The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:35, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Inner Circle (2005 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable film per WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Also written like an advertisement. KidAd (talk) 23:55, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:05, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nothing to indicate this is a notable film.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:32, 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:34, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate (Boney M. album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No significant coverage. Did not chart. Fails WP:NALBUM. This venue is a last resort after multiple redirect overwrites. Another common target of Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Hanoi vandal. Jalen Folf (talk) 23:27, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 23:27, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or at the very least redirect and salt. This is yet another of those unremarkable Boney M. compilations that fails WP:NALBUM and a certain IP insists on repeatedly restoring the redirect. Richard3120 (talk) 23:46, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - (Richard3120's comment about SALT above is also worthy of consideration). Boney M must have had shifty managers because the world, and Wikipedia, are swimming with useless and repetitive compilation albums decades after the band ceased recording. At least five such albums have recently gone through this AfD process, and that's only the ones I can remember off the top of my head. This one is like all the others: a quickie release that was unnoticed by the public or the music media and was immediately forgotten. There is evidence that an editor who is unfamiliar with the WP:NALBUM notability requirements insists on helping these Boney M compilation articles survive, so further action may be needed. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:08, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Doomsdayer520: Boney M.'s writer/producer/manager (and provider of most of the male vocals on their records) was Frank Farian, the same man who later gave the world the even more artificial creation Milli Vanilli. Farian simply made sure that he produced dozens of re-edits, remixes and re-recordings of every Boney M. song, so that every compilation album would have very slightly different versions of each song from the previous ones. In addition, many of the albums were produced specifically for individual countries, rather than all across Europe, with the same slight differences in track listings and cover art. This has resulted in literally dozens, if not hundreds, of Boney M. compilations over the last 40 years, but no more than three or four of them are truly notable. Even the biggest one, The Magic of Boney M. – 20 Golden Hits, released at the height of their popularity in 1980, does not contain the 7" single versions of the hits... they are yet more re-edited versions. Richard3120 (talk) 19:15, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard3120: - Thanks for the info. I definitely knew about Frank Farian's involvement, which makes all Boney M compilations suspect in my eyes, but I did not know about all the minor remixes and different song versions. It's too bad "shysterism" is not a criterion for deletion. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 00:21, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NALBUM. No evidence has been provided that this album appeared on a national music chart, was certified gold, or received multiple reviews or news articles in reliable sources. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:04, 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 merge to List of original programs distributed by Apple TV+. MBisanz ^talk 02:34, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of cancelled original programs for Apple TV+ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Better served by Template:Apple TV+. Fuddle (talk) 22:12, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Fuddle (talk) 22:12, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:51, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to List of original programs distributed by Apple TV+. There are only two programs listed here, so there's no reason for a separate article about the cancelled programs. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:01, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, Better put these two items with the others in List of original programs distributed by Apple TV+, if they are not already there. Alex-h (talk) 08:01, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to List of original programs distributed by Apple TV+. However, do not include on Template:Apple TV+ since we don't have (and most likely will never have) articles on these two shows. Pichpich (talk) 20:36, 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:34, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Obvious promotional attempt for non-notable band, entirely sourced to the band's website and social media. No reliable independent sources found. Richard3120 (talk) 21:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 21:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 21:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 21:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, no RS to be found. Caro7200 (talk) 22:19, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose/keep principle member of artist is verifiable and featured guitarist on 4 other wikipedia band pages. Kane Kelly (Spy Glass Blue, Scaterd Few, Greyskull, Between Thieves) thecosmicstring (talk) 23:19, 23 May 2020 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: thecosmicstring (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

Being in other bands does not make this band notable, per WP:INHERITED, especially as Kane Kelly is not notable himself (I see you created his article page and that was deleted as well due to lack of notability). Of the four other bands he was in that have Wikipedia articles, he was in two of them for less than a year, and one of the others doesn't appear to be notable. Richard3120 (talk) 22:58, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.iheart.com/artist/die-stromms-31970994/ http://www.knon.org/reckless-rock-radio/ https://kegl.iheart.com/featured/loud-and-local/content/2019-12-26-looking-back-at-dfw-local-bands-in-2019/The recording was in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network.The recording has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:1500:443a:5901:9454:7ab4:2a70 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC) — 2605:6000:1500:443a:5901:9454:7ab4:2a70 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Instead of copying and pasting the criteria from WP:NMUSIC, could you please actually show evidence that the band meets these criteria? Richard3120 (talk) 19:38, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, seems to be a promotion for a non-notable project of Kane Kelly. Though if Kelly has been a regular member of several notable music groups, maybe a Wikipedia page about him would have more success. Sionk (talk) 00:40, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose/keep Project is notable as it has garnered radio airplay and is available on all streaming formats. thecosmicstring (talk) 23:19, 23 May 2020 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: thecosmicstring (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

You cannot vote twice, so I'm striking your second vote. Being available to buy doesn't make a recording notable... all records are available to buy, even some of my cousins have uploaded their music to Apple Music. And neither does just one play on a radio station, it would have to be on rotation or as part of an individual segment focusing on the band. Please see WP:BAND for notability requirements. Richard3120 (talk) 18:46, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - It appears that the band's name is presented two different ways depending on where you look, as either "Die Strömms" or simply "Strömms". There is an empty entry at AllMusic, which doesn't help, and otherwise I cannot find a single reliable media mention or review of any of the albums. All I can find is the typical retail listings and streaming services, and any band can get themselves onto those. To satisfy the Wikipedia notability requirements this one-man act needs to be noticed by someone other than itself and its fans. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:58, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Barely found anything about the band. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 01:24, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (Note: I am new to AfD) per DarkOrchid, no reliable sources, no media mentions or reviews. Not notable. Just gonna edit a bit (talk) 17:32, 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 merge to List of unsuccessful terrorist plots in the United States post-9/11. (non-admin closure) buidhe 21:41, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 2015 New York City pressure cooker bomb plot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Nothing about this article indicates it is any different from the foiled terrorist plots mentioned in the List of unsuccessful terrorist plots in the United States post-9/11 article. An attack hasn't even been attempted in this case. If deleted, any relevant information from this article can be moved to that one, because it does need mentioning there. Love of Corey (talk) 21:31, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to List of unsuccessful terrorist plots in the United States post-9/11; does not merit a stand-alone article per WP:NOTNEWS. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:15, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above. --TheImaCow (talk) 13:07, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:51, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:53, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:53, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge with April 2015 New York City pressure cooker bomb plot. Are these two very similar plots unrelated? My very best wishes (talk) 01:13, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are not. Merging this with that article sounds a lot like WP:SYNTH. Love of Corey (talk) 09:50, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason I do not see it included to the List of unsuccessful terrorist plots in the United States post-9/11. I do agree that not all terrorist plots are notable. However, those linked to famous international organizations (like ISIS or Al Qaeda) and covered in multiple RS I think are all notable enough to deserve a separate page. My very best wishes (talk) 17:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hence why I said anything relevant can be merged to that article. And this article doesn't have a lot of RS to support notability, nor does it involve any direct link to famous international terrorist organizations like you say. This is just an act of support, nothing more. Love of Corey (talk) 19:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I simply think such cases are not "routine" crime cases, very far from it. They need to be included somewhere, on separate pages or/and in a list. In this case I would say in the both to provide some details.My very best wishes (talk) 20:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and that's why I think the List of unsuccessful terrorist plots in the United States post-9/11 article covers it perfectly. Love of Corey (talk) 21:05, 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. (non-admin closure) buidhe 21:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Many Sue Harrises, so difficult to find info. I couldn't find sources to confirm she meets WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 08:02, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I'm pretty sure she is notable. Will search for some more sources. e.g.this one Martinevans123 (talk) 08:07, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I note that criterion (5) at WP:MUSICBIO says:

"Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)."

I guess this is disputed as the criterion assumes the albums are solo albums released under her sole name? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:06, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep a number of new references have been added to the article. Not familiar with some but she does have a staff written biography at AllMusic, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:16, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Additional book reference here, Atlantic306 (talk) 18:50, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Atlantic306 that seems like quite a strong source and I have mentioned it at Talk:Sue Harris. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:02, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:24, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:24, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:17, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Its notable for me. --TheImaCow (talk) 13:10, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The beeb covered her and they're is a couple of Gbook mentions. Two albums and still signed, new album coming. Not a lot really, but sufficient for basic notability. Some minor coverage in the local paper in Norfolk. scope_creep^Talk 10:51, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:33, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Edwards (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 21:27, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 21:58, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:55, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:38, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:GNG, Alex-h (talk) 08:12, 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:33, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG and not notable as an athlete. cookie monster (2020) 755 06:39, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:31, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:31, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:31, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, local athlete. Geschichte (talk) 18:24, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable athlete.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:47, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete To satisfy WP:NATH, an athlete must be in the top tier of their sport, whether that's competing in the olympics, finishing top eight in a global contest, holding records or being listed in a prominent hall of fame. Regardless, being team captain for the University of California, Los Angeles women's track and cross country teams does not tick that box. We do have some athletes who don't clearly pass that. However, to merit an article in that case one has to have WP:SIGCOV that Hampson simply doesn't have. The Daily Bruin and The Corsair are student newspapers, the The Register-Guard is a local paper, as is MailTribune.com.. All the LATimes has to say is "Kipp Ortenburger of Cuesta won the men's race and Githa Hampson of Santa Monica took the women's title." The only sources that give her more than passing mentions are those from the Daily Bruin and a GSearch indicates no possible missing sources. She appears to have been a decent runner in college, maybe set some college level records; but she has never done anything more then that to establish notability, and retiring at the end of college makes it unlikely she ever will. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:32, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Local event does not make her notable. Alex-h (talk) 08:19, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) buidhe 21:43, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I think this group falls short of WP:BAND. Of the three references used in the article Source 1 is a passing mention, Source 2 mentions the band in the context of a larger subject along with several other artists, and Source 3 is an interview in a local newspaper. A further search didn't turn up anything in terms of significant coverage. GPL93 (talk) 17:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 17:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 17:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as has reliable sources coverage such as the LA Weekly which with a circulation of 160,000 is a regional source rather than a local source and in any case local reliable sources press such as Culver City are acceptable for WP:GNG except for companies and organisations, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The first LA Weekly article doesn't even talk about the band at all, its mention is in the weekly show listings at the very end of the article, and the second one is not particularly in-depth coverage as it is a quick highlight along with at least three other performers. Culver City article is an interview. I just do not see how that gets us to a WP:GNG pass. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:32, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Added additional regional references including a listing as a Top-10 LA Country/Americana band in 2017.Toxdoc411 (talk) 01:29, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Even the new sources are not in depth. The current sourcing is as follows: 1) Two sentences about one of the band's members; 2) Passing mention when listing the bands that played at a five year anniversary of a music club; 3) part of a listicle; 4) Not particularly in-depth coverage as it is a highlight along with at least three other performers who are performing at the same country music club; 5) An interview in a local newspaper; and 6) a link to their AllMusic page which is not a reliable source. Best, GPL93 (talk) 23:02, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AllMusic is a reliable source as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources but in this case with no biography or album reviews it doesn't count to notability, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:25, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Additional source here, and this article about Hollywood Country does have significant coverage about them if you scroll down the article here, this is a passing mention but it does say that the LA Reader classed them as best local band in 1995 here which is a claim to pass WP:NMUSIC criteria 7, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 00:33, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• delete: Due to significant issues. The below points are an overview on why this article needs to be deleted

WP:NPOV – this article has not been written with a neutral point of view. It sounds like a PR firm has written it as noted by Deacon Vorbis in May 2020. WP:VERIFY – This articles lacks enough verifiable sources, citations are from three tabloid Australian tabloid outlets with sensationalized headlines. Moreover the reliability of the other two sources can be disputed, Armin Navabi's personal podcast is not at all a reliable source as per Wikipedia Standards. We have placed insufficient source tags for over 7 months and there have not been any additions or better sources added to this article. WP:WWIN and WP:ORIGINAL – This article does not have any substantial biography or notability. It is not what Wikipedia is, the biography of this living person should not be on Wikipedia due to the lack of notability. The person has NOT received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times. The person has NOT made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field, although this may be disputed but the fact of the matter is their contribution has not made an impact in their respective "field"

Tahadharamsi (talk) 05:19, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:52, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tanzania-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:52, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:52, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:52, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:46, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. 03:30, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

*Delete Coverage is very one-off and fails to thoroughly establish the notability of the subject. If subject receives as much coverage again without depending on any other similar subject's coverage then the article can be recreated. Orientls (talk) 08:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per lengthy explanation provided by Normal Op. Orientls (talk) 15:00, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable activist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:07, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is a terrible place for such articles, and they shouldn't be included. -- John Larsen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.237.134.17 (talk) 06:13, 23 May 2020 (UTC) — 212.237.134.17 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep: This article is vital to the open pursuit of Free Speech & Inquiry, and must be kept.
  Zara Kay, like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, is a courageous heroine of great notability and repute in the Atheist community. She rescues asylum seekers, campaigns tirelessly as a voice for the voiceless, and her work is published/referenced/featured all over the world, with five quick examples coming from India, Netherlands, Bulgaria, USA, and the United Kingdom. She is the founder of a support group for dissenting voices that speak out against sectarian militias hellbent on silencing dissent. Removing this article gives them exactly that. The arguments for deletion say the article is not "what Wikipedia is", but as Wikipedia is a general reference work, I would argue the article is precisely "what Wikipedia is". Keep it. --Ylleknivek (talk) 20:03, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Keep: This article and it's citations give off a strong PR vibe and it looks like that the subject might have had some say in the contents of the article. There isn't sufficient long time coverage to establish notability; fails GNG. Regarding additional sources provided by Ylleknivek, Youth Ki Awaaz is not considered to be a reliable source (RSN discussion) and neither is Times of India (RSN RFC). Times of India is specially notorious for taking money for publishing bullshit. I don't know much about the non-Indian sources but they also seem unreliable on a glance. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 01:39, 24 May 2020 (UTC) Normal Op has presented a good keep argument keep argument, I think I agree with them. But someone should still look into the PR thing though, PR and advocacy like this does incredible amounts of damage to Wikipedia. Too many new accounts coming out of woodworks on this AfD. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 13:37, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete: As mentioned this article lacks neutrality, notability and trusted sources. All the sources provided by Ylleknivek are unreliable and self-serving. YKA (Pakistan) is noted as non-reliable source. DDS (Netherlands) is right winged blog again not reliable. The CFI (USA) is from a non-profit news release, again a non-neutral source - a non-profit will publish releases that further their cause and not from a NPOV. Explanation for Times of India has been explained by TryKid. As for this article being "What Wikipedia is" - it most definitely is not what Wikipedia is. This person does not meet the standards for a biography on Wikipedia, their contributions to the cause are not significant or notable. The use of this article has come acroos as a PR gimmick. Having a couple of citations and a small social media following does not make one notable, I tried to look for the subjects "support group" but have not come across any tangible effects of her works. I refer Ylleknivek to the policy WP:NPF, WP:AVOIDVICTIM in addition to this article having 0 primary sources, disputed secondary sources, non-verifiable content, being self-promoted, and promoting propaganda. Tahadharamsi (talk) 08:11, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Duplicate vote struck. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:07, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: There are some more keep comments in the article's talk page so any closer might want to look at them. Also, I've notified the creator of the article about this discussion, which it seems wasn't done. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 08:30, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I still stand with my stance, the discussion on the talk page further enhances my point that this article is a PR piece and is not What Wikipedia Is - "Zara is awesome and deserves her own Wikipedia article in order to spread awareness of who she is and what she does" the talk page comments are opinions and not a defense to the points of this debate. Moreover, they seem to have appeared due to the article's subject rallying support on Twitter. Furthermore admits to "being interviewed" for their Wikipedia Article^[1] I have reminded the talk page contributors to review WP:ADVOCACY in order to understand why I have proposed the AfD. Tahadharamsi (talk) 11:13, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This was brought to my notice in my talk page hence will not vote but could find some coverage.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:30, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

^{[2] [3] [4] [5] [6]}

• Weak delete Neutral Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs, and no matter how much she may support free speech, she may not meet WP:GNG. Looking at the sources presented by Ylleknivek, #1 is a passing mention in an interview ("many notable people such as Armin Navabi, Troy Garnaut, Zara Kay helped me to rescue. The process took over a year to complete"), #2 is referencing her, quoting something she said, but it isn't about her. It's coverage of Rahaf Mohammed. #3 calls her one of the most "visible ex-Muslim women" (or at least google translate does), but it's again only a passing mention. Further, the nlwiki article on the website calls it a "right weblog" and says it is " regularly accused of bringing fake news and writing articles to provoke outrage"-- not exactly inspiring confidence in its reliability. #4 is a 115 word article on her in a source I can find nothing on in English, suggesting it's not all that well known. #5 publishes an essay by her, so by definition it isn't independent. #6 is again just a passing mention. If notability is to be established, she must be clearly shown to have in-depth coverage in multiple reliable independent sources, see WP:GNG. In the article, the article in The Australian seems to be rather in-depth, though it's closer to an interview then news. News.com.au is actually decent towards notability. #s three and four are generally unreliable sources per WP:RSP, and the last source is briefly quoting her. WP:BASIC states that "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." However, while there are a lot of sources that mention her in passing, quote her while covering somebody else, only two actually are in-depth, and one is more like an interview than in-depth coverage. That being said, if there were a few more sources, she might be notable. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:52, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Striking my vote as Normal Op has some valid analysis. Combined, all the sourcing makes this a very borderline case, so for what it's worth I'll register a neutral vote. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:46, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The 'passing mentions' to which Eddie891 refers are valid under WP:SECONDARY and WP:TERTIARY source policy and serve to establish the merits of notability. Attacking the examples as "publishing bullshit", as TryKid libels above, is logical fallacy Ad Hominem, and as such the argument falls. Tahadharamsi's claim 'the article lacks enough verifiable sources' is specifically listed by Wikipedia as an Argument to Avoid in Deletion Discussions (WP:RUBBISH), from Surmountable Problems: "Remember, Wikipedia has no deadline. If there's good, eventually sourceable, content in the article, it should be developed and improved, not deleted." (WP:SURMOUNTABLE) Furthermore, saying there "aren't enough examples" moves the goalposts back, for how many are enough? This is an informal fallacy and shows an error in reasoning. That said, while my previous examples were all print media, here is one from broadcast media, coming from a channel with millions of views and over 440,000 YouTube subscribers, looking to Zara Kay's voice precisely because this person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in the specific field of Dissent, successfully refuting the initial point. --Ylleknivek (talk) 20:03, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Ylleknivek:, commenting on the veracity of the sources isn't "libel" or ad hominem. If you're actually interested in why Times of India has such bad reputation, you can read more at User:Winged Blades of Godric/Indian Media and User:Ms Sarah Welch/sandbox/Paid news and private treaties. Also, your Facebook video link is broken and note that we need reliable sources, the number of subscribers and viewers don't matter. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:52, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @TryKid: the link to Sky News Australia is a reliable source, and Sky News is one of the least biased and most reliable media organizations according to comprehensive media bias resources. The link --embedded in Facebook-- works fine on my end, tested with 4 different browsers on both mobile and desktop. --Ylleknivek (talk) 20:03, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The citations are reliable sources, the article has been enhanced, it was never lacking for citations, and the subject (Zara Kay) is notable. The appropriate policy for guidance of notability for an article about a person is Wikipedia:Notability (people), not WP:GNG: "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right", which would be Wikipedia:Notability (people) (NBIO). See WP:BASIC for a short paragraph on NBIO criteria. This article, and its subject Zara Kay, meet that criteria. There is "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". And if you don't agree it's substantial then I point you to there being "multiple independent sources combined to demonstrate notability." Those primary source citations, such as podcasts, have been used in the article solely to support simple biographical information such as religion of upbringing, nationality of father, university attended, age and date of immigration to Australia, participation in religious activity, and community backlash after stopping wearing a hijab. None of those facts are controversial, nor are needed to establish notability. The subject meets NBIO's notability criteria. For these reasons, we should keep the article.

Continued: Now to counter the delete-side... The nomination is seriously flawed. The nominator called every source a non-reliable source or a tabloid (including The Australian, News Corp Australia, Youth Ki Awaaz and De Dagelijkse Standaard) when only one source (Daily Star) is tagged as such at WP:RSPSOURCES (and that citation could easily be swapped out with some other). Nom has used scare quotes and loaded language to express contempt of the subject (tabloid, "field", sensationalized headlines, gimmick, small social media following), expressed impatience at the length of time this article has been sitting unfinished (see WP:IMPATIENT), and tried to set the bar for notability higher than Wikipedia requires (no significant award, no nominations, no enduring historical record, their contributions to the cause are not significant). Nom expressed a negative opinion about the subject and her accomplishments ("this may be disputed but the fact of the matter is their contribution has not made an impact in their respective "field" "), and has scolded with WP:ADVOCACY no less than three times in the last two days. Nom complained about the two who posted on the Talk page and argued that it somehow proved "that this article is a PR piece", but neither of them have edited the article nor !voted here. It seems to me that nom has been manifesting advocacy behavior throughout this AfD process, and is a single-purpose account — with 18 of their 27 edits dedicated to the deletion of this article, including their second edit which was a PROD request (which failed), and the next 8 dedicated to reaching the 10-post threshold needed to obtain auto-confirmed status and edit the article themselves and re-submit the PROD on this semi-protected article as their (exactly) tenth post! For a wiki account with just 27 edits under its belt, the nom has exceeded all speed records for "0 to experienced" AfD debater and wikilawyer. I would like to know under which other username nom has been editing so I can see their edit history. But I digress. As demonstrated above, nom has failed to present in good faith a logical argument for "lack of notability", and has failed to prove his case for the deletion of the article. (NPOV, V & OR issues can always be corrected, if they even exist here, but are not a reason for article deletion.) Therefore keep the article.

— Normal Op (talk) 10:51, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Like other human beings she deserves the rights of free speech and to choose her religion, but that does not make her notable. Nika2020 (talk) 09:54, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No real coverage, so fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. There is a gbook ref but that is all. There is insufficient notability here to establish even WP:BASIC. The first three are primary, failing WP:THREE. They should be rock solid, but they are not. scope_creep^Talk 10:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: There are enough news-related sources, and the coverage is significant there. The Google book source, published by Springer Publishing, also helps establish WP:GNG. --1990'sguy (talk) 04:00, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment

1) I wonder why women related article deletion notice has not been listed on most active women related projects Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red & Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Green

2) Personally I do not doubt notability. Availability of references valid to Wikipedian norms and actual notability are different aspects.

3) Article creation seems to be of 2019, If at all any advocacy happened in May 2020 then simply control & ignore it. We can not say Donald Trump to be not notable because he does advocacy of himself. Notabilty is independent aspect.

4) I came across this article deletion notice from creators talk page, and it seems I am already late here otherwise I could have taken a chance to improve it.- And if article remains in article namespace or in draft namespace I will spend time on it.

5) I still feel you list this article on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red & Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Green . And if at all admins don't find it satisfactory enough - I don't say so- send it to draft.

6) I suppose two scholarly references are behind pay restricted walls which I cant access Google scholar, "Humanists in the Hood," by Dr. Sikivu Hutchins

Bookku (talk) 13:02, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to your (1) item: By adding an article to Deletion sorting/Women, it is picked up by Women in Red, and this AfD is listed there. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Article alerts#AfD. Looks like the Women in Green project doesn't have a place where they list AfDs. Normal Op (talk) 14:29, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this update. IMHO. As I said above notability is not issue. The issue is formal media has not covered her as much. Even if deletion succeeds for time being -her notability for other ex-Muslim related articles going to remain. Wiping out her notability in entirety going to be difficult. Eventually she is going to find much more place in books and memoirs of Ex-Muslims and eventually article about her will make a come back at some point, if at all gets deleted. Thanks again. Bookku (talk) 14:46, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Normal Op and recent article enhancement. Kaldari (talk) 23:12, 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 keep. czar 01:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

African Library and Information Associations and Institutions -AfLIA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

no evidence of notability, nor is there likely to be. I regret that we can't justify articles of organizations such as this, but we're not a directory. DGG ( talk ) 04:05, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep I agree there's not a whole lot of information here, but it seems to be borderline, and I've found a few sources through some of my subscriptions that seem to substantiate it as a rather well known, but new association in the library world. To me, it just scrapes by WP:NONPROFIT based on coverage and continental status. Should be moved to African Library and Information Associations and Institutions. See sources:

• Dick, Archie L (November 2014). "What's wrong with Africanization!". Information Development. 30 (4): 382–383. doi:10.1177/0266666914552961. ISSN 0266-6669.: from abstract: "The birth of the African Library and Information Association and Institutions provides an opportunity to re-visit the idea of Africanization. Five things that are wrong with Africanization are identified and discussed." Appears to be a case study of the AfLIA, though only five pages
• described in passing as a 'major library association' in Charlton, John. “A World of Reading.” Information Today, vol. 34, no. 8, 2017, p. 15, mentioned repeatedly in International Leads, the seemingly reputable journal published by the American Library Association [1], see Lee, J. (2017). Conference report: 4th african library summit / 2nd AfLIA conference. International Leads, 31(3), 18. and Shikuni, K. N. (2018). AfLIA leadership academy (AfLAc). International Leads, 32(1), 17-18.
• mentioned in pretty good detail in Ekene, Osuigwe, Nkem (2019-11-22). Managing and Adapting Library Information Services for Future Users. IGI Global. ISBN 978-1-7998-1118-3.((cite book)): CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link), which looks to be published by a decent publisher, mentioned in Abdullahi, Ismail (2017-11-07). Global Library and Information Science. Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG. ISBN 978-3-11-041312-0. and Lawton, Aoife (2015-11-03). The Invisible Librarian: A Librarian's Guide to Increasing Visibility and Impact. Chandos Publishing. ISBN 978-0-08-100174-5. .
• Is covered somewhat in the news: "Ethiopia : African Union Commission(AUC) Signs MOU with the African Library and Information Associations and Istitutions (AfLIA)". MENA Report. May 21, 2019.

Regards, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:25, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Plenty of evidence of notability can be found from a simple Google Books search. For example the very first entry that I get when searching for "African Library and Information Associations and Institutions" is this one, significant coverage in an independent reliable source. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:39, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:41, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:41, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per user above. notability found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gumlau (talk • contribs) 18:37, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I agree with users above proposing to keep the article. The question of notability should no longer be an issue given the available evidence from credible sources. Besides, the article has seen and will continue to see significant update with sources that support the motion to keep. Regards. SBAbigstan (talk) 22:00, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Classified information in the United States. (non-admin closure) buidhe 14:37, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Standard Form 312 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I can't see how this topic meets WP:NOTABILITY, despite trying. It has been tagged for notability for 12 years. It exists, but I can't see any justification for an article. Boleyn (talk) 07:24, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 08:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Classified information in the United States, as this form appears to be a critical step in obtaining security clearances under U.S. procedures. Alternately (or additionally) merge to Executive Order 13292 that apparently caused the form to be created in the first place. Either article definitely meets notability guidelines, and would benefit from a mention of this form even if it's reduced to just a sentence or two. Paradoxsociety 09:55, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge The U.S. security classification system and its use or abuse have been the subject of numerous articles and books and whistleblowers and non-disclosure agreement in general have also been important topics of public policy discussion. This form is a major component of the secrecy system for good or ill. Classified information in the United States is already a very long article. Adding the content of this article with a redirect from its title wouldn't do much harm but I don't see any benefit either. We have many subject areas where small aspects are pared off into their own article, which tends to keep things more manageable.--agr (talk) 13:15, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, but where are the sources that discuss the significance of this form? what i see at the moment is an article that confirms that the form exists, not enough to meet notability guidelines. Similar situation with Standard Form 86, Standard Form 50. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:48, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 22:19, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

fails WP:NFOOTY and fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 19:39, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Joeykai (talk) 19:39, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:57, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:58, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 08:13, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) buidhe 14:35, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Shaw (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Three years on, still fails WP:BLP1E/WP:NFOOTY/arguably WP:NOTNEWS, was only notable because of a one-off stunt. SportingFlyer T·C 19:19, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 19:19, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 19:19, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep While there may be a case on NFOOTY, he does however meet WP:GNG due to the coverage from 3rd party reliable sources. Furthermore, there have been coverage of him beyond 2017. But I also posit that nothing has changed from the original AFD verdict that would warrant deletion this time. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:30, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The original AfD was created as the event was unfolding, and the Goal coverage was just a look back at the one event, and the one event was minor (there's no article on the Sutton-Arsenal game.) WP:BLP1E trumps GNG. A redirect to Sutton United F.C.#FA Cup might be appropriate here. SportingFlyer T·C 19:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Clearly meets GNG, and I don’t agree that this is a BLP1E case. WP:SUSTAINED is met as he is still getting coverage three years later [2]. P-K3 (talk) 22:18, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:59, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I thought he was non-notable at the last AFD, but I respect the consensus. GiantSnowman 08:15, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - there was more than just the 2017 pie incident to demonstrate GNG during the last AFD debate, such as his 2013 firing and his 2015 rehiring. Since the February 2017 AFD, there was significant international coverage in fall 2017, when he fined and banned by the FA, from the BBC in the UK, CBC in Canada, SBS in Australia, Indonesia, Germany, France. In the following years, there's been more coverage such as last year. I didn't see how this was WP:BLP1E at the time, and the international coverage since the last AFD surely further demonstrates this.
• Keep passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:53, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I had a look at the last AfD, that was surprisingly a popular AfD, I remember watching the events unfold on TV which was rather popular in the news at the time, also feel that the player passes WP:GNG. Govvy (talk) 16:13, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Tentative keep. On balance, I think the guy just meets the GNG but he does fail NFOOTY. GNG overrides SNG so keep (just). No Great Shaker (talk) 20:55, 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) 19:27, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Karl-Konstantin von Habsburg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The subject is a non-notable minor. The article exists solely as a genealogical entry, yet Wikipedia is not a genealogy database. Surtsicna (talk) 19:04, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:15, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no claim to notability made. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 01:07, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Only sources I can find are Hungarian news reports relating to his parents, where the children are mentioned in passing, and results of some central European youth equestrian sports events, where he has placed but not won. He should be mentioned in the parents' articles, but doesn't meet notability criteria for an individual article. DrKay (talk) 10:06, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Being third-in-line to the former A-H throne is notable. My recommendation is to keep, but at the very least, this should be redirected or merged, not deleted. Jdcompguy (talk) 00:19, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If being third in the line to the throne of a country that has not existed for over a century were notable, there would be plenty of reliable sources discussing Karl-Konstantin and what he's up to. But there are not any. Surtsicna (talk) 10:05, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, a former discussion of proposed deletion found the article notable. --Norden1990 (talk) 10:20, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, that's an even worse argument than the one you made eight years ago. The argument in the former discussion was that he's just notable. The analysis of sources done by DrKay, however, shows that he is not. It would be much more helpful if you could demonstrate his notability according to the basic criteria. Surtsicna (talk) 10:33, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "that's an even worse argument than the one you made eight years ago", it is no more than your personal opinion (which I do not care), there was a valid decision 8 years earlier. --Norden1990 (talk) 11:01, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I take it that you will not attempt to demonstrate the child's notability according to this project's policy. Surtsicna (talk) 15:37, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per DrKay -TheseusHeLl (talk) 20:36, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete being any in line to a throne of a non-existant entitty that has no power is not a sign of notability. I have consistently said we need good sourcing to justify having an article on a minor. We totally lack it here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:42, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the record I once spent a whole summer creating a database of the royal families of Europe. I have studied the Habsburg's particularly heavily. I hold the view that unless we have something unrelated to their connection to a lost royal title to show notability, we should only have mentions of members of the house born since 1918 in the general article on the family. Of course I also think that in most cases we should not have articles on members of royal houses who died as minors who never ruled, but unfortunately we have some articles that are based on the mistaken idea that Wikipedia is a geneological database.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:45, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - yes this article may get interest in terms of a similar number of page views to random politicians and the like, but there is nothing of note here that that traffic could not find off Wikipedia in the Almanach de Gotha or various websites. - dwc lr (talk) 10:09, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per DrKay and Surtsicna.Smeat75 (talk) 13:37, 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) 19:26, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mazen Al-Suwailem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Plays in second tier Saudi league. Fails WP:NFOOTY. Dewritech (talk) 18:45, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 21:08, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 21:08, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 21:08, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The subject seems to have played in the 2017–18 Saudi Professional League (a fully-professional league per WP:FPL) with Al-Fateh. Even though they currently play in second tier league they once played in the top league. Passes WP:NFOOTY #2. --Dps04 (talk) 17:34, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:35, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- 12 minutes of play, 3 years ago (per Soccerway), does not confer notability when GNG is failed so substantially. GiantSnowman 18:40, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Played in a professional league and received significant coverage in Saudi media. TonyStarks (talk) 18:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Browse the google and barely saw any results for this player, fails WP:GNG. HawkAussie (talk) 01:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails SIGCOV and not at a notable footballer, play in country's second div league. Drat8sub (talk) 01:02, 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) 19:26, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michaela von Habsburg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

There is no indication of notability. Unlike her parents and some of her siblings, she appears to be an entirely private individual. This article amounts to nothing more than genealogical entry, yet Wikipedia is not a genealogy database. Surtsicna (talk) 17:57, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 17:57, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 18:55, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 18:55, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. Judging solely from the sources in the article, the only notable thing she's done appears to be getting evicted from her massive and hugely expensive New York penthouse in 1990. She was a director of Dragon International Film Studios and does call herself Archduchess Michaela von Habsburg, she published a letter in New York Magazine under that name in 1987. However, these don't rise to the level of notability we would expect on wikipedia. There's no consistent press coverage or public life. She is mentioned in biographies of her father, so Otto von Habsburg#Family would be an appropriate Redirect target. DrKay (talk) 08:36, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete being on some minor film festival board, getting a letter published once in a magazine and being evicted from your property are not signs of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:51, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.Smeat75 (talk) 19:50, 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. Primefac (talk) 00:36, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

See discussion at my talk page - article subject has requested deletion. Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:11, 23 May 2020 (UTC) Updated to add: I have reverted to a previous version at the request of the article subject. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 00:06, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 17:22, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 17:22, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE is the relevant policy. However, unfortunately it is explicitly aimed at biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures. This cannot apply to an individual who has given multiple interviews over a period of years for NATO and the New York Times, etc.
  It also seems that the article subject is not actually requesting deletion; at least, they are not averse to the article existing in some form or another. But that's a discussion for the article talk page rather than AfD.
  I commented at the recent WP:AN thread; pinging each other participants.@Creffett, Drmies, JzG, Mjroots, Primefac, SoWhy, and Sphilbrick:. Just realised I was the only non-admin there; sorry about that. ——Serial ^# 20:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, that comment was posted not long after I opened this AfD. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 21:23, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

True, Ser Amantio di Nicolao, and apologies for my lack of precision; I didn't mean to imply that you opened this in spite of them saying that—I was just (clumsily, perhaps) making a general suggestion as to their position now. ——Serial ^# 15:43, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Serial Number 54129: Surely, and none taken - just wanted to make it clear for the record. :-) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:05, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Clearly notable, and it appears the subject’s concerns can be resolved through ordinary editing. P-K3 (talk) 21:59, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The subject is clearly notable. There are no policy-based grounds for deletion, and the subject's wishes are no controlling, nor do they make a lot of sense under the circumstances: an en.wiki is highly unlikely to make his position less secure then it alreayd is. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:28, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep people don't get to decide if Wikipedia has an article on them or not.
  Notable enough. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:43, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I'm seeing nothing which indicates any veracity to the claim made that having an article endangers his life. Any BLP issues may be brought up at talk and dealt with in the normal editing process. Per established precedent (Sally Boazman (details), Jim Hawkins (details), subjects of articles do not get to dictate to Wikipedia as to whether or not they have an article. Mjroots (talk) 09:13, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Ser_Amantio_di_Nicolao - I have undone your change to an older version of the article. Your status as an admin does not give you any special authority in this respect, and I would have reverted to the current version no matter who did it. There was no consensus for the reversion, no discussion at all on the article's talk page, so your attempt to reduce the article to a previous, less fully referenced, version is not justified. If you think that it's necessary, take your arguments to the talk page, make a case for it there., and get a consensus. Otherwise, please do not do this again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:23, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Beyond My Ken, genuinely out of curiosity, are you saying that the version that Ser Amantio reverted to is of lesser quality? Or are you reverting simply because you feel a reversion of this sort in the middle of an AFD is inappropriate? (let's ignore for the moment the removal of the AFD notice, which I suspect was unintentional). Primefac (talk) 00:27, 25 May 2020 (UTC) (please do not ping on reply)[reply]

  • Yes, I agree that the removal of the AfD notice was an oversight. I think that Ser Amantio (who, BTW, I believe is a good admin, and for whom I !voted at RfA, so I have no onus against them) really shouldn't be fooling around to that extent with an article which is at AfD after Arbcom passed on deleting it per the subject's request. (In fact, I was surprised that they brought it here at all after that.) But the real problem is as you say: the version they reverted to is not as good as the current version. By reverting, Ser Amantio removed a full paragraph of information, a photograph, and four sources. Improving an article during AfD is never a problem, it happens all the time, but reducing its quality is just not acceptable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:39, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay, thanks. Primefac (talk) 01:14, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Beyond My Ken:, et al: My apologies - and oversight is right. Chalk it up to being rusty with the AFD process - I don't do it often. (Haven't done it in two or three years, that I can remember.) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 02:17, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete absolutely not notable except for one event WP:1E. And all I can see are passing mention references. Not to mention, the doxxing-like tone that was in the article. His tribe journey is irrelevant.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 02:14, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Please note that the above editor is now edit warring to remove the same material that Ser Amantio deleted on the specious grounds that it is a BLP violation, which it is not. Beyond My Ken (talk)

• I am editwarring? You are the one who has reverted two editors. Yes. It is a BLP per WP:NPF and WP:BLP. Irrelevant material.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 03:00, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment please note that the only thing that this person is notable for is this nato article. This is clearly a WP:BLP1E.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 03:00, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:CRYBLP: and I'm rather surprised to see Drmies at the forefront of an unsupported edit war! SS, you're demonstrating an extremely superficial reading of BLP: Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. To qualify for outright removal it must be contentious, unsourced or poorly sourced, and only then does your assertion that it doesn't matter whether its positive or negative kick in. The photograph, for instance, was uploaded by the subject themselves.
  You're also misunderstanding BLP1E. It's not the NATO article they're notable for, but their photojournalism in a region where Western-style photojournalism is frankly fucking dangerous. That was the topic of the interview, and their career is not "one event". ——Serial ^# 10:04, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Serial Number 54129, we're not dealing with some whiny Western influencer who wants something added or removed, or with a politician's staff trying to whitewash an article. In addition, I was hardly "at the forefront" of it, as the history shows. The fact that their photojournalism is "frankly fucking dangerous" is, I believe precisely why they made the request. That I don't fully understand it, not having all the information, is not so relevant. Also, I don't understand "material released by the subject themself cannot be controversial". First of all, why not? Second, why can't material become controversial, because something else changes--a government, a chief of police, a family, a law? Drmies (talk) 13:14, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you Drmies; I disagree that that applies to anything in the article. The photograph, for instance: if it was controverial, or dangerous, why is it still up? (And that's not the same as asking why it still has its license, as that cannot be revoked) They could still remove it from one of the biggest image depositories available, and haven't. Anyway, I'm not arguing about it, it's merely bizarre, verging on the grotesque, that a report of someone graduating MA from a (phenonomally) minor American college can possibly be construed as controversial. ——Serial ^# 13:41, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Since material released by the subject themself cannot be controversial, I have restored first-hand data: the image, which they uploaded to Flickr (as "self portrait, December 2008"); material which quotes his NATO interview; and an academic text from a reputable publisher who also quotes them verbatim. I have not restored the third party discursive material from The Sentinel, admittedly a pretty local paper, although you'd have a hard time arguing that France24 is unrelaible. ——Serial ^# 11:24, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Per this edit, the user is claiming that merely having an article about himself makes him a target, as insurgents (apparently) consider anyone who has a Wikipedia article to be "a big deal." I am not weighing in on the validity of that argument, merely posting it here for clarification (since the subject seems reluctant to elaborate). — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: notability is marginal at best, and the request by the BLP subject should be taken into account. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: There are also articles about this person on Arabic Wikipedia and Persian Wikipedia as well. I realize that they are beyond the scope of this discussion, but I'm curious to know whether deletions requests for them have been made as well. If it has been verified (by WP:OTRS) that the subject of the article is requesting that thethis article be deleted because he is concerned about his safety or about the safety of his family, then I think that is something that should be given serious consideration.
  I don't think that we as a community can tell someone not to worry about something or not to be afraid if they really feel that way. However, I also don't think that we as a community should start accepting watered-down versions of articles and removing otherwise policy and guideline compliant content just because the subjects of articles prefer one version over another. If one particular version of an article might place the subject at risk because anyone who has a Wikipedia article written about them might be seen as a "big deal" (thus making them or their family a target), then any version of the article would seem to pose the same risk, wouldn't it?
  Displaying the version the subject prefers seems quite contrary to WP:OWN as well as some other generally accepted things about Wikipedia. The "old" version will still be visible unless it's WP:SUPPRESSed from the page's history and it could be re-added or similar new content could be added in good faith in the future by those trying to improve the article. Will the same thing be allowed again if the subject disagrees with future changes made to the article? Will the page be WP:GOLD protected in perpetuity to stop anyone outside of an administrator from editing it? If either of these things is to be the case, then it what's the point of having an article to begin with?
  I'm not trying to downplay the concerns of the subject, but I don't think there's lots of room here for the community to try and maneuver. If the community wants to acknowledge the subject's concerns by deleting the article, then that's what it should do. All content about the subject should be deleted (including any images, and articles on other language Wikipedias if at all possible) because everything together would seem to still be placing the subject at risk. The subject's name should also probably be WP:SALTed so that the page cannot be recreated without at least some kind of discussion as to whether the situation has changed.
  Perhaps some of the things I've posted seem a bit extreme, but I think that if the community really wants to err on the side of caution here, then there should be no middle ground:and the article should be deleted. E either the article needs to be deleted or it needs to adhere to relevant policies and guidelines as determined by consensus, even if that's not the version of the article that the subject prefers. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC); [Note: Post copyedited and clarified a bit by Marchjuly. Additions are underlined, while removals are stricken through. — 21:35, 29 May 2020 (UTC)][reply]
• Keep. I see consensus that the subject meets notability criteria so the discussion is whether or not a subject can have content about them removed. Relevant policy says that a sufficiently notable individual may not. Claims of personal safety are not to be taken lightly but Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. If it's in an article it should be referenced, which means it already exists. Removal from Wikipedia does not remove the source. Therefore the safety concerns aren't really relevent. Ifnord (talk) 00:25, 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) 19:24, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea von Habsburg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

There is no indication of notability. Unlike her parents and some of her siblings, the subject appears to be a private individual and this article amounts to nothing more than a genealogical entry. Surtsicna (talk) 17:13, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.Smeat75 (talk) 18:04, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:54, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:54, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not a geneological database. Well, it is not supposed to be. That guideline would cause us to remove several articles we have on members of royal families, but there is no reason to have this article on a private person who is a member of a royal family that has not held power for over a century. Of course I also think we should delete the article on JFK's non-notable grandson.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:31, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. With the exception of name checks in directories of noble families I can't find anything in the first few pages of GHits that looks like a source we could use. Guy (help!) 20:58, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no claim to notability made. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 01:07, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I couldn't find any reliable sources mentioning her, not even in gossip magazines. She doesn't appear to be a public figure. DrKay (talk) 10:33, 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) 17:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Also propose WP:SALT ArsenalFan700 (talk) 15:58, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 16:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 16:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 16:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and SALT - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 21:46, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – fails WP:FOOTYN. Drat8sub (talk) 20:19, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and SALT - still not notable Spiderone 10:34, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:30, 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. Black Kite (talk) 01:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The same issue remains that led to deletion in last year's deletion discussion: lack of notability, i.e., lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Cited sources are self-published, interviews, or mentions. I couldn't find requisite coverage for notability in searches. Biogeographist (talk) 15:36, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Biogeographist (talk) 15:36, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Biogeographist (talk) 15:36, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this helpful summation,Biogeographist and for the mentoring. The recent feature on his work in The Sun magazine^[1], coverage on NBC-TV^[2] and the award from the American Correctional Association and coverage of his work in prisons^[3] seemed to establish considerable significance/notability, but then again that may not be the case. After Heartglow30797 had suggested missing CSD A7 Guidelines, I made an edit to the "Organization" section to state what seemed clear from The Sun profile: "Seide is a leading authority on the practice of Council...," rather than beginning the section with, simply, "Seide directs Center for Council." My intention was to add that language to address CSD A7, but I may have failed to follow proper protocol, as I see that edit was deleted. Perhaps it should have stated that he is "considered an authority on innovative rehabilitative programs in California prisons"? Was unclear if that assertion of significance/noteworthiness did or did not require support from a reliable source/reference. I regret my stumble... and I apologize for the rookie editor error. Trying to parse the distinction between significance and notability. Thanks very much for your patience and help as I learn the ropes! Rosebenny (talk) 19:00, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt. Adequate sources not found. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:24, 23 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]
• Comment: The piece in The Sun is an interview, considered a non-independent primary source. The other two sources are mentions, not sufficient to establish notability. Notability has a special meaning on Wikipedia and is based on available sources; it doesn't refer to the content of the article. Seide hasn't gained notability since the last deletion discussion a year ago. Biogeographist (talk) 23:32, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable educator.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:35, 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 delete. Barring SPA and/or sockpuppets' arguments per policy, there is a consensus to delete. qedk (t 愛 c) 06:03, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vito Di Bari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The article fails WP:GNG there is no “significant coverage” in “reliable sources” that are “independent” of the topic. Scholarly publications are minimal and largely uncited no WP:PROF. Biancalu123 (talk) 14:40, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Biancalu123 (talk) 14:40, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:47, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have referenced or withdrawn all the [citation needed] and clarified the [clarification needed] as per Biancalu123 request. Thanks Biancalu123 for advising, all the citations needed were 10-15 old links that have become dead in the meanwhile. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:AB20:58B0:AD18:2097:52B:583E (talk) 22:45, 23 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:AB20:58B0:AD18:2097:52B:583E (talk)

• Comment The article does not meet any of the WP:NACADEMIC criteria. First, the person doesn’t hold any prestigious appointment. He did not receive any Master or a Ph.D. The article claimed he was a Professor but I wasn’t able to find any evidence of his academic position. So I assumed he was an adjunct. My edit was corrected in contract professor by the same un-registered IP above. So, it is confirmed, he was a non-faculty and temporary staff in Italy a decade ago. Second, there are no scholarly publications. Just a few professional publications (published between 2000-2006) by a non-scholar Italian publisher. His work is not cited. Neither in Italian nor in English. The only information that I am able to verify is that he works as a keynote speaker. He is a “futurologist” and works with different agencies. Here is [one]. The tone, the register of the article and the unsigned comment above make me think this article is s a self-biography with promotional intent. Biancalu123 (talk) 09:50, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The only likely source of notability I see is WP:NAUTHOR. That would generally require multiple book reviews in independent reliable sources, which aren't currently in the article. Some reviews may also be published in Italian, which makes searching trickier. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:40, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep* I agree with Russ Woodroofe that the source of notability is WP:NAUTHOR. I also agree with Biancalu123 that the article does not meet enough WP:NACADEMIC criteria, although the academic activity is verifiable through the Guides of the University itself, under [4] and [5]. There is no reasonable doubt as to the authenticity of the article, it has a neutral point of view, it’s never self promotional, it's factual, there is verifiable evidence from suitable sources. I have checked and the contentious items pointed out by Biancalu123 have been all deleted or properly sourced. All this considered, I recommend to keep the page. I found remarkable the achievements at UNESCO and EXPO 2015. Innovamus (talk) 05:41, 26 May 2020 (UTC)— Innovamus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete. WP:TNT surely applies to this WP:PROMOTIONAL article, which appears from its edit history to be mostly autobiography. I also don't see notability: his books don't seem to have the reviews for WP:NAUTHOR, and there are no other signs of it. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:39, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:43, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment * Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have taken some time and sourced the article. I have also canceled what was unsourced including his entire section "Academic Carrier", just in case. And no, Biancalu123 I’m not him —I wish I was :) I’ve just seen one of his lectures, in Jacksonville, and liked him. You, on the other hand, honestly seem to just hold grudges, considering that 28 out of 31 of your total edits are aimed to compulsively chase him around wikipedia. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:AB20:58B0:7538:24F:1D0F:7EB8 (talk) 13:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First, WP:TALKNO. Second, Russ Woodroofe wrote it "appears from its edit history to be mostly autobiography". Biancalu123

• Comment WP:PROMOTIONAL remains. For instance “Di Bari is internationally regarded as a creative innovator”. Also, WP:NOTE as it is sourced with links to his own YouTube account Biancalu123
• Comment You are right Biancalu123, that was a primary source, thank you for noticing. It was 1 out of 86 sources and it has been undisputed for 10 years, I didn't notice it, I've just canceled it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:AB20:58B0:847:C51B:5C9:3952 (talk) 15:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. He meets GNG. Also, since the proposal of deletion, a lot of reliable independent sources have been added. I’ve searched his name in Google Scholar https://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=0&q=%22vito+di+bari%22&hl=en&as_sdt=0,10 Although Google Scholar on occasion overcounts citations, I searched his publications one-by-one and found that they were cited 125 times, including citations from a paper in the Journal of Emerging Technology Kassel, Germany; ISTAT, the Italian National Institute of Statistics; Oxford University; Assiut University in Egypt; Universidad Católica Andrés Bello in Venezuela; Queensland University of Technology; Boston’s Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies among others. Most citations are in books, others are in business publications and postgraduate theses. He is not an academic but his books 1999-2009 are published by IlSole24ORE Books, which is a prominent Italian business newspaper (the Italian equivalent of The Financial Times), and thereafter by Arnoldo Mondadori Editore, the biggest publishing company in Italy according to Wikipedia. His work has been quoted by two Nobel Laureates for Economics: Kenneth Arrow and Lawrence Klein https://www.key4biz.it/Analisi-e-Dati-Bibliotech-2006-11-Il-futuro-che-gia-c-e-ma-ancora-non-lo-sappiamo/54547/ Keep. Leal48 (talk) 17:07, 29 May 2020 (UTC)— Leal48 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Comment that Leal48's account was created about two hours after User:Vito Di Bari, and that their first edit was to blank the user page of the latter. @Leal48: do you have a COI to disclose? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:25, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Russ Woodroofe no they all have "seen one of his lectures, in Jacksonville, and liked him. " An admin blocked Innovamus WP:BADSOCK for abusing multiple accounts.Biancalu123 (talk) 08:47, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, Innovamus was blocked for 2 weeks for minor abuse. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:46, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment No COI here, I was the one who deleted/revised the original page creation. I'm just doing the same now as I did then, trying to state the facts with valid sources and reasoning.Leal48 (talk) 20:21, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment To summarise: There is no WP:GNG. No multiple book reviews in independent reliable sources for WP:NAUTHOR. Sock puppets and anonymous IPs WP:SOCK. Conflict of interest WP:COI. Unverifiable references such as those from two Nobel laureates WP:NRV. Promotional language WP:SPIP.Biancalu123 (talk) 08:47, 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:32, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

non-notable topic, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 13:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:29, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:30, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:55, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of independent reliable secondary sources. Bolhones (talk) 20:22, 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) 19:24, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

this is a non-notable youtuber, and unlikely to pass notability. 136.27.38.4 (talk) 13:08, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination on behalf of IP. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not enough sources talking about him significantly. SK2242 (talk) 14:23, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with the amount of you tube used as a source the statement "Wikipedia is not you tube" comes to mind.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:49, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Barely found anything about him aside from his harassment cases. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 13:15, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Non notable architect. His only claim to fame was that his name was included as one of the people behind a building which won the Aga Khan award, after he protested at his exclusion. Searching for him does not present any better references to indicate notability being met. Jupitus Smart 12:49, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 12:49, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 12:49, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I failed to find any reliable sources apart from a couple mentioning the inclusion controversy. Seems like an WP:1E, but the coverage wasn't widespread either. Fails WP:GNG Less Unless (talk) 20:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Spiderone 10:34, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete we gave too much deference to getting some award somewhere back in 2009. I have to admit that I have problems with giving an credence to an award that dismisses people as "illiterate farmers" period.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:00, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom. Nothing in the article that shows his notability. Nika2020 (talk) 09:55, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Mor ve Ötesi. (non-admin closure) buidhe 14:33, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The band has a article here and an article for the album is not justified as there is no evidence it is independently notable. Per WP: Notability (music)/Albums. Also the article is very poorly sourced, with no reliable sources whatsoever. JohnmgKing (talk) 11:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. JohnmgKing (talk) 11:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 22:00, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Mor ve Ötesi: The album was mentioned in a number of articles in Turkish, but was barely discussed. Its Turkish article doesn't look notable as well. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 03:44, 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) 19:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

author of a single self published book, with no real critical reviews (despite the hans source, which looks to possibly be paid) there is no coverage of his work or him. Praxidicae (talk) 11:21, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:39, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:39, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:39, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom Spiderone 10:33, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the nom identifies how this person is not even remotely close to being a notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:55, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom. No sign of notability. Nika2020 (talk) 13:56, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• The author is from Hyderabad. Sorry to say but the book is not a self-published book. It is published by Authorspress India, one of the oldest and reputed book publishers from New Delhi, India. The critical reivews of his first novel, Theft of Nizam's Gold, were published in two of the leading, national Urdu Newspapers in India such as The Siasat Daily and the Munsif, oldest newspapers from India. Crritcal review in The Siasat Daily is here, and the Munsif Newspaper is here. A critical review is also published in Hans India, and other other local newspapers such as Telangana Today. Almost all of the local newspapers from Hyderabad, India talked about his novel as NIZAM of Hyderabad is a popular subject in Hyderabad. But, unfortunately, most of these newspapers do not have any online presence. Moreover, only a previous AFD counts for G4. Survived deletion process already. Please, check history. Moreover, the novel is regarded is one of the finest contributions to the literature ever written on the Nizam os Hyderabad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IQR (talk • contribs) 00:47, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IQR I have a hard time believing that a publisher with a gmail address is "a reputed book publisher". Also it is self published as per authorpress' own website and I quote: Authors Press is an online self-publishing companysource. Praxidicae (talk) 01:41, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I am sorry, it is Authorspress India not Authors Press. The book is not a self published one. Check out Authorspress India here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IQR (talk • contribs) 05:05, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Please, check it is not a self published book. The book is published by Authors Press India and Authors Press India is not a self-publishing platform. They are publishers. The book is available on their site as well. Please, check out here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IQR (talk • contribs) 08:44, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let me highlight another piece I said: I have a hard time believing that a publisher with a gmail address is "a reputed book publisher". Also this might be worse than the other Authors Press, given it's pay for publication and doesn't readily identify as such. Praxidicae (talk) 12:23, 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Total Picture Seminar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article says it’s an LLC, but some sources (on Google) and the event’s FB page say it was a two day long seminar in 2009 that happened only once. RedBulbBlueBlood9911|Talk 11:21, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. RedBulbBlueBlood9911|Talk 11:21, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. RedBulbBlueBlood9911|Talk 11:21, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. RedBulbBlueBlood9911|Talk 11:21, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:GNG. There's brief coverage in Hollywood Reporter and several small/local publications, but nothing in the way of in-depth reliable and independent sources. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:40, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close per SD0001. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 21:34, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Everlasting (role-playing game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This has been to AfD before, with no consensus. As it's been sat in CAT:NN for twelve years, I think it deserves to have its notability established one way or the other. There were good arguments put forward on both sides in last AfD, but I don't think that it quite meets WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 11:19, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - isn't it uncustomary to re-nominate just six weeks after the last discussion was closed? Newimpartial (talk) 13:19, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Yeah, this seems too soon for a rerun. In the previous AfD, Mazca said, "The game clearly exists somewhere on the borderline of relevant notability guidelines. Participants have discussed what sources are available in some depth, and seem to have reached good-faith disagreement over exactly where the line is drawn. No consensus has been reached over a very long discussion period." I think that six weeks later, it's likely that the same people will participate, with more or less the same result. — Toughpigs (talk) 19:56, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 22:01, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I agree with the above. This is too soon after a particularly long AFD (it remained active for close to a month) that resulted in a no consensus. I don't see it reaching any different conclusion a month later, and suggest this AFD be procedurally closed for the present time. Rorshacma (talk) 00:07, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment from nominator it's disappointing that the comments thus far have not focused on the notability at all. This article has sat with a notability tag for 12 years. That's ridiculously long - this is not too soon but incredibly late for a consensus to be found. We can do that, if we focus on its notability and encourage participation rather than shutting down the discussion, which clearly still needs to be had. Boleyn (talk) 07:36, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I've removed the ((notability)) tag on the article as I don't think any article that has survived an AfD should retain that tag. There has already been a long AfD relisted twice which received ample participation, so I don't get what you mean by "shutting down discussion". Suggest a procedural close here. SD0001 (talk) 11:14, 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 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 02:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bowman's Strategy Clock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This has been in CAT:NN for 12 years. It has been to AfD a couple of months ago, but there was limited participation and no consensus. I am really hoping this time we can resolve it either way. Good arguments were put forward last time for keep, but I still think it doesn't quite go over the threshold of notability. Boleyn (talk) 11:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE. Not notable and seemingly trivial. Donaldd23 (talk) 18:19, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) buidhe 14:32, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Big Four international beauty pageants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Leaving aside for a moment the questionable practice of promoting the objectification of women, this article is built on WP:SYN. Some sources list four pageants as the top four, and from that we synthesis the term "big four" and then collate a bunch of information from the individual pageants. This is one step too far in the creep of pageantcruft. Guy (help!) 11:04, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP As it says at the start of the article The Wall Street Journal, BBC News, CNN, Xinhua News Agency, and global news agencies such as Reuters, Associated Press and Agence France-Presse collectively refer to the four major pageants as "Big Four" . There is no SYN here. The last AFD found many reliable sources talking about the "big four". And we are not "promoting the objectification of women" by having articles about beauty pageants, since mostly females watch those things anyway, same with the fashion magazines and shows, and whatnot. Many women are obsessed with physical appearances, unable to leave the house without makeup on, etc. it how their brains work, it not caused by this Wikipedia article. Dream Focus 15:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it how their brains work"??? This sexist and unsupportable commentary is irrelevant to the discussion. pburka (talk) 16:07, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I’m sure with 390 citations you can find reference to the term big four to describe these (still prestigious in this day and age, for some reason) pageants. A simple google search does it. Trillfendi (talk) 17:00, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep: Well with an opening like "Leaving aside for a moment the questionable practice of promoting the objectification of women", this sounds to me like an I don't like it nomination. The article is clearly reliably sourced, very speedy keep. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 00:51, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Jjj1238, not really, no. We delketed WP:HOTTIE for a reason. Guy (help!) 00:54, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  This is not WP:HOTTIE. Pageants are not objectifying, they are empowering. Let's stop telling women what they are and aren't allowed to choose to do because they don't fit our definition of what's acceptable of a woman. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 01:07, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - good sourcing. Per WP:GNG. These pageants does not objectify women more than a footballer is objectified when playing football. If anything these pageants empowers the women competing.BabbaQ (talk) 10:51, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly KeepIt is not at SYNTH. The article did not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. "A SYNTH is when two or more reliably-sourced statements are combined to produce a new thesis that isn't SYNTH is when two or more reliably-sourced statements are combined to produce a new thesis that isn't verifiable from the sources." In the article in question, the statements are verifiable from the sources with in line citations and even stated in quotations. Regarding the claim of the nominator that "we synthesis the term big four," the article cites plethora of reliable sources where the term "big four" can be found and various sources talking entirely about big four or simply go to google news search to find more. On the statement of the nominator "then collate a bunch of information from the individual pageants," I would like to point out the following from WP:NOTSYNTH. SYNTH is not ubiquitous: If you consider all instances of reading a table to be SYNTH because reading a table requires "synthesizing" the entry in the table with the label of what the table is, your understanding of SYNTH is wrong. Objective, straightforward, and basic descriptions of an illustration are not SYNTH. SYNTH is not a rigid rule: never use a policy in such a way that the net effect will be to stop people from improving an article." Furthermore, SYNTH is not unnecessary: Wikipedia editors are allowed to use all of this synthesis, since they did not create it but are instead reporting what reliable sources have said. SYNTH refers both to a policy forbidding original research by Wikipedia editors by synthesis, and to such synthesis itself.--Richie Campbell (talk) 14:25, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep - As pointed out above, the references use the term "Big Four", so no WP:SYN. The rest of the nomination seems to be WP:IDL --John B123 (talk) 09:34, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep "Leaving aside for a moment the questionable practice of promoting the objectification of women" makes clear this is a Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEIT nom, the sources are clearly there and no WP:BEFORE search seems to have been made. GuzzyG (talk) 15:05, 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) 07:35, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Doesn't have sufficient RS coverage to justify notability, consider merge with Pope John XXIII xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 23:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC) -- self-cross out per withdraw xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 16:03, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:24, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:24, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep--it isn't suitable for merging into the list article, too much information; also it may be notable; no sign that offline sources have been utilized prior to the nomination.Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:14, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the burden of proof of notability is on the side of keep. I am open to be convinced. xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 04:47, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another way is to see this ngram graph. To check for notability, you need to look for print sources published in the year of the peak. This is considerably more difficult without access to an academic library because it peaked prior to the internet.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 15:42, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Surely common sense and basic general knowledge tell us that it is impossible for a papal encyclical to be issued without attracting significant coverage in independent reliable sources? I have added a few such sources to the article, but have only scratched the surface of those available. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:56, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per the multiple reliable sources references added to the article so that the subject clearly passes WP:GNG in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 17:11, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As with any Papal encyclical it is extensively discussed for many years, albeit almost exclusively in the Catholic press, or books by Catholics about Catholicism. It does therefore have a certain ‘in-universe’ quality to it, but I don’t think its notability is in doubt. Mccapra (talk) 18:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment per new references added by @Phil Bridger: in these revisions, I believe the current page has demonstrated the GNG with sufficient RS. I hereby Withdraw my delete nomination. Thank you for adding the references. Coming from a background of not super familiar with the Catholics, editors like me can only make assessment on the notability based on what's on the page, therefore I maintain my reason of nomination at the time it was nominated, but as of now I am happy the newly provided references has put the page on a status it deserves. xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 16:03, 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 merge to Mercy Hospital South. (non-admin closure) buidhe 14:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Russell and Fern de Greeff Hospice House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unsourced for a long time, WP:BEFORE search brings up nothing, fails WP:GNG and likely WP:PROMO. SportingFlyer T·C 08:34, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 08:34, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 08:34, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:38, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:52, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge partially to the affliated Mercy Hospital South: https://www.mercy.net/practice/mercy-hospice-south-de-greeff-hospice-house/# Djflem (talk) 13:29, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Mercy Hospital South WP:ATD-M Lightburst (talk) 17:25, 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 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 02:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

non notable actress, no meaningful independent reliable coverage. Previously deleted. Fails WP:NACTOR DMySon 10:29, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 17:24, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 17:24, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:39, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:21, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Schultz (entrepreneur) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not pass WP:MUSICBIO. The sources provided are 1. Spotify 2. A review that may be good or may be recycled PR 3. An interview 4. A press release and 5. A review that does not look independent. Mccapra (talk) 09:58, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]