (talk) 02:29, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notification of the existence of this AfD has been made at WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this article falls. - Ahunt (talk) 02:34, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:39, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:40, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm seeing enough non-trivial coverage in various BC newspapers over the years to where I believe the subject satisfies WP:ORG. Agree that it currently reads like an advertisement, but that calls for editing, not deletion. I'll try to get some of those sources added to the article over the next few days. I just searched for "Pacific Flying Club" in Newspapers.com and turned up articles in The Surry Leader (Surry, BC), The Province (Vancouver BC), Richmond Review (Richmond, BC), The Vancouver Sun (Vancouver, BC), just at a glance. RecycledPixels (talk) 20:23, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - as of 20 May 2020, the article has not been edited or improved. - Ahunt (talk) 11:37, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, Sorry. My Newspapers.com subscription through the Wikipedia Library just terminated. I have requested, and have been approved for, a renewal, I am just waiting to hear from the company to reactivate the subscription. I should have jumped on it while I still had it and everything was up on my screen. RecycledPixels (talk) 05:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not finding any compelling WP:SIGCOV to pass the WP:NORG standard. Hit results on newspapers.com is not the same as WP:SIGCOV Sulfurboy (talk) 14:58, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- To be clearer, I wasn't seeing "hits" on newspapers.com, I was seeing multiple, non-trivial articles in regionally-significant news sources that discussed the company in detail. I'll post sources when I can (see above about my account temporarily being unavailable). RecycledPixels (talk) 05:56, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 05:45, 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 no consensus, leaning towards keep, after extended time for discussion. BD2412 T 19:38, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Minty Agarwal[edit]

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

Does not meet notability on rank (Squadron leader, akin to NATO OF-3 or major in army) nor award (Yudh Seva Medal is distinguished service medal far below Param Vir Chakra. Only known for one event, small role in 2019 Balakot airstrike leading to medal. Hippeus (talk) 11:30, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Hippeus (talk) 11:30, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hippeus (talk) 11:30, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 11:36, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree that she fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 13:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2019 Balakot airstrike. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:31, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As the first woman to be awarded a specific decoration (at whatever level), I think she is notable. I can't imagine she wouldn't be regarded as notable if the decoration was British or American. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:09, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is time to end the unending expnasion of "first x to do y" criteria. This is getting ludicrous.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:15, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree. There are so many such stubs from across the globe that need to be brought up to AfD. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 09:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - You do know that stubs are perfectly acceptable? -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:02, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:24, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 05:39, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article has a scope of historical notability as she is first in a country to achieve an award per WP:EVENTCRITERIA. Has a scope of WP:BIO1E to though the article should include the operation for which she recieved the award. Drat8sub (talk) 21:30, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Necrothesp. The award she got is definitely not random. Makes her notable. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 10:25, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Necrothesp as the first woman to be awarded a specific decoration.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:27, 28 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. Hockeyben did not respond to Fram's concerns that the sources Hockeyben provided do not in fact verify this article's content. WP:V therefore mandates deletion. Sandstein 16:02, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1907–08 Williams Ephs men's ice hockey season[edit]

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

When trying to verify this unsourced article, I came upon no actual sources for this, and some strange things. The team is included in the "Collegiate ice hockey standings" as if they were a part of the competition", but their wins don't correspond to any losses by other teams (resulting in a scheme with more wins than losses overall), and the source given in 1907–08 United States collegiate men's ice hockey season is eliteprospects[24], which gives most of the same teams, but not Williams...

Hockey started at Williams in 1903, so some hockey will have been played in the winter of 1907-08, but whether it has anything to do with what's in the article now, and whether it was in any way a notable season, is (for me) unverifiable. Hockeydb[25] only lists them from 1951 on

Basically, the article claims three wins (intercollegiate) and 4 (overall), but neither figure can be verified, we don't know who the opponents were (apparently not the other teams in the table), or anything else.

I have only looked at this article and not the similar ones for other seasons; if this turns out to be an article that doesn't belong here (and I may well be proven wrong on this), then probably other similar articles need to be checked as well. Fram (talk) 14:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - https://books.google.com/books?id=nKgXAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA70&lpg=PA70&dq=williams+hockey+1910&source=bl&ots=PkgJrIYLUh&sig=ACfU3U1UDrex14aR02192_CoO2Z--9Q2lQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjug9r_kcfoAhVLMt8KHT2HDTUQ6AEwD3oECAwQKA#v=onepage&q=williams%20hockey%201910&f=false this source used on earlier articles lists several games from 1908 and https://www.uscho.com/stats/history/williams/mens-hockey/2019-2020/ has season-by-season records going back to 1903. Didn't take long to find these, and college seasons have long been deemed notable, so this should be an easy keep. --Hockeyben ^{(talk -} ^contribs) 16:44, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I ran out of time before I could finish the article and had to wait until later to complete it. PensRule11385 (talk) 21:07, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hockeyben: in the first source you give, I see matches from 1909, but the snippet view doesn't give any 1907-1908 matches. So the "didn't take long to find these " may be true for you, but when I looked at that source (when making the AfD, and just now) nothing to verify the article was or is visible. The second source indicates 4 matches, no coach, and no information on these matches whatsoever. How does this validate the information in the article or, more importantly, make for a notable subject? The source now added to the article is a pure primary source. Fram (talk) 07:29, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 05:38, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia is not a sports almanac. Stifle (talk) 10:51, 28 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. Black Kite (talk) 00:18, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cape Cod Fairgrounds[edit]

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

This article fails WP:GNG. The only reference in the article is Last.fm which is not a reliable source. No reliable references come up in Google. Interstellarity (talk) 20:29, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Interstellarity (talk) 20:29, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Interstellarity (talk) 20:29, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is tagged with notability since 2011 with no improvement. WP:BEFORE didn't show any IRS, only local connected to the subject. The creator of the article was banned from Wikimedia (may be advertisement). Fails WP:GNG. Less Unless (talk) 19:15, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A whole chapter dedicated to the fair and fairgrounds here. The Massachusetts Historical Commission wrote a report about it (what became the fairgrounds was known as "The Plains.")[26] Oakshade (talk) 20:45, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:28, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SIGCOV and WP:NOTDIR --Cornellier (talk) 18:43, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 05:28, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Gnoffo[edit]

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

Fails notability requirements under WP:NBIO/WP:NACTOR/WP:NMUSICIAN or WP:GNG; insufficient sources found in article or WP:BEFORE. Pop culture magazine/web sources even about a reality TV show, his wife, or their child are pretty thin; just not enough substance about this individual's life. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:04, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:06, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:06, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:56, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am the creator of the page. At first, I thought I was creating an article with enough room for development, but I realized as I was developing the page that there wasn't much to develop :-/ --Qwacker (talk) 07:15, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep or Draftify: I don't think this page is necessarily a lost cause. There are a few credits that could go towards WP:NACTOR and a lot of hits at "google news", which will need to be sifted through. I note that the creator of the article thinks that deletion is appropriate, but maybe moving it to "draftspace" might allow others to uncover new sources. Dflaw4 (talk) 11:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 05:28, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This Bustle article doesn't seem too bad: https://www.bustle.com/articles/29096-little-women-la-star-terra-joles-boyfriend-joe-gnoffo-has-an-impressive-career-of-his-own. I'll look for some more articles over the next couple of days. Dflaw4 (talk) 11:11, 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gitanjali JB[edit]

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

Except for one reference, none of the references provide significant coverage of this person. The article sounds promotional and is quite likely created by someone with a conflict of interest. M4DU7 (talk) 05:28, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 05:28, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 05:28, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable educator.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:05, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found several passing mentions, two articles that are unfortunately primary and an appearance on TEDx. Doesn't seem to meet our standards for significant coverage. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. - Hatchens (talk) 14:39, 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cabin Crew[edit]

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

Non-notable electronic music act ViperSnake151 Talk 05:25, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Boy Meets Girl (band), perhaps? They get a mention there. Meticulo (talk) 12:33, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 03:05, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep See their version of "Star2Fall", which charted in the top 50 in 10 different territories including top 5 in UK and Finland. Hence it passes WP:NBAND. While this article certainly has problems including being very thinly referenced and false claims for their singles' charting in Australia, it does need work but that is not sufficient reason to delete it. @Toddst1:I'm curious about these edits (see diffs), which occurred within four minutes of this AfD nomination.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 21:20, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: per WP:CSK#3. Clearly meets WP:BAND#C2 three times. Toddst1 (talk) 23:47, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, satisfies the criteria for WP:NBAND. Dan arndt (talk) 08:29, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly meets WP:NBAND. Doctorhawkes (talk) 23:20, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:55, 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. – Joe (talk) 11:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tolu' A Akinyemi[edit]

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

Subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them hence doesn’t satisfy GNG & also doesn’t satisfy WP:POET. A Before I conducted only shows result majorly for a different individual with a similar name who is coincidentally a poet as well. The few google hits about our subject of discussion are links to sources not independent of him. Celestina007 (talk) 05:15, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 05:15, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 05:15, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 05:15, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 05:15, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 05:15, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject does not meet any criterion outlined in WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. None of books have been discussed in reliable sources. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 13:58, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ celestina007 Acorrding to you, the page was nominated for lacking "reliable sources independent" despite the modification citing the british library as per WK: V guidelines. Now you question the nobility of the subject as against WP:N which says "Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable". It is your position as and editor to confirm these sources not base on your assumption. @versace1608 also alleged that the books are not discussed in reliable sources, if googlebooks, goodreads, and the british library is not reliable then what is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brain7days (talk • contribs) 20:11, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Brain7days, you need to understand that the subject of our discussion does not satisfy WP:AUTHOR/WP:POET From the aforementioned policies under #3 it states that the person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work subject of your article doesn’t fulfill that or #1 #2 & #4 of the aforementioned policies. Furthermore you keep mentioning verifiability as if anyone is implying that subject of your article is a hoax, no! No one is saying that. Stating that someone is an author/poet does not mean he or she is automatically notable. That’s very much absurd For example stating that “Celestina007 is an editor on Wikipedia and an author of short books in real life hence she is notable & deserves a Wikipedia page” Nope! that would be inane as that is not how things work in this collaborative project. Using that analogy you should understand by now that his mere existence and the fact that he is author and a poet doesn’t make him notable, what does however is if he satisfies our general notability guidelines criteria or any criterion from WP:AUTHOR which he doesn’t sadly.Celestina007 (talk) 20:55, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Brain7days: I stand by what I said. None of the subject's books meet any criterion outlined in WP:NBOOK. I ran a Google search and did not find reliable coverage (critical reviews). An author simply having his book published on Googlebooks.com or Amazon.com is not reliable grounds for keep. Goodreads is simply a social cataloging platform owned by Amazon. It is wrong to assume that books automatically meet our notability requirements simply because they've been listed on popular retailers' websites. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 10:39, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Two of the author's book was and still listed as bestsellers in African Poetry, his book has also been used to raise funds for the old and less priviledge,and also met the criteria for threshold standard as outlined in WP:NBOOK #1 and the threshold standard #2(1)(1) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brain7days (talk • contribs) 11:21, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:41, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Johnpacklambert as per WP:AUTHOR/WP:POET #3 #4(c)(b)&(d) see this this (ranked #24,#44,#65 different books same author bestseller) this also and as per NBOOK and other considerations #2.1 #2.1.1 please do see this this this and this by virtue of criteria #1 thank you
Delete Fails WP:NAUTHOR. Also, if you read WP:NBOOK #1 actually has a footnote stating that Amazon is not considered a reliable bestseller list and #2.1.1 it states that being registered in a national library is an exclusionary standard (so if you aren't registered you are de facto) and not inclusionary (being registered makes the subject automatically notable). Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:49, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GPL93 Please find the author in the British Library catalogue HERE--Olatunde Brain (talk) 21:13, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brain7days I know and as I said #2.1.1 clearly states that being included in a national library does not' guarantee notability/ Rather, it states that books that are not registered are not notable with a few rare exceptions, which is why it is an exclusionary standard. GPL93 (talk) 22:15, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GPL93 then your vote is incongruity with your comment, if you say 'being registered makes the subject automatically notable' then your vote shouldn't be Delete. If you agree that the subject is exclusionary then you agree that it is impossible for a non-notable book to be listed in a notable library as listed in #2.1.1 and Resources even though the criteria says meeting these threshold standards does not imply that a book is notable, it also goes on to say whereas a book which does not meet them, most likely is not (notable). Therefor only notable books can be found in notable libraries. See exclusionary for what i mean.--Olatunde Brain (talk) 00:11, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brain7days Nope. Exclusionary in this case means that books that aren't included in national libraries are almost always not notable and therefore are to be excluded from being considered notable, setting up an automatic disqualifier. So the argument that it is included in a national library is simply establishing that it meets a bare minimum standard for notability to be possible, not that it is actually notable. On Wikipedia, standards that make subjects notable in spite of lack of coverage are referred to as inclusionary standards, (IE x meets Y standard and therefore is to be included). GPL93 (talk) 01:13, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GPL93 Please most likely was the word used not almost always when you say almost always then you are saying it is normally,commonly, mainly, habitually always happen to be non-notable. But instead most likely was used which means most presumably,probably,expectedly happen to be non-notable, so it is a probability hence Necessity and sufficiency The assertion that a statement is a "necessary and sufficient" condition of another means that the former statement is true if and only if the latter is true.That is, the two statements must be either simultaneously true, or simultaneously false, which means that 'If non-notable books are registered in notable library, then notable books are registered in non-notable libraries also', then the question is; 'is the notable book at the non-notable library worthy of notability? if yes, 'then the non-notable book in a notable library is worthy of notability too'. You know why? because the caliber of readers and researchers or audience the notable library will attract to it will propel it notability same goes to that of a notable book in a non-notable library, However this is not 'almost always' it is 'most likely' because it's not always true. That is why it is a threshold for consideration, not an automatic disqualifier as you stated except otherwise you want to point that to me from the criteria.--Olatunde Brain (talk) 03:00, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I should not have been as blunt in my terms when it came to wording But the point was that being registered in a national library does not ensure notability for a book. Either way we are straying from the matter at hand. My delete vote stands as there is not enough in terms of independent reliable coverage about the subject to pass GNG, nor does the subject pass NAUTHOR. Best, GPL93 (talk) 03:32, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GPL93 it's funny how everyone keeps going back and forth, your above comment is an invalid form of argument, please fact-check GNG in the article's references as i have cited in discussions before now, i didn't just create this article, it is because there are many articles on the mainspace that are similar to this. some of them don't even have enough sources and was listed as stubs. --Olatunde Brain (talk) 03:49, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR due to lacking WP:SIGCOV in independent third-party sources.. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:48, 29 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) 22:10, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Silver Creek, Alpine County, California[edit]

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

The only source for this is a gazetteer, and this website tends to imply that it may be a mistake for Silver Mountain, California; at any rate I can't find any source for this, and it's not there on the topos at the coordinates given. Difficult to search due to the actual creek and the fact that there's more than one in the state. Mangoe (talk) 03:37, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 04:06, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 04:06, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – the sources I found ([27], [28]) seem to be referring to the same place as Silver Mountain City under a different name. No evidence that this is or was ever a community. GNIS identifies 3 locales called "Silver Creek" in Alpine county: 2 creeks and a campground. It appears that no town existed under this name, and that some sources referred to Silver Mountain City as Silver Creek due to its location on the creek of that name. CJK09 (talk) 06:02, 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 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. Black Kite (talk) 00:21, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Claudio Napoleoni[edit]

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

Claudio Napoleoni appears to be a run-of-the-mill bi-lingual voice-over artist. Google search indicates that he exists and uses on-line media, but there does not appear to be any third-party coverage. He is not the same person as https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claudio_Napoleoni (1924-1988). Drafts and articles on Napoleoni and on his company CN VoiceOvers have been created in article space and draft space by an editor who has been asked for conflict of interest information. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:52, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:52, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:52, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable dubber.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:02, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He has been discussed in third-party sources, in newspapers such as the Suburban (Quebec's largest English newspaper: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Suburban) and Le Métro (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%A9tro_(Montreal_newspaper)). Having been covered in several newspaper articles he struck me as clearly meeting notability criteria (see references). Furthermore, his work has earned several awards, as the article indicates.Nathanguss (talk) 11:40, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As the above editor notes, there is a fair amount of sourcing out there, which might meet WP:GNG (I haven't looked into it too closely), but I don't know how to judge the subject in terms of WP:NACTOR. In fact, maybe judging him against NACTOR is inappropriate, I'm not sure. Dflaw4 (talk) 11:07, 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 no consensus. Mojo Hand (talk) 23:23, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Davison (composer)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A previous article on this gentleman was deleted in 2016. The voters in that AfD found several minor mentions of the musician in various sources but very little significant coverage of his works. This new version of the article is based entirely on an unreliable promotional site, and the situation with reliable and independent sources has not improved since the first AfD. Despite a prolific career behind the scenes, he continues to appear only in typical industry listings and promotional sites. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:34, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, do not confuse with the actor of the same name. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:35, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:34, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:39, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Fails WP:N and doesn't include any sources with the exception of Ultravillage, which seems like a WP:USERGEN site. As stated by the site's about page, Nearly all the information on this site comes from primary sources such as interviews with artists or those who knew them, as well as label owners, music writers, and other music biz types, failing WP:SECONDARY. — Angryjoe1111 (talk) 09:09, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For me, this is a borderline keep. The large number of film and TV scores gets it over the line even though I admit it is low on significant coverage. @Angryjoe1111: This does not fail WP:SECONDARY because our (Wikipedia's) use of Ultravillage, (not a WP:USERGEN site) is one step removed from the primary sources. BTW, I was the one who accepted this article at AFC based on my comments above. As I said, it was borderline but I lean towards being WP:inclusionist so here we are. Jschnur (talk) 00:37, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:50, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - References and external links added to article, May 8, 2020. Pmusillier (talk) 03:50, 15 May 2020 (UTC)Paul Musillier[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 02:20, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nominator - If any admin sees this, it has been four weeks and I don't really see the need to keep this going. Other editors have added sources, and I personally don't think they help too much, but I already made my case. This AfD is clearly not going anywhere surprising. Chalk it up to "no consensus" and we can move on. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:35, 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. czar 02:29, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gunay Mehdizade[edit]

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

Notability is under question. Doesn't meet criterias of WP:BLP--Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) (talk) 14:06, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) (talk • contribs) 14:09, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in addition to sources in Azeri and Russian which I haven’t evaluated, I found the following in Turkish: 1. this article about her and 2. another in Hürriyet, a reliable national daily, 3. this from the official press agency of Turkey and 4. this from Anadolu Press Agency, all reliable sources. Mccapra (talk) 03:06, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:53, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:15, 12 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) 02:20, 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 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. bibliomaniac 1 5 02:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

B3SCI Records[edit]

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

Passing mentions only (oneline mention), making this non notable record label article a WP:COATRACK MistyGraceWhite (talk) 10:28, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:20, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:40, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:05, 12 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) 02:19, 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:52, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Toyota A platform[edit]

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

Procedural nomination on behalf of an IP user 182.30.133.131 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Was previously PRODded and contested by the creator of the article, and was accidentally PRODded again by the above IP address with the following rationale:

Contains references for DNGA, but NOT the "A platform" itself. Possibly original research. The corresponding Japanese Wikipedia article also has this issue.

I am completing this AfD nomination on behalf of the above IP address and have no opinion on the article. --MuZemike 19:48, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:55, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:55, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary). --Cewbot (talk) 00:04, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 00:39, 5 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) 06:26, 12 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) 02:08, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. The "A platform" is a made-up name and not mentioned anywhere in the web. 182.30.137.85 (talk) 04:19, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Toyota did not fully develop any of these vehicles, and the sources did not reflect the existence of the platform at all. Andra Febrian (talk) 13:36, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 10:53, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Girls Will Be[edit]

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

Does not seems to be notable and significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Fails WP:NCOMPANY. Sanyam.wikime (talk) 15:54, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Sanyam.wikime (talk) 15:54, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sanyam.wikime (talk) 15:54, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:13, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-05 ✍️ create

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:22, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it has been covered in national magazines (Parents, Good Housekeeping), on a national news channel (CNN), as well as other outlets. It seems to have extensive coverage to me. -- Zanimum (talk) 15:30, 12 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) 02:05, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a single one of the references in the article meet the criteria for establishing notability. For example, the references noted by Zanimum above are obviously based on the exact same information which must have been provided by the company or a connected source since they include the same paragraph structure and quotations. None of the references can be describted as significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content. Topic fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:44, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The CNN article is a paid placement. It fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND specifically. The "Parents" is an affiliate article, which means its advertising. scope_creep^Talk 10:25, 28 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) 22:07, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Taxerhof Lake[edit]

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

WP:OR, was deleted on de:WP [29], not visible on amap.at, google satellite, Tiris; not listed as protected area in the Tirol official documentation [30]. Herzi Pinki (talk) 08:20, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:50, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:50, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac 1 5 02:02, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails verification completely, and if the Germans can't find it either, that is pretty well damning. Mangoe (talk) 03:43, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Austrians, yes ;-) Also think it should be deleted, can be created again if evidence should surface at some point, but since the official sources do not know of this lake at all, that is very unlikely. Braveheart (talk) 10:10, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to National Alliance (United States). Plausible search term, I guess. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:08, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

National Vanguard (publication)[edit]

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

Doesn't seem independently notable from the founder, not enough RS that this is an important publication. Isingness (talk) 04:25, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:31, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:31, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:31, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac 1 5 01:55, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: one of the two sources in the article is a primary source, the other devotes a single sentence to this publication. Other reliable sources contain similar brief mentions (e.g. [31], [32]), but I haven't been able to find anything more substantial. If somebody wants to use these or similar sources to add a sentence or two to National Alliance (United States) this could redirect there, but the sources don't exactly indicate that such an addition is vitally necessary. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:30, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Meatsgains^(talk) 23:10, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paulie Litt[edit]

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

Non-notable actor lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains^(talk) 01:32, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:11, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:11, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:11, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:11, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:11, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep roles in numerous films & television programs, which themselves are RS.Djflem (talk) 08:51, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep multiple roles in several noteworthy shows and films. An award nomination and article includes multiple reliable sources RedPatchBoys (talk) 16:27, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the above keepers. I found more coverage in Proquest. Added one of those sources. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 19:41, 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. czar 02:28, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pandikona[edit]

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

Fails GNG. Article has no sources whatsoever, a search of both online databases and my own resources revealed nothing at all, a Google search revealed nothing attributable. Cavalryman (talk) 01:25, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:28, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is based on one no-author-given and no-reference-provided website (breeder). Google Books and Google Scholar return nothing. There is no description given for this dog, yet the article implies that every dog that looks similar to the one pictured can only be found among the villages of Pandikona district of India - dubious, refer to the Indian pariah dog which states "They have erect ears, a wedge-shaped head, and a curved tail." William Harristalk 08:28, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only reference, Pandikona's Website, doesn't even contain most of the info found on Wikipedia. Based on the pictures there, this "breed" can consist of all manner of colours and sizes. Wikipedia states the rarest colour is "brindle" (?), but the website says that there is only one black-coloured dog... doesn't jive/not logical. The site also states the dogs can only be purchased in the village, so all this advertisement about how great pets they make is almost pointless. Basically this is questionable info about an undefined "breed" recognised by no one except a single website.Leo Breman (talk) 17:18, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:07, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bukola Adeeyo[edit]

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

Non notable actress who falls short of WP:NACTOR A before I conducted shows her mentioned in trivial gossipy scandals of “husband snatching” I could not find any in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources that are non trivial or gossipy so per WP:GNG she doesn’t qualify as notable. Furthermore she hasn’t taken any significant roles/lead roles in movies she has featured in.Celestina007 (talk) 01:24, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:24, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:24, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:24, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:24, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:05, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. She has not appeared in any notable films and has not won any notable awards. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 13:47, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: I'm in two minds about this article. The subject has 1.2 million followers on Instagram, so I think the second criterion of WP:NACTOR is made out. As for the sources, I agree with the nominator that the topics of many of the articles are frivolous and gossipy—but, the coverage is significant and it is in reliable sources. I'm really not sure what to think about this one, but would be inclined to say that the subject is notable. Dflaw4 (talk) 01:31, 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 keep. But rename to AGM-183A ARRW. Sandstein 07:41, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Super-Duper Missile[edit]

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

Most of this article is about what this article might be about, because it's not about an actual thing yet, because we don't know what that thing is. Normally, we start with a topic, and then write an article, not start with an article trying to find a topic. GMG ^talk 01:21, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Rename to AGM-183A ARRW After consideration of FOARP's !vote, I think it would also be appropriate to rename the article AGM-183A and then rewrite the lead appropriately, creating a section on the SDM comment and the theory that the two are the same. We have numerous, valid articles about rumored or hypothesized weapons systems whose exact names are not known or existence has not been verified (as per nom, "not ... an actual thing yet"), or which are known only by informal or colloquial names. See, for example: Blackstar, 2037 Bomber, Aurora, Jumpseat, etc. We also have articles about non-military subjects that are "not ... an actual thing yet" such as Technological singularity, Dyson sphere, etc. Since no valid, policy-based reason for deletion has been advanced, I can only observe — in my Keep !vote — that the article meets the WP:GNG based on a preponderance of WP:RS. I'd also note that the article has received nearly 14,000 page views in three days; this is obviously a subject about which readers are searching. Chetsford (talk) 03:00, 20 May 2020 (UTC); edited 16:00, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, if you need explicit citation of WP:ALPHABETSOUP, then we can go with WP:SUSTAINED for starters. All the information that is actually directly about the "subject" of the article is from the last week. We've just packed in a lot of sources not directly about the subject, but instead about other subjects that are rumored to be whatever it is this is referring to. So we could probably also go with WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOTNEWS.

By one of the few sources actually about the neologism that is the subject of the article, the Pentagon will confirm only that they are developing a range of hypersonic missiles, not any individual missel officially or unofficial dubbed the "super duper".

Just because Donald Trump said something that got covered in the news for the next six days doesn't mean the neologism is notable. GMG ^talk 13:01, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"All the information that is actually directly about the "subject" of the article is from the last week. " Yes ... the subject first appeared in the news in the last week. That's like saying there was no coverage of Covid-19 prior to November 2019.

"By one of the few sources that is actually directly about the ..." Actually, there are nine (9) sources directly about the subject of the article [33]. [34], [35]. [36], [37], [38], [39], etc. And I could add another dozen, if you like.

"the neologism" I'm not sure you understand our policy on WP:NEO. This is not an article about a neologism. This is an article about a purported boost-glide vehicle with an unknown name. The simple, technical fact is articles in namespace must have some name, we can't enter blank spaces. Renaming the article "Purported Boost Glide Vehicle with an Unknown Name" would be fine with me, though. I doubt anyone is going to search for it like that but I guess the redirect would handle it. Chetsford (talk) 14:07, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to AGM-183A ARRW, which is a notable subject per the following articles: https://www.airforcemag.com/arrw-beat-hcsw-because-its-smaller-better-for-usaf/ https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a32096936/b-1-bomber-hypersonic-missiles/ https://defence-blog.com/news/u-s-military-releases-first-images-of-agm-183a-hypersonic-missile.html presently this redirects to this page FOARP (talk) 13:20, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In principle, I agree with this in the future and believe this is where the article is and should be headed. However, at the present time there has only been speculation the SDM is one and the same as the AGM-183A. Though, it's probably not a bad idea to rename the article AGM-183A and then create a section on the AGM-183A reportedly being the SDM, rather than having the article on the SDM with a section on it reportedly being the AGM-183A. Preserving the SDM as a redirect to AGM-183A would handle traffic from users searching that term. Chetsford (talk) 13:59, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If what we have right now is content on the AGM-138A as a thing that actually exists, and speculation that the "super-duper" is the AGM-138A, then we should have an article on the AGM-138A, and we should redirect super duper there.

Other than that, the notion that SUSTAINED doesn't matter because it's breaking news is completely countered by NOTNEWS. If we haven't met SUSTAINED yet, then we can have an article when we do. Most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia, because Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability, and we we do not generally host articles on topics with the presumption that they will one day be notable. We do not, for example, have an article on Obamagate, because it's "something Trump said once", on the presumption that someone will eventually figure out what it actually means. GMG ^talk 14:35, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"the notion that SUSTAINED doesn't matter because it's breaking news" I'm unaware of anyone making that argument. SUSTAINED and NOTNEWS always matter. And per, NOTNEWS, the mere fact that something is current is not a proscription on inclusion: "Editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events." You can read expanded thoughts on this policy in the essay Wikipedia:News coverage does not decrease notability if this is a topic of interest to you. Chetsford (talk) 15:48, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a "current event". This is a weapons platform that may or may not exist, and if it does exist, you don't know what it is, which is why you've written an article about what it might be. It's not even clear that Trump is entirely aware of what exactly it was that he was referring to. It is a neologism because the origin of the term is a soundbite: "I call it the 'super-duper missile" and no one is using the term in any way other than to try to explain what it was Trump meant when he said that. It does not appear to at all be a term used in it's own right. Just because everything Trump does makes the news cycle doesn't make it notable. GMG ^talk 17:22, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While I respect the confidence of citing your own essay as a reason for deletion, I think - as I previously said - you may be misunderstanding our policies, specifically as regards WP:NEO. This is not an article about a neologism. This is an article about a purported vehicle with an unknown name that has crested the WP:GNG and been analytically covered; meaning beyond the mere routine of spots news reporting (e.g. [40], [41], etc.). Unfortunately, the technical limitations of Wikipedia mean we must assign some name to articles; we can't simply enter blank spaces. Renaming the article "Purported Boost Glide Vehicle with an Unknown Name" seems like a cumbersome solution, but I'd be fine with that I guess if this is what you seem to be arguing. Chetsford (talk) 17:36, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understand policy. I've helped write some of it. I don't think you understand reification. If you have a word and you don't know what that word means, and you write about that word in an absence of definite meaning, then you are merely writing about "a word", and thus are writing about a neologism. The "this word must stand for something surely" is exactly the same argument being put forth popularly by proponents of Obamagate. If you don't know enough about what it is that you're writing about that you can't write about it in any detail other than what you don't know then it isn't notable. GMG ^talk 18:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understand policy. I've helped write some of it. I congratulate you, however, the way you're trying to apply WP:NEO indicates you may not understand this specific policy. NEO relates to articles about neologisms. This is not an article about a neologism. This is an article about a purported vehicle with no known name. The technical limitations of Wikipedia mean we must assign some name to articles; we can't simply enter blank spaces. Chetsford (talk) 20:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let's do this a different way:

Global Security Not a reliable source, and doesn't mention the "subject" of the article and should be removed.
Free Beacon Doesn't mention the "subject" at all and should be removed.
whatever this is. The link is broken. From a local newspaper anyway, and is from 2011. So presumably doesn't mention the "subject" of the article.
National Defense Magazine Doesn't mention the "subject" at all and should be removed.
NYT Doesn't mention the "subject" of the article at all and should be removed.
BI Uses the term in scare quotes. Specifically says It is unclear what specific weapon the president may have been referring to in his comments
The Hill Also uses the term in scare quotes and quote the Pentagon as saying they're developing a "range of hypersonic missiles"
The Hill Also uses scare quotes, and is mostly about hypersonic weapons, which may legitimately be a subject for an article.
Tass which is a Russian news agency, and of unknown reliability. Also uses scare quotes and doesn't give a real indication of what we're talking about.
BulgarianMilitary.com? I'm not even going there.
A twitter post? Not going there either. Any experienced editor should know better than this.
China Times, in Chinese. So let me know who it is that can read and evaluate that.
Popular Mechanics which doesn't mention the "subject" of the article
Times of Israel, passing mention in scare quotes. No indication what they're actually talking about.

So yeah. There's really nothing that treats "super duper" as something other than something Trump said one day. Fully half the sources don't even mention the subject, and should be removed as WP:OR on the part of Wikipedia editors. The rest are speculation about what we might be talking about. If you want to write an article on Hypersonic Missiles, then go for it. It's currently a redirect. But "something Trump said one day" does not endow notability unless you actually have sources that treat that as a thing in-and-of-itself in detail. GMG ^talk 18:51, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let's do this a different way: I mean, if you want to take a run at this from a different angle that's fine, I suppose. But adding walls to existing walls of text makes this increasingly difficult to follow.

Global Security Not a reliable source Agreed. Deleted.
Free Beacon Doesn't mention the "subject" WP articles frequently include background sections for context and those require referencing. None of the sources in the first two paragraphs of Herman Vandenburg Ames mention the subject of the article. Not a policy-based deletion argument. In any case, this just seems to be a validation of the Rename !vote to AGM-183.
National Defense Magazine Doesn't mention the "subject" WP articles frequently include background sections for context and those require referencing. None of the sources in the first two paragraphs of Herman Vandenburg Ames mention the subject of the article. Not a policy-based deletion argument. In any case, this just seems to be a validation of the Rename !vote to AGM-183.
NYT Doesn't mention the "subject" WP articles frequently include background sections for context and those require referencing. None of the sources in the first two paragraphs of Herman Vandenburg Ames mention the subject of the article. Not a policy-based deletion argument. In any case, this just seems to be a validation of the Rename !vote to AGM-183.
BI Uses the term in scare quotes. No, just quotes. And not a policy-based deletion argument.
The Hill Also uses the term in scare quotes No, just quotes. And not a policy-based deletion argument.
The Hill Also uses scare quotes No, just quotes. And not a policy-based deletion argument.
Tass which is a Russian news agency State media is generally usable to cite unremarkable quotes attributed to state officials of the sponsor state, which is how it's used. We have generally approach it in the same was as a press release; it does not contribute to notability but it has (very) limited citability "as sources of information about themselves".
A twitter post? Not going there either. Any experienced editor should know better than this. Any experienced editor should know that per WP:SELFSOURCE "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves" (how it is used) and "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert" (such as Nick Schifrin)
China Times, in Chinese. So let me know who it is that can read and evaluate that. Me. I can.

Here's some more original (i.e. non-syndicated) RS from inside and outside the article: [42], [43], [44]. If you can do these, I'll post another batch after, but will limit posting them to groups of three for ease of readability.

But "something Trump said one day" does not endow notability You keep saying that. Who exactly are you quoting? Chetsford (talk) 20:23, 20 May 2020 (UTC); edited 20:37, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources that mention the subject not at all, or mention it in passing, do not contribute to notability. Sources that are mentioning the subject in scare quotes are using it "as a term" and not "as a subject", and none of those explore the term as a term in any depth. They explore what the term might mean, not as a source in the case of The pot calling the kettle black which explore the term as a term in depth. As to your sources:

President Donald Trump calls them “super-duper" missiles though they’re better known as hypersonic weapons. Scare quotes, as a term for hypersonic weapons. Good for notabiltiy about hypersonic weapons, not for sooper dooper.

“I call it the super duper missile." Scare quotes, almost entirely about hypersonic weapons. Good for notabiltiy about hypersonic weapons, not for sooper dooper.

This is a garbage source. No I will not evaluate something that consists of barely three sentences and social media quotes. You are an administrator and you should not waste my time like this.

GMG ^talk 23:25, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources that mention the subject not at all, or mention it in passing, do not contribute to notability. Correct! Fortunately, that's not the case with these (or, indeed, most of the sources in the article). Each of these is an article dedicated to the subject and that alone, or in which coverage of the subject constitutes at least 40-percent of the text of the article.

Scare quotes Respectfully, I think you're using "scare quotes" as a synonym for quotations rather fast and loosely. And you still haven't addressed how the presence or absence of certain punctuation marks constitutes a policy based argument for deletion.

You are an administrator and you should not waste my time like this. If you find this discussion a waste of your time I apologize. The only advice I could offer is that Wikipedia is not compulsory and one is free to engage in, or avoid, discussions at one's leisure. Chetsford (talk) 00:25, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By quotes I am invoking the English language grammatical use of quotes, meaning they are using the term ironically, or they are using words as words. If you look up sources for Hammer, you will not find people referring to it as "hammer", because they're referring to hammers, and not the word "hammer". By wasting my time, I mean that I am happy to evaluate sources, and happy to be proven wrong by them, but if you want to engage in serious discussion, I expect that you will at least do a cursory evaluation of the sources as an experienced contributor, to determine whether or not they are completely garbage. GMG ^talk 00:43, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

they are completely garbage I wish you the very best and look forward to future opportunities for collaboration on a different topic. Chetsford (talk) 03:54, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as above. This seems to be a more stable name until there is greater evidence for an alternative. StudiesWorld (talk) 15:51, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Rename we don't use colloquialisms for any other military technology and for good reason. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:57, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rename With the suggested rewriting, --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:47, 25 May 2020 (UTC)--Lineagegeek (talk) 21:47, 25 May 2020 (UTC)--Lineagegeek (talk) 21:47, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and do not rename per WP:COMMON NAME. For better or worse, but this monster is now commonly known as "super-duper": [45] versus [46]. My very best wishes (talk) 00:45, 28 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 Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs#Ministers. czar 02:27, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of German labour ministers[edit]

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

The contents of this list are already in Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs. Most of the other departments have their lists in the main article - this is an outlier. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 00:13, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 00:13, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 00:13, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 00:13, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Merge. Don't see any reason to delete. john k (talk) 00:20, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with a redirect. I don't see any content to merge. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 01:18, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs. All information here is present on that page, so there is nothing to merge. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:07, 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 Selective merge to Institute for Creation Research. There is clear consensus against a standalone article. I will redirect the title; any merge-worthy content can be retrieved from the history. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RATE project[edit]

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

This probably can be redirected to the Institute for Creation Research as a failed research project that was neither peer-reviewed nor really has had any impact beyond the parochial world of Christians who worry that their interpretations of the bible might be contradicted by science. Brief mention of this can be had in other articles, but as stand-alone, this is essentially WP:SOAP for this eye-rollingly ludicrous project. jps (talk) 00:11, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 00:11, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and move whatever is notable, as nominated. GPinkerton (talk) 00:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTABILITY applies to the subjects of articles, not to bits of their content. Johnbod (talk) 16:19, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sourcing seems easily to meet WP:GNG with various critical papers, even though most or all are from other Creationist perspectives. POV is very evident in the nom, which is not helpful. This should be proposed as a merge rather than a delete, but that doesn't seem necessary to me. I don't believe WP:SOAP applies at all - which heading is meant? This has been around for some years, & is well-referenced for the area. Johnbod (talk) 16:19, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, what "critical papers" are you referring to? All of these are essentially vanity publications to creationists who are pretending to publish under peer review but instead are just go through the cargo cult science motions. There are research programs that are better funded, more successful, with dozens of actual peer reviewed papers, and legitimately housed at institutions of higher learning that we do not have Wikipedia articles on because they are not notable. How is this nonsense notable? jps (talk) 21:58, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Institute for Creation Research, this was a non-notable research project funded not by scientists but by pseudoscientists, and which is sourced mostly to other pseudoscientific creationists pretending to be legitimate, who are not reliable sources by their very nature. What coverage is left is clearly not enough to establish notability. Article is also written terribly and with no regard for WP:UNDUE. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:40, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tricky. This obvious fraud has received very little discussion in the reality-based literature, but very little is not none. In the end I think this is probably best smerged to the ICR article, but if it remains as standalone it needs to be purged of self-references and unreliable sources. Guy (help!) 08:45, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to Institute for Creation Research. I've been trying to think of the best course of action here for a while, and I think Guy is on the mark. XOR'easter (talk) 13:54, 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.