The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Home Media Magazine. (non-admin closure) Juliette Han (talk) 08:43, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hive4media.com[edit]

Hive4media.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This was not a notable website. Wikieditor600 (talk) 23:53, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Home Media Magazine. While the website itself may not be notable(i've been trying for a while to find more sources), the staff is.(John Gaudiosi in particular). Timur9008 (talk) 04:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per above. Not much coverage. Shashank5988 (talk) 16:15, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Home Media Magazine: Barely found anything about the website. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 03:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to parent organization per the above reasons given.★Trekker (talk) 20:36, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Home Media Magazine: it's a defunt website? - BeamAlexander (talk) 13:47, 5 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 merge to Julian Cope. Sandstein 06:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Head Heritage[edit]

Head Heritage (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. All of the sources are primarily about Julian Cope and only barely mention Head Heritage Wikieditor600 (talk) 23:41, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Julian Cope. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:30, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to the article on the person. As this lacks notability on its own, but would still be worth merging IMO. Adamant1 (talk) 12:53, 7 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. Sandstein 07:00, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

L. A. Calkins[edit]

L. A. Calkins (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 found no significant coverage. Fails WP:ENT. SL93 (talk) 23:40, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete one role is not enough for notability, and we need more sourcing than IMDb. The fact that such an undersourced article has survived since 24 February 2007, for over 13 years, is a travesty. This level of sourcing should not be able to survive for over 13 hours.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agreed. One role not significant enough for an article on Wikipedia. Donaldd23 (talk) 19:58, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as lacking in depth independent coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:30, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Antila ✉ 04:47, 8 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. Sandstein 07:00, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ConnectNigeria.com[edit]

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

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

Not notable. Wikieditor600 (talk) 23:32, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per OP, as non notable. It looks like the topic has been live for 8 years without much expansion. - Wikmoz (talk) 07:13, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It seems pretty obvious from research that this is a run of the mill regional search engine with nothing notable about it.

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ICLOAK[edit]

ICLOAK (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)

nnonnotable operation system Staszek Lem (talk) 23:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:11, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:32, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to List of Linux distributions if its not already mentioned there. Otherwise delete due to lack of notability. Adamant1 (talk) 12:58, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry disagreed. If there is no reasonable notabilility, we cannot merge per WP:LIST: individual items must be notable, otherwise we will be collecting garbage into lists. Wikipedia is not a directory. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:54, 8 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 merge to Luis López Nieves. (non-admin closure) buidhe 23:15, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ciudad Seva[edit]

Ciudad Seva (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. Wikieditor600 (talk) 23:26, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Luis López Nieves as the website doesn't appear to be notable in itself Pi (Talk to me!) 00:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Luis López Nieves. Ciudad Seva fails WP:N. Mercy11 (talk) 00:21, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as listed above, site itself is not notable. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:03, 5 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 redirect to When We All Fall Asleep, Where Do We Go?. (non-admin closure) Juliette Han (talk) 17:27, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Listen Before I Go[edit]

Listen Before I Go (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:NSONGS. No individual notability and should be redirected to its parent album When We All Fall Asleep, Where Do We Go?. Cool Marc ✉ 22:24, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Cool Marc ✉ 22:24, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Cool Marc ✉ 22:24, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to When We All Fall Asleep, Where Do We Go?: It's not necessary for every song in the album to have its own article. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 02:47, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the parent album, per nominator. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:01, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are now individual sources in the article that are good enough for the song to pass WP:GNG
• Comment There is one and pop sugar is a "pop culture blog", doesn't strike me as a reliable source. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 12:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - No independent coverage from reliable secondary sources, and just generally fails to meet WP:NSONGS. Would also advise closing delegates to take the above keep comment with a grain of salt, since its unsigned and from a Billie Eilish-superfan.--NØ 12:38, 7 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 redirect to When We All Fall Asleep, Where Do We Go?. (non-admin closure) Juliette Han (talk) 09:17, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

!!!!!!![edit]

!!!!!!! (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:NSONGS. All coverage in the article is from albums reviews and interviews about its parent album When We All Fall Asleep, Where Do We Go? The song article should therefore be redirected to When We All Fall Asleep, Where Do We Go?. Cool Marc ✉ 22:15, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to When We All Fall Asleep, Where Do We Go?, per nom, there is no coverage of this song that is not in the context of an album review, so it fails NSONGS. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to When We All Fall Asleep, Where Do We Go? can be reasonably covered there, not notable on its own. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:37, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:14, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:14, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to When We All Fall Asleep, Where Do We Go?: It's not necessary for every song in the album to have its own article. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 02:47, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the parent album, it fails WP:NSONGS. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 12:30, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to When We All Fall Asleep, Where Do We Go? per above. LOVI33 14:50, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - to When We All Fall Asleep, Where Do We Go? as the song is not sufficiently notable. Koridas (...Puerto Rico for statehood!) 21:24, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to parent article. Ashishkafle (talk) 04:07, 3 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 speedy keep. Withdrawn. postdlf (talk) 17:26, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lalbagh[edit]

Lalbagh (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)

Unreferenced dictionary definition. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:06, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. Withdrawn per User:Dream Focus. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:35, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguation-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:35, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - while the opening is an unreferenced definition, this is also clearly a disambiguation page. (And it is not uncommon for disambig pages to contain a short definition.) In any case, at least four articles here state in their first sentence that they are sometimes known by "Lalbagh" alone: Lal Bagh/Lalbagh Botanical Garden, Lalbagh metro station, Lalbagh, Mangalore, and Lalbagh Thana (Dhaka). Even if you wanted to make one of these the primary topic (probably the botanical garden), you would still need a disambiguation page for this many entries. You can debate whether the definition should be included or not (and it looks like at least one editor already agrees with you), but deletion is not the appropriate outcome here. MarginalCost (talk) 02:00, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP Obviously a legitimate disambiguation page, linking to articles that have this name. Dream Focus 02:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment But this was intentionally made to be NOT a disambiguation page, the other editor intentionally removed the disambig template and formatted it in a weird way.

  You don't try to delete an article because you disagreed with another editor. You can post on the third opinion board to get someone else to come and settle the disagreement. Dream Focus 13:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Good point. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to continue edit war with him, be my guest. Staszek Lem (talk) 05:32, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a dab page. The ultimate cause behind this AfD appears to be a disagreement on whether the dab page should or should not have two sentences at the top describing the meaning of the term. That's not for AfD, guys, sort it out on the talk page. Personally, I see it as perfectly acceptable for a dab page to have such a short intro. – Uanfala (talk) 13:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I have nothing against about intros. I am against having unreferenced text in wikipedia anywhere. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:36, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Uanfala: This guy intentionally turned it into article page. I see this as a disruption. I have no idea how to handle this, hence AFD. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:36, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:00, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of airplane songs[edit]

List of airplane songs (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)

List without any reasonable hope of being complete. Vague criteria include referencing airplanes in lyrics or titles. This isn't even worthy of a category for the songs, IMO. —C.Fred (talk) 22:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —C.Fred (talk) 22:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Mentioning airplanes does not an "airplane song" make. Not a notable phenomenon. – Thjarkur (talk) 22:40, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per WP:TRIVIA. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 03:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete Unsourced and basically an attempt by a user of putting a sandbox-esque test in the main article space. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:LISTCRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 09:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Perhaps an experiment by an occasional editor whose WP history shows an interest in planes and pilots. Even so, it's just vague WP:LISTCRUFT and even vaguer WP:FANCRUFT in which someone noticed occasional lyrics about planes. I agree with everyone above on reasons for deletion. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:27, 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 no consensus. There is a clear absence of consensus for deletion, and a reasonable policy-based argument that sources provided are sufficient for the article to be kept. Whether this would be better presented by being merged somewhere can be further discussed elsewhere. BD2412 T 18:08, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking Moistly[edit]

Speaking Moistly (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)

Simply fails WP:NSINGLE. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 14:43, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nom. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 21:06, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it fais WP:NSINGLE. It has received much coverage from many WP:RS news outlets, and even the PM himself tweeted about it. It is a significant quote in the COVID-19 pandemic in Canada. Félix An (talk) 14:55, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Having a few reliable sources about it does not make it notable enough for a standalone article outright. Fails its three criteria and then some. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 15:08, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I note though that other comical Canadian political events like the Shawinigan Handshake have their own articles, and like the Salmon Arm salute are mentioned in others. Those events likely were more notable than this one however. I don't think a full merger is appropriate here as the remix is not notable, but I think Trudeau's comment and the reaction is notable enough to mention on either Justin Trudeau or COVID-19 pandemic in Canada. It is mentioned on the COVID article here, that seems appropriate based on the citations. Unless this has a more lasting impact though, I don't think more than a sentence or two would be WP:DUE on Justin Trudeau (if that).--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 16:17, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, Weak Redirect to the relevant section of COVID-19 pandemic in Canada. This is notable enough for the mention there. If people want to know what it is all about they can read about it there.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 16:27, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Darryl Kerrigan: Hello! I added a reception section noting it went viral and was viewed over a million times in a day. I also added reviews from CBC, I Heart Radio, Narcity, and the Daily Hive. Would you be willing to take another look and see if that changes your mind in any way? Not trying to pester; just curious of that would make a difference. Thank you! --Kbabej (talk) 16:42, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see "the song" has been covered in some WP:RS. I tend to think that is more for the comedic value, novelty that Trudeau said that and it was awkward (ie more for the event than the song). I do not have strong feelings either way, but I think the relevance of "Speaking Moistly" is more the event (and the reaction to it, including the song) and less the song itself. Of course sometimes these things go viral like the Bed Intruder Song, not sure we can say the "Speaking Moistly" song really has though. I tend to think its notability (or fame) is secondary to the event itself.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 16:57, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Darryl Kerrigan: Thanks for reasessing. We're now up to 11 sources about the song, with only two about the speech (without mentioning the song) to provide context in the article. I've added HuffPost and Brave Words as well as a covers section; I didn't realize at first there have been multiple covers of the song, which I think lends itself for me !voting keep even more. --Kbabej (talk) 17:26, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The song has got a decent amount of coverage and I gather over 2 million views (not sure what qualifies as "viral" these days). Anyway, I am changing/clarifying my !vote to "weak" redirect if that is a thing. If an article is to be left to exist, I am not sure its focus should be this one remix (as opposed to Trudeau's statement and ALL the reacions including this remix, other songs - whether covers, or original riffs on Trudeau's words - and t-shirts, lip balm, beer etc.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:03, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see expanding the scope as interesting as an article about the song, and, as I stated on the talk page, "the song has gotten far more coverage than, say, the lip balm. There are 13 sources about the song so far. Could you say the same for the lip balm? I think this article makes more sense as an article about the song, not about the phrase in general." --Kbabej (talk) 01:10, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine if you don't "want" to expand the scope of the article, that said that isn't really up to you (or me). That said, suggesting all of the reaction to Trudeau's "speaking moistly" comment, was due to the this remix, is simply not true. Its awkwardness was noted by many, Trudeau included, before the remix existed. And there have been many reactions not directly related to the remix, including the sale of novelty masks, t-shirts, beer, and lip balm, as well as other meme's and videos including this kids video about "moist breath zone", this Fake Heritage Minute, this Hair Flip video, this Stratford actors 'speak moistly' video, this "cover" by Ska Band among others. And frankly its notability is less without the other reactions or being about Trudeau actually saying it.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 02:28, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care if you support this article or not at this point. You've made your position clear: expand it to the comment and all associated responses, or you want it redirected. I think this article stands on its own, and I think it should be kept in the scope as the starting editor intended. As for your comment "suggesting all of the reaction to Trudeau's "speaking moistly" comment, was due to the this remix", who argued that, and where? Because I certainly didn't. My argument this entire has been there are enough RS to keep the remix article as an article about the song without widening the scope. If you want an article on the reaction of the phrase and all associated products, WP:BEBOLD and create one. No one is stopping you. If consensus is that this article should be expanded to cover the phrase and all associated reactions, the AfD should be withdrawn as the article would be eligible for WP:HEYMANN. --Kbabej (talk) 02:43, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is prudent to start a Speaking moistly (event) page until there is a wider discussion of the scope here. That might result in unnecessary move, deletion and merge discussions, which might be avoided if we get down to brass-tax about whether this article should be about the event. Perhaps input from others will help reach a consensus on how best to proceed.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 04:00, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I am going to change my vote to a Weak Keep. I freely admit that I don't have a good policy based reason for doing so, but I would like to keep this piece of Canadiana around. Perhaps, now I have just watched too many of the "cover videos" on YouTube, and noticed that the single has made it onto Spotify. It is an interesting piece of internet culture, that has got some coverage in WP:RS and has an interesting link to Canadian politics and the "history" of COVID-19. Not sure it quite passes WP:GNG or WP:NSINGLE, but I am also not sure batting away all the coverage it has received as WP:INDISCRIMINATE is fair either. Anyway, it is a very soft keep, for me now.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. NSINGLE states "Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label." The three criteria the nominator is referencing is father down in the NSINGLE criteria, which states "Any of the following factors suggest that a song or single may be notable enough that a search for coverage in reliable independent sources will be successful." My understanding of NSINGLE is that if a song/single meetins GNG and satisfies the first criteria, they do not necessarily have to meet one of the three criteria (those being: 1. Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts. 2. Has won one or more significant awards or honors, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award. 3. Has been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups.) The song has been covered by the sources in the article (CBC, The Star, Toronto City News, Narcity), and additional sources as well that are not yet incorporated into the article as of writing this: I Heart Radio, I Heart Radio (again), National Post, and Daily Hive. --Kbabej (talk) 16:19, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Hive isn't a reliable or notability-supporting source — it's essentially a blogified version of a tabloid, which means it violates two of our core principles about what it takes to be a reliable source (the operative words being "blog" and "tabloid", if you didn't figure that out.) Narcity, same. iHeartRadio Canada also is not a notability-making news outlet — it's just the platform on which all Bell Media-owned radio stations have their self-published websites hosted, which means everything that any local radio personality in Canada blogs about on his or her own station's website will always automatically have an "iHeartRadio Canada" URL by definition. So it doesn't constitute evidence of GNG-making media coverage either, because it's not an entity that does news reporting — it still just amounts to blogging by non-journalists. Bearcat (talk) 14:11, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair points. But there's also The Toronto Star, CBC News x2, CityNews Toronto, The Loop, Exclaim!, Brave Words, and HuffPost. It's varied enough coverage for me, and I stand by my keep !vote. --Kbabej (talk) 01:46, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Canadian pandemic article as per WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NSINGLE. Not sure a few clickbait Headliners are sufficient for coverage of an unreleased uncharted song that has zero historical value. This is one of many like this..... Donald Trump song telling us to consume bleach has ten times more hits.--Moxy 🍁 21:36, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As Kbabej mentioned above, there are many WP:RS news articles talking about the song. Félix An (talk) 00:28, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:17, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per points above. Many of the available sources aren't considered reliable. The ones that make mention could support a redirect/merge, but I don't see enough to justify such a random song. – ᕼᗩᑎᗪOTO (talk) 20:21, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Given the national media coverage this garnered from reputable sources and acknowledgment from the Prime Minister himself, information on this subject should be preserved. Keeping it as its own article makes it easier to find and navigate. Cmm3 (talk) 21:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Odd was going to say the same thing but with a different conclusion WP:INDISCRIMINATE.--Moxy 🍁 21:10, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Redirect to COVID-19 pandemic in Canada#Public health, neither of the 3 possible options for possible notability are met, but this is slightly relevant for that section of the pandemic article (where it's already mentioned), though I don't think the reception part is necessary. If this charts (I doubt it will), please let me know and I will switch my vote to keep. Username⁶⁸⁹² 19:24, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• After thinking about it, I think this is not as sound of an argument as I would think it is. I think this is a marginal case, so I'm changing my vote to weak redirect. Username⁶⁸⁹² 22:52, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep seems to fall within notability guidelines. Juno (talk) 23:16, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to COVID-19 pandemic in Canada#Public health or Justin Trudeau: Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Best to discuss the song in any of the articles. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 03:57, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, seems there's enough coverage. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:10, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or maybe redirect to COVID 19 pandemic in Canada. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete easily fails WP:NSINGLE. This is a one-off trivial edit that got some views on the Internet, and it fails all three criteria of notability. Not encyclopedic. 103.42.214.85 (talk) 02:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Significant amount of sources have been added since the nomination, does now pass WP:GNG Dwaro (talk) 10:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: This article is not encyclopedic. I really don't understand people who want to keep it. Knowledge of a stupid YouTube video will not benefit anyone and this topic is just not encylopedic or notable. Andrew nyr (talk, contribs) 00:09, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, while this is silly, that does not change the fact that it passes WP:GNG. It received coverage over a period of over a month, so it clearly meets the WP:N time constraint. Many delete votes are simply variations of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:43, 7 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 merge to Regions of Belarus. (non-admin closure) buidhe 23:16, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Belarusian regions by GRP[edit]

List of Belarusian regions by GRP (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 will be tedious to maintain (it's already out of date). Do we have articles comparing every currency in the world? At the very least, the abbreviation should be spelled out in the title. Fuddle (talk) 13:08, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Fuddle (talk) 13:08, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I really hate to pull a whataboutism, but if you search for Regions by GRP there's about 380 articles exactly like this one. I'm not sure what to draw from that about this though, it's just an observation about these types of articles. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:23, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 13:45, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 13:45, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamant1: It didn't occur to me that there were others. As there are 180 currencies in the world, we would need 180 x 180 = 32,400 articles to cover this topic. If we're arbitrarily only comparing currencies to the US dollar, then we need 179. And are we keeping historical data or just current? In any case it seems like something that could be done more efficiently by a stable, financial website. Wait, am I now suggesting we delete another 380 articles? Fuddle (talk) 16:35, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Regions of Belarus. Belarus doesn't have that many regions, so the limited amount of information in this article could be placed in that other article without difficulty. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:52, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above. Not enough regions for an exclusive list. Kaweendra (talk) 11:39, 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. (non-admin closure) Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 22:10, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Bubble Project[edit]

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

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

Fails to meet WP:INDEPTH. An event must receive significant or in-depth coverage to be notable. No source, promotional content. 2simple (talk) 15:16, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:11, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 16:52, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Ji Lee. Lacks sufficient coverage for stand-alone article. Schazjmd (talk) 20:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• That page should be deleted too. I struggle to see any encyclopedic value for successful crowdfunding and personal Facebook pages. 2simple (talk) 06:08, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (or Merge). I found several sources that could meet GNG, for example Wired online, De zeen, My Modern Met, and there was also a video segment on ABC News about the project (though I can't find a good link to it).--Mojo Hand (talk) 21:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Ferrell, Jeff; Hayward, Keith; Young, Jock (2008). Cultural Criminology: An Invitation. Los Angeles: SAGE Publishing. p. 114. ISBN 978-1-4129-3127-4. Retrieved 2020-06-01.
  2. Hann, Michael (2005-09-30). "Please fill in the blanks ..." The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2020-06-01. Retrieved 2020-06-01.
  3. Ahmed, Murad (2009-10-10). "The Bubble Project - Microtrends". The Times. Archived from the original on 2020-06-01. Retrieved 2020-06-01.
  4. Fox, Killian (2006-07-22). "Say what you really think". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2020-06-01. Retrieved 2020-06-01.
  5. Queenan, Joe (2006-10-02). "Rise of the bubble people". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2020-06-01. Retrieved 2020-06-01.
  6. Chung, Ah-young (2014-10-20). "Korean-born artist challenges stereotypes". The Korea Times. Archived from the original on 2020-06-01. Retrieved 2020-06-01.
  7. "Personal projects are key to dream job, says Facebook's creative 'rebel'". Agence France-Presse. 2016-07-01. Archived from the original on 2020-06-01. Retrieved 2020-06-01 – via Yahoo! News.

  Sources with quotes

  Ferrell, Jeff; Hayward, Keith; Young, Jock (2008). Cultural Criminology: An Invitation. Los Angeles: SAGE Publishing. p. 114. ISBN 978-1-4129-3127-4. Retrieved 2020-06-01. The article notes: The Bubble Project (www.thebubbleproject.com) is a form of guerrilla media whereby ex-advertising agency worker Ji Li (2006) and others paste empty, cartoon-style 'speech bubble' stickers over advertisments at bus stops and other public places. The empty speech bubbles invite passeers-by to fill them in with dialogue or critique, and once filled in the bubbles are photographed and archived. As its manifesto argues, 'the bubble project is the counterattack' and 'the bubbles are the ammunition' in a battle to take back public spaces — bus stops, train stations, subways, public squares — that have been 'seized by corporations to propagate their messages solely in the interest of profit'. In this way The Bubble Project operates as a form of invitational vandalism — an act of illegal defacement that invites further defacement. A process of illicitly interactive street communication, The Bubble Project recalls the newspapers pasted to walls during the political upheavals of Paris 1968 — newspapers that eventually became 'difficult to read … so covered are they with critical comments' (Star, 2001: 66) — or more recently the work of the graffiti artist Banksy (2005: 50–5), whose illicit 'This Wall is a Designated Graffiti Area' stencils successfully invite further graffiti. The Bubble Project also recalls, once again, the concept of detournement, the 'theft of meaning', whereby activists subvert everyday messages by undermining their meaning. 'Once placed on ads', The Bubble Project argues, 'these stickers transform the corporate monologue into an open dialogue'. Hann, Michael (2005-09-30). "Please fill in the blanks ..." The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2020-06-01. Retrieved 2020-06-01. The article notes: "Our communal spaces are being overrun with ads. Train stations, streets, squares, buses and subways now scream one message after another at us," writes the Seoul-born, New York-based artist Ji Lee in the manifesto that accompanies his Speech Bubble Project. So Ji Lee - a former designer for Saatchi & Saatchi, of all things - launched what he calls a "counter-attack". He plodded the New York streets with 50,000 blank speech bubble stickers that he attached to advertisements. Then he waited for residents to add their own commentaries. The results - some of which can be seen on his website, Pleaseenjoy.com are a sometimes bizarre, sometimes trenchant commentary on life and consumerism in the US. As the manifesto puts it: "Once placed on ads, these stickers transform the corporate monologue into an open dialogue. They encourage anyone to fill them in with any form of self-expression, free from censorship." The resulting captions reveal the anger about the Iraq war and the Bush administration: political messages are dominant among those on the site. They also reveal an unexpected supplicant quality. "Please let me die in peace," begs ET from the basket of the airborne bike in the familiar image from the film. "Date me (please)," demands a corporate drone in an ad for Apple. Even Gollum, of Lord of the Rings, becomes a figure of sympathy: "Desperately seeking purpose," he pleads, in a poster for the movie. Ahmed, Murad (2009-10-10). "The Bubble Project - Microtrends". The Times. Archived from the original on 2020-06-01. Retrieved 2020-06-01. The article notes: Advertising is a one-way conversation. Ji Lee, an artist, has decided to change that. "Train stations, streets, squares and buses scream one message after another at us," he writes on the Bubble Project website. "These spaces are increasingly being seized by corporations to propagate their messages." So he printed 50,000 speech bubbles and applied them to advertisements around the world. Passers-by fill in the bubbles with their own ideas. Lee photographed the results and posted them online. Fox, Killian (2006-07-22). "Say what you really think". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2020-06-01. Retrieved 2020-06-01. The article notes: Human beings can't resist a blank space. It's a truth that Ji Lee was acutely aware of when he printed up almost 40,000 blank 'speech bubble' stickers and posted them on street ads around New York. Frustrated by how every last inch of public space was being invaded by 'bad advertising without any sense of humour or intelligence', ads 'that just scream at us and are not prepared to interact', Lee decided to take action. Almost overnight, the bubbles he placed next to the mouths of waifish young DKNY models and square-jawed matinee idols filled up with wry commentary, political slogans and uncomfortable truths of every description. 'The stickers create a dialogue rather than a monologue and often change the meaning of ads completely - they make them better.' Queenan, Joe (2006-10-02). "Rise of the bubble people". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2020-06-01. Retrieved 2020-06-01. The article notes: Ji Lee is one of those people who cannot purge the advertising bee from his bonnet. An alumnus of the advertising world himself, Lee has devised something called the Bubble Project. It is an online site (Thebubbleproject.com) where ordinary people with no previous experience as dissidents can download bubbles, and then paste them up on posters or billboards they encounter in real life. The downloaders can fill in the bubbles themselves with their own clever or confrontational comments, or can leave them there for other people to write on. They are free to write things that are ingenious, seditious, disorienting, saucy, comical and even vulgar. This, says Lee, will allow the public to regain control of its environment, fight the corporate darkness, and just generally make life more fun. Chung, Ah-young (2014-10-20). "Korean-born artist challenges stereotypes". The Korea Times. Archived from the original on 2020-06-01. Retrieved 2020-06-01. The article notes: Based in New York, he rose to international fame with the sensational "Bubble Project" in 2005, which prompted passersby's to write their thoughts on speech bubble-shaped stickers like in a comic book. He placed 50,000 stickers on advertisements around the city and hundreds of people started to write comments on them, after a few months, media outlets started to pay attention and soon thousands of people around the world joined in. He began the project as he resented adverts filling every corner of the street in an ugly and intrusive manner like "visual pollution." He worked at an ad agency at that time, and felt partially guilty for the "junk," and wanted to change the concept so that people could talk back to the adverts. "Personal projects are key to dream job, says Facebook's creative 'rebel'". Agence France-Presse. 2016-07-01. Archived from the original on 2020-06-01. Retrieved 2020-06-01 – via Yahoo! News. The article notes: Lee, who was born in South Korea, raised in Brazil and now a longterm US resident, was able to break out of a dispiriting entry-level New York advertising job thanks to a quirky project he did on his own time and dime 15 years ago called The Bubble Project (www.thebubbleproject.com/). That involved sticking blank cartoon speech balloons on New York advertising billboards that invited the public to write whatever they wanted. Lee was fined several times for vandalism and given warnings from advertisers' lawyers. But the experience won him the attention of a boutique ad agency -- and then years later landed him a creative director job at Google.

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

  Cunard (talk) 07:08, 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. Save for the fact that my eyes hurt reading through this discussion, there seems to be some consensus that WP:GNG is met here. I would like to take this opportunity to urge both the nominator and JPA24 to use indented replies, rather than comments, and (especially for JPA24, as is mentioned below by several other users) to write with a greater degree of brevity. (non-admin closure) Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 22:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan-Mark Parsons[edit]

Ryan-Mark Parsons (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 a possibility that the original article created violated policy regarding conflicts of interest, and information that had been put on the page initially had unsafe data in regards to where it came from, which is available from the page creators history. Potential violation of Speedy Deletion Policy A7 (No indication of importance), which was flagged up at articles for creation and declined - but this article was still made anyway by the OP. Kadzi (talk) 21:37, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Hello Dr. Kadzi. Thank you for brining this discussion to the table. I wanted go through what you mentioned above and be absolutely transparent and factual in my response in order to explain why this article shouldn't be deleted.

Regarding the 'possibility' of the original article violating any conflict of interest policy, this was addressed during the early weeks of the article being published and the user that raised the concern accepted after my explanation that there was no conflict of interest with the subject of the article. This can be seen on my Talk Page's history where the conflict of interest notice was removed after coming to an understanding with the user who raised it. The article has never been marked as imbalanced, and when writing about Parsons, a neutral and accurate point of view was always consistent, fundamentally because there is no connection between me and the subject of this article and that has already been explained.

Being relatively new to Wikipedia and grateful to users like yourself, Dr Kadzi, and my own research on the guidelines - I was able to learn that original research is not accepted on here. To address 'unsafe data', anything that fell into this category was removed immediately. Regardless, even factual information from social media brought to the page was accurately cited from secondary sources from Wikipedia accepted publications; anything from MailOnline, Express etc. were also removed and replaced with trustworthy publications which featured Parsons.

Initial concerns were raised about the subject's importance or notability, these concerns were raised PRIOR to Ryan-Mark making an appearance on Good Morning Britain on ITV with Susanna Reid, Ben Shepard and Kate Garraway in January 2020. He was a guest celebrity panelist (all cited from recognised publications). His appearance on GMB led to international news coverage (again, all cited) from Australian and New Zealand press as well as national and regional coverage in trustworthy secondary news sources. If the notability of the subject changes, and according to notability of entertainers, Parsons continued to appear on national TV and radio, along with national trustworthy articles published that surrounded these appearances; I found the original concern over notability no longer accurate.

Since appearing on The Apprentice UK, Parsons has appeared on Good Morning Britain, BBC Asian Network, BBC Radio 5 Live, London Live (upon further research, not all candidates are offered these media interviews) and very recently Hits Radio with Wes Butters and has cited in interviews with trustworthy news sources that he intends to continue media work (all of these appearances were included in the article). Again, criteria for notability includes individuals having significant roles in multiple TV shows - Parsons has been the only celebrity to be interviewed in all of these broadcasts and has received national press coverage for these appearances.

Regular coverage in national news - all secondary sources that have covered Parsons' activities in public and controversies with fellow candidates after The Apprentice was broadcast. At the time of contributing to this discussion, Parsons was featured in serval national publications at the start of May 2020. There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources (that have all been cited) that allow Ryan-Mark Parsons to pass Wikipedia:General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" - these have been cited in the article. This press coverage has sustained from October 2019 and recently in May 2020, where Parsons has been interviewed and secondary articles published about him in national sources. There are significant tabloid citations, but this a reflection of Parsons' tabloid-type and populist persona.

List of significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources:

2. "'Posh' Apprentice star Ryan-Mark scoffs meal worms as he swaps caviar for creepy crawlies". Daily Mirror. 2019-12-11.
4. "Meet Apprentice 2019's Ryan-Mark Parsons, the show's youngest ever candidate". Radio Times. 2019-11-23.
6. "The Apprentice final, review: Carina Lepore makes an unusual winner – she's worthy and also likeable". The Independent. 2019-12-18.
8. "Apprentice star branded 'sick' after suggesting koala fur should be sold for charity". Daily Mirror. 2020-01-23.
10. "The Apprentice star Ryan-Mark gets his gold tooth stolen in seagull attack". Daily Mirror. 2020-01-15.
12. "'Posh' Apprentice star Ryan-Mark lashes out at pal because they gifted him Primark pj's". Daily Mirror. 2020-01-05.
14. "Twitter is going mad for this moment from last night's The Apprentice". Cosmopolitan. 2020-03-09.
16. "The most talked about TV moments of 2019 have been revealed – and they might surprise you". Hello!. 2019-12-19.
18. "FINNAIR TELLS APPRENTICE CONTESTANTS WITH LIFE-THREATENING NUT ALLERGIES: 'IF YOU HAVE AN ISSUE, GET OFF THE PLANE'". The Independent. 2019-11-23.
20. "A tribute to Ryan-Mark: The Apprentice King who was gone too soon". The Tab. 2019-11-21.
22. "Ryan-Mark Parsons hits out at Lottie Lion as The Apprentice pair feud over charging fans for photographs". Evening Standard. 2020-01-27.
24. "The Apprentice star Ryan-Mark Parsons is hospitalised after dropping £1000 of caviar on his foot". OK! Magazine. 2019-11-30.
26. "'Grotesque': British entrepreneur shot down over plan to sell koala fur as bushfire fundraiser". The Sydney Herald. 2020-01-27.
28. "'Disgusting suggestion': Businessman's plan for dead koalas slammed". NZ Herald. 2020-01-24.
30. "Bushfire crisis: Apprentice contestant says dead koala fur should be sold for charity". 7NEWS.com.au. 2020-01-23.
32. "The Apprentice 2019: Former Matrix mini-pupil set to become youngest-ever contestant". Legal Cheek. 2019-09-26.
34. "Former Apprentice candidates Lottie Lion and Ryan-Mark Parsons feud over signed photos". The Independent. 2019-12-31.
36. "'Posh' Apprentice star Ryan-Mark baffles fans as he eats McDonald's with a knife and fork". Daily Mirror. 2019-12-04.
38. "Fans reckon The Apprentice's Ryan-Mark Parsons looks like a well known comedian". Daily Mirror. 2019-10-02.
40. "The Peloton Wife, Ryan-Mark Parsons & K.T. Tunstall?". Apple Podcasts. Who? Weekly.

Another case for importance and notability is having received a well-known and significant honour, it was mentioned on The Apprentice that Parsons was a recipient of the Fellowship of the Royal Society of Arts. With this this particular Fellowship, there is no database to cite and this is the issue most Fellows face on Wikipedia in terms of verifying the award. However, mention of this in national broadcast gave reason to cite in the article and is another reason why I considered this individual to be notable for a Wikipedia entry. Of course, if you advise this should be removed from the article, I will of course make changes to improve the quality of what has been written.

Parsons being the youngest-ever candidate in the history of The Apprentice UK (since 2005 and all cited from official BBC website in press release on each candidate), was a reason to look further into his continued media work and there being a wide press interest in the subject with large fan following.

I thought it might be worth mentioning several candidates from The Apprentice UK who have appeared on further television or have had significant press coverage have been entered onto Wikipedia. Of course, there could be a reason for their deletion and perhaps discussions have been made in each of their articles; but deleting the article on Parsons for the reasons you mention above put all of the existing Wikipedia entries on any of The Apprentice UK candidates in jeopardy too.

I have consulted with more experienced users to improve the page whilst under review as well, and have since made changes to the external links and have removed excess social media profile links from the article; removed 'entrepreneur' from his title as there are no trustworthy independent sources that can support this; and updated the format of the article by moving early life details away from the lead of the article.

I have also added detail of further media work, including Parsons appearance on BBC Two's The Apprentice: You're Fired & You’re Hired in which Parsons co-presented the first part of You’re Fired and was interviewed by comedian Tom Allen.

It’s also mentioned in the original article that Parsons featured in the one of the UK’s most talked-about TV moments of 2019 - which not only received press coverage at the time of broadcast, but more coverage after Freeview made this announcement.

Going forward, to improve the quality of the article I can forward to Articles for Rescue and manually review all citations, to get the best secondary sources that are independent to Parsons that currently exist (if not already cited in the article). I would be completely open to working on any suggestions to improve the article.

The more I learn about Wikipedia the more I understand discussions like this are hugely valuable for the platform. Based on the guidelines I've read and applying this to the subject, I still believe there is sufficient importance and notability for a Wikipedia entry. I hope I have been clear in answering the concerns you raised in regards to conflict of interest violation that was reverted. Also, the initial concern over Parsons' importance (which was before his live TV debate and other TV/radio appearances and subsequent international press coverage). I have always strived to be accurate when contributing to Wikipedia, including this discussion, and I hope that I can use this discussion as an opportunity to learn and take any feedback from you to improve this article, including the ways I mentioned above. JPA24 (talk) 00:50, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:54, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:55, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:55, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment My main reasoning for this article being unsafe, apart from the potential conflicts of interest, are that the person is wholly unnoteworthy, and before his appearance on The Apprentice, would relatively be unknown and not of importance to constitute an article. If you attempted to make the article using appropriate references before his appearance, it would not be possible. None of the other contestants from that series have a wikipedia page, and more appropriately, their names redirect to that series' Wikipedia page as a whole, where their names are listed anyway. Redirecting to the apprentice's page or deleting would be appropriate.   Kadzi   (talk) 19:09, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Dr. Kadzi. As mentioned previously, another user raised concerns over conflict of interest, but they later reverted this (which you can track on the Talk Page), as there was appropriate discussion over there being no conflict in the creation of the article. Of course, if you still believe there is a conflict, I can only state what I have mentioned before to the other user. In my opinion, notability is developed, there are articles on prolific figures who rapidly attained notability. The test for notability passes WP:GNG as there is significant independent coverage from reliable sources here in UK and internationally - these are mentioned above here and cited in the article. It has be acknowledged, Parsons carries this tabloid-type, populist controversial persona that attracts sensational headlines, but all sources cited here and in the article are deemed reliable and special effort was made to remove coverage of him in outlets such as The Sun, MailOnline, Daily Star and other banned independent sources that aren't reliable. Many reputable and independent sources are included too e.g. The Independent, Radio Times, The Evening Standard, The Sydney Herald, NZ Herald etc.

Regarding other contestants, Parsons has continued his media presence by appearing on various TV & radio shows e.g. Good Morning Britain, London Live, BBC Asian Network, BBC Radio 5 Live and recently Hits Radio. Whilst conducting research on other candidates, there is only one other candidate from his series, namely Thomas Skinner, who has also appeared on further major TV shows. It's also worth mentioning, Parsons has had significantly more press coverage than the majority of the candidates; recently in May 2020 he and another candidate were involved in a controversy (unrelated to The Apprentice) that was reported by nearly every major online newspaper. But for comparison, other Apprentice UK candidates from previous series have Wikipedia articles, but not all of their fellow contestants from each of their series have their own article. If other candidates from Parsons’ series don’t have Wikipedia articles, this shouldn’t somehow go against Parsons having his own (for all of the reasons I’ve outlined thoroughly), based on precedent.

A lot of his media coverage has been unrelated to The Apprentice, often covering Parsons in public. One example of Parsons eating at McDonald's with knife and fork, which was featured in a popular celebrity podcast based in USA and the majority of online newspapers in UK. Also, after his GMB debate on koalas (again, not related to The Apprentice) press coverage reached Australia and New Zealand, as well as majority of online newspapers in UK. Although this doesn't count towards notability, due to Parsons being youngest-ever Apprentice candidate, this would suggest a wider interest for there to be encyclopaedic coverage on this individual, along with all of the reasons to suggest notability I've already mentioned above.

A further test for notability is "a large fan base or a significant "cult" following" WP:ENT#2, as The Evening Standard reporter suggests, "after garnering a fan base while on the show" Parsons argued with another contestant argued over him charging for signed photographs and personalised videos.^[1] This story on Parsons was also reported independently by other reliable sources. JPA24 (talk) 21:54, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Just an update on the discussion. I have made several changes to the article (after getting some tips from experienced users) to make the content more clear and have added further information that covers Parsons' media work and press coverage; cited by a mixture of independent sources and national newspaper interviews (unrelated to The Apprentice and largely from 2020). JPA24 (talk) 15:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment A few articles directly after his appearance should not constitute a cult following; and staged tabloid articles do not constitute thorough media coverage. Other contestants gained similar coverage and invitations to talk shows, for example, Skinner.   Kadzi   (talk) 20:39, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment

Not even the winner has a wikipedia article; other contestants rightly so redirect to the series page

Parsons' had less interest over time according to google data, compared with Thomas Skinner and Pamela Laird, for example ^[2]

Twitter following at time of writing:

Ryan Mark: 15.5k ^[3]

Thomas Skinner: 82.5k ^[4]

(Winner) Carina Lepore: 27.2k ^[5]

Lewis Ellis (Verified): 15.1k ^[6]

Lottie Lion: 16.8k ^[7]

Note: Other twitters not checked but likely to be around the same or lower than Ryan-mark's.

The small amount of press coverage simply does not offset the overall insignificance of the character; and I invite you to attempt to successfully create the other higher-publicised characters if you are such a fan.   Kadzi   (talk) 20:54, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Thank you Dr. Kadzi for the further discussion points. As I mentioned too, one other candidate, Skinner, was also invited onto talk shows post-Apprentice. So far, Parsons and Skinner and are the only candidates to have continued UK TV appearances on shows like Good Morning Britain. Perhaps I will create an article for him in the future, but I focused on Parsons as it was made clear in press he was the youngest-ever candidate and therefore distinguished himself against other candidates who may also warrant articles based on the test for notability WP:GNG.

The cult following reference was implied by the journalist in The Evening Standard (previously cited) and other independent sources, after he faced controversy for charging fans for personalised videos and photographs. This was the suggestion in the articles that reported this controversy and of course, if Parsons is charging for this personalised material, there has to be a fanbase to facilitate the demand (as the articles suggest).

Regarding Google Search Trends and Twitter following. Out of 16 candidates from 2019, including multiple candidates from previous seasons, Parsons' ranks near the top for having gained the most followers on Twitter. Regardless, I must urge users to ignore reference to Twitter following, as this is not a consideration for the Wikipedia notability test WP:GNG. Many notable and highly successful public figures either don't have a Twitter account or a small following, therefore on the basis of your argument, they're not eligible for Wikipedia coverage if compared to other public figures from the same film, TV show or industry, if they have less followers or no followers at all. There is also no correlation between Search Trends and Twitter following. If you take the example of Pamela Laird, that you cited, even if she allegedly has a greater online interest over time in United States (according to Google Search Trends the nominator cited), her Twitter following is less than Parsons'.

Pamela Laird: 11.7k ^[1]

I must also make clear, the Search Trend you cited was conducted in United States, it would be more accurate to conduct a search trend and cite data from United Kingdom, as this is the broadcast territory for The Apprentice UK. Based on data I've collected from the Search Trend in the UK, I actually found that interest overtime from January 2020 (post-Apprentice broadcast), is very similar for the four candidates, including Parsons. ^[2] I would invite users contributing to this discussion to check this too. But again, I don't see how Search Trends are relevant to notability WP:GNG and I merely added this point to the discussion to make a correction to the data Dr. Kadzi cited.

If you or any user conducts a simple news search on Parsons' name, you will find significant national coverage that exceeds the majority of any candidate from 2019 series or before. Furthermore, from my research on Parsons and other candidates, Parsons is the only candidate from 2019 series to receive international coverage in USA, Australia and New Zealand (discounting Pamela Laird who is based in Republic of Ireland). The discussion point you made about Parsons receiving 'small amount of press coverage' is inaccurate based on points made before this and now. The same principle must be applied to other Apprentice candidates who have Wikipedia articles (the majority of which did not win their respective series); their press coverage is either less or similar to that of Parsons.

Once again, it is inaccurate to describe the other candidates you have mentioned as 'higher-publicised', as from the research I've carried out, Parsons has gained the most coverage from The Apprentice alongside Lottie Lion and Carina Lepore (winner). A lot of your discussion points aren't supported by any numbers, apart from Twitter following (which isn't a consideration for notability) and Google Search Trends which also doesn't define notability WP:GNG. I must raise concerns over your suggestion that Parsons' appeared in 'staged tabloid articles'. There is no suggestion in each of these articles that they are 'staged', the pictures have been taken and the news has been reported in the same way that many other notable figures will be captured in press shots whilst in public and later journalists will report this. I think it's important that if you have evidence to make that suggestion that Parsons' has appeared in 'staged' articles, you make it clear on this discussion.

Your recent discussion comments seem to only address the cult following point I made, but you haven't referenced the several other points I have addressed in this discussion that count towards Parsons' notability and thus eligibility for Wikipedia coverage. The fact you have also invited me to create articles on other notable candidates from 2019 series, would suggest to some degree you accept Parsons' notability and I cannot understand why you would then bring this particular article into this discussion for deletion. If you feel that other candidates with very similar if not less independent media coverage warrant articles on Wikipedia, then of course Parsons' existing article deserves to remain on Wikipedia.

I'm constantly improving Parsons' article and eventually I will accept your invitation to create other articles for the notable candidates that you mentioned from 2019 series. It is precedent with notable candidates from the past series of The Apprentice, which you can find very easily under 'notable candidates' on the main page of The Apprentice, to create articles in the interest of enhancing this platform that I'm truly learning to love. JPA24 (talk) 23:22, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep As mentioned in previous discussion, the nominator has invited me to create articles on other notable candidates from 2019 series, which of course would include Parsons, being one of three candidates to continue work on national TV & radio, alongside other candidates Thomas Skinner and Carina Lepore (winner). Therefore, I'm struggling to understand why this article was nominated in the first place, if nominator believes there are grounds for notability. Furthermore, Parsons has arguably the most press coverage from 2019 series, regularly featured in press (unrelated to The Apprentice) and near the start of May 2020 (most major UK online newspapers). Due to Parsons being the youngest-ever candidate in show's history, I thought they'd be a wider interest to have an article on Wikipedia, along with all of the reasons I have made clear that make him notable WP:GNG.

I have cited independent and reliable sources throughout this discussion and in the original article. Significant national and international independent press coverage that was generated outside of The Apprentice (months after it finished airing on BBC One - all cited above and in the article). The nominator also raised points about Twitter following and Google Search Trends to determine notability, which of course aren't factors towards passing the notability test WP:GNG. I merely referenced the The Evening Standard article cited above, in which a journalist implies Parsons has a cult following or 'fanbase'. Existing Wikipedia articles on past notable Apprentice candidates have survived deletion nominations, as they have proven notability in the same way Parsons has; they have the same if not less independent and reliable press coverage.

The nominator also suggested that press from Parsons was 'staged', but there is no indication of this by the reporters in their respective articles. This would make me question whether the nominator has a conflict of interest, perhaps they know more than what is written in the articles about Parsons? All of the press shots and subsequent articles of Parsons show him carrying out regular activities, and like any notable figure, they are often caught by press whilst in public. I see this as a further reason to suggest notability, due to independent and reliable news featuring Parsons focusing on these press shots.

In order to avoid being too repetitive, my previous reasons to keep this article are noted above very clearly (also in previous discussion). I'm completely open to feedback in order to improve this article on Parsons. If anyone has any suggestions to enhance its quality, I would be welcome to your messages on the article's talk page or here. JPA24 (talk) 14:52, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The article is full of mostly tabloid sources, but there are a few reliable sources in there: Radio Times, The Independent, The Sydney Morning Herald. There does seem to be enough chatter about this person that bare notability can be met.

The nominator's rationales are:

1) "Before his appearance on The Apprentice, [he] would relatively be unknown and not of importance to constitute an article." The argument is that the subject would not have been notable until he did the stuff that made him notable. That's true of pretty much anyone outside of a royal family.

2) Other contestants on the show don't have an article, and they're more popular. This is an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, and is irrelevant, especially going down the rabbit hole of who has more Twitter followers. Notability is not determined by the relative popularity of the subject compared to other people. It's determined by coverage in reliable sources.

I urge JPA24 to read WP:BLUDGEON and WP:WALLOFTEXT, and then take a step back and stop responding on this page any more. All of your long posts are discouraging other people from participating. -- Toughpigs (talk) 20:23, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I would also urge User:JPA24 to be considerably more concise. Pick WP:THREE sources and then step back and let others in. Stifle (talk) 09:36, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I would like to apologise, thank you to the users who have made me aware of this. I won't be adding anymore to the discussion, all of my points are listed above in favour of keeping the article. JPA24 (talk) 11:17, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - subject is notable, meeting GNG with references provided above. Nfitz (talk) 19:19, 7 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) 04:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DoubleTree by Hilton Hotel Phoenix Tempe[edit]

DoubleTree by Hilton Hotel Phoenix Tempe (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 not a notable hotel. Wikieditor600 (talk) 20:45, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Here's all the coverage I dug up that feels noteworthy, and I'm not feeling much here: [1][2][3][4][5] I vote weak delete. Raymie (t • c) 00:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:06, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete because it seems promotional, was created by a single user probably for the sake of advertising the hotel, and most importantly there's nothing notable about it. Adamant1 (talk) 13:04, 7 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Crowne Plaza Manila Galleria Philippines[edit]

Crowne Plaza Manila Galleria Philippines (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 not a notable hotel. Wikieditor600 (talk) 20:41, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as I don't see why this is notable. The two references on the article are broken, and I can't find anything on Google besides the hotel website, tripadvisor etc Pi (Talk to me!) 00:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Crowne Plaza: Majority of the search results show events hosted by the hotel. One source indicates that the hotel is under the InterContinental Hotels Group. Other than that, barely found anything (including history) about the hotel. My vote stands. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 03:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:06, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not a notable hotel. Do not redirect; it is not a useful search term and no content about this hotel is found at the chain's article. Stifle (talk) 09:37, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I found a bunch of articles in Philippine news media that establish notability for the hotel, so I wonder how thoroughly the people who are calling for this article's deletion searched for references. Some references include:

• The Manila Times reported that the hotel is the new home of Philippine Fashion Week
• The Philippine Star reported that the hotel was the first to roll out a mobile Internet solution for its Wi-Fi needs
• The Manila Times also did a write-up on the hotel's general manager, as well as the hotel's then-executive chef. BusinessMirror did a write-up on that chef's successor.
• ABS-CBN News and Current Affairs has a pretty long section on the hotel's coronavirus easing preparations just a few days ago.
• While not a write-up per se on the hotel, the Manila Bulletin did reports on how the hotel hosted the bicameral conference committee for the Bangsamoro Organic Law. Other media (like the Sun.Star Manila) picked up on this as well.

I think these are sufficient for establishing the hotel's credibility, no? --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 19:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Changed my vote. With reliable sources indicated by Sky Harbor, the article is good enough to meet WP:SNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 14:32, 6 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)   Kadzi   (talk) 21:08, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anterdol Dandpat[edit]

Anterdol Dandpat (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'm not sure that any of the information is reliable and a lot seems as if it is a story or an anecdote   Kadzi   (talk) 20:41, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.   Kadzi   (talk) 20:41, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as apparently 100% original research. Mccapra (talk) 21:02, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as WP:TNT - any article on this subject would need to start again, not be based on a string of unsourced personal reminiscences. - Arjayay (talk) 15:25, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:TNT. The topic may or may not be notable but there is nothing salvageable about the current first-person account. Pichpich (talk) 22:15, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:TNT, nothing useable here. Formatting oddities such as "to be continued", unexplained timestamps and nonstandard quote boxes make me suspect that the whole thing was copy-pasted from another source. –dlthewave ☎ 02:00, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Violates so many major policies it's not even worth listing them here. And even draftifying it would be pointless, as it would need to be completely rewritten starting from scratch. Just get rid of it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:00, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and encourage contributor to start by adding something at Hirakud Dam --Cornellier (talk) 17:28, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and delete all prior !votes as superseded. I spent a little time on the article, deleting the massive wall of text from a relatively inexperienced editor that can't now be verified. But this is a verifiable former populated village. We now have a stub that can be kept. Any of y'all could have done what I did! I hope to make sure we have articles on all of the 249 submerged villages someday, who wants to help!!--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:45, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as reliable sources have been added. Mccapra (talk) 18:14, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a clear pass of WP:GEOLAND, and thanks to Milowent for doing what I had intended to do but hadn't got round to yet. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:54, 4 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) 04:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GroupLeader.com[edit]

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

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

This is not a notable website. No reliable sources. Wikieditor600 (talk) 20:33, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Fails WP:NCORP, WP:NWEB and WP:GNG. Only "claim to notability" seems to be that it is (was?) a "sister company to Ireland's largest escorted tour holiday provider". Which is far from a significant notability claim. A view of the archived version of the subject's "in the news" page suggests some limited coverage. Like being one of 10+ finalists in some 2014 regional blog award. Nothing that demonstrates WP:SIGCOV. A search on Ireland's two main newspapers of record returns only trivial mentions and the typical churnalism we might expect for any startup seeking PR or investment. (See: Irish Independent results and Irish Times results). That the article's content reads like an advert and the author an apparent SPA/COI contributor is also a concern. The subject's website also seems to be offline for well over a year. Suggesting it may not be operating as a going concern. And hence unlikely to "gain" notability in the future. In any event, mine is a firm "delete" recommendation (as isn't notable now, and wasn't notable when AfC accepted). Article stands only as an out-of-date advert for an otherwise non-notable company. Guliolopez (talk) 01:13, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Was not a notable company, and now defunct. Spleodrach (talk) 14:30, 6 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. Sandstein 07:02, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rina Nagasaki[edit]

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

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

Article has no description as to why this artist is notable. Article has 1 reference which points to an archived copy of the subject's website. Article consists of one line which says who the subject is and where and when born, nothing else to establish notability. Article has a list of numbers and letters, with no explanation as to what they mean (possible a music catalog number?) and lists "hobbies" which is extraneous and trivial. Donaldd23 (talk) 19:46, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable entertainer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:40, 2 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) 04:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1998 Capital Taxi Aereo plane crash[edit]

1998 Capital Taxi Aereo plane crash (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)

Tragic but cargo plane accidents are very common. Fails WP:EVENT as there is no lasting effect. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify again - The article as it stands was moved to mainspace from draftspace 16 hours before this AfD but is undersourced. This could easily have had a lasting impact in Brazil as it hit a house and was the first loss of a Brazilian aircraft type, but it needs better sourcing to support this. I'm not willing to categorise this as "non-notable" due to a lack of Brazilian records search, it may be, it may not be, but I don't think it's ready for mainspace. SportingFlyer T·C 19:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SportingFlyer: Comment This is a very minor cargo plane crash with limited ground casualties. Take for instance this South America 1976 crash[6] that killed 88 people on the ground besides the 707 crew of three. BTW that crash doesn't even have a WP article....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:38, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Bolivian crash likely should have an article, that's proof of nothing. Anyways, there's still a chance this is notable, and given it was freshly moved from draftspace, I don't see any harm with just moving it back. SportingFlyer T·C 19:49, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without prejudice. As with many articles based on a single source, it reproduces that source, ASN in this case. The sourced parts of the article are a close paraphrase and several rearranged word-for-word copies. The incident is already mentioned EMB 120 article, and there is very little worth preserving without source-based evidence of stand-alone significance. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• additional comment. After looking at the corresponding pt.Wikipedia article and searching for RS coverage, I am convinced this crash was a breaking news event with only routine follow up. Lasting RS interest in the event and the significance of the crash as the first of that aircraft's variant do not appear to be evident. Fails WP:NEVENT. • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No WP:LASTING coverage. Azuredivay (talk) 02:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Cornellier (talk) 17:21, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete there is not enough coverage from independent reliable secondary sources. Also per WP:NEVER and WP:NOTNEWS. Bolhones (talk) 18:24, 2 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. Sandstein 07:03, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Pfountz[edit]

Greg Pfountz (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 computer guy. Fails WP:GNG KidAd (talk) 17:33, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:25, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable computer programer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:57, 2 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) 04:08, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ally Sparkles[edit]

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

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

Reviewed through New Page Patrol. BLP of a pornstar, copied and pasted to mainspace after being declined at AFC. Sources are an interview on a porn industry site (not independent), her own website and a list of porn award winners. I was unable to find any substantial, reliable source coverage through a WP:BEFORE search. She won a Transgender Erotica Award, but that doesn't count for much now that WP:PORNBIO has been deprecated. Fails WP:NENT and WP:GNG. Spicy (talk) 17:18, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spicy (talk) 17:18, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spicy (talk) 17:18, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Spicy (talk) 17:18, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG. Also, WP:NOTSOCIAL. KidAd (talk) 17:38, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Lacks significant coverage by reliable sources. The minor award win would not even have satisfied any understanding of PORNBIO after 2012. Nothing to support any claim of notability per WP:BIO. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Additional comment: A closer look at the Transgender Erotica Awards indicates that the award, especially including the subject's award win, is a studio-sponsored porn award mainly celebrating excellence in that studio's own output. This can't be self promotion, can it? • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable pornographic performer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:24, 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. Already deleted as per WP:G11 criteria by an administrator (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp ✉ 06:13, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Danish Ishtiaq[edit]

Danish Ishtiaq (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 entrepreneur. ~SS49~ {talk} 15:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 15:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 15:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• SS49, I had already CSD A7 it. ~ Amkgp ✉ 15:30, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:06, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Théophile Figeys[edit]

Théophile Figeys (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 my attempts at verification beyond a genealogy website and a newspaper list of contributors to an orphanage mentioning somebody of this name being alive in the 1910s (no online mention of him as a general, or father of many war dead, except in Wikipedia and derivatives) --Andreas Philopater (talk) 13:49, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I've made a request at WP:RX to see if there's anything of use there. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC) The British official history has quite a too long section on this for me to scour through right now. I looked through the relevant french official history volume but didn't notice this name in the main running text (there were mentions of Gens. Putz, Allenby, Smith-Dorian, et al., but not this one). What I can confirm is that a quick look at Belgian military archives (search for last name ('Nom' in french) = Figeys) does not yield any evidence for this character. A look at civil archives reveals one 'Théophile Figeys',([7]) but he is listed as a coachman and the marriage dates from 1904 so it's unlikely to be this one. Another search this time just for Figeys reveals a lot of candidates but I am quite unsure if any (possibly under a different name) could be this character. This leaves me with two conclusions: either this "Major General" did not do much (somewhat unlikely, but not theoretically impossible) but did exist (if somebody is stubborn on confirming his existence, they can have a go at Belgian archives here and here); or this is a fictional person (or, at least for our purposes, whose existence is unverifiable). In the second case, we all know where this is heading, and in the first case then fails WP:V and WP:GNG... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:13, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have again gone above and beyond the call of duty; (this: blacklisted = it's a WP mirror, but there are a few pre-made search queries at the bottom - so just for reference: peoplepill.com/people/theophile-figeys/ ) gives a few queries that I ran through the search engines but they again don't yield any results. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:20, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete likely hoax. buidhe 01:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for the reasons stated. The name is credible but there is no listing in the Biographie nationale (here) or any other of the usual sources. I agree it is likely to be a hoax. I also note the English article was created in 2010—two years before the French article. Can we make sure that the article is deleted in all language versions? —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are French and Spanish versions, both identified as translations of the English version, and a Ukrainian that cites Love, D. (1996). The Second Battle of Ypres, April 1915 – a page that does not mention a Figeys. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 11:30, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to the closing admin: This could go at WP:HOAXLIST... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:32, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

   Doing... buidhe 21:58, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a hoax.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The hoax. ——Serial ^# 09:03, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per research by others as noted above. Would also suggest notifying the other wikis to start an equivalent deletion process.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 23:49, 6 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) 04:03, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shubham Kumar[edit]

Shubham Kumar (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 businessman. ~SS49~ {talk} 13:34, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 13:34, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 13:34, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non notable, most likely advertisement. // Eatcha (talk) 13:54, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. - Hatchens (talk) 14:00, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The content which is written is completely promotional as per WP:PROMO. Abishe (talk) 14:33, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no indication of notability whatsoever. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:14, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per above. M4DU7 (talk) 18:52, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not meant to be for people to self promote. We have allowed way too much of that slide by over the years.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:46, 2 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 Materialscientist (talk) 08:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ayush Kumar Upadhyay[edit]

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

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

Non-notable actor. ~SS49~ {talk} 12:45, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 12:45, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 12:45, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete The article actually should be speedily deleted under the criteria G11. The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Abishe (talk) 14:36, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agree with Abishe Donaldd23 (talk) 21:10, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:05, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arjun Gupta (venture capitalist)[edit]

Arjun Gupta (venture capitalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Highly promotional (WP:PROMO) article. Subject fails WP:GNG. Calling for an AfD discussion. Hatchens (talk) 12:40, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 12:40, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 12:40, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 12:40, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:45, 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. Sandstein 07:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Satya Narayanan R[edit]

Satya Narayanan R (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)

Subject fails notability WP:GNG. This article is purely promotional (WP:PROMO). Calling for an AfD discussion. Hatchens (talk) 12:33, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 12:33, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 12:33, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable businessperson and poet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:42, 2 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Mhhossein ^talk 05:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elliot Norton Awards[edit]

Elliot Norton Awards (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)

It exists, but doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 14:36, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:54, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:55, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. If article says how long this award has been given out, I missed it. But historically, when shows that were destined for Broadway went on tour prior to opening in NYC to work out the kinks and get feedback from critics and audiences, Boston was usually the last stop. It wasn’t totally because of its proximity to NYC but because the audiences and critics were the most similar to what they were expecting on Broadway so it was sort of a final test. If a play fared well in Boston, it stood a good chance of succeeding on Broadway. So, if the awards have been around for some time, then they’ve been awarded to some of the greats in the theater world. I would say give it some time to incubate. Let others work on improving it. Then revisit the isssue of keep or delete in the future if someone feels it isn’t up to snuff. Postcard Cathy (talk) 18:46, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • • Comment I just noticed there was an article for Mr. Norton. And there are plenty of wiki links to this particular article. So, there seems to be an interest in the subject. If the consensus is the awards don’t deserve a wiki article of their own, then I suggest a merge with Elliot Norton? Postcard Cathy (talk) 19:06, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A search shows that the Awards are still running after more than thirty years, and continue to attract coverage in the theatre press. Mccapra (talk) 02:38, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mccapra, where exactly is the coverage you mention? Online, I've only been able to find this. Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 17:30, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I’ll share it here when I’m back on my laptop. Mccapra (talk) 17:57, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. These awards have been covered by the national theatre press such as Variety (see [8], [9], [10]) and Playbill (see [11], [12]). That's aside from coverage it has received from the local Boston-area media like WGBH and The MetroWest Daily News. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:00, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment 2020 awards in the Boston Globe, Playbill, Broadway.com, and an older one from Variety, plus lots of local news and radio in MA. Mccapra (talk) 18:15, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the sources identified above. Please add them to the article, and not just the AfD discussion. :) — Toughpigs (talk) 18:17, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw nomination per great comments above. Thanks for your work on this, Boleyn (talk) 18:58, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 07:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

National Coalition for Homeless Veterans[edit]

National Coalition for Homeless Veterans (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-remarkable organization. Going to summits is what these organizations do as part of their routine business and article is built off of these primary sources (their own, as well as relevant summit pages). After trimming out things that were not relevant, what's left is based on primary source. I don't believe there are sources that can establish this organization to WP:NORG level. Graywalls (talk) 02:17, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 02:17, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 02:17, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep Trying to find sources that show direct WP:SIGCOV is like trying to find a needle in a pile of needles. I gave up after ten pages of wading, as they are referenced for statistics and comments in hundreds of articles that they aren't the direct subject of. However, their quotes and statistics being regularly used and the fact that C-SPAN has on multiple occassions covered their yearly conference [13] leads me to believe that someone with more patience or better googling skills could come up with a few good sources. Sulfurboy (talk) 04:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sulfurboy:, thanks for your comment. I checked it out. The role of the organization is a host, as it says in the videos "HOSTING ORGANIZATION National Coalition for Homeless Veterans". This doesn't satisfy the high standards of WP:NCORP. C-SPAN is not discussing or making extensive analysis of the NCHV's speech or the organization and you didn't supplement it with a policy suggesting this sort of coverage would qualify and until then, I'm convinced this should be deleted. If a needle can get lost in a pile of needle, it's just a needle. It's not a distinctively unique and notable needle in a sea of needles. Graywalls (talk) 16:25, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep per Sulfurboy Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 12:09, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Sulfurboy. Seems reasonable to keep the article based on that. Dwaro (talk) 11:13, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I have searched for references and like Sulfurboy, I agree that not a single reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability can be found. Unlike Sulfurboy though, that's a clear and simple reason to Delete for me. Topic fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:19, 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. From a nosecount point of view, opinion is more or less evenly split. I'm having trouble finding good policy-based arguments on either side. The gist here is that people mostly agree this information should be included in the encyclopedia, but disagree on whether it belongs here in a stand-alone article, or merged into any of several suggested higher-level articles. Whether to merge or not is fundamentally a content issue which should be resolved by editors building consensus on the talk pages. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:02, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

COVID-19 pandemic in the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base[edit]

COVID-19 pandemic in the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base (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)

Guantanamo Bay Naval Base is not a nation. There is only 1 confirmed case, and only a few sentences, not information for having a stand alone article. If this is the standard, we can have an article of every city in the United States and world wide. COVID-19 is not even mentioned in the article Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, so not major for the base. All content can easily be merged into Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, COVID-19 pandemic in the United States and/or COVID-19 pandemic in Cuba. SportsOlympic (talk) 11:28, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:08, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:08, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:08, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:08, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/merge We do not need separate articles for single cases in every square mile on earth, easily covered in the above articles without listing every minor tidbit of info in the news as it has now. Reywas92^Talk 08:03, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep most (if not all) subnational jurisdictions in the united states have their own article. while the reported case count in low, article is notable due to the DoD not providing updates and the shut down of travel between the base for legal services. Epluribusunumyall (talk) 09:27, 23 May 2020 (UTC) (wrote this a while ago, but forgot to sign it, my bad)[reply]

• Comment The base not being a nation is not good reason for deletion.★Trekker (talk) 13:09, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, but the reason for nominating is not only that it’s not a country. SportsOlympic (talk) 20:14, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment , "most (if not all) subnational jurisdictions in the united states have their own article.", look forward to other jurisdications getting similar treatment, i dont think this means all subnational jurisdictions (Part-I.pdf around 1/2mill worldwide) but at the state/regional level of each country it would still number in the thousands. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:52, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, i know we're talking about USpedia, oops Wikipedia here, but do we really need a separate covid article for Guantanamo naval base (and not even the province, just the base)?, we already have an imbalance in these covid articles ie. a separate article for each US state, and each province in Canada, compare that to some other countries; Australia has 16 states/territories - COVID-19 pandemic in Australia, China has 34 provincial level admin divisions -5 separate articles, France has 13 metropolitan/mainland regions - COVID-19 pandemic in France, India has 36 states/union territories -29 separate articles, New Zealand has 6 provinces - COVID-19 pandemic in New Zealand, Sweden has 25 provinces - COVID-19 pandemic in Sweden. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:59, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's worth pointing out that Canada and the United States are federalized states and much of the healthcare response has been delegate to either provinces or states, and thats partially why they may deserve their own articles. New Zealand and France are unitary states on the other hand their response has been led by their federal governments. Regions in france don't have legislative authority over health policy, unlike provinces/states in canada and the us. This just ins't a good comparision because even though all states have subnational jurisdiction, they don't all have the same legislative or political authority to deal with the covid-19 pandemic. Epluribusunumyall (talk) 09:27, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge to a more general article on Covid-19 in US controlled military locations. This is 1 case, it is not a sustained outbreak.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:50, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep there are many news stories about the impact of COVID-19 on Guantanamo naval base so I vote to keep this article and can help improve it Serenewilliams (talk) 17:10, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As stated above, this should be merged into a bigger article (the one for the Base, or the one for COVID). --Tinhog (talk) 03:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Now get into your orange jumpsuits and begin the water-boarding. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:51, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Redirect I don't think we need a separate article like this and better to merge it with COVID-19 pandemic in the United States as per nom. Abishe (talk) 20:46, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per Serenewilliams. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 12:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep because there is currently no article about COVID on US military bases, only one on the impact on militaries in general. It might be merged without another discussion, if and when editors can put together such an article. NotBartEhrman (talk) 02:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Unhelpful, indiscriminate article. I claim that many of these articles lack content. I've seen other of the, before, but this one is simply about a military base, which isn't even a community. Koridas (...Puerto Rico for statehood!) 22:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because article COVID-19 pandemic in the United States may be too long to read and navigate comfortably if merged with all cases of US States and Cities, ships, care homes, etc. Notable, because wide presence in american mass media ([14]) is also about to keep. PoetVeches (talk) 14:48, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the important info can be written in a few sentences, as all the other information about taken measures is the same as in the US. An option might also be to merge it into COVID-19 pandemic in Cuba as it is located there. And yes, the one or two sentences are of encyclopedic relevance, but might not deserve a stand alone article. SportsOlympic (talk) 08:35, 4 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) 04:01, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dangerous Sex Games[edit]

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

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

A non notable straight-to-cable pornographic film Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:54, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:54, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:54, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:54, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as there is a lack of coverage in reliable sources, for example there are no external reviews at IMDb and no entry at all at Rotten Tomatoes, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:37, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This article was created five years ago, with three sentences of prose, the only sources being external links to the film's pages on IMDb and AllMovie, and empty "Plot" and "Reception" sections. Now, after having been edited by nine other Wikipedians, the article still has only three sentences of prose, the only sources are still the external links to the film's pages on IMDb and AllMovie, and the "Plot" and "Reception" sections are still empty. I see no indication of notability per WP:NFILM. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:03, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:01, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pleydell Street[edit]

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

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

A non notable road with no notable buildings on it Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:51, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:51, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:51, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:51, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:51, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:04, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails notability --Cornellier (talk) 12:46, 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) 04:01, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bradford Ophthalmic Optics Student Association[edit]

Bradford Ophthalmic Optics Student Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A non notable student organisation Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:47, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:47, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:47, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:47, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:47, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - nothing particularly notable about it - I would have suggested merge to Uni of Bradford Union if there was anything worth keeping, but the awards are either nominations or internal (from the student union), and nothing unusual for the highest membership to be a subject-related society. EdwardUK (talk) 12:41, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails NORG, no independent sources, BEFORE shows nothing better. John from Idegon (talk) 09:30, 5 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) 04:01, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Carlstrom (businessman)[edit]

Victor Carlstrom (businessman) (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:BIO. Its all passing mentions. Some minor coverage for single event. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 11:29, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:26, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:26, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – in addition to the lack of sources mentioned in the nomination, there are also no independent sources talking about him in any depth when his last name is spelt correctly (Carlström rather than Carlstrom. Although some of the English-language sources in the article use the Anglicised form, not all of them do and he doesn't use that himself.) Most of the sources are press releases or directly based on press releases, some have taken phrasing straight from Carlström's own website, and nothing suggests in-depth coverage or notability beyond BLP1E. --bonadea contributions talk 10:32, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:53, 2 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. Fenix down (talk) 17:25, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FC Lisznyó[edit]

FC Lisznyó (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)

Nowhere near notable. Geschichte (talk) 09:42, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only thing on this club I found was a Facebook post. Dougal18 (talk) 14:12, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:38, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not notable. GiantSnowman 11:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Article clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT, creator hasn't added any citations or external links, Google doesn't appear to be helpful on the subject from a glance. Govvy (talk) 12:43, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not notable as they have not played in a top-level league or cup, and there don't appear to be reliable sources to establish notability on any other grounds Pi (Talk to me!) 17:30, 2 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. (non-admin closure) Juliette Han (talk) 11:53, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Who Shot Ya?[edit]

Who Shot Ya? (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)

Been visiting this article every now and then for some time now. Until most recently, it’s long been composed as a list of quotations sourced by unreliable user-generated lyric websites and copyright infringing inline YouTube clip citations. Also seems to be a magnet for original research. It would appear the article–as well as the average IP, sockpuppet/throway account and registered editor–is more concerned with stringing together references and rumors associated with various, often disputed events orbiting the song at the time of the recording, rather than structuring the page on the song itself. Moreover, much of the actual criticism I’ve come across is self-professed speculation pertaining to the purposely ambiguous allusions made throughout the lyrics.

Combine all that with the fact it didn’t chart and was not released as a single. Does not meet WP:NSONG.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ascribe4 (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 09:35, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This AfD was incomplete. I added the banner on the article, added discussion headers, and relisted as today's date. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 09:37, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Clearly notable. The immediately accessible articles on Slate, MTV News and Vibe make the notability clear, even without delving into the book references. The current quality of the article and the intentions of some of the contributors do not affect the notability of the topic. AfD is not cleanup. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:14, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Even after excising all the problematic sources, there would still be more than enough RS. Notable not only to rap, but to general '90s pop culture. Caro7200 (talk) 12:53, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:NOTCLEANUP - The article definitely needs to have a fair amount of original research and fancruft removed, but as was said above, that is a matter of cleanup which has no relevance for the song's notability. There is plenty of reliable evidence that the song has a place in rap history, as part of the big east/west feud and for fueling plenty of future rap developments. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: As the present article's main author, but having first reached the article only a few days ago, I have deleted unreliable sources and included only reliable sources to heed due weight. (XXL and The Source are reliable sources for beliefs and reputations in the rap community.) Still, in edit notes, I myself have suggested that some content, as in section "Pervasive suspicions", would optimally go elsewhere—in a dedicated, succinct, tidy article or section like "Tupac and Biggie". (I mean this in contrast to the massive, bloated, convoluted articles at present on related topics.) Yet until such exists, lack of the content here would gratuitously shroud the "Who Shot Ya" story and impact. Deleting the saga of friendship, fallout, and accusations among, plus statements by NYPD detectives about, the central persons—including speculations that Tupac had shot himself—unrealistically shutters view of the song, which, not an abstract artistic creation, always implied guarded knowledge, insinuation, accusation, and menace. Even if abstract art were Biggie's intention, he never exerted appreciable effort to debunk the contrary, consensus view. Biggie's assertion that he wrote the song well before the November 1994 shooting is fully compatible with, or even supports, the consensus view, although I never so editorialize. The article covers only the central persons and the minimal, mainstream events or facts implied by "Who Shot Ya"—in November 1994 at Quad studios or who potentially would on, he raps, "Brooklyn streets"—a saga that explains, well arguably, some 80% of the song's sociocultural impact. As to the allegation of "fancruft", I was never a Biggie fan, and in 1999 outgrew the influence of Tupac's persona on my life. I've evolved opinions on and critiques of the persons, personae, events, reasons, and consequences, but none of these are in the article, which would be much different if it were my opinion piece. If the article seems to one like original research, I ask, please, to vet the sources, whereby one may ultimately discern that I simply, diligently whittled the morass of circulating claims to the saga's undisputed core via authoritative consensus, so that readers don't have to undertake that arduous task merely to ponder "Who Shot Ya" through an accurate historical lens. This is not to say that the article cannot be improved through criticism and assistance, but merely that it lacks the glaring, pervasive defects alleged. — Occurring (talk) 14:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Article easily meets WP:NSONG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 04:32, 2 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. Sandstein 07:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpool International College[edit]

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

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

This is one of hundreds of private businesses providing two years of intermediate education between school and university, it being neither. It should be required to meet WP:COMPANY, for the same reason that all private businesses should. The available sources are all obviously from the organisation's marketing campaign Even the name is a marketing gimmick; there is nothing Liverpool or International about the organisation. Its role in an individual's life isn't significant enough to presume that it might meet WP:GNG solely due to the sheer number of students that pass through it; one independent WP:SIGCOV would be a start, which I couldn't locate. Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]