< 21 May	23 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 delete, borderline WP:SNOW. There is no reasonable chance of a different outcome at this point. BD2412 T 22:49, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

George Gaulrapp[edit]

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

WP:BLP of an local politician who ran for notable office. As always, unelected candidates for political office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates: they must either (a) already have had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten them into Wikipedia independently of the candidacy (i.e. the Cynthia Nixon test), or (b) be referenceable to a volume and depth and range of media coverage that marks his candidacy out as much more special than everybody else's candidacies, in some way that would pass the ten year test for enduring significance (the Christine O'Donnell test). I do not believe that his tenure as the Mayor of Freeport, Illinois with a population under 100,000 residents has distinguished him in such a way to meet notability. Credit to Bearcat for this template language. --Mpen320 (talk) 23:52, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:56, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:56, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 11:54, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsuccessful candidates for U.S. Congress do not pass WP:NPOL. There is nothing that suggests coverage of the subject's tenure as Mayor of Freeport that would pass WP:GNG. --Enos733 (talk) 16:32, 23 May 2020 (UTC)--Enos733 (talk) 16:32, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Freeport IL (pop. 25K) is not large enough to hand an automatic presumption of notability to its mayors in the absence of a properly demonstrated pass of WP:NPOL #2, and non-winning candidates for more notable offices do not get articles just for being candidates — to warrant an article on either of those grounds per se, it would have to be genuinely substantive and well-sourced enough to demonstrate that he could be considered a special case of significantly greater notability than the norm for those levels of significance, but that's not what this article is showing. Bearcat (talk) 15:41, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsuccessful candidates for the US House of Representatives are not notable for that, and there is nothing else about this indivudal that adds up to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:24, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete these always get a lot less AfD opposition after the campaign's over. SportingFlyer T·C 07:17, 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 per WP:CSD#G5. The article was created by a user (Viliamhogos) in violation of a block, and there were no substantial edits from other users. Mz7 (talk) 07:09, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sahar Mohammadi[edit]

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

Fails WP:SINGER and WP:SIGCOV. Some minor coverage, but as part of group. No standalone notability. scope_creep^Talk 23:46, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:58, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:58, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:07, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hello and don't be tired, I consider it necessary to give you an explanation as the author of this article .

Due to the restrictions in my country, Iran, women are not allowed to sing and are very limited
That's why there aren't many links for Bananas, and it's very difficult to show their popularity, and I've translated this article from the Persian version of their article.

Note: French Iranians
Note: Persian correlation
Note: Young Internet Magazine
Note: Online news
Note: Journalism is not a crime - our music

Thank you all dear ones.Viliamhogos (talk) 08:27, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The subject got some coverage for her music as well as some controversy over unveiling of her veil in her country/touring country. As explained by creator of the article, it is a challenge for the females to do music in these countries. - Ivan hersee (talk) 10:34, 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. Fenix down (talk) 21:36, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andriyas Francisco[edit]

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. Recreated after PROD by most likely a ~~sock~~ reincarnation of original creator. External link point to different footballer, while there's nothing of note for the subject to be found. BlameRuiner (talk) 23:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:11, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:11, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:12, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:12, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 00:42, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, GNG fail. Java Hurricane 06:42, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The (as of now) lone reference failed verification JW 1961 Talk 12:40, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 16:01, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer. Despite some of the rhetoric we do actually delete some articles on people who are such, although I still think are football notablity guideline comes to close to making us a comprehensive directory.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:32, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 21:46, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Flori4nKT A L K 13:44, 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 keep. The nominator was blocked as a sockpuppet. MER-C 17:07, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Fish Statue, Epe[edit]

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

Statue of a fish in Lagos. Newspapers covered its unveiling, as they always do. NOTNEWS. Fails LASTING. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 22:17, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep. We have many other articles on civic statues; they are perfectly reasonable article subjects if notability can be demonstrated. This is the subject of numerous stories in WP:RS, and therefore notable by WP:GNG. The fact that it was commissioned by the local government, and personally unveiled by the regional governor, is a bonus, but not strictly necessary. See coverage in regional TV news report here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVNuqmtZ0tY for some background on this. -- The Anome (talk) 10:05, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources in the article include "An Assessment of The Impact of Recent Sculptural Installations in Public Spaces in Lagos State Nigeria", a journal article in the NTA College Journal of Communication. You can download the PDF. On page 213, there's a full page analysis of this statue. Added to the other news reports, it's clear that this subject is notable. — Toughpigs (talk) 19:37, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Nomination reads like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I see clear failure of WP:BEFORE. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 10:45, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per sources. Per WP:GNG. BabbaQ (talk) 13:20, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:24, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - no lack of sources, as above; yet another nomination made without appropriate WP:BEfORE. Ingratis (talk) 14:02, 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 merge to Monroeville Mall#2015 incident. czar 22:11, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Monroeville Mall shooting[edit]

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

How has this page not been deleted already? Three injuries and no deaths, not even that of the gunman. In a country with a mass shooting epidemic like the United States, this kind of event is just another Tuesday. I'm not seeing anything in the article that would indicate its notability. The fact that the article has only been sporadically updated since its creation in 2015 tells me no one could find anything that would help this event stick out as an article. WP:NOTNEWS. Love of Corey (talk) 21:43, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:15, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:15, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:15, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:15, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to section in Monroeville Mall article. This really doesn’t need its own article. Dough4872 01:05, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Monroeville Mall. An important event in the history of the mall, but not deserving its own page. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 02:14, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There's already a section on the Monroeville Mall article on the shooting. Any remaining new info on the shooting article can be moved there. Love of Corey (talk) 04:12, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into section in Monroeville Mall. Merge the information in this article to that section. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 11:45, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into section in Monroeville Mall. Fails WP:GNG as a standalone page. My very best wishes (talk) 17:35, 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 merge to Westgate Entertainment District. czar 22:12, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Westgate Entertainment District shooting[edit]

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

This article was created way too quickly and is a prime example of WP:NOTNEWS in action. First off, a mass shooting with such low casualty numbers (only three injuries and no deaths) is absolutely non-notable, especially in a country with a mass shooting epidemic like the United States. Second off, the article's only claim to notability (the shooter apparently being an incel) doesn't hold a lot of weight in this instance, considering only a prosecutor has said it and other people have yet to corroborate it.

The incel article already has this as an entry in its list, and it's already enough to share everything that is known about the case. I doubt there will be any eye-opening revelations about the case that would warrant this article staying. Love of Corey (talk) 21:33, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unfortunately, the subject fails WP:MILL and WP:NOTNEWS as they are usual, non-significant events that happen usually. This simply like any other shooting. Koridas (...Puerto Rico for statehood!) 21:38, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:16, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:16, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:16, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, but merge into the Westgate Entertainment District page as it currently lacks information about the shooting. Epluribusunumyall (talk) 09:21, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Epluribusunumyall as this is more important to the mall itself rather than the entire world YatesTucker00090 (talk) 18:35, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Westgate Entertainment District. Autarch (talk) 09:46, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, why even create an article on this in the first place, then? Love of Corey (talk) 21:09, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In retrospect, I should have added a section to the Westgate Entertainment District on the history of the place and add a subsection for the attack. I suppose I wasn't sure if the attack would become more significant due to additional charges, like the 2020 Toronto machete attack was due to the additional terrorism charges and links to the incel attacks. Anyway, I agree in retrospect that it was hasty of me to create a separate article. Autarch (talk) 20:08, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Westgate Entertainment District. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 12:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge per above. An insignificant incident per se. My very best wishes (talk) 17:31, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Westgate Entertainment District, per Autarch 79.67.65.82 (talk) 18:36, 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 merge to South Hedland, Western Australia. czar 22:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

South Hedland stabbing attack[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS applies. No one died in this incident besides the attacker, and moreover, there is no terroristic ideology that drove the incident, judging by what the article has to say. There is absolutely nothing here to suggest this is not simply a run-of-the-mill act of violence. Love of Corey (talk) 21:16, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like WP:NOTNEWS to me. Doctorhawkes (talk) 23:23, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect to South Hedland, Western Australia. Notable for the town. The-Pope (talk) 08:52, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to South Hedland, Western Australia - notable enough for the town. Deus et lex (talk) 09:47, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to South Hedland, Western Australia. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 11:48, 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. czar 22:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Heydt[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

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

For several years this article has been refbombed into glass, cleaned up, turned into spam again and cleaned up again, however at no point has adequate coverage been found. This seems to be a small time local artist who has never had their work displayed in a permanent exhibition (at a notable museum or show) and doesn't otherwise have the coverage required for artists on Wikipedia. Praxidicae (talk) 21:15, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:19, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:19, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:20, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:20, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:20, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an independent search does not find WP:SIGCOV. Checking her web site, she has "Kusama Hirschorn Museum" on her list of exhibitions. Several recent exhibitions were at the CICA Museum, which is a paid exhibition. Very fishy. GNG fail.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:32, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:GNG fail. Java Hurricane 06:45, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, her work is very well known here in Europe and I saw on her instagram that she had a solo show in a Chelsea earlier this year at Saci, which is a well known gallery. If you google it a lot comes up:

https://saci-florence.edu/side-effects-sam-heydt

https://www.galleriesnow.net/shows/sam-heydt-side-effects/

https://www.artsy.net/artist/sam-heydt

https://www.artguide.pro/event/side-effects/

https://www.artforum.com/artguide/saci-gallery-19756/side-effects-178930

× — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.95.5.73 (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - After a BEFORE search, I was unable to find anything that substantiates notability. Fails GNG and NARTIST. No SIGCOV in reliable sources, could only find social media, blogs, listings; no reviews nor evidence of notable collections. Netherzone (talk) 01:17, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: WP:N: Familiar with the artist and her work, as she is a big name in the art world. I have seen her work at Art Basel the last three years and have seen her work at the Hermitage Museum in Saint Petersburg. Wally1983 (talk) 15:29, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And I've seen my 3 year old nephew's work on the wall at his daycare, it's beautiful. That doesn't make it notable. Praxidicae (talk) 15:46, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wally1983 is a single-purpose account that has only edited Sam Heydt.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:25, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: She is absolutely a notable figure in the art world and meets WP:BIO criteria, article needs cleanup and to be de-stubbed to better establish her notability.213.229.25.38 (talk) 16:42, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, single purpose account #3.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:09, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Doesn’t satisfy and criterion from WP:ARTIST & generally lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. Celestina007 (talk) 17:01, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: WP:GNG · WP:SIGCOV are met:

long list of links
https://aestheticamagazine.com/interview-artist-sam-heydt-longlisted-aesthetica-art-prize/ https://www.residentadvisor.net/events/1337871 https://www.artrabbit.com/events/sam-heydt-apocalypse-yesterday https://www.kunstleben-berlin.de/event/sam-heydt-apocalypse-yesterday/ https://monolithvolume.com/sam-heydt-endless/ https://www.artguide.pro/event/side-effects/ http://wz.de/nrw/wuppertal/das-laeuft-in-wuppertals-galerien_aid-25522503 http://voyagemia.com/interview/meet-sam-heydt-miami-beach/ https://www.artsy.net/artist/sam-heydt https://artefuse.com/2012/12/22/sam-heydt-interivew-arte-fuse-contemporary-art/ https://yogurtmagazine.com/portfolio/apocalypse-yesterday-sam-heydt/ http://books.google.com/books?id=tX_kCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA232&lpg=PA232&dq=samantha+heydt&source=bl&ots=NBX6GkXkj-&sig=ACfU3U14vb0XhbH0k6_mNViRaM9Z7WuZUw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiX3Yrs_8zpAhUklHIEHYxRBR4Q6AEwKHoECGoQAQ#v=onepage&q=samantha%20heydt&f=false https://www.imdb.com/name/nm6414355/ https://www.dividebyzero.art/samantha-heydt https://iucat.iu.edu/iusb/15715062 https://www.artslant.com/global/artists/show/310116-sam-heydt?tab=PROFILE https://info.loupeart.com/sam-heydt-artist https://saci-florence.edu/side-effects-sam-heydt https://pariscollagecollective.com/Sam-Heydt-1 https://www.printmag.com/design-education/parsons-take-over-nyc-for-its-first-art-and-design-festival/ https://milk.xyz/articles/892-milk-gallery-underground-comes-to-l-a/ https://www.gratis-in-berlin.de/kunst/item/2039464-sam-heydt-apocalypse-yesterday https://www.wuppertal.de/microsite/kulturbuero/projekte/kunst--und-museumsnacht/galerie-kunstkomplex.php https://www.kunstleben-berlin.de/event/sam-heydt-apocalypse-yesterday/ http://berlinartgrid.com/exhibitions/sam-heydt-apocalypse-yesterday https://www.artnews.com/art-news/market/2019-armory-week-art-fair-cheat-sheet-11955/ https://www.impact10.es/bios/s-t-u-v-w-y-z/samantha-heydt/ https://www.artlyst.com/whats-on-archive/london-group-open-2019/ http://www.findglocal.com/CA/Toronto/480226872483429/Art-Gate http://www.gabarron.org/NewYork/News/OpenCallTwoHemispheres/PressRelease/tabid/1391/Default.aspx https://aestheticamagazine.com/interview-artist-sam-heydt-longlisted-aesthetica-art-prize/ https://www.galleriesnow.net/shows/sam-heydt-side-effects/ https://www.art-almanac.com.au/sam-heydt-seismographs-series/ https://www.culture24.org.uk/art/art474443 http://www.mvartsandideas.com/2014/07/finding-consenses/ https://nowheremag.com/2014/12/somewhere-in-rajastan/ https://www.loosenart.com/products/sam-heydt-a-desirable-life

long list of links

https://aestheticamagazine.com/interview-artist-sam-heydt-longlisted-aesthetica-art-prize/

https://www.residentadvisor.net/events/1337871

https://www.artrabbit.com/events/sam-heydt-apocalypse-yesterday

https://www.kunstleben-berlin.de/event/sam-heydt-apocalypse-yesterday/

https://monolithvolume.com/sam-heydt-endless/

https://www.artguide.pro/event/side-effects/

http://wz.de/nrw/wuppertal/das-laeuft-in-wuppertals-galerien_aid-25522503

http://voyagemia.com/interview/meet-sam-heydt-miami-beach/

https://www.artsy.net/artist/sam-heydt

https://artefuse.com/2012/12/22/sam-heydt-interivew-arte-fuse-contemporary-art/

https://yogurtmagazine.com/portfolio/apocalypse-yesterday-sam-heydt/

http://books.google.com/books?id=tX_kCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA232&lpg=PA232&dq=samantha+heydt&source=bl&ots=NBX6GkXkj-&sig=ACfU3U14vb0XhbH0k6_mNViRaM9Z7WuZUw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiX3Yrs_8zpAhUklHIEHYxRBR4Q6AEwKHoECGoQAQ#v=onepage&q=samantha%20heydt&f=false

https://www.imdb.com/name/nm6414355/

https://www.dividebyzero.art/samantha-heydt

https://iucat.iu.edu/iusb/15715062

https://www.artslant.com/global/artists/show/310116-sam-heydt?tab=PROFILE

https://info.loupeart.com/sam-heydt-artist

https://saci-florence.edu/side-effects-sam-heydt

https://pariscollagecollective.com/Sam-Heydt-1

https://www.printmag.com/design-education/parsons-take-over-nyc-for-its-first-art-and-design-festival/

https://milk.xyz/articles/892-milk-gallery-underground-comes-to-l-a/

https://www.gratis-in-berlin.de/kunst/item/2039464-sam-heydt-apocalypse-yesterday

https://www.wuppertal.de/microsite/kulturbuero/projekte/kunst--und-museumsnacht/galerie-kunstkomplex.php

https://www.kunstleben-berlin.de/event/sam-heydt-apocalypse-yesterday/

http://berlinartgrid.com/exhibitions/sam-heydt-apocalypse-yesterday

https://www.artnews.com/art-news/market/2019-armory-week-art-fair-cheat-sheet-11955/

https://www.impact10.es/bios/s-t-u-v-w-y-z/samantha-heydt/

https://www.artlyst.com/whats-on-archive/london-group-open-2019/

http://www.findglocal.com/CA/Toronto/480226872483429/Art-Gate

http://www.gabarron.org/NewYork/News/OpenCallTwoHemispheres/PressRelease/tabid/1391/Default.aspx

https://aestheticamagazine.com/interview-artist-sam-heydt-longlisted-aesthetica-art-prize/

https://www.galleriesnow.net/shows/sam-heydt-side-effects/

https://www.art-almanac.com.au/sam-heydt-seismographs-series/

https://www.culture24.org.uk/art/art474443

http://www.mvartsandideas.com/2014/07/finding-consenses/

https://nowheremag.com/2014/12/somewhere-in-rajastan/

https://www.loosenart.com/products/sam-heydt-a-desirable-life

Artist goes by several names: Sam Heydt, Samantha Heydt, HEYDT, so information about her work is scattered. If you research her thoroughly she meets WP:WEB standards. Also Museums and galleries don’t always keep a backlog of previous exhibitions, which might explain why you won’t find coverage online from a show several years ago.17:30, 24 May 2020 (UTC)24.250.35.17 (talk)

Delete per nom and salt as well. --Stay safe, ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 19:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the exhibitions don't add up to NARTIST. While legit, I don't think that the Aesthetica Art Prize meets ANYBIO (it is worth noting that the Aesthetica page is flagged for PROMO.) I'm troubled that the only singnificant exhbitions claimed on her CV were unverifiable: Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden (in Kusama's solo show?!?!?!), the Hermitage, and Fondation Beyeler. Lastly, I note Broadway Gallery on the list, a notorious vanity gallery.Theredproject (talk) 00:29, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re the Hirschorn, I once saw an artist's CV with a "museums visited" section. I am wondering if that is what the Kusama entry what it is.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:41, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is a lack of turly substantive sources as called for by GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:05, 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. Sandstein 08:39, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gilded Lilys[edit]

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

Non-notable television pilot, lacks the significant coverage needed to meet long-term notability per WP:GNG. All sources are simply reworded ABC press releases, not independent of the subject, reporting verbatim casting news, attached crew, and the mere existence of this pilot's development – none provide significant coverage. Thousands of unaired broadcast network pilots exist, and this one is not unique enough to merit a standalone article. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:57, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only reason this was kept was because it seemed like a slam-dunk order to series between ABC and Shonda Rhimes, but it just never gelled and was eventually dropped; should have been deleted in June 2012 (and these days would have been deleted on-sight). Nate • (chatter) 21:10, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:21, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Yes, it got a spate of coverage at the time, but has there been any sustained coverage? My search turns up mentions and is basically a bullet point when running through Shonda Rhimes career, so that's a no for me. -- Whpq (talk) 18:14, 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. czar 22:20, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shropshire Youth Theatre[edit]

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

A non notable amateur youth theatre company. WP:BEFORE shows no significant coverage above and beyond WP:MILL Cardiffbear88 (talk) 19:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 19:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 19:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 19:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 19:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No coverage except per WP:MILL. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:22, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 16:21, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article is free of references and I cannot find anything in my own searches to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 18:20, 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. czar 22:24, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Primordial (company)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A article on company that seems to fail the WP:GNG and WP:NCORP, written by the company's founder. The company does not appear to have ever garnered much notability, and appears to be defunct at this point. The sources that can be found mentioning it are either brief, or run along the lines of press releases. It was brought to AFD once before, back in 2006, and resulted in no consensus. However, I think at this point, its safe to say that the company wound up gaining no notability. Rorshacma (talk) 19:34, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 19:34, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 19:34, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 19:34, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article links to brief start-up coverage, such as that in Minnesota Business, 2004. Such as sources as there are, such as "Development deal for Primordial", The Engineer, 2006 are clearly announcement-driven. The firm was taken over by Polaris Industries in 2013 [1], though this isn't mentioned on the Polaris Inc. page and has little more than bullet-points on their website ([2], [3]). Arguably a couple of sentences could be added to that page, but might be undue attention? I am not seeing the level of coverage for this former company to meet the current WP:NCORP standards. AllyD (talk) 06:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article reads like a promotional summary more than anything else, and the sourcing is poorly formatted.TH1980 (talk) 04:36, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, promotional perma-orphan with insufficient sources to meet WP:NCORP/WP:ORGIND. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:04, 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. czar 22:25, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amara Enyia[edit]

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

WP:BLP of an unsuccessful mayoral candidate. As always, unelected candidates for political office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates: they must either (a) already have had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten them into Wikipedia independently of the candidacy (i.e. the Cynthia Nixon test), or (b) be referenceable to a volume and depth and range of media coverage that marks his candidacy out as much more special than everybody else's candidacies, in some way that would pass the ten year test for enduring significance (the Christine O'Donnell test). I do not believe Enyia passes either test. I do not believe her local government career passes Wikipedia:Notability--Mpen320 (talk) 19:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:22, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:22, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:22, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:22, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable candidate for mayor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:23, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:23, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. People do not get articles just for being unelected candidates for office, but this article is literally just going for the "reference bomb it in every source you can find that even has her name in it at all, without regard to whether it supports anything substantively or enduringly noteworthy" approach to article-building: routine local campaign coverage, check. Neighbourhood hyperlocals, check. Blogs, check. Primary sources, check. Glancing namechecks of her existence in sources where she is not the subject, check. Unsubstantiated and unprosecuted allegations of unethical behaviour that wouldn't get her over WP:PERP in lieu of having to pass NPOL, check. Her own LinkedIn, check. University student media, check. This is not how you demonstrate that an unsuccessful candidate is significantly more special than other unelected candidates. Bearcat (talk) 22:52, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 11:57, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. SportingFlyer T·C 19:29, 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 keep. Sandstein 08:39, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Rossmann[edit]

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

A few valid sources and additional sources searched by Google do not provide an in-depth background info for this person. Furthermore, WP:DEL#7. Nightvour (talk) 19:15, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nightvour (talk) 19:15, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable Youtuber.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:47, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:13, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:13, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep I am the creator of this article. I would not have created this article if I feel it did not pass general notability guideline, which I truly and firmly believe that it does. Let me back up my statements. Louis Rossmann has received substantial secondary coverage in the following reliable sources. Vice Fox Business MS Power user CBC--which did an indepth review of Apple with Louis Rossmann, which delved in depth. 9to5mac Apple Insider The Guardian NBC News iPhone Canada 9to5mac. Boing Boing Washington Post Foreign Newspapers even. Louis Rossmann has definitely met the general notability guideline. In addition to the sources I cited above that mention him in depth, Louis Rossmann is also frequently mentioned in far more sources in passing, and is widely sought for input on matters pertaining to Apple and the repairability of their products. It's also established that once a subject is notable, they do not need to have consistent coverage to maintain said notability, per WP:NTEMP. Tutelary (talk) 02:21, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While there are sources related to this said person, these articles are just notable events for this person regarding right to repair movement. Also, the biographical article does not include verifiable sources nor its significance pertaining to the background of this said person. Nightvour (talk) 02:54, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nightvour, they are high quality reliable sources, and discuss the subject in depth. The subject very clearly meet the notability guideline. I acknowledge the article could be improved, but articles for deletion is not intended to be used for article cleanup. I also believe that stating such could mean that you didn't consider the before aspect of filing a deletion request, specifically C1: If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD. I also dispute your statement of Also, the biographical article does not include verifiable sources | Everything appears to be cited properly and easily verifiable, except for the WP:LEAD, which is not required to have citations, as it's just the summary of the article itself. Tutelary (talk) 03:26, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately most of the sources in the article contains social media sites, most notably YouTube. Since YouTube is not a credible source, the information could be disputed and be subject to deletion. This fails WP:V and WP:SURMOUNTABLE is not a policy, therefore it should not be treated as a rule. Pardon my English. Nightvour (talk) 04:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube is considered a WP:PRIMARY source, and it is easy to misuse, but that does not mean it cannot be used. I do not believe that utilizing Youtube to confirm a birthday of a subject is misuse, nor using a Vimeo link to confirm that they stream repairs on that platform. The article needs work, assistance researching and finding sources, not deletion, since the subject is very clearly notable. Tutelary (talk) 04:48, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And yet the article had 2 years to fix verified sources. Plenty of time to include sources then, however none of the sources have been produced nor verified during that time. Nightvour (talk) 06:50, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is not cleanup. The claim that Rossmann's own YouTube channel is not a credible source for himself is bizarre. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:37, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:RSPYT and WP:SELFPUB. If the YouTube sources (primary) are backed up with secondary and tertiary sources such as a book or an article detailing about his background life, then the article has no need to be deleted. Nightvour (talk) 22:32, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep only if the article can be given proper citations before the end of the month. Louis has done a fair bit of political work and probably deserves a page due to his activism alone, he's worked with major outlets such as Vice to both consult on right-to-repair issues and to provide footage, but without citations or further detailing on his activism this article might as well not exist. It's the only thing he'd deserve an article for, outside of that he's just a small YouTuber and the owner of a repair shop obscure outside of New York. 109.76.87.125 (talk) 09:28, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I know Louis Rossmann isn't going to be getting any Christmas cards from Apple Fanboys for calling a spade a spade, but he has certainly attracted enough attention to be in the news regularly, particularly in his fight against anti-Right-To-Repair lobbyists. I've expanded the article a bit. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:37, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Ritchie333, and Rossman has coverage in the maker community as well.→StaniStani 04:32, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, leaning keep for now. I don't think he quite meets the line for WP:ANYBIO#2 or similar criteria like WP:ENT#3 but there is a lot of coverage about him. While most of it seems to be trivial, there is some significant coverage in articles like 9to5mac (2016) cited above, and he has received coverage for events he is involved in. I'll keep looking, but I haven't found the WP:THREE sources that pushes me clear of the WP:BASIC line yet. Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:46, 30 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. SK1: Nom withdrawn and no other deletion arguments. czar 22:28, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

World Beyond War[edit]

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

The topic of this article does not meet the notability requirements for an organisation. Amid a number of primary sources, only refs 9-13 are relevant to notability. 9 is a petition signature, 10 is a blog in which the author of a book describes his own work, 11 is a passing mention, 12 is also a petition signature and 13 is also a passing mention. There is no sustained coverage of the organisation in reliable independent sources. Mccapra (talk) 18:54, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 18:54, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 18:54, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 18:54, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 17 ("World Beyond War campaign against troops at Shannon ‘blocked’ during Trump visit") is a primary source, times.co.uk, and mentions World Beyond War in the title of the article. ThinkerFeeler (talk) 20:15, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Several valid references have been added, and accurate information has been added to various sections. This is a page about a highly active and globally recognized nonprofit organization, funded by small donors, with a fully valid and accredited fiscal sponsor. World Beyond War has been growing every year since it was founded in 2014, and is recognized and appreciated by peace activists all over the world. The organization's page absolutely should not be deleted and I hope we can resolve this dispute quickly. Asheresque (talk) 10:30, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination. There’s still a lot that is wrong with this article and quite a bit that needs to be taken out but the sources added demonstrate that It passes WP:ORG. Mccapra (talk) 04:49, 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 withdrawn. (non-admin closure) SD0001 (talk) 17:34, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Terán[edit]

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

The man who shot Che Guevara. WP:BLP1E, despite the somewhat recent human interest story of Cuban doctors restoring his sight - that too is only a reflection of the event that made him known. And unlike other killers of famous people, there doesn't seem to be much written about him apart of the account of the killing - probably because he has good reasons to keep a low profile. Sandstein 18:53, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn per the improvements detailed below. Sandstein 08:50, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Terán has received significant coverage for two events - the killing of Guevara, and the later restoration of his eyesight by Cuban doctors. Terán clearly passes the GNG on both these events. There is sufficient information available to write a much more substantive article than this, which I will attempt to do in the next few days. Such content would be inappropriate WP:COATRACK content if instead added to Che Guevara. CJK09 (talk) 19:12, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – adding onto my previous rationale, I found a long, detailed interview of Terán in El Mundo, one of the most important newspapers in Spain. Additionally, see WP:WI1E and WP:BLP2E. There is a variety of coverage of Terán across more than one event, so BLP1E does not apply, and combined with the fact that the subject clearly passes the GNG, this article must be kept.
I've started the rewrite and it should be done within the next day. CJK09 (talk) 17:42, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have completely rewritten and significantly expanded the article. The article in its previous contained inaccuracies, unfounded speculation, and use of unreliable sources. In the rewrite I made sure to avoid those, especially due to the sensitive nature of this BLP. CJK09 (talk) 06:41, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CJK09, thanks for the rewrite. There's still not much substance to the biography, but at least we now know that he did receive some coverage beyond his role in the execution of Guevara. I'm withdrawing the nomination. Sandstein 08:49, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bolivia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:44, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:44, 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. Sandstein 08:21, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Adalbert of Bavaria (b. 1944)[edit]

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

There is no indication of notability. The article appears to be solely a genealogical entry about someone who is related to some other people. Furthermore, there is no indication that the subject self-identifies as a prince or that he is generally known as a prince. There is, in fact, no evidence that he is generally known at all. Surtsicna (talk) 18:30, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:15, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable member of a royal house that no longer has any power.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:22, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No credible claim of notability. There are only two references given, one written by the article subject and one written by his father. Wikipedia:Notability requires that sources be independent of the subject. DrKay (talk) 10:51, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no claim to notability made. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 01:09, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the reasons given by the editors above.Smeat75 (talk) 19:46, 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. Sandstein 08:21, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Theresa of Bavaria (b. 1931)[edit]

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

What I see in this article are lots of unsourced and potentially libelous claims about a living person. What I do not see is any indication of notability. She is a daughter of some people, who were children of some other people, and she married a guy, with whom she had children, who had children of their own, and whose children are now reproducing as well. All very mundane. The only sources cited here are genealogy websites (of very questionable reliability). Wikipedia is not a genealogy website. It is not the place to compile this kind of information. Furthermore, there is no indication that she calls herself a princess or that she pretends to any pseudo-royal status. This article needs to go. Surtsicna (talk) 18:25, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 16:19, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 16:19, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 16:19, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no claim to notability made, we are not a genealogy database. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 01:08, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only reliable sources I could find were a German newspaper report of her wedding and a later mention of her attendance at a festival in Wiesbaden, but frankly almost anyone could be mentioned twice in a local newspaper. This is insufficient to meet our notability requirements. She doesn't appear to be a public figure. DrKay (talk) 10:55, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a geneological database, least of all to keep tabs on members of royal houses that have been out of power for a century.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the reasons given by the editors above.Smeat75 (talk) 19:56, 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. Sandstein 08:40, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Joyce[edit]

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

WP:BLP of an unsuccessful mayoral candidate. As always, unelected candidates for political office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates: they must either (a) already have had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten them into Wikipedia independently of the candidacy (i.e. the Cynthia Nixon test), or (b) be referenceable to a volume and depth and range of media coverage that marks his candidacy out as much more special than everybody else's candidacies, in some way that would pass the ten year test for enduring significance (the Christine O'Donnell test). But neither of those are on offer here: there's no claim even being attempted that he was notable for other reasons before standing as a candidate, and there isn't much evidence that his candidacy itself was anything special: once you discount the primary sources (Twitter, Scribd, Chicago Board of Elections, the self-published websites of directly affiliated organizations, etc.) and the student media and the glancing namechecks of his existence in articles that aren't about him to any non-trivial degree, what's left isn't out of the norm compared what any mayoral candidate in any city could show. Bearcat (talk) 18:11, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:11, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:11, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with your assessment of the situation.--Mpen320 (talk) 18:58, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL as a failed candidate for the Mayor of Chicago. Does not appear to pass WP:GNG as an attorney. --Enos733 (talk) 19:09, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unelected candidates for mayor are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:38, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsuccessful candidate for Chicago mayor, thus fails WP:NPOL. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 20:14, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just going to comment, it is improper that I, the creator of this article, was not notified about this nomination. However, in light of Amara Enyia's nomination, I agree about discussing deletion of this article as well. SecretName101 (talk) 15:32, 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. Sandstein 08:40, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jamaal Bowman[edit]

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

Being a political candidate is not notable itself. Anyone can run for Congress, but that's not a sign of notability. He needs to win his race to become notable. Fails WP:NPOL as a current primary candidate and does not pass WP:GNG as Bowman is not notable outside of his campaign. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 17:33, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 17:34, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 17:34, 22 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 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:51, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in political party primaries — the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable political office, not just running for one. And, as always, candidates also do not get a free GNG-based exemption from NPOL just because they can show a small smattering of campaign coverage, because every candidate in every election everywhere can always show a smattering of campaign coverage. This article does not make or reliably source any credible claim that he had preexisting notability for other reasons independent of the candidacy, and is not showing the depth or range or volume of campaign coverage it would take to get his candidacy over the ten year test for enduring significance. Obviously no prejudice against recreation on or after November 3 if he wins the seat, since his notability claim will have changed from "candidate" to "officeholder", but nothing here is already grounds for a Wikipedia article to exist today. As usual, we are not a free advertising platform for aspiring future politicians to have campaign brochures. Bearcat (talk) 17:56, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination--Mpen320 (talk) 19:10, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete candidates for congress are almost always non-notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable political candidate, per WP:NPOL. If he wins the primary and general elections, then he can have an article. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 20:22, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not independently notable outside of his current primary campaign. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:28, 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 deleted and locked. (non-admin closure) — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 11:04, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Technical 0812[edit]

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

A company that does not come close to meeting WP:NCORP. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A7 or G11 as the article is currently tagged. Otherwise, still delete as a clear fail of NCORP. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:10, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - User:Drmies, User:Barkeep49 - It looks as if the two of you edit-conflicted trying to get rid of this. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:12, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Great minds... Drmies (talk) 20:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet corporate notability. I have a template for this for drafts, but this is not a draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:12, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A new article describing a subsidiary of OneYear Technologies, which itself has no article. Being one of many partners of an online safety initiative is not inherently notable and I am seeing no evidence of attained notability. AllyD (talk) 06:40, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:41, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kash Jackson[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:BLP of an unsuccessful third-party candidate for political office. As always, the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable office, not just running for one: to get in the door, a candidate needs to either (a) already have preexisting notability for other reasons besides the candidacy, or (b) be referenceable to an unusual depth and volume and range of coverage that would make his candidacy much more special than other people's candidacies. But neither of those things are in evidence here at all. I've already had to strip one reference from the article as an invalid WP:CIRCULAR citation to ourselves -- and of the 26 footnotes remaining, ten are unreliable primary sources (his own campaign website, WordPress blogs, YouTube videos, etc.) that are not support for notability at all, seven are glancing namechecks of his existence in articles that are not about him to any non-trivial degree, one is a Q&A interview in which he's talking about himself in the first person, and two are covering him solely in the context of a criminal allegation that isn't notable enough to get him past WP:PERP in lieu of failing NPOL. And while six sources remain that are actually about his candidacy, they're all pretty routine sources of the "man declares candidacy" and "party selects candidate" variety -- so they don't represent enough coverage to make his candidacy a special case. Bearcat (talk) 17:34, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:34, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:34, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. His candidacy nor his activism warrant an article.--Mpen320 (talk) 19:05, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable politician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The first AfD appears to have been kept incorrectly - the close itself was fine, but the participation was low. Fails WP:GNG per Bearcat. SportingFlyer T·C 07:24, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only non-routine coverage he received is about the criminal allegations and that isn't enough to put him over the WP:GNG Threshold. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:08, 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 speedy delete. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:02, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel Finch[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to be a notable actor as per WP:NACTOR. No reliable source available except IMDb ~Amkgp ✉ 17:31, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ~Amkgp ✉ 17:31, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actor. He is all of 12 we need better sources to justify an article on someone who is a minor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:28, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:41, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Stowe[edit]

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

It's been a mess for 10 years. Time to put it out of its misery. Fuddle (talk) 17:16, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (talk page) (Contribs) Remember to notify me after replying off my talk page. 17:38, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (talk page) (Contribs) Remember to notify me after replying off my talk page. 17:38, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (talk page) (Contribs) Remember to notify me after replying off my talk page. 17:38, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete some coverage as a ’21st Century Snake Oil’ Salesman but there's only a few such articles -> he is only really anywhere near notable for one event, an appearance on 60 minutes (that is not even mentioned in the article). The article is further a complete puff peace, nothing to establish any sort of basic notability. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:19, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable individual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:43, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- for a short while. Give the matter probation. Those who contributed should be summoned to fix it. The lack of proper documentation is indeed problematic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dogru144 (talk • contribs)

Delete Would require huge amount of work to bring it up to standards; not sure if the subject is notable enough to warrant that. In any case, as a BLP with no references, should be just deleted. Or if someone volunteers to rewrite this properly, then draftify for now. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:52, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even with the sources introduced by Eddie891 the subject still falls short of WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:05, 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) 19:08, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arcbeatle Press[edit]

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

having rights to publish notable works does not equate to notability, there are 0 sources covering Arcbeatle as far as I can tell, so fails WP:NCORP Praxidicae (talk) 17:08, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One can find some online information about Arcbeatle's book releases. Here, for example, is an article about one of their Doctor Who-related releases. Here's another about the same. Here's one of several interviews of contributors to Arcbeatle's 10,000 Dawns anthology series.

As I said on the talk page, I'm just a Doctor Who (and, to a lesser extent, 10kD) fan, not an expert Wikipedian. I'm not sure if these are the sorts of sources Wikipedia looks for? But it seems that way. Apologies if this is unhelpful. But if the demand is for coverage of Arcbeatle Press, here's some.

(EDIT: found another one.) --Scrooge MacDuck (talk) 17:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ILIKEIT is not a reason to keep an article, similarly, interviews are not coverage, they are not independent. None of this is in-depth, meaningful coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 17:45, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite aware my liking some of Arcbeatle Press's past releases is neither here not there. I mentioned the fact to explain that it's how I got here and that consequently, not being much of a Wikipedian, I may be wrong about policies sometimes. Not because I thought the fact would have anything to do with whether the page should be deleted.

At any rate, not all of the articles I found were interviews. And each of these articles is wholly about an Arcbeatle Press release; I'm unsure what you'd call "in-depth and meaningful" if not that. Do you mean we should find an article about Arcbeatle Press qua Arcbeatle Press, rather than being about a specific book or series they printed? That seems like a weirdly high bar for a publisher. Publishers rarely attract media attention as publishers, removed from their output.

Again, in real world terms, Arcbeatle Press is much the same thing as Obverse Books. What kinds of sources and claims to notability does Obverse have that Arcbeatle lacks? That's a genuine question, not a rhetorical one. I'd like to wrap my head around this/see what the demands are that Arcbeatle's case should meet if it's to remain on Wikipedia. --Scrooge MacDuck (talk) 18:43, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (talk page) (Contribs) Remember to notify me after replying off my talk page. 17:47, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (talk page) (Contribs) Remember to notify me after replying off my talk page. 17:47, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless some in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources can be found (in which case please ping me here). This is (supposedly) a business, so subject to the relatively strict requirements of WP:NCORP, and at the moment it shows no sign of having any chance of meeting those. Actually it shows no sign of existence either: there's no publication listed in Worldcat (that compares with about 124 for Obverse Books, or about 5.8 million for the Oxford University Press). There's not one verifiable hit on Gbooks; the first title that comes up is the first listed in our article, 10,000 Dawns by James Wylder; however, according to Gbooks, that title is published by CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform – i.e., it is self-published. According to this patently non-reliable source, Arcbeatle was Wylder's personal imprint. @arcbeatle also seems to be his Twitter handle. We might consider a redirect to our page on him, if we had one, but he seems to be resoundingly non-notable. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of any significant independent coverage. Per ATD I did try to find a suitable redirect target but none of the various lists of Doctor Who spinoffs we have seemed appropriate if they are also a publisher of other non-DW related works. P-K3 (talk) 20:49, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:23, 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. Even disregarding the struck nom there's consensus to delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:07, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Awele Elumelu[edit]

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

non notable CEO. Most if not all sources talk about her husband and her mention is trivial. Even the solitary interview in a questionable source is about her support for her husband. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 17:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC) Nominator's comment struck; indefinitely banned sockpuppet.--Goldsztajn (talk) 20:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (talk page) (Contribs) Remember to notify me after replying off my talk page. 17:51, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (talk page) (Contribs) Remember to notify me after replying off my talk page. 17:51, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (talk page) (Contribs) Remember to notify me after replying off my talk page. 17:51, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (talk page) (Contribs) Remember to notify me after replying off my talk page. 17:51, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessperson.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:23, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails ANYBIO. ——Serial^# 11:48, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem to meet WP:ANYBIO on her own. Kj cheetham (talk) 08:45, 27 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 17:11, 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 WP:SNOW delete. BD2412 T 13:43, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Warner Williams (painter)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. I tried to find non-primary sources of Warner Williams, but I failed to find any. INeedSupport ^😷 17:00, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. INeedSupport ^😷 17:00, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is a tiny amount of coverage, but not enough to meet GNG or NARTIST. There is another Warner Williams (1764— 1848) who might be notable.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:26, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: the other Warner Williams is actually Sarah Furman Warner Williams, of the 18th-19th century. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:58, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable painter. Says the guy who has probably seen most of the articles he created on artists deleted. I am not sure, and I mean this in the narrow sense of visula artists, although several of the articles I created on composers and hymnwriters have been scapped as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:52, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sourcing is too weak to pass GNG. Curiocurio (talk) 23:42, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I deleted some copyright violations. Then, realizing nothing worth saving was left save for some spam, I reverted to the last version not edited by the COI editor.--v/r - T P 17:20, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --v/r - T P 17:20, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient coverage in news outlets or the literature to evidence notability. ——Serial^# 17:24, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A Google search verifies that he exists and paints, but I found no evidence that he is a notable artist as Wikipedia defines that term. The 2016 coverage in Hi-Fructose consists largely of direct quotations from the painter, with a brief description by the writer describing the subjects of his paintings. This is nowhere near enough to establish notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:54, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blatant COI. Deb (talk) 18:13, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I re-added the two removed cites, the gallery interview and the HI-Fructose article, incorporating basic information but removing copyvio. The subject does seem to have received grants from the Pollock-Krasner Foundation. But their website and way of recording it is idiosyncratic to say the least. The only lists available seem to be the current years awardees, unless there is some trick to navigating their website that is eluding me. They do not seem to have a "list" of past grant winners by year or any other criteria, but they do have images, 4 per grantee, per year of award, see here for Williams. I haven't added that bit to the main article because I'm unsure of how to cite it as there is no accompanying text to draw information from. The other magazines and journals previously listed do not seem to have online archives. Access to those might bring the subject up to just meeting GNG depending on what they contain, but without access to them as it is I'm sure this subject still fails. It is what it is, I guess. He iro 19:08, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Grants aren't typically a signifier of notability. Here in Canada, any serious artist who has been around for more than four or five years gets them from the Canada Council or the provincial granting agencies. The CC gives out perhaps a thousand or more individual artist grants per year. The Pollack Krasner Foundation lists 100 grantees for the 2019-2020 year. Grants are also not directly mentioned in the notability guidelines for WP:NARTIST. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:53, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't implying they did, just listing the various material that had been removed that I had been able to verify. The article was zealously stripped of all information and cites (understandable to remove the copyvios, but seriously, someone couldn't take the time to use what was there and keep the cites?) The subject may have coverage in paper media that isn't archived on the internet, as mentioned above, but without access to it determine what it is, still fails WP:GNG. He iro 21:23, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In my BEFORE I found some coverage to a better known artist named Hermann Warner Williams, but nothing to Warner Williams who seems to fail our notability guidelines. Chetsford (talk) 20:49, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is only one sentence long, and there are only two sources, hardly enough to establish notability,TH1980 (talk) 04:38, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, GNG fail. Java Hurricane 05:50, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources insufficient to qualify him as a WP:NARTIST. Innovamus (talk) 03:10, 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 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:18, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Egerton-Idehen[edit]

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

~~A couple of interviews and a listicle are all that this article is based on. The article fails SIGCOV, and should be deleted. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 16:48, 22 May 2020 (UTC)~~ struck confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businesswoman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:38, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:21, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:21, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:21, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — basically what Johnpacklambert, a non notable business woman. Harvard or not! Celestina007 (talk) 22:31, 22 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 17:11, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 19:17, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nelson Olanipekun[edit]

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

Complete COATRACK article trying to make him inherit notability from his organization, which in itself may not be notable enough for Wikipedia. Fails GNG as an individual. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 16:41, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable lawyer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:55, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep before you assume he is not notable, maybe you need to do a google search on him to see his mentions on major media houses in Nigeria. Also he was a major player in the EndSARS campaing in Nigeria alongside Segun Awosanya. This is what Wikipedia says on notability:

"People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". He has enough media coverage from multiple notable sources. He is notable enough. SuperSwift (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:25, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:25, 22 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 17:10, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:ANYBIO. And WP:GNG per my research. Decent sources.BabbaQ (talk) 18:10, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~seriously keep~~ I still don't understand why this is an issue. It passes WP:ANYBIO and also passes WP:GNG. Even in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, he is still working, just that I don't have enough time to add more references, but these references are from reliable independent secondary sources. SuperSwift (talk) 19:04, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Striking out a second keep vote. @SuperSwift: You cannot vote twice in an AFD discussion. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 14:41, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per WP:BASIC. The subject founded the notable organization Citizens' Gavel and appears to be a major player in a movement to End SARS. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 14:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – The nominator has been blocked for suspected "very likely" socking (WP:SOCKSTRIKE). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:27, 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 speedy delete. Speedy deleted under criterion G11. creffett (talk) 22:50, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Chueke[edit]

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

WP:NOTRESUME. In this case there appear to be no usable revisions in the history of this autobiography, so even if the subject were notable it would be preferable to delete it and start over. VQuakr (talk) 16:15, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete straight up spam. Praxidicae (talk) 16:36, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:26, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:26, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete per WP:NOTSOAPBOX. Blatant propaganda.--SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 21:13, 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. Sandstein 08:24, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking man's/woman's crumpet[edit]

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

WP:NOTDIC. The sources cited, and sources I can find, are just uses of the term and not discussions about the term. Some of the article seems like WP:SYNTH. It's not many people that have been described by the term and it seems like any useful content belongs at these individual figures' pages. We can't go much beyond a dictionary definition, an assertion of where the term was popularised and a list of people who have been described as such - not enough for a standalone article. — Bilorv (talk) 22:55, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 23:00, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep See The Independent or The 100 Words That Make The English. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:17, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have trouble seeing what's usable (or coherent) about the Independent article, to be honest. Can you give me an example of fact it says that's relevant? — Bilorv (talk) 23:57, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd start with the author -- Nick Hornby. The cliché is still common – I noticed a recent cover story in the Times magazine. See also sex symbol, pinup, idol, &c. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:55, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:23, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:55, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The 2016 book British Stuff: 101 Objects That Make Britain Great specifically addresses the meaning and use of the term, including how the interpretation has changed over time. I disagree with the nominator that "it's not many people that have been described by the term"; a search on Google Books and Google News provides me with dozens of examples, not to mention the examples cited in the article. I think it's a worthy subject for an article. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:31, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's well referenced and certainly more than a dicdef. Ifnord (talk) 23:17, 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) 19:07, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AXYKno[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. But, easily passes WP:PROMO Hatchens (talk) 15:43, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 15:43, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 21:55, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 21:55, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No reliable sources. - Ivan hersee (talk) 11:11, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per PROMO, no sigcov found. Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:52, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A significant part of the text is about joint ventures, with a DNA reference which doesn't mention this company. In the section on projects, there are more references which don't mention this company, references which link to Wikimapia, etc. Clearly this is a company going about its business, and some non-promotional media coverage exists ("CBI grills MSMC, Sunil Hi-tech, aXYKno officials in Nagpur", Times of India, April 1 2015) but I don't see enough coverage for WP:NCORP notability. AllyD (talk) 16:24, 30 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. Speedy delete was applicable here; thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:26, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shobhit Sharma[edit]

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

Not notable. Fuddle (talk) 15:24, 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) 19:06, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ikon Marketing Consultants[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Hatchens (talk) 15:23, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 15:23, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 15:23, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO. Doesn't contain anything useful in a neutral article. Doesn't have any SIGCOV I could find either, but NOT takes precedence. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:43, 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 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:18, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Viki Rajani[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Period! Hatchens (talk) 15:19, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 15:19, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 15:19, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable filmmaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:51, 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 Page deleted per G5 RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Martin2Smoove[edit]

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

i've done some digging and attempted to clean up the article however the primary claims of notability (touring with notable acts) are completely unsupported by independent sources, in fact many of hte sources here don't even mention the subject under any name. This is a WP:COATRACKy article if I ever saw one and lacks any independent notability (or dependent notability, apparently.) Praxidicae (talk) 15:14, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — non notable disc jockey who doesn’t satisfy any notability criteria. Celestina007 (talk) 16:11, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable DJ.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:50, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:27, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:27, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:27, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've seen articles for far more notable DJs than this one deleted. It's true that he was a resident DJ at Ministry of Sound, although I'm sure "collaborated" here means simply that he was on the same line-up as these more famous DJs on some nights, and he simply handed over to them at the end of his set, nothing more. Playing in Ibiza doesn't mean much, even at a famous club like Pacha... the source doesn't mention him, and he was just playing in the side room, not the main room. Likewise festivals – I have friends who have DJ'd at Glastonbury and other festivals, it's not that exclusive, because there are so many stages and days to fill. He's clearly got himself a good reputation as a warm-up DJ to the stars which allows him to travel around the world with his job, and good luck to him for doing so, but I'm not sure it's got anything in the way of independent press that would make him notable. I'll have a look and see if there is anything more, but I would imagine that if the subject had been profiled in Mixmag or the like, it would already have been noted in the article. Richard3120 (talk) 21:32, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non notable DJ. Almost no reliable source. Bombardment of sources but most of the sources do not even mention him. Another similar article by the same author is Kobi Arad. - Thebiv19 (talk) 09:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note Please see my comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kobi Arad (2nd nomination); the article creator is part of a persistent paid editing sockfarm and I would recommend early closure under CSD G5. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:39, 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) 19:06, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Center for South Asian and Middle Eastern Studies[edit]

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

Academic unit that does not have sufficient sourcing to substantiate notability. Article was deprodded. User:Namiba 14:55, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination --Cornellier (talk) 17:24, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:24, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:24, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not every interdisciplinary formation at a university is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:39, 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 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:18, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dubai Real Estate Corporation[edit]

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

References fail the criteria for establishing notability. Most are based on company announcements with no Independent Content. References fail WP:ORGIND, topic fails GNG/NCORP HighKing⁺⁺ 11:53, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 13:29, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 13:29, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: See also the ongoing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wasl Asset Management Group. AllyD (talk) 13:25, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mojo Hand (talk) 14:09, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Although not in good quantity, there are some independent sources available online. - Ivan hersee (talk) 11:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:17, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anarcho-hybridism[edit]

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

Non-notable term invented two months ago and presented in a self-published book. Only four hits on Google, all just comments by the author. – Thjarkur (talk) 13:46, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 13:46, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 13:46, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons you mentioned. Really dense, riddled with typos, mostly unsourced and/or WP:OR, too. Kalethan (talk) 23:14, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Topic lacks significant coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources. We cover topics established by presence in reliable, secondary source publications, and this topic doesn't appear to have any coverage beyond its sole primary source. (not watching, please ((ping))) czar 14:28, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all, this is a classic case of WP:OR. Zingarese talk · contribs 15:00, 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) 14:17, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abhijat Mishra[edit]

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

Non-notable non-elected politician with no significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:NPOL. GSS ^💬 13:23, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 13:23, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 13:23, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a low-level youth wing leader of a notable political party. Notability cannot be passed or inherited. - Hatchens (talk) 14:50, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being president of the youth wing of a political party is not an WP:NPOL-passing role that guarantees the right to a Wikipedia article — such people can sometimes clear the bar if they have enough coverage to clear WP:GNG, but are not automatically entitled to have articles just because they exist. And no, the sources here are not sufficient to get him over GNG. Bearcat (talk) 15:19, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Cornellier (talk) 15:58, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable politician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:22, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:12, 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.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:17, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bitiya Sada Suhaghan Rah[edit]

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

Non-notable film with no evidence of satisfying either WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. GSS ^💬 13:21, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 13:21, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 13:21, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the provided sources is secondary; for a 6-year-old film it would be reasonable to expect at least some reviews in reliable sources but I can't find any. Created by an account that has only been involved in promotional editing about the actor Kritn Ajitesh. --bonadea contributions talk 14:01, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Hatchens (talk) 14:53, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Cornellier (talk) 17:17, 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) 14:17, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harish Jaiswal[edit]

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

Non-notable producer, director and distributor of two non-notable films with no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG. Please note, the sources by the Times of India were not written by their staff. GSS ^💬 13:07, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 13:07, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 13:07, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without any hesitation. The article is written in pure WP:PROMO format - Hatchens (talk) 14:53, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Cornellier (talk) 17:19, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Spiderone 10:32, 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 13:52, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Masuku Primary School[edit]

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

Non notable primary school that has experienced a single violent death. This does not make for notability and primary schools are not generally considered notable unless there is some significant notability demonstrated about the school. This is not the case here. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 12:44, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 12:44, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 12:44, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 12:44, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete primary schools are almost never notable, nothing suggests this one is the rare exception.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:20, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete primary schools (especially this one) are generally not notable. Also, the incident that happened is also not notable. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 11:56, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:50, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Primary schools generally aren't that notable. This school has no "claim to fame", except for that one incident. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 21:20, 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 WP:SNOW keep. There is no reasonable possibility of a consensus to delete this article at this point. BD2412 T 13:26, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by coal reserves[edit]

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

How is how much is in the ground relevant? It is how much is mined that is important and that is covered in List of countries by coal production. Chidgk1 (talk) 12:09, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 12:09, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 12:09, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 12:09, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 12:09, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 12:09, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looking at policy, this article doesn't really violate any of WP:NOT and is otherwise an acceptable topic for a list. As far as importance and notability, there's actually quite a lot written about coal reserves that demonstrate it's something sources note and view as 'important' and 'relevant'. See, for example, ^[1] ^[2], ^[3]^[4]. Regards, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:33, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ The Guardian op-ed
^ Dai, Shifeng; Ren, Deyi (2006-05-01). "Fluorine concentration of coals in China—An estimation considering coal reserves". Fuel. 85 (7): 929–935. doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2005.10.001. ISSN 0016-2361.
^ Anastasiu, N.; Simionescu, B. C.; Popa, M. E.; Mihai, M.; Rusu, R. D.; Predeanu, G. (2018-10-01). "Romanian coal reserves and strategic trends". International Journal of Coal Geology. 198: 177–182. doi:10.1016/j.coal.2018.09.011. ISSN 0166-5162.
^ Heinberg, Richard; Fridley, David (November 2010). "The end of cheap coal". Nature. 468 (7322): 367–369. doi:10.1038/468367a. ISSN 1476-4687. New forecasts suggest that coal reserves will run out faster than many believe. Energy policies relying on cheap coal have no future, say Richard Heinberg and David Fridley.

~~Delete~~(proposer) Whether countries mine their coal depends on politics and economics not the size of "reserves". Also the list is out of date, does not sort properly and does not define "reserve". The article Oil reserves says they vary with the price of oil, but I have no idea whether coal reserves vary with the price of coal. Who would find this list useful?. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:25, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chidgk1: I have made the table sortable, attempted to provide accurate background, and updated the list. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:03, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicate vote! by nominator struck. Please don’t use that formatting in your subsequent comments as it gives the misimpression of additional participants. postdlf (talk) 23:33, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK sorry - did not mean to imply anyone else agreed with me. My final comment is that as the source says that remaining reserves in China would last 38 years if production were to continue at the current rate and other countries far longer it would seem that only the China row might conceivably be useful to any reader and that could go in Coal in China.

Keep per Eddie891 as well as the fact that the page averages over 100 views a day, demonstrating that many people do in fact find it useful. CJK09 (talk) 14:56, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliable sources cover this encyclopedic topic. Dream Focus 03:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Topic is notable, encyclopedic, and extensively covered by reliable sources. --Ita140188 (talk) 05:23, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Topic is WP:V by WP:RS. Lightburst (talk) 15:12, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable topic and a list of statistics one could reasonably expect to find in an encyclopaedia. SportingFlyer T·C 19:04, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the list is essential for keeping important details about the subject that certainly meets GNG. --Yoonadue (talk) 09:58, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, has the group or part of the group been written about in sources? Yes, so meets WP:LISTN. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:28, 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:17, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CoRisk Index[edit]

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

This is a economic indicator which has been proposed in a paper which the authors have put on arXiv but which has not yet been published in a refereed journal. There are three references which are supposed to show the notability: one is a press-release (it is odd that the University of Oxford would publish a press-release about an unpublished paper, but probably they just need money now), the Washington Post I can not access behind a paywall, and the German one indeed reviews the submission, though briefly. Borderline TOSOON, in my opinion, though of course the situation changes quickly, and the thing can even become fully notable during the nomination. Ymblanter (talk) 07:28, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 07:28, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 07:28, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Seem to be an advertisement with fake references. For example, cited Washington Post article does not seem to say anything on the subject. My very best wishes (talk) 17:01, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Washington Post article refers to the index explicitly with a picture together with a citation from the main authors: "Manufacturers were among the first publicly traded companies to note travel and supply-chain risks related to the coronavirus outbreak in China in financial filings, according to a separate analysis by Oxford researchers Fabian Stephany and Fabian Braesemann and collaborators in Berlin. By March, manufacturers were noting domestic production issues." H!csuntdracones (talk) 13:10, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, GoRisk appears in the legend to the figure. I missed it, sorry. My very best wishes (talk) 21:04, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As a creator of this page, could you please include an equation explaining how this index was calculated? My very best wishes (talk) 00:36, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Two more media references on the CoRisk Index, from the UK and Spain, have been added and the article of the Oxford Internet Institute is now referring to the work, too.78.55.104.35 (talk) 13:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC) — 78.55.104.35 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. First of all, there is only one currently unpublished (not peer-reviewed) research article which introduces this index [4], and very few publications about it. So, how exactly this index was defined/calculated (an equation?). I do not see it in the article in online archive or on the WP page. According to abstract of the paper, "Based on natural language processing, we identify corona-related risk topics and their perceived relevance for different industries. The preliminary findings are summarised as an up-to-date online index.", and so on. This is not a definition of the index. It seems too early to create this page, since the index is based on a single unpublished research paper, and the page does reads as promotion (it does not explain what the index is, and why it is so good). My very best wishes (talk) 21:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. ( this is double vote. My very best wishes (talk) 15:11, 11 May 2020 (UTC)) Both, the current working paper version and the WP page ^[1] of the index state the calculation method, e.g., in the paper on page 10: "The CoRisk-Index is a compound measure (i. e. geometric mean) of the share of firms that have reported corona-related risks (see Fig. 2B) the average number of corona-keywords per report (see Fig. 2C) and the industry-specific text negativity (see Fig. 1A), aggregated weekly." This equation is now stated on the article page, too.H!csuntdracones (talk) 08:04, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is your second vote, and you should not be voting as creator of the page. Thank you for including the equation. So, this is basically a "self-perception" index based on the number of certain keywords in reports. But it still seems to fail notability guidelines in my opinion. The index was introduced in a single research paper that was self-published online and cited by a small number of other publications. It is also not at all clear how useful such index would be compare to other similar metrics. My very best wishes (talk) 15:11, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I was not aware that page creators should not be allowed to vote in this process. H!csuntdracones (talk) 15:40, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You voted two times. Another "keep" was by an IP who came to the project specifically to make this single vote. I assume that was not you or your collaborator? Well, this index ~~does not seem to be an economic indicator because it~~ is not based on any real quantities like the loss of production, but on wording in reports. My very best wishes (talk) 00:53, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your remark. I believe that indices which are entirely based on industry or consumer expectations such as the Ifo Business Climate Index likewise qualify as an economic indicator. H!csuntdracones (talk) 11:12, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sure, Market sentiment, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 16:18, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:26, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~I have grave MEDRS conserns about this.~~We don't allow prepubs to be used as sources for a reason and we shouldn't be using a GNG handwave - and a borderline (possibly failed) GNG handwave at that - to incorporate them into Wikipedia. The idea that some prepub is going to have lasting and permanent notability is also one I'm quite skeptical of - I don't know that this passes the 10 year test. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:22, 22 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) 10:30, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It may be an upcoming economic indicator. But, it still need to be published with a refereed journal or a coneference proceeding. - Hatchens (talk) 14:59, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I see more and more academic "advertising" creeping into Wikipedia. Ifnord (talk) 16:39, 30 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. Stifle (talk) 10:50, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rajasthan SSO[edit]

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

The article is an orphan and quite frankly this is not notable. There have been issues for years and no improvement has been made (a talk page hasn't even been made yet) - no media coverage, the only reference is to Alexa Internet, Imo not much good could come out of this article Ed6767 (talk) 22:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 22:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 22:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:24, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:16, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This SSO may be considered part of the Government of Rajasthan's e-Mitra scheme? There are a lot of passing references in Indian media about schemes which require use of these services, as well as some controversy about intermediaries taking fees (e.g. [5]). AllyD (talk) 13:10, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of programs aired by People's Television Network. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 13:14, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

News on 4[edit]

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

Existence is unverifiable. Looks like an ordinary news slot with its own name and timing, except that there are no sources. RedBulbBlueBlood9911|Talk 08:40, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. RedBulbBlueBlood9911|Talk 08:40, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. RedBulbBlueBlood9911|Talk 08:40, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to PTV News. Raymie (t • c) 23:10, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of programs aired by People's Television Network where it is mentioned. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:03, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just redirect to the above list per Lenticel.- SUBWAY 19:47, 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 redirect to Nat Christian. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

California Casanova (1991 film)[edit]

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

Cannot find reviews or other written pieces about this film, either on websites or in free newspaper archives. -- Pingumeister^(talk) 23:02, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:11, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I found one review in a book of TV reviews:

Variety and Daily Variety Television Reviews Volume 17 1991–1992 at Google Books -- Pingumeister^(talk) 01:40, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:44, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nat Christian as an alternative to deletion. Film doesn't seem to independently meet WP:NFILM, but redirects are cheap. As far as I can tell, this article is an exact duplicate of California Casanova, was created around the same time and was redirected by MarkZusab after being prodded by Bovineboy2008. Additionally, this page existed as a redirect for nine years before being recreated by an IP. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:16, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete. It does not have enough stand-alone notability for its own article. I suppose a redirect might be helpful, although this title does not seem to be a logical search term. BOVINEBOY2008 12:18, 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 speedy keep. Nomination has been withdrawn (non-admin closure) Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:56, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ivor Goodson[edit]

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

No evidence that this academic is in any way notable, very few independent sources about him. Does not meet the standards of WP:NACADEMIC as far as I can tell, and fails to meet WP:GNG as well Joseph2302 (talk) 07:26, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:26, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:26, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Despite the spammy award and research project listing he has enough very highly cited publications (two with over 1000 cites on Google Scholar, including the single-author book School Subjects and Curriculum Change) to pass WP:PROF#C1 and likely also WP:AUTHOR (although I have not yet had time to look for the reviews needed for that). In need of cleanup, not deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:31, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's an entire book about him and his work and it's easy to find other sources such as this chapter in another book. The subject therefore passes WP:BASIC. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:52, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clear pass of WP:Prof. A puzzling nomination. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:16, 22 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, clearly notable. The article needs some work, some of which I've done - and I think that this probably supports the statement that he has an honorary doctorate from Gothenburg, stated in his personal website, but my Swedish isn't up to reading it! Was there any WP:BEFORE? PamD 08:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And I've just added, as "Further Reading", the 2019 Routledge book Storying the Public Intellectual: Commentaries on the Impact and Influence of the Work of Ivor Goodson . "No evidence that this academic is in any way notable"? But the article does need work. PamD 08:55, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to withdraw good faith nomination, I did do WP:BEFORE but I was less sure about requirements of WP:NACADEMIC. Can someone close this? Joseph2302 (talk) 10:52, 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. Vmavanti non-English sources are allowed as long as they satisfy WP:V and WP:RS. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 13:19, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Casini[edit]

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

Not enough sources exist to write an article of substance. Questionable notability. Unsourced since 2010. Vmavanti (talk) 22:29, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Vmavanti (talk) 22:29, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:19, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:19, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are reviews of her work online, e.g. this, some interviews, book mentions such as this but mostly all I find is programmes. I think this is a very difficult field in which to meet our notability requirements and the subject is clearly a long established and internationally regarded performer, so there may be a case for keeping the article even if it isn’t a clear pass. Mccapra (talk) 03:09, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. When you think that non-notable jazz musicians have Enrico Rava or Phil Woods as co-players in their discography, you are severely mistaken. I second Mccapra's opinion on the appropriateness of the WP notability criteria for performers in arts, btw. -- Kku (talk) 09:50, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that a person becomes notable if they have been around notable people? That one "catches notability" like catching a virus?
Vmavanti (talk) 14:55, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:23, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have added two book references to the article, one the entry about the subject in a Dictionary of Italian Jazz, which also serves to verify much of the article text, and the other from an interview where Lee Konitz specifically compliments her. Add to these the sources identified by Mccapra above - in particular John Litweiler's substantial 2003 review from Jazz Times - and I would say there is enough to demonstrate notability. AllyD (talk) 15:41, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"substantial" 2003 review". This is an opinion which really ought to be analyzed.
Vmavanti (talk) 15:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per additional sources found by AllyD. Mccapra (talk) 16:31, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So the question becomes: Are two sources enough? That's what exists right now: two. Let's look at them carefully and slowly. One is in Italian, which is a nice thumb in the eye for all English speaking people in the world who might be reading the English Wikipedia rather than the Italian Wikipedia. The second is a mention in passing. Here it is: "One of the nicest situations was when I worked with Barbara Casini. She stretches the time the way the great Brazilians can do. Talk about over the bar line—she was all over the place, and it was swinging!" Not especially informative. I've been assuming that people who contribute to Wikipedia either have read the documentation on proper sourcing or they know it off the top of their heads because they learned it in school. I'm beginning to doubt that assumption.
Vmavanti (talk) 14:52, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign language sources count towasrds WP:GNG whether an editor likes it or not, and that is policy, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:00, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"They count". What are you, eleven? I know what the documentation says about foreign languages. I'm asking everyone...everyone...to slow down...and think...about...what they are...doing. Misspelled words are sometimes an indication haste makes waste. Every teacher I ever had who was competent (and that's not many) told me to be conscious of my audience. In fact, I'm reading a book by David Foster Wallace where he made that same point. Do you think that using a foreign language source is respectful to the average reader of the English Wikipedia? Is it useful to the reader? If you quote regulations again to me, I may have to start calling you Col. Flagg.
Vmavanti (talk) 22:22, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are now four sources. Since we are asked not to quote regulations in this discussion, I imagine that most readers use Wikipedia to find out about things they don’t already know about, and if they are not able to read the source language themselves then an English language encyclopedia article will be all the more useful to them. Mccapra (talk) 02:56, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify that?
Vmavanti (talk) 03:25, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources do not have to be in English for the benefit of the reader, they are for verification. It is up to the editors of the article to translate them and put into a context the reader can access. Ifnord (talk) 22:32, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These are bot responses. If all Wikipedia is doing is creating bureaucratic drones, then we might as well shut it down now. No wonder this "discussion" has been relisted. It isn't a discussion. I'm better off talking to a tree or a rock. Can we use Captcha here? Prove you're a human being who can read English. Scanning and reading are not identical, and I'm beginning to suspect that "internet reading" is really scanning and not what we do in the real world with actual books in our hands. But I'm American. I like to think. Are there any Americans left on Wikipedia?
Vmavanti (talk) 12:59, 30 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. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:26, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Valentino[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. The only reference about him specifically in the article is an interview. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:47, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:47, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:47, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:48, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:53, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:11, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:11, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is an absence of in-depth, reliable sources and as such fails WP:GNG and WP:NPERSON. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:25, 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. Fenix down (talk) 05:58, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ayman Al-Hussaini (Saudi footballer)[edit]

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY --BlameRuiner (talk) 06:24, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:40, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:40, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:41, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:33, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 00:39, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 16:03, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 21:46, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 05:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chauncy Freeman[edit]

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. BlameRuiner (talk) 06:16, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:13, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:13, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:29, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:30, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 00:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 16:04, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 21:45, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I suspect the article was created because the guy played for the U-20 side but that isn't full international and so he fails NFOOTY and GNG. No Great Shaker (talk) 21:02, 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) 19:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sunder Madakshira[edit]

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

Article reads like a CV. All the references in the article provide routine coverage of him or his appointment as marketing head. At best he can be mentioned in the infobox of Adobe India (if an article is ever created) but I don't think CMO is a noteworthy position. M4DU7 (talk) 04:36, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 04:36, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 04:36, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:38, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, including Business Line (Like this Link 1), Opinions of Sunder Madakshira are published by Economic Times (Link 1, Link 2) and also looks like prominent person in Indian Subcontinent (1, Link 2, Link 3, Link 4), (Link 5) this does pass WP:GNG

Some other reliable sources

"Adobe appoints Sunder Madakshira as Head of Marketing for India". Financial Express. 17 May 2017.
"Adobe appoints Sunder Madakshira as Head of Marketing for India". Business Standard. 17 May 2017.
"Adobe appoints Sunder Madakshira as Head of Marketing for India". Asian News International. 23 August 2017.
"Asia Pacific Marketers Focused on AI and Digital Skills". Business World. 28 February 2018.
Significant coverage on Outlook India

- MRRaja001 (talk) 09:19, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All of these sources are either WP:INTERVIEWS, passing mentions, or press releases - indeed, many of the sources are the same press release, republished identically word for word in different outlets. I'm not seeing anything independent and secondary that gives depth of coverage. Fails GNG. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:50, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Girth's analysis of the referecnes. It shows the skills of the subject's publicist but not the notability. Ifnord (talk) 16:44, 30 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 07:28, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UAS International Trip Support[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP as all none of the sources are independent or reliable. The sources on the page, and in a deeper google/database search almost exclusively come from AIN Online which are all press release copypasta from the UAS press room [6]. Take for example this AIN story about UAS in China [7] which comes directly from this UAS press release [8] Theredproject (talk) 13:01, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 13:01, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 13:01, 14 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 has been previously PROD'd (via summary). --Cewbot (talk) 00:04, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2015-11 move to → Draft:UAS International Trip Support, 2015-04 ✗ A7

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:20, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom, the vast majority of the references are reprints of press releases, or just the press releases themselves, and therefore primary sources. What what other coverage there is does not provide SIGCOV. As a result this fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Devonian Wombat (talk) 04:25, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with the above. I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:27, 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:28, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ganesh Devaraj[edit]

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

I could not find any coverage for this individual. The references in the article only have statements made by him. M4DU7 (talk) 04:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 04:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 04:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Soliton Technologies: When I tagged this for notability in 2016, I commented that the article references are about the firm with the subject mentioned only in-role; that remains the case. Searches find a couple of SiliconIndia articles by the subject in 2006, plus more in-role mentions relative to the company. The coverage of the founder in the Soliton Technologies article seems sufficient (though unreferenced); I am not seeing distinct notability. AllyD (talk) 07:13, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:34, 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. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:49, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paynesville, California[edit]

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

This one proved difficult to search, as there is a much more prominent town of that name in Minnesota which very much wants to be in the search results. When all is said and done, however, the only evidence for it is a name on a topo map and a river gauge presumably nearby. The school building (an early education center) says nothing about being in this town, and while there are a few houses scattered about, when it comes down to it I just don't see the notability. Mangoe (talk) 04:11, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:24, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:24, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It was evacuated in 1987, but was also described as a subdivision. [9] [10] A fire blew threw there: [11] And there is/was a church there: [12] Surveyed here: [13] A book references Paynesville too. [14] Probably a weak keep on GEOLAND grounds. SportingFlyer T·C 06:13, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just upgraded to keep per CJK09. Easily meets WP:GEOLAND and notability for geographic places, which is a very low bar. SportingFlyer T·C 06:41, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In addition to what SportingFlyer found, I found an LA Times article about the 1987 fire which describes Paynesville as a settlement. This Alpine County planning document refers to it as having been a town: During this period [1910-1950] the population was distributed between the towns of Markleeville, Woodfords, Paynesville and a number of other highway stops. A 1949 newspaper article refers to a man as being from Paynesville: Mr. Love will complete the unexpired term of Frank Payne, Paynesville, Calif., who resigned due to ill health. Altogether it's pretty clear that this location is a community (a very small one, no doubt) and not just a random name on the map. CJK09 (talk) 06:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Described here as a "community" and here as a "population center" and "settlement". This source writes: "Alpine County has the smallest resident population of any county in California... About half of these people live in the Carson River watershed, in or near the small unicorporated communities of Markleeville, Woodfords, Paynesville, and Fredricksburg". In 2009, Hazel Payne "died in the Alpine County home she and her husband built nearly three quarters of a century ago" in Paynesville.[15] Magnolia677 (talk) 10:53, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the many sources that describe it as a settlement. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 13:34, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
comment I'm inclined to withdraw this, but as I cannot afford the rates that newspapers.com is asking to see much of this material, could some of you please go and update the article first? Mangoe (talk) 16:59, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mangoe: I used Google and found plenty. Took about 60 seconds. Same deal at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centerville, Alpine County, California. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:03, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mangoe: Check out the Wikipedia library card, that's how I have newspapers.com access and it's been very helpful. SportingFlyer T·C 01:55, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mangoe: These are publicly-viewable clippings of the articles linked above: [16] [17] [18] –dlthewave ☎ 16:09, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the certainty this was a settlement per the sources described above. Oakshade (talk) 21:23, 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. There is a clear consensus for delete amongst editors who are not blocked for socking, or IP accounts that voted without any policy-based arguments. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Williams III[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. --Mpen320 (talk) 03:47, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. --Mpen320 (talk) 03:47, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

He is not notable Mpen320 (talk) 03:32, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elaboration: A perennial candidate is not notable. Almost all coverage is related to his runs for political office which include in at least one instance losing at the >200 person Libertarian convention in 2018.--Mpen320 (talk) 03:43, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:26, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not seeing any RS for his Navy service and his claimed rank and service does not satisfy WP:SOLDIER. Mztourist (talk) 06:13, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get articles just for running as candidates in elections they did not win — the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable political office, not just running for one. So to earn inclusion here, he would have to pass one of two tests: either (a) he can demonstrate and reliably source that he already had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten him an article anyway, or (b) he can demonstrate and reliably source that his candidacies were significantly more special than most other people's candidacies in some way that would pass the ten year test for enduring significance. But neither of those tests are being met here: the article is based almost entirely on primary sources (raw tables of election results, his own self-published website, the self-published websites of other organizations that he's directly affiliated with, social networking content, YouTube videos, etc.) that are not support for notability at all, and the very few sources that actually come from any real media outlets don't represent enough coverage to make him more special than most other candidates. Bearcat (talk) 15:06, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article There are enough credible sources to allow this page to remain established. There are various political candidates nationwide on Wikipedia who have not won a single office and still have a page on Wikipedia and very little media coverage such as Austin Petersen from Missouri, or a Kash Jackson for Illinois governor in 2018. The political candidate, David Earl Williams III Service/qualifications via DD214 is found via his website, various press releases along with main stream media coverage past/present are properly linked on his Wikipedia page. Main stream notoriety for said candidate has been previously established. The page should remain and not be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cresluer80 (talk • contribs) 15:22, 22 May 2020 (UTC) — Cresluer80 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Firstly, please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS: the fact that somebody else has an article is not in and of itself a reason why David Williams gets to have one too. Austin Petersen has other coverage in other contexts, fully establishing that he had preexisting notability for other reasons quite independent of being a candidate: in fact, he already had an article before he was ever a candidate for anything. And while Kash Jackson's article is weaker, that's where you get into the "maybe the other article needs to be deleted and just hadn't been noticed yet" part.

Secondly, people are not notable just because they have self-published websites, or technical verification of vote totals in election tables, or press releases created by themselves or organizations they're directly affiliated with. Notability is not a thing that a person gets to give himself by self-publishing his own writing about himself, but a thing that journalists have to anoint him with by writing about him in third party news reporting — and even then, a person still doesn't get to be in Wikipedia the moment he can show one news story: he still has to show numerous news stories, passing certain conditions of geographic range (i.e. well beyond just Chicago's local media), and depth (i.e. he has to be the actual subject of an article and not just a name briefly mentioned in an article whose core subject is somebody else), and context (i.e. the coverage has to be about him accomplishing something that Wikipedia accepts as a notability claim.)

And finally, new comments go at the bottom of the page, not at the top above even the headline where you first put your comment. Don't ever do that again, because you can actually be blocked from editing Wikipedia if you persist in being disruptive. Bearcat (talk) 17:10, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The mere suggestion of wanting a page deleted because of a candidate not winning a political race is ridiculous. The candidate of this particular Wikipedia page, is a real person and has historically contributed to their past run OFFICIALLY by running verified and certified by the state of Illinois election board. this is all based on historical election information and all sources have been properly cited. David Earl Williams iii has run for Congress in the 9th Congressional district in the 2014 primary election. Which was cited on the page and is a federal election by the way covered by mainstream news sources. Federal= nationwide coverage. i.e well beyond the state of Illinois borders. Hence, The candidate David Earl Williams III already had Pre-existing notoriety way before Austin Petersen political endeavors. Willie Wilson a millionaire in Chicago has a Wikipedia page. Should his page be deleted because he didn’t win the Chicago mayoral election in 2015 & 2019? This page should remain and not removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cresluer80 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, please note that you do not get to "vote" more than once in an AFD discussion. You are allowed to comment as many times as you wish, but you are not allowed to preface any of your followup comments with a bolded restatement of the keep vote you've already given.

Secondly, it is not Wikipedia's job to keep articles about unelected candidates for political office on the basis of their candidacy itself. When it comes to politicians, our job is to keep articles about people who hold political office — people who merely run for political office, but do not win the election, get to have articles on here only if either (a) they were already notable for other reasons besides the candidacy, or (b) they can demonstrate a reason why their candidacy is much more special than other people's candidacies, in some way that would pass the ten year test for enduring significance. And all articles on here must be referenced to third party coverage in sources independent of the article topic — no matter what a person has or hasn't done, and no matter what a person says about themselves, they are not notable for it until journalists have deemed the things they've done to be important enough to do news reporting about. And even then, they still have to have a lot of that, not just one or two pieces. Whether you like it or not, that's our rules.

We are not "the media", and it is not our job to give "equal time" to every single candidate in every election. Our job is to look past the daily news, and figure out what people are still going to need to know in 2030: they're going to need to know about the people who held office, not the people who ran against them and lost. And nobody said that his candidacy wasn't "verified and certified" by the state elections board, either — but being verified and certified by the state elections board as a candidate is not how a person gets a Wikipedia article. A person gets a Wikipedia article by accomplishing something that passes our inclusion tests, not just by putting his name on a ballot. Bearcat (talk) 17:46, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to have an article remove because a guy didn’t win a race, but was an official candidate historically is petty. Nobody was taking down Lori Lightfoot’s page before she ran for mayor and won. Nobody’s trying to delete Jerry Joyce’s page (who is he?) he ran for mayor and lost. Nothing else was ever known about Jerry Joyce before that. is he known outside of Illinois? No! Where is the pre-existing notoriety if you’re basing it on that?! But he has a Wikipedia page. Where is the consistency by the wiki moderators? The candidate, David Williams III Wikipedia page should remain and not removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cresluer80 (talk • contribs) 17:49, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lori Lightfoot had preexisting notability for other reasons, completely independent of her candidacy, and she first got an article because of those other reasons, not because of her candidacy. And once again, read WP:WAX: specifically, pay special attention to the part about how "Plenty of articles exist that probably should not...So just pointing out that an article on a similar subject exists does not prove that the article in question should also exist; it is quite possible that the other article should also be deleted but nobody has noticed it and listed it for deletion yet." You might want to check out what's happened to both Kash Jackson and Jerry Joyce since {and also partly because) you brought them up here. Bearcat (talk) 18:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not that active on Wikipedia to know where you’re supposed to respond and not respond; but thank you for that information. Absolutely I will keep responding because according to the rules here when it comes to pages being threatened with deletion there has to be some sort of civil discourse. You’re giving me your reasons for why you think It should be deleted; I’m giving you my reasons why it should not be as a wiki contributor. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cresluer80 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article should remain I see this word ‘pre-existing’ coming up a lot. David ran for Congress in 2014 in a heated primary. It was close. That had national attention. I have to call B.S on Lori Lightfoot. Lori was a corporate lawyer NOBODY knew about until she pulled off a miracle and won the 1st round and beat Toni 2 months later. Wikipedia is riffed with pages of well-known figures in the community and they aren’t taking those pages down. Must be a slow day to want to have this guys page deleted? Lets hope that cooler head prevailed and this page remains.

The rule on not voting twice includes not voting from an IP address. See Wikipedia:Sock puppetry.--Mpen320 (talk) 18:51, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Running in a heated primary" is not a notability claim that gets a person into Wikipedia — if a person has not won election to a notable office, then he has to have been notable for some other reason completely outside of politics before you get to claim that he has preexisting notability. Whether you heard of Lori Lightfoot or not before she ran for mayor of Chicago, her article plainly demonstrates that she did have preexisting notability, by citing well over two dozen distinct sources to support content about her work prior to running for mayor. And yes, as Mpen noted, logging out and revoting as an IP is still not allowed — and it wouldn't be effective anyway, because AFD is not a ballot. We don't just count up the "votes" and give the win to whichever side technically got the bigger number of "voters": discussions are weighted by strength of argument and understanding of Wikipedia policy, and solid policy-based arguments carry a lot more weight than anonymous complaints. Even a discussion with 98 keeps and just two deletes would get the page deleted if the 98 keeps were all coming from IP numbers while the two deletes were both detailed policy-based rationales from established and reputable users. Bearcat (talk) 20:28, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the pagesomebody doesn’t have a life if they are really obsessed of trying to take down a page because a political public figure didn’t win a race. You might want to look at Willie Wilson‘s page. Check my IP address to if you want but my vote counts :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.87.117.189 (talk) 21:05, 22 May 2020 (UTC) — 96.87.117.189 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Voting to keep the wiki article, David Wiliams III active All this bickering aside, the candidate wiki page has always had the correct sources provided. As has been mentioned so many times in this thread; David Williams did run for Congress 2014 in a neck to neck primary, Lt. governor 2018, and alderman 2019 race. By definition of maintaining the status of the page, David Williams has pre-existing notoriety. There was a mention of former libertarian presidential and republican senate candidate, Austin Petersen. While he may run an online news blog, his website is not mainstream publication nor did anyone know of Mr. Petersen before pursuing his political aspirations. Petersen’s page should be considered for deletion by this very same logic. Mr. Williams's military service is well documented and has been verified by various mainstream publications and Great Lakes naval station. Care to argue these facts? It looks like many have tried this with the back and forth childish commenting, intentional or not. I sense a lot of tension here. Everybody please refrain from childish behavior and take a breather outside safely. As a side note, people do happen to share the same Wi-Fi. Not everything has to be a conspiracy theory. Trust me I have heard enough of that to last a lifetime. So annoying. I also didn’t know who Lightfoot was either before she won. I voted for her in the 2nd round though. I helped contribute to building Mr. Williams's page up since it’s inception. It’s my obligation to defend it. Big thanks to the wiki users who helped in making those contributions too. Hoping for the best outcome of this situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Happycats58 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 22 May 2020 (UTC) — Happycats58 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

‘’’Let the Page remain’’’ I am not making a Wikipedia account if this is how known political candidates are going to be treated. Seriously though. As someone who loves reading Wikipedia articles this is pathetic. Williams is an established political figure in Chicago. These moderators are just hating. Who would want to contribute to any article only to have them potentially removed? Reading these lame excuses from the moderators is disappointing. Ps whoever is the moderator on a power trip go rub one out — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.29.27 (talk) 22:31, 22 May 2020 (UTC) — 24.148.29.27 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
‘’’Lets keep that page’’’ I got a life and not on Wikipedia 24/7 like some people. Ahem. I don’t know how this works. Hey don’t be a meanie. Don’t remove Williams is page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:240:101:497E:7420:5B07:3490:EDCF (talk) 22:36, 22 May 2020 (UTC) — 2601:240:101:497E:7420:5B07:3490:EDCF (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Tentative delete. A quick google search brings up this article, and a bunch of other links to different people with the same name. Information like this is probably worth having on wikipedia, but not with every candidate having their own article - it would be more suited to being listed on a page for the elections themselves. Kalethan (talk) 23:29, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Candidate full birth name is, David Earl Williams III. The reasoning for naming the page, David Williams III was due to Wiki not allowing the full name for unknown reasons when initially created. A simple google search of his full name will bring up various articles that are properly sourced on his wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Happycats58 (talk • contribs) 01:37, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Wikipedia: candidates and election page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Candidates_and_elections

To quote the following:

“Many Wikipedia editors believe elections themselves are worthy of inclusion, as evidenced by the dozens of articles about elections in the project. If elections are worthy of inclusion, it logically follows that information on the candidates in those elections should be included.”

“Articles on candidates for office, like all Wikipedia articles, must meet standards of quality and verifiability.”

To continue, quoting under subsection

Elections first, then individual candidates

“As a compromise between those who would keep all candidate articles and those who would delete all articles on yet-unelected candidates, it would be preferable if articles on elections were written before articles on individual candidates. Only if and when there is enough independent, verifiable information to write a non-stub article on a candidate should one be written.

This is not a reason to delete candidate articles if the only problem is that the election article has yet to be written. Merger of the candidate articles into the election article may well improve Wikipedia.”

The wiki page, David Williams III, known by his birth name, David Earl Williams III does not warrant deletion. The suggestion of deleting a page on election outcome is moot. The page based on these rules mentioned in the quotes above and the 20 sources provided, predominantly mainstream publications, should remain active. In addition, when this is resolved I am requesting that the page name, David Williams III is changed to reflect his full name David Earl Williams III to avoid future confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Happycats58 (talk • contribs) 03:15, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The election is not moot though. These are past elections (a word I use loosely as a Libertarian convention is not a traditional election). The election articles have been written. Are you proposing a redirect?--Mpen320 (talk) 03:33, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To quote Mpen320, “ The election is not moot though. These are past elections (a word I use loosely as a Libertarian convention is not a traditional election). The election articles have been written.”

To quote again the subsection titled, “Elections first then individual candidates”

“This is not a reason to delete candidate articles if the only problem is that the election article has yet to be written.”

So we are in agreement in favor of my argument. The mainstream publications have been written and sourced on the candidate wiki page; therefore the argument from the opposing side is moot. Also, stating once more, regardless of election outcome from David Earl Williams III 2014 GOP primary in Illinois 9th congressional district, the 2018 Illinois libertarian convention for nominating state wide candidates, and the Chicago 2019 Mayoral/Aldermanic race 1st round - the David Earl Williams III wiki page doesn’t merit deletion based on such.

“Are you proposing a redirect?”

Yes. I will be proposing a redirect from David Williams III to David Earl Williams III to prevent future confusion for readers. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Happycats58 (talk • contribs)

Well a redirect doesn't solve the notability issue. I thought you meant a redirect to one of the elections in which he was a candidate.--Mpen320 (talk) 19:12, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Participants and potential closers of this discussion should be aware that SPI has confirmed Cresluer80 as a direct sockpuppet of Happycats58. They did not weigh in on the anonymous IP numbers, although it also seems very likely that they would also be either sockpuppets or canvassed meatpuppets. Bearcat (talk) 15:54, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat. Not enough reliable coverage outside of routine campaign coverage to establish WP:GNG. All sock/meat votes need to be crossed out. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:12, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No claim of notability. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:26, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SALT just like David Earl Williams III and per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Earl Williams III, which is the same thing. "Wiki not allowing the full name for unknown reasons when initially created" (as claimed above) is not an unknown reason and wasn't when initially created: It was deleted and re-created 8 times before being blocked, including 5 times in 3 days. So the wrenches had to be tightened. (This page always seems to get created right around the Illinois candidate filing period or primary election; it happened to survive 2018 to now. It may or may not be relevant that this person has been a Democrat, then run as a Republican, then run as a Libertarian, then run for a non-partisan seat, and that Illinois is now in the petition period for independent and third-party candidates for the 2020 general elction, and a court order related to COVID-19 makes those filings much easier.) Even if this subject ends up meeting notability standards in the future, I can't imagine why someone who so strongly believes in having an article for David Earl Williams III is establishing a multi-year pattern of violating basic rules about disclosing financial relationships with a subject and coordinating under multiple identities, and then evading multiple attempts by the not-for-profit project to block unauthorized use of its resources, then abusing its volunteers, saying that anyone that follows the not-for-profit's policy is "obsessed" and "doesn't have a life". A 12-year pattern of behavior like this towards one specific thing can't really be dismissed as a one-time misunderstanding, can it? Anyway: Just like before, nothing in this discussion or the article meets the thresholds for Wikipedia:Notability (people); people above summarized it well, and now that someone has pointed it out, the experienced editors here have been able to discover other articles to nominate for deletion too. --Closeapple (talk) 17:51, 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 keep. SNOW Keep - firm, very rapid, consensus that clearly notability is demonstrated and existence or absence of other articles does not have relevance to retention of this article Nosebagbear (talk) 15:01, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek: Voyager (season 4)[edit]

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

None of the other seven seasons have articles, why should this one? I suppose we could also create articles for the remaining six seasons, but this topic is already covered at List of Star Trek: Voyager episodes. Squeeps10 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 03:21, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Squeeps10 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 03:21, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Squeeps10 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 03:21, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep: This is a very well-written, well-sourced article that was classified as a Good Article in 2015. "Why should we have this" is not a sufficient rationale for deleting it. Yes, go ahead and create articles for the other six seasons. I hope that you put as much work and care into them as the editors who produced this article obviously did. — Toughpigs (talk) 03:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep - Basically an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. Well sourced and clearly passes notability. --Masem (t) 03:38, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is nothing unusual about a television season having its own article. It may very well be that because of the casting changes this was just the easiest season for someone to write about.--Mpen320 (talk) 03:40, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to jump in as one of the GA authors - I just happened to get hold of a bunch of Dreamwatch magazines from that period. Always meant to get around to the other seasons, but it just never happened. Voyager is very hard to source as there just weren't many behind the scenes books/info out at the time. If I recall correctly, at the time of the improvement to this article, there were other season articles but they were just episode lists. While the only Voyager season GA, there are a further six other Star Trek season articles there too. So this isn't a total stand-alone thing. Miyagawa (talk) 08:51, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per above. Perfectly normal article. /Julle (talk) 11:38, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just because other seasons don't have articles doesn't mean this season should not have an article. Other seasons are irrelevant to the notability of this article. epicgenius (talk) 14:54, 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 no consensus. Neither the arguments for keeping or deleting are particularly strong. No prejudice against renomination in a few weeks or month with a clearer argument, or with redirecting if there is talk page consensus. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:48, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Against All Will[edit]

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

does not appear to meet notability requirements for a musical group RF23 (talk) 14:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, EP also doesn't bring up much. Caro7200 (talk) 14:59, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect - Keep this decently sourced article, redirect to Cello Dias, or start article about James Christopher Allen, who is a Grammy award winning musician. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:19, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:45, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Basically a supergroup, though short-lived. Meets WP:MUSIC. Chubbles (talk) 00:40, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really a supergroup if only one of the members is notable enough for a wikipedia article?RF23 (talk) 00:45, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All four members were previously in other notable bands. The rest is just semantics. Chubbles (talk) 02:17, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not semantics. Allen was in Puddle of Mudd for only 4 years at the beginning and did not appear on their debut album or make any contributions, Currant's band barely squeaks by for notability (that might be a future AfD, they were essentially just a band that got popular in Dallas and nowhere else), Wilson isn't even mentioned on the Dead Kennedy's page, and was only a touring musician for tatu. None of them were "a reasonably prominent member" of those groups. Cello Dias is the only one with any sort of notability or any real connection to a notable group.RF23 (talk) 03:37, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll grant that Boomstick Wilson wasn't a noteworthy member of the Dead Kennedys, and that his connection to the band, whatever it is, is so minor that it doesn't merit mention here without sourcing. But he did drum for t.a.t.u. and for part of one of the singers' solo careers. Allen was a formative member of Puddle of Mudd and, apparently, wrote some of their biggest hits. I think SSD scrapes by - as with this band, part of the problem is that we are ten to fifteen years beyond the peaks of their popularity, and a good deal of the press base has eroded; much of the online literature that covered this stuff is either gone or doesn't archive itself, as evidenced by the profusion of archival links. For Against All Will, there's still a few things out there beyond what's already in the page: e.g., [19], [20], [21]. Chubbles (talk) 12:31, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, existing sourcing is not sufficient in quality and a search found no better ones. Notability is not inherited from the notability of other members, especially since it seems that some of them weren't involved in other bands for very long anyway.Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:30, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:37, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:35, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, while the individuals are clearly recognisable to those who are interested in this topic, as band they haven't received much coverage and the EP adds nothing in terms of notability. Its unlikely to grow beyond a stub. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 18:25, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the article now meets WP:MUSIC bullet 6, as Cello Dias and James Christopher Allen both are independently notable musicians (both now have articles). There is no clear redirect target at this point, even though redirection could potentially be a solution if only one member were notable. I see no reason why the article is unlikely to grow beyond a stub; it's already grown beyond a stub. Chubbles (talk) 22:13, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth to any closer, James Christopher Allen is now a redirect to Puddle of Mudd; this may have some impact on the weight of the argument to notability by NMUSIC #6. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The specific claim of how this group does (or doesn't) meet NMUSIC hasn't received consensus. Relisting to hopefully achieve such a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; all the sources are nine years old. --Stay safe, ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 01:41, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The ages of the sources is not relevant at all. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:15, 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. Or no consensus, depending how you look at it, but there's no consensus to delete here. There's however a strong suggestion emerging from this AfD that the article may need substantial editing to address WP:BLP concerns. Sandstein 09:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rupert Dover[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I nominated the original article for deletion as it was simply an attack page. Although substantially expanded for a new controversy, the current content of the has not changed this orientation. A person of Dover's rank would not usually warrant an article, and the current controversy is a very common problem in HK due to lax enforcement by the Lands Department. The issues being exposed have rightly received press coverage, as Dover as a brutal cop and major hate figure and is considered by most citizens a legitimate political target; Apple Daily, as one of the few unbridled journals has published the findings of its investigation. In my view, the issue will probably be resolved administratively, and the worst that can happen is a demolition order and a fine (but I think it will just get swept under the rug bearing in mind the political climate). How this is dealt with, however, is not relevant to our consideration. Wikipedia should not allow itself to be a vector for doxxing enemies of freedom and democracy (or indeed any other ideology). Until there is more notable "achievements", the article should stay deleted and the space salted. Ohconfucius (on the move) (talk) 12:18, 6 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 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:28, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Although the Apple Daily coverage on it's own would likely not be enough to be notable, the substantial coverage by other secondary sources seem to warrant the retention of this article, as notability seems reasonable. Notability is not necessarily based on "achievements", and even if Apple Daily's investigation is not found to be just, I think the secondary coverage of Apple Daily's report and subsequent reactions are notable enough. Per WP:BASIC, IMO there is little question of the notability as the subject has "received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject."--17jiangz1 (talk) 14:29, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This isn't a WP:GNG problem as there's ongoing tabloid coverage of him, it's a WP:BLP issue. I've noted multiple times at the ongoing deletion review that this page really doesn't show the lasting notability of Mr. Dover, someone whose position in a normal city would not lend itself to notability. This page is being used to effectively cover an ongoing scandal in which he has been involved in WP:NOTNEWS format. The article has served as a WP:COATRACK in the past for complaints against his leadership, and is currently covering a minor and ongoing scandal in WP:NOTNEWS format. Per WP:BLP, Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. This article does not meet that standard. Nothing has changed since October, and this article should be salted if and until a completely neutral, doxproof version of the article can be created. SportingFlyer T·C 15:39, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As an update, "Property Controversy" section is clearly not about him or his life and needs to be removed entirely, especially because it duplicates another Wikipedia article. SportingFlyer T·C 06:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:BLP1E/WP:NOTNEWS seem to be the most applicable things here. I don't see how violating planning laws makes someone article-worthy. The rest of his bio is the type of stuff that could be scraped off the web for most people. Number 5 7 18:27, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For the sake of transparency/context, here is the link to the DRV regarding this article that was at one point running simultaneously with this AFD. bibliomaniac 1 5 01:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think notability is reasonable. Content may be edited in response to the WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP principle, or by translating the content beyond the more recent Property controversy, or quoting more sources. Universehk (talk) 07:09, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per all. And it's obvious not attack page. ----Wright Streetdeck 07:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notability has been shown, and neutrality is acceptable, at least does not fall into the criteria of an attack page (not entirely negative in tone; not unsourced or poorly sourced). Jonashtand (talk) 09:40, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This famous guy has already mentioned on many newspapers and fulfilled the requirements of wikipedia. —hoising (talk) 10:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject is notable.--Vitalpantaryan (talk) 14:53, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Any issues with content and neutrality should be resolved through editing the article, and not deleting it. feminist | wear a mask 15:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:PP can prevent this from being an attack page. OceanHok (talk) 06:10, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since the DRV, I've seen no attempt to address the very legitimate concerns about BLP violations. Editors shouldn't wait for it to be deleted before once arguing again at DRV that it isn't an attack page and can be improved. There's already some advice above how to improve it, but I fear that there will be little left once the "illegal structure" stuff is trimmed to give the matter its due weight and other trivia removed. As already mentioned, someone of Dovers rank isn't inherently notable, and the fact that Michael Yip, his predecessor, nor others of the rank or below who haven't media career, or haven't been implicated in heinous crimes, don't have a WP article. --Ohconfucius (on the move) (talk) 13:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ohc on the move: Per WP:DUE representation should be "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." In this case, coverage of Dover has been revolving his participation in the policing of the 2019-20 protests and the property controversy, thus in this case the controversy should be a significant situation. On the other hand, perhaps WP:BLP1E might be applicable, thus the content regarding the property controversy should be moved to a separate article which can also cover similar accusations made towards other police officers and the consequent reactions, although this would leave out Dover's role in the protests, which although has less coverage, is still a significant part of media coverage on him.--17jiangz1 (talk) 15:36, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep.votes don't address the BLP.concerns. Further comment on that would establish if we close by headcount or strength of argument
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:22, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Serious WP:BLP issues, the Rupert Dover#Property controversy is completely inappropriate, as it is a private issue devoid of secondary source coverage from a distant perspective. The sourcing is essentially investigative journalism plus official sources, all primary source material. It is a WP:Attack page because it is desperate coverage of anything after the failure to tie the individual, on Wikipedia, to the incident where Hong Kong Police Force shot at protesters. If stubified by removing the property issue, it is even more clearly non-notable, a senior police officer in the Kowloon West (constituency), and that page does not mention him. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:47, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and trim the "Property controversy" section to comply with WP:BLP.

Why the topic does not violate WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E

Rupert Dover has received significant coverage for three separate events:
1. Chief of the Airport Security Unit (2003): A 2003 article in Apple Daily said that since 1997, the Hong Kong Police focused on promoting Chinese officers instead of foreign officers and then noted that Rupert Dover, a British police officer, is "exceptionally special". The article said Dover "is still highly regarded by the police force today", had been promoted to chief inspector, and was the chief of the Airport Security Unit at the time the article was published. The article said he had been working in the Airport Security Unit for a year and had worked in multiple departments in the past. It said Dover is nicknamed "Airport Tiger". He joined the police force in 1989 and worked in the dignitaries protection group between 1996 and 1999. Before he joined the police force, he studied archaeology at a British university.
2. Actions during the 2019–20 Hong Kong protests (2019): He received criticism for his actions at multiple demonstrations of the 2019–20 Hong Kong protests including the 12 June 2019 Hong Kong protest. A 8 July 2019 article in The Sunday Times said Dover is "a British officer in the Hong Kong police who has become a hate figure for protesters after being seen at a previous demonstration where tear gas and rubber bullets were used". A 9 July 2019 article in The Times said, "No officer has had more abuse than Mr Dover" with protesters carrying photos of him with the message "Shame on HKPF" and said he is "the senior British police officer who has become a symbol of the suppression of antigovernment demonstrations". According to a 2020 World Scientific-published book, "[Dover] said he had instructed tear gas be discharged in his area around Lung Wui Road". The book continued, "Assistant Commissioner Dover, who was singled out for public attention along with a few other foreign-born policemen and even had his role mentioned in the UK Parliament, brushed off accusations of British officers doing Beijing's dirty work."
3. Allegations about violations of government rules (2020): This article from the Hong Kong Free Press provides a good summary of the allegations against Dover related to property violations and his side business. He is being investigated by the Home Affairs Department and the Lands Department.
That Rupert Dover has received significant coverage in three separate instances means the topic does not violate WP:NOTNEWS or WP:BLP1E. BLP1E says, "We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met: 1. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event."

WP:BLP and the article's "Property controversy" section

WP:BLPBALANCE says, "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. After reading Rupert Dover#Property controversy, I think the material is presented "in a disinterested tone" though with regard to presenting the material "responsibly" and "conservatively" the section is too long and detailed.
Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons says, "Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." The most important part about the policy is "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment".
The Rupert Dover Wikipedia article spends 454 words on the "Property controversy" section (71% of the article) and 187 words on the other sections (29% of the article). Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Tone cautions editors to "Summarize how actions and achievements are characterized by reliable sources without giving undue weight to recent events." The property controversy is a recent event that started at the end of April 2020. To address the undue weight concerns, the section can be trimmed and some of the material can be merged to Controversies of the Hong Kong Police Force#Property controversy. Trimming the section is preferable to deleting the article per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion, which says, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page."

Sources

I provide sources below about the three separate events. The sources are ordered chronologically.

Here is the 2003 Apple Daily article that provides several paragraphs of coverage about Rupert Dover when he was chief of the Airport Security Unit:
1. "搶救墜機　押解難民機場特警揭秘". Apple Daily (in Chinese). 2003-11-10. Archived from the original on 2020-04-14. Retrieved 2020-05-18.
Here are the sources I found about his actions during the 2019–20 Hong Kong protests:
1. "612 帶隊清場總警司陶輝　拒回答當天為何下令射擊示威者". Stand News (in Chinese). 2019-06-22. Archived from the original on 2020-05-18. Retrieved 2020-05-18.
2. 鄭嘉如; 陳潤南 (2019-06-22). "【逃犯條例】6.12外籍指揮官陶輝　下屬撥開咪牌　三拒01記者提問" (in Chinese). HK01. Archived from the original on 2020-05-18. Retrieved 2020-05-18.
3. Sherwell, Philip (2019-06-23). "Protesters turn ire on British officers after clashes with Hong Kong police". The Sunday Times. Archived from the original on 2020-05-18. Retrieved 2020-05-18 – via Gale.
4. Chen, Frank (2019-06-24). "Brits in HK police 'played key crackdown roles'". Asia Times. Archived from the original on 2020-05-18. Retrieved 2020-05-18.
5. 吳倬安 (2019-06-24). "【逃犯條例】英警司指揮清場　英媒大篇幅報道　黃之鋒：揚威祖家" (in Chinese). HK01. Archived from the original on 2020-05-18. Retrieved 2020-05-18.
6. Parry, Richard Lloyd; Kam, Anna; Tang, Didi (2019-07-08). "Riot police storm in as Hong Kong protest spreads". The Times. Archived from the original on 2020-05-18. Retrieved 2020-05-18 – via Gale.
7. Parry, Richard Lloyd (2019-07-09). "Hong Kong protest leader confronts British officer". The Times. Archived from the original on 2020-05-18. Retrieved 2020-05-18 – via Gale.
8. Hzlewood, Jack (2019-07-18). "Hong Kong's Police Violence Is Stamped 'Made in U.K.'". Foreign Policy. Archived from the original on 2020-05-17. Retrieved 2020-05-17.
9. Birrell, Ian (2019-11-19). "British officers are doing China's dirty work in Hong Kong". The Times. Archived from the original on 2020-05-18. Retrieved 2020-05-18 – via Gale.
10. Ibrahim, Zuraidah; Lam, Jeffie, eds. (2020). Rebel City: Hong Kong's Year Of Water And Fire. Singapore: World Scientific. pp. 292–293, 300–301. ISBN 978-981-121-859-0. Retrieved 2020-05-17.
  The book notes:
  In April 2020, Assistant Commissioner Rupert Dover, among the first targets of protesters' wrath, revisited the orders he issued that day. As one of six ground operation commands throughout Operation Tiderider, he said he had instructed tear gas be discharged in his area around Lung Wui Road, but was not certain if he was the first to do so.
  Without going into detail because of an ongoing judicial review into the force's operations that day, Dover recalled that a few official vehicles, one of them carrying a government minister, were surrounded and trapped in an underpass. His mission was to rescue the individuals and clear the crowds.
  Asked if he realized, before making the command, that those rounds of tear gas would change the course of the movement, Dover said: "Have I thought that? I was aware of it." He said the alternative was to march the officers into the crowd knowing protesters overhead would hit them with bricks and other. ...
  The book notes:
  Assistant Commissioner Dover, who was singled out for public attention along with a few other foreign-born policemen and even had his role mentioned in the UK Parliament, brushed off accusations of British officers doing Beijing's dirty work.
  "I don't work for China. I don't work for Beijing. I work for the Hong Kong government. That's why my oath of allegiance was never to the queen, it was to the Hong Kong government. So I work for the Hong Kong people," said Dover, who was born in Hertford in the UK and joined the Royal Hong Kong Police Force in 1988.
  "My job is to ensure this place is safe. There have been a lot of mistruths stuck out on social media about the police officers, the expatriate police officers and about me. It is quite amazing."
Here are the sources I found about the allegations about violations of government rules:
1. "壹週刊：記者清水灣追訪陶輝後被警帶走　嚴厲譴責警察濫權　阻揭警隊高層醜聞". Stand News (in Chinese). 2020-04-28. Archived from the original on 2020-05-18. Retrieved 2020-05-18.
2. "警以遊蕩罪拘壹週刊記者查看相機照片警消息：陶輝家傭見有人滋擾報警". Stand News (in Chinese). 2020-04-28. Archived from the original on 2020-05-18. Retrieved 2020-05-18.
3. Ho-him, Chan (2020-04-29). "Hong Kong press associations condemn arrest of journalists carrying out investigative reporting in Clear Water Bay". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2020-05-17. Retrieved 2020-05-17.
4. 陳信熙 (2020-04-29). "助理警務處長陶輝報住清水灣牌照屋被指違規改建　西貢地政處視察" (in Chinese). HK01. Archived from the original on 2020-05-18. Retrieved 2020-05-18.
5. "陶輝申報地址地署證屬牌照屋無回應涉霸官地違規改建指控". Ming Pao (in Chinese). 2020-04-30. Archived from the original on 2020-05-18. Retrieved 2020-05-18.
6. "陶輝涉違規住「牌照屋」　警方：人員可自由投資但須守規　違紀將調查不會偏私". Stand News (in Chinese). 2020-04-30. Archived from the original on 2020-05-18. Retrieved 2020-05-18.
7. 黃金棋 (2020-04-30). "《壹週刊》記者訪攝陶輝被警拘捕　記協主席：警翻閱筆記或已違法" (in Chinese). HK01. Archived from the original on 2020-05-18. Retrieved 2020-05-18.
8. "Another dept probes house linked to senior policeman". RTHK. 2020-05-01. Archived from the original on 2020-05-17. Retrieved 2020-05-17.
9. "Licensee gave us permission for house: Rupert Dover". RTHK. 2020-05-01. Archived from the original on 2020-05-17. Retrieved 2020-05-17.
10. Cheng, Lilian (2020-05-01). "Senior Hong Kong police officer Rupert Dover investigated by two government departments over allegations he broke property rules". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2020-05-17. Retrieved 2020-05-17.
11. "區議員稱居民自 14 年起　多次投訴陶輝違規僭建　地政署廉署冷處理". Stand News (in Chinese). 2020-05-01. Archived from the original on 2020-05-18. Retrieved 2020-05-18.
12. "陶輝發帖放租「牌照屋」　民政總署︰未領有旅館牌照　有足夠證據會檢控　陶輝：會配合調查". Stand News (in Chinese). 2020-05-01. Archived from the original on 2020-05-18. Retrieved 2020-05-18.
13. "陶輝涉出租碧水新村牌照屋　地政署：範圍限作貯物用途　視察後會跟進". Stand News (in Chinese). 2020-05-01. Archived from the original on 2020-05-18. Retrieved 2020-05-18.
14. 孔繁栩 (2020-05-01). "陶輝牌照屋｜被問寮屋屋主是否親屬　陶輝：直系親屬定義為何？" (in Chinese). HK01. Archived from the original on 2020-05-18. Retrieved 2020-05-18.
15. "蘋果：陶輝曾發帖放租「牌照屋」　涉違條款及無牌經營旅館". Stand News (in Chinese). 2020-05-01. Archived from the original on 2020-05-18. Retrieved 2020-05-18.
16. 黃詠榆 (2020-05-01). "助理警務處長陶輝涉非法租用、改建及出租牌照屋　區議員實地視察" (in Chinese). HK01. Archived from the original on 2020-05-18. Retrieved 2020-05-18.
17. "陶輝涉僭建霸官地違法出租牌照屋　民政署：未領取旅館牌照會跟進". Ming Pao (in Chinese). 2020-05-01. Archived from the original on 2020-05-18. Retrieved 2020-05-18.
18. 蘇文軒 (2020-05-01). "清水灣寮屋居所疑涉違規改建及做民宿　助理警務處長陶輝稱願配合調查". Hong Kong Economic Times (in Chinese). Archived from 助理警務處長陶輝稱願配合調查 the original on 2020-05-18. Retrieved 2020-05-18.
19. "英籍指揮官陶輝知法犯法　違反牌照條款及佔用官地證據確鑿". zh:癲狗日報. 2020-05-01. Archived from the original on 2020-05-18. Retrieved 2020-05-18.
20. Lau, Chris (2020-05-02). "Privacy watchdog urged to probe appearance of reporter's photo on Facebook account after article alleges senior Hong Kong police officer Rupert Dover broke housing rules". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2020-05-17. Retrieved 2020-05-17.
21. 鄭秋玲; 勞顯亮 (2020-05-02). "陶輝牌照屋｜妻子FB曾轉用《蘋果》記者頭像　陶輝：她自己決定" (in Chinese). HK01. Archived from the original on 2020-05-18. Retrieved 2020-05-18.
22. 劉錦華 (2020-05-02). "陶輝牌照屋｜妻FB曾用記者頭像　私隱公署：若意圖辨識身份受規管" (in Chinese). HK01. Archived from the original on 2020-05-18. Retrieved 2020-05-18.
23. 胡家欣 (2020-05-02). "陶輝牌照屋｜陶輝妻FB用《蘋果》記者肖像涉違禁令　報館發律師信" (in Chinese). HK01. Archived from the original on 2020-05-18. Retrieved 2020-05-18.
24. 鄭寶生 (2020-05-02). "陶輝牌照屋｜陶妻FB曾用記者頭像　私隱公署將會調查" (in Chinese). HK01. Archived from the original on 2020-05-18. Retrieved 2020-05-18.
25. 鄭秋玲; 李恩慈; 胡家欣 (2020-05-02). "陶輝牌照屋｜一文看清三高級警陶輝莊定賢韋華高　捲入住所風波" (in Chinese). HK01. Archived from the original on 2020-05-18. Retrieved 2020-05-18.
26. "點名陶輝、莊定賢、薛鎮廷　三名英籍警官為警暴「要犯」　英國人權委員會成員促英政府追究". Stand News (in Chinese). 2020-05-02. Archived from the original on 2020-05-18. Retrieved 2020-05-18.
27. "FB 換記者頭像涉違禁制令　《蘋果日報》將向陶輝妻發信". Stand News (in Chinese). 2020-05-02. Archived from the original on 2020-05-18. Retrieved 2020-05-18.
28. "陶輝涉違規住「牌照屋」　林卓廷去信廉署促徹查　民主派擬周二立會跟進". Stand News (in Chinese). 2020-05-03. Archived from the original on 2020-05-18. Retrieved 2020-05-18.
29. "陶輝涉辦無牌民宿民政署跟進牌照屋疑霸官地僭建地署證限儲物用途". Ming Pao (in Chinese). 2020-05-02. Archived from the original on 2020-05-18. Retrieved 2020-05-18.
30. 鄭榕笛; 孔繁栩 (2020-05-03). "陶輝牌照屋｜質疑涉貪污及公職人員行為失當　林卓廷函廉署促徹查" (in Chinese). HK01. Archived from the original on 2020-05-18. Retrieved 2020-05-18.
31. "陶輝妻頭像換記者相《蘋果》發律師信". Ming Pao (in Chinese). 2020-05-03. Archived from the original on 2020-05-18. Retrieved 2020-05-18.
32. "Explainer: Hong Kong police top brass embroiled in property scandals". Hong Kong Free Press. 2020-05-04. Archived from the original on 2020-05-17. Retrieved 2020-05-17.
33. "Govt officials inspect Rupert Dover's home". RTHK. 2020-05-04. Archived from the original on 2020-05-17. Retrieved 2020-05-17.
34. "Lands officials check assistant police chief's home". The Standard. 2020-05-04. Archived from the original on 2020-05-18. Retrieved 2020-05-18.
35. Hui, Sophie (2020-05-04). "Senior cop faces ICAC probe push". The Standard. Archived from the original on 2020-05-18. Retrieved 2020-05-18.
36. "陶輝涉違規居牌照屋及經營無牌民宿　地政總署上門調查". Ming Pao (in Chinese). 2020-05-04. Archived from the original on 2020-05-18. Retrieved 2020-05-18.
37. 彭愷欣; 陳蕾蕾 (2020-05-04). "陶輝牌照屋｜地政總署人員登門調查　陶輝無回答傳媒提問" (in Chinese). HK01. Archived from the original on 2020-05-18. Retrieved 2020-05-18.
38. 莫稼浩 (2020-05-04). "消息：原地政總署署長陳松青調任上月27日已決定　與陶輝事件無關". Hong Kong Economic Times (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2020-05-18. Retrieved 2020-05-18.
39. Shum, Michael (2020-05-05). "Top cop's roof problem covered". The Standard. Archived from the original on 2020-05-18. Retrieved 2020-05-18.
40. Leung, Christy (2020-05-05). "Hong Kong police chief accuses Apple Daily of running targeted campaign against him, reveals the newspaper is being investigated for alleged fraud". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2020-05-17. Retrieved 2020-05-17.
41. 鄭秋玲 (2020-05-05). "陶輝妻被揭涉出租牌照屋後換記者相　鄧炳強︰會檢視有無涉刑事" (in Chinese). HK01. Archived from the original on 2020-05-18. Retrieved 2020-05-18.
42. 陳綽嵐 (2020-05-05). "陶輝牌照屋｜鄧炳強：涉霸佔官地警官未被停職　正進行內部調查" (in Chinese). HK01. Archived from the original on 2020-05-18. Retrieved 2020-05-18.
43. "地署上門查陶輝兩屋 8區議員廉署舉報稱違防賄例公職失當". Ming Pao (in Chinese). 2020-05-05. Archived from the original on 2020-05-18. Retrieved 2020-05-18.
44. "地政總署正查陶輝　署長陳松青調職　林鄭月娥稱兩者無關". Ming Pao (in Chinese). 2020-05-05. Archived from the original on 2020-05-18. Retrieved 2020-05-18.
45. Mok, Maisy (2020-05-06). "Lam denies transfer link to cop probe". The Standard. Archived from the original on 2020-05-18. Retrieved 2020-05-18.
Cunard (talk) 09:13, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While there is now a keep participant who is addressing the concerns there's not yet enough discussions to call it a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:11, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wikipedia is not China. An article in The Sunday Times said Dover is "a British officer in the Hong Kong police who has become a hate figure for protesters", yet person is innocent until proven guilty. No amount of cite-bombing will mitigate the fact that Dover is well-known because he is hated. Au contraire, it rather just proves the point. FWIW, I despise him too, but I foresee that the article will remain a battleground, as it will be argued that with all the news articles about his illegal structures must mean they are valid and can be cited. --Ohconfucius (on the move) (talk) 07:38, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May as well also point out the first English-language article in Cunard's list noted Dover has been a doxxing target. SportingFlyer T·C 07:51, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the primary concern is that there will be edit wars/vandalism in the future, isn't permanent page protection or pending changes more effective or appropriate? Even if he is just a hate figure, he is a very notable hate figure in Hong Kong. The article is fairly stable. If keyboard warriors are going to lay siege, I am sure Chris Tang will be the first target, but even that article is fairly stable too. OceanHok (talk) 18:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

with respect, the primary concern is not that there will be vandalism or edit wars, but that much of the very tabloid nature of the current content totally violates WP:BLP, and does not reflect any genuine notability. There is no disputing Chris Tang, as popo commissioner, is notable. The Dover article is stable probably because we're a pretty civil bunch that prefers to battle out the fundamental issue (that this is an attack page) here at AfD, bearing in mind that if the property scandal stuff is removed, there's very little encyclopedic material left for a biography. BTW, it seems that Dover won't be taken to court, as predicted. --Ohconfucius (on the move) (talk) 21:23, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get the WP:THREE best sources please. I and most readers do not have time to go through the 50+ mentioned. Stifle (talk) 10:49, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The best sources are those I mentioned in the "Why the topic does not violate WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E" section. Cunard (talk) 00:44, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard—probably the first and last time I will write that phrase—but it's clear that he's notable beyond a single event. Enforcement of WP:RS, with page protection if necessary, is preferable to deletion. b uidhe 13:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. It's fairly obvious from Cunard's first batch of citations that he is notable, but an article that is two thirds negative WP:RECENTISM about something that doesn't actually appear to be that important is not a suitable article. Get it out of mainspace until it's improved. Black Kite (talk) 00:25, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The BLP concerns can be resolved without moving the article to draftspace. The BLP concerns raised by Black Kite, SportingFlyer, SmokeyJoe, Ohconfucious, and myself can be resolved by completely removing the Rupert Dover#Property controversy section.
Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Restoring deleted content says:
To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material.
When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first. Material that has been repaired to address concerns should be judged on a case-by-case basis.
Any editor who wants to add information about the property controversy would need to either substantially trim it to comply with BLP and WP:RECENTISM or gain consensus on the talk page for restoring the material without significant change. I have not removed the section myself as that would be a controversial action.
Cunard (talk) 00:44, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I support removing the Rupert Dover#Property controversy section, seeing how it goes, without prejudice to a later AfD. I think a *brief* mention of the multiple controversies might be OK, but it must be brief and cited to secondary sources. There is a huge WP:COATRACK problem, but I think it could be managed by a strict adherence to WP:PSTS, specifically, no primary sources not cited in an independent secondary source. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:36, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wrexham Symphony Orchestra[edit]

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

A non notable amateur orchestra. WP:BEFORE shows some local coverage but nothing beyond WP:MILL Cardiffbear88 (talk) 00:21, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 00:21, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 00:21, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 00:21, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 00:21, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 00:21, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BEFORE and WP:NMG, have concerns per WP:NOTPROMOTION. Drat8sub (talk) 00:45, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Couldn't find anything about the subject. Article lacks reliable sourcing or significant coverage. Delete. Koridas (...Puerto Rico for statehood!) 05:11, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, there's no evidence of promotion and there is multiple evidence of independent reliable news coverage (including a feature on Radio Wales). I wouldn't describe a 50th anniversary as 'run-of-the-mill'. "Weak" keep, because a one line article won't be missed and there doesn't seem to be an appetite to expand it. Sionk (talk) 01:13, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, clear consensus that subject passes GNG. (non-admin closure) Devonian Wombat (talk) 08:20, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sohla El-Waylly[edit]

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

This is promotionalism without a basis of notability -- neither the executive chef at a major restaurant, nor editor in chief of a publication DGG ( talk ) 00:03, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 01:20, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 01:20, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 01:20, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as article creator. While I agree that El-Waylly is neither the executive chef at a major restaurant, nor editor-in-chief of a publication, I'm not sure if that's the standard for deletion necessary. WP:GNG requires that the subject has received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The article in GQ, in particular, meets that criteria, as well as the coverage in Gothamist and the Wall Street Journal. All three are well-known reliable sources. Finally, by comparison, there are similar articles on El-Waylly's colleagues at Bon Appetit - Priya Krishna, Carla Lalli Music, Brad Leone, & Chris Morocco. None of them are executive chefs or editors-in-chief either. However this deletion discussion goes, it might have relevance to those articles as well. Ganesha811 (talk) 01:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:28, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:28, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I'm not really sure why you're saying this is promotionalism. While she is neither of those things, she is notable not only for being formerly the executive chef at a restaurant that received quite a lot coverage, but she also appears regularly on the popular Bon Appetit YouTube channel, which has in turn increased her notability. Most importantly, as Captain Raju mentions, she has received WP:SIGCOV through all the articles mentioned ([22][23][24]) as well as part of the greater Bon Appetit coverage. Cerebral726 (talk) 15:49, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cerebral726. I am not sure why "executive chef" or "editor in chief" would be the standard to apply here, as opposed to WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, etc. XOR'easter (talk) 18:47, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/: If someone known as a cook is " neither the executive chef at a major restaurant, nor editor in chief of a publication" (what is the possible basis for such coverage as exists: either the person is notable in some other way or the coverage is PR. Why else would a publicatione write an article. We go not by references of any sort whatever, but those providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. I am not aware of any publication, however reliable on general, that will no publish PR, and the very job of a PR agent is to get the work placed in as highly a reputed publication as possible. Every publication here, except the WSJ, has its entire or principal reason for existence that of publishing PR. EdibleBrooklyn, for example, publishes PR, generally very slightly disguised-- and I read every issue in detail, because I live there and because the PR it publishes is interesting to me. Advertisements about things people might want are of value , especially about things that are not yet notable otherwise. There is an industry devoted to satisfying such needs, and some of it can be quite valuable. But not in an encyclopedia . Professionals and businesses have enough publicity channels, many of them much larger and more visible than WP. DGG ( talk ) 09:10, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: DGG, I disagree with many of your points. First off, you ask: "why else would a publication write an article?" Because they want to cover the subject and find it worthwhile to write about? In GQ's case, because they are writing about non-white chefs cooking "white" food? In Gothamist's case, because they are writing about the food scene of the city they call home? In WSJ's case, because restaurant reviews are a normal and steady part of their coverage?

It's odd that you say that these sources (other than WSJ) exist principally to publish PR. GQ is a long-standing and well established magazine. Gothamist is a well-known NY-centric site for NY writing. I don't deny that PR exists and could hypothetically influence coverage in these sources, but we have no evidence of that and to jump from that premise to the conclusion that El-Waylly is only covered because of wily PR professionals is specious. As others in this discussion have said, the standard to apply is WP:GNG and on that basis El-Waylly passes no problem. Ganesha811 (talk) 16:35, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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