< 8 May	10 May >

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

The result was merge to List of Pirates of the Caribbean characters. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 04:38, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cutler Beckett[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Character does not pass the general notability guideline, as there is insufficient third-party coverage to write an encyclopedic (verifiable, neutral, reliable) article about its real-world significance. Jontesta (talk) 23:50, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 23:50, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Pirates of the Caribbean characters#Cutler Beckett. There is only one source here that may count towards notability, and even then there is probably not enough coverage in that source to count towards a pass. However, said source is not currently present at the target, so a Merge seems like the best option. Devonian Wombat (talk) 09:40, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge what is useful and redirect. Nothing substantial to merit a stand-alone article on the character. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:27, 14 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. Clear delete consensus and ready to be closed after checking the history - nomination was later re-signed. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:53, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Souvigny[edit]

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

Does not meet notability guidelines for WP Musician Maineartists (talk) 12:53, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 00:03, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 00:03, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for a musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:35, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Local/regional contest wins like those listed are routine for professional pianists, and do not suffice to raise a subject to the level of encyclopedic notability. BD2412 T 21:45, 17 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 15:17, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zoe Graystone[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject does not pass the general notability guideline, as no sources exist to write a verifiable, neutral, reliable third-party section about its real-world significance. Jontesta (talk) 23:39, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 23:39, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and/or redirect to List of Caprica characters. The Keep !votes in the previous nomination simply asserted that "it's important" and "sources exist", but did not mention any specific sources that prove notability. I suspect that the Google News hits are all mere plot summaries or trivial mentions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:20, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
N.b. It doesn't help that the series was cancelled after a single season — six months after the first AfD. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteThis was the only legitimate source I could find through googling: https://latimesblogs.latimes.com/showtracker/2010/01/caprica-countdown-from-alessandra-to-zoe-the-spark-that-started-it-all.html

Everything else did not meet the criteria (all blogs/fan pages). One source cannot constitute notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dscotty26 (talk • contribs) 14:33, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify. bibliomaniac 1 5 21:13, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Colundi[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, no notability outside of collaborations between Aleksi Perälä and Grant Wilson-Claridge. I'm actually surprised that Aleksi Perälä does not have an article, and would wager that their albums, as well as the Colundi Sequence series of albums may very well be notable. If there were more content at this article I would suggest draftifying it for reuse at an article about one of those subjects, but given the threadbare state of this article I don't think there's really anything worth merging. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:13, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:13, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:13, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first article, so forgive my naivete. I have some more reference material, wondering about how to go about integrating them into the article. See this release at a different record label. https://wemerecords.com/shop/capsule-network-colundi-interception-2-ep-purple-vinyl-pre-order/ Generally, this article will remain minimal, as it is an esoteric subject, and although is notable in a minor sense, I believe it is nonetheless notable for those needing a reference point. Any suggestions? --Jaisgossman (talk) 16:59, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding that source, it's a store listing and thus doesn't count toward establishing notability. Notability on Wikipedia is not the same as "real world importance" but rather is primarily a measurement of available coverage in secondary sources. Based on what I know about Perälä and his work, I think that it would be more appropriate to write an article about him, rather than Colundi or Colundi scales in isolation. The albums in the Colundi Sequence may also have received enough coverage in the form of reviews by critics to establish their notability. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:21, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I PRODed this as I couldn’t see any basis for thinking it’s notable. Mccapra (talk) 10:50, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or draftify: I had opened a Talk page discussion last week about whether this is notable in itself or better developed within an Aleksi Perälä article. As well as the source I added as a reference, the scale also gets brief coverage on page 20 of The_Wire_(magazine) issue 362 (2014) but (without hunting down my paper copy) this still appears to be brief coverage of Perälä's work in the broader context of microtonal musics. I don't like to see a first article deleted, especially because it may have been too narrowly scoped, and while there is no guarantee that an article on Perälä would itself pass WP:MUSICBIO, there could be merit in moving the present article to Draft space where it could be wrapped into a broader article. AllyD (talk) 08:06, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI agree with @AllyD that developing in draft would be the best approach. Mccapra (talk) 20:33, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:54, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

International Society for Interpersonal Acceptance and Rejection[edit]

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

None of the sources cited actually talk about the topic of this article--well perhaps one does but it is a primary source. There is also some questionable use of sources, citations #2 and #3 to '10 largest psychological associations in the world' don't mention this society (and is that website even legitimate?). Perhaps the content of this article could be merged with to the University of Connecticut page. I looked around for more sources on this society and couldn't find any. Given the lack of sources and questionable use of citations AfD is appropriate. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 22:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 22:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:37, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:37, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2019-12 ✗ deleted, 2019-12 ✗ deleted

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Some reasonable criticism of the sources, but the consensus is that she gets in under WP:GNG. Mojo Hand (talk) 16:06, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Little Caprice[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Porn awards no longer confer notability and the sourcing is inadequate for a BLP. This has been AFD and G4 so why was this created without a discussion. Please salt Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:19, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:23, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:23, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:27, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:27, 9 May 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Keep She's been noted as the top pornographic performer outside the United States WP:ENT and is covered by multiple reliable sources. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:39, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

None of these are GNG worthy sources. They lack content. Haave no author and are basically click bait.

1not an RS. No by line and no content

2 ditto

3 ditto. A page with a photo and two lines of text is nothing that counts towards gng

4 ditto. Still no byline or meaningful text

5 ditto

6 Not an RS. Online site, no evidence of fact checking and being a talking head about how covid affects porn production is not a GNG source. Interviews are not sufficiently independant

7 another interview therefore not useful.Also same online site as before.

8 Brazilian online site. No meaningful content. Not an RS. No byline. Basically clickbait.

So basically, nothing encyclopaedic here that we can use to build a BLP and GNG compliant article. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree on most accounts. It is 2020 now, and online site can easily be a WP:RS; and last time I checked, there was no requirement to be a NYT to be a WP:RS, so LOTS of other sources do qualify too. Ipsign (talk) 09:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1 Bylines' are at the top (date and time)and bottom (author). The author is Dominik Hok. The site is a news site for Brno region. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:43, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2-5 are to be considered in the aggregate that she receives significant coverage by de:Heute (österreichische Zeitung), an Austrian newssite.

6-7 Same with refresher.cz. There is secondary content about before the transcript of the interviews. Among the information it establishes is her real name, her awards, the name of her husband. Plus the fact that independent reliable sources are interested in interviewing her are a sign of notability. See Wikipedia:Interviews#notability. Site is frequently cited in the Czech version of wikipedia [9]

8 is a Brazilian culture (movies, television, music) news site similar toRolling Stone, Variety, Premiere (magazine) Entertainment Weekly if you actually looked at the website overall. It it extensively used as a citation on the Portuguese Wikipedia[10]

So your arguments are more shallow than the sources you criticise. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:43, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per WP:GNG, taking into account sources in the article, sources provided by Morbidthoughts, and 1720(!) mentions in news per [11]. Also I have to _strongly_ disagree with nom's statement that "Porn awards no longer confer notability" - IMNSHO, removal of WP:PORNBIO was merely removing any SPECIAL treatment for porn, and they way it looks now, porn actors are to be considered on the same grounds as WP:NACTOR; therefore, it only means that "Porn awards no longer confer any SPECIAL notability compared to other awards"; that is, a porn award has to be considered as ANY OTHER award (and as such, MAY contribute to WP:GNG - on the same basis as any other award in a particular field). Ipsign (talk) 09:23, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Removal of WP:PORNBIO as a guideline does not mean that all porn actors should be removed. It merely means that now porn actors must conform to the more stringent NACTOR guideline. The subject clearly passes the notability in NACTOR. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 13:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete A porn actress winning an award from AVN should contribute something toward their subject specific notability. But the sourcing is banal. Trillfendi (talk) 00:51, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Morbidthoughts, Ipsign and MistyGrace - Sources provided by Ipsign are fine, notability is certainly there, Meets PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 12:45, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The removal of WP:PORNBIO was to integrate with WP:GNG as porn did not require its own category. Previous criteria for pornographic actors and models were superseded by the guidelines for Notable Entertainers since March '19. Notability guidelines are met per WP:GNG. Additional sourcing exists, as noted by Ipsign, and article can be improved. - Contourthis (talk) 20:00, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Clearly notable as demonstrated by those above. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 21:43, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable pornographic performer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:04, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Compelling sources presented by Morbid to pass [WP:GNG]]Sulfurboy (talk) 21:53, 16 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. MER-C 11:27, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shabnam Nadiya[edit]

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

A prolific short fiction author, but I'm having my doubts about notability. For honours there's a fellowship that seems to be quite generous in its requirements [12], a journal short story competition, and a blog competition shortlist. WP:GNG appears not to apply, based on provided coverage, and I don't think we are reaching WP:NAUTHOR either. Not too hawkish on this one though; please assess. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:01, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:01, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:29, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:29, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Examining the cited sources: Your Impossible Voice and Center for the Art of Translation are capsule contributor bios, likely supplied by Nadiya, so not independent. The Martha Heasley Cox Center for Steinbeck Studies, Himal Southasian, and NewPages confirm that she was awarded a fellowship, won a short story competition, and was a writing contest finalist, but say no more about her. The fellowship and contests are a spoonful of recognition, but are not especially remarkable. They don't demonstrate the same regard as a Nobel, Pulitzer, Booker, Newbery, or similar top-tier literary award. Arsenic Lobster contains a one-sentence review of her work. The remaining sources are simply translation or writing credits, they are not significant coverage of her.

Searches of the usual Google types found more of the same types of sources, and passing mentions, but only one deeper review of her work.[13] She is prolific, good, and doing useful work, but hasn't yet gained significant attention by the world at large for it, so is not suitable for a stand alone encyclopedia article. --Worldbruce (talk) 20:05, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article has insufficient 3rd party sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:20, 14 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. Disregarding the suspicious votes (and noting that Elmidae's response to Manu31415's keep basically refuted the argument), I see a consensus to delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:38, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PragmaDev Process[edit]

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

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

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

The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
Edits made by the below users were last checked for neutrality on 15-05-2020 by Manu31415.

Manu31415 (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article.
Mihal Brumbulli (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article.

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

Non-notable editor program; all sources are primary, independent uptake (let alone coverage) appears not to exist. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:46, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: At this point no less than three single-purpose accounts with no other contributions (and no valid Keep reasons) have been canvassed here. Marked. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:46, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:01, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I couldn't find any indication of notability or coverage during my search. - Flori4nKT A L K 00:36, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Pragmatically content could have been usefully added to PragmaDev Studio by creator Manu31415 who perhaps should be aware better references are needed for an article to stay in mainspace. Not really needing of a redirect/merge unless there's demonstratable need for the cats as should be adequately searchable. If something substantial found with an adequate WP:THREE not adverse to keeping.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:51, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article is entirely based on two independent scientific papers that have been published following peer reviews: Automatic Verification of BPMN Models at ERTS2 Conference and Verification of BPMN models at CSD&M Conference. These two publications are reliable and independent sources that establish notability of the work. Even though the work was meant to rely to PragmaDev Studio at start, it turned out to be completely independent as explained in the papers. That is why this would not fit in the PragmaDev Studio page. --Manu31415 (talk) 09:33, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Two papers by the same team which is affiliated with PragmaDev (yes, it's all in the article header [14]). Nope. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:31, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I had the opportunity to use PragmaDev Process in the past for industrial use cases. This tool is independent of PragmaDev Studio, do not provide the same services nor is usefull for the same purposes. PragmaDev Process provides features I have never encountered in another tool until now like evaluating a BPMN process runnability (compliance to BPMN execution standards) or identifying unreachable path in a set of BPMN processes. To my knowledge, PragmaDev Process had been presented on its own in 2 different conferences : 10th CSD&M Paris^[1] and 10th ERTS Toulouse^[2]

Additionally this tool interest is asserted by a well known editor^[3] as PragmaDev and MEGA International Srl. have signed an Alliance partnership agreement in 2020 and PragmaDev Process is to be integrated in the V3 version of HOPEX. - Narkoa 18:09, 11 May 2020 (UTC)— Narkoa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

References

Again, this does nothing to solve the lack of in-depth, independent coverage from multiple sources. These two conference presentations are already referenced in the article, and they are authored by people affiliated to the developer. This kind of material can be used to source facts, but not to establish notability. First the world at large has to take notice, THEN there can be a WP article. It does not work the other way round. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:11, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So we did it the right way: the scientific papers were to notice the world at large, so now there can be a WP article. Also remember "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity".--Manu31415 (talk) 13:44, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The product is an outcome of a research project financed by the French Army. The articles describe the results of this project, and they have been co-written by people non-affiliated to PragmaDev. These publications are not basic articles, they are scientific papers which have been reviewed and approved by independent experts. That establishes notability as defined by Wikipedia guidelines, that is verifiable, reliable, and independent sources. --Mihal Brumbulli (talk) 08:44, 12 May 2020 (UTC)— Mihal Brumbullia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Authored by development team, thus not independent coverage, thus does not demonstrate notability. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is written by the development because it is brand new research work, the publication are a few months old meaning they had to be written a year ago. This is not the point, the point is that two sets of independent and anonymous experts have validated both papers covering two different aspects of the research. So we believe the "topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". We also believe we have brought something new to BPMN. If there is no article on PragmaDev Process it can not be listed on Comparison of Business Process Model and Notation modeling tools and that would be a lack of completeness in that list.--Manu31415 (talk) 13:44, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:CSC№2, there is no requirement that every item in a list have its own article for inclusion in the list. Even if there were, this does nothing to establish notability. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 02:36, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: PragmaDev Process is an unique state-of-the-art IDE for business process design. Furthermore it is commercially available. The two scientific papers cited clearly describe the tool. Independent venues cite the tool [15] [16], sadly the articles are in French only. Furthermore, the user base of the tool might not have the liberty and/or the culture to discuss openly the tools they use (ie. aerospace, defense industry). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ciprian.teodorov (talk • contribs) 08:55, 12 May 2020 (UTC) — Ciprian.teodorov (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Both sources are press releases; the first slightly reformulated, the second raw. Not independent coverage. And if the user base can't publish about the tool, then we do not have the sources to write about it either. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A new press release has just announced a partnership between PragmaDev and MEGA International Srl.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manu31415 (talk • contribs) 14:20, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This discussion is attracting many editors who are not signing their comments, have few other edits, and who all seem to have nothing but praise for the article's subject, but little to say on its notability. I concur with other editors, there is no reason to think this subject is notable, and arguments being made by the aforementioned editors have so far been unconvincing. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 02:36, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: After reading through this AfD led one eyebrow to rapidly approach my hairline; I have taken the liberty of filing an SPI. --Jack Frost (talk) 12:50, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted as G11. (non-admin closure) — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 09:51, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BRB Group of Industries[edit]

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

Fails WP:N. Reads like an ad for the company. Romartus Imperator (talk) 20:45, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Romartus Imperator (talk) 20:45, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Romartus Imperator (talk) 20:45, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

'G11 tag placed. Honestly, this advert doesn't even need to come to AfD. Java Hurricane 18:31, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 04:41, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ransom (Steel novel)[edit]

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

Author is notable but this book itself doesn't seem notable. I looked and didn't see any awards or otherwise reliable coverage of the book. However, it is hard to search with having such a common title so maybe I missed something. RayScript (talk) 20:43, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. RayScript (talk) 20:43, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

speedy keep as reviews exist. Try searching for the author, title, and review. Check book review publications. 2 to start:

https://www.publishersweekly.com/978-0-385-33632-1 https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/danielle-steel/ransom-2/ DiamondRemley39 (talk) 20:51, 9 May 2020 (UTC) https://www.audiofilemagazine.com/reviews/read/17415/ransom-by-danielle-steel-read-by-ron-mclarty/ DiamondRemley39 (talk) 20:58, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reviews exist, sources given. PamD 11:17, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep multiple independant third party reviews are present in RS. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 13:31, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. I have also added a reception section to the article with references to the reviews DiamondRemley39 mentioned. MarkZusab (talk) 16:10, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per above. --Rosiestep (talk) 00:49, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Has third party reliable sources as it was on New York times best sellers. Alex-h (talk) 11:39, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NBOOK, and WP:GNG, multiple independent reviews of this book plus its a bestseller. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:15, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Make Them Suffer. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 04:44, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Booka Nile[edit]

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

Questionable notability on its own merits. Would propose deletion and redirecting to Make Them Suffer as there's not a strong case for notability outside of the band Romartus Imperator (talk) 20:39, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Romartus Imperator (talk) 20:39, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Romartus Imperator (talk) 20:39, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not satisfy musical notability. Author of article is a single-purpose account, likely associated with subject. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:09, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- - Or Redirect Robert McClenon (talk) 02:58, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Make Them Suffer. Page should not be deleted as it is common to redirect non notable members to thier bands. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 13:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Make Them Suffer. If her alternative group, Internet Friends, becomes notable (they're not yet) per WP:MUSICBIO, then a case may be made for a stand alone for this artist, otherwise its WP:TOOSOON.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 05:49, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 03:48, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yegana Akhundova[edit]

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

~~Notability is under question. Doesn't meet criterias of WP:BLP and I'm noticed dubious information without reliable sources (see - Awards and Titles).~~ --Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) (talk) 20:32, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions --Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) (talk) 20:32, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:51, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:51, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article is encyclopedic, only some links are missing! please, conclude the discussion. --Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) (talk) 20:20, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per speedy keep reason 2. (non-admin closure) MrClog (talk) 23:50, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon Green Middleton[edit]

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

A member of Baltimore City Council, a local body and coverage are WP:ROUTINE with no significant in-depth coverage. Fails WP:NPOL. Beritagsier (talk) 20:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:51, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:51, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:52, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

keep this is a revenge nomination and she meets WP:NPOL as the (now former) city president of a major metropolitan city. Praxidicae (talk) 20:54, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep she is mentioned frequently in news sources, often as the main subject of the sources.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:07, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep subject of article is a notable politician meeting WP:NPOL. Celestina007 (talk) 02:31, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment can this be closed per WP:DENY, since the nom was blocked for making bad faith AFD nominations?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:07, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AFD is not cleanup. I strongly disagree with the WP:ROUTINE argument as she has substantial long term coverage in RS. Passes NPOL MistyGraceWhite (talk) 13:30, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Current councilmember of a large city. Passes WP:POLITICIAN. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 20:57, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Flow battery. Sandstein 15:10, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Single liquid flow battery[edit]

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

non-notable battery type. There's already flow battery. There doesn't need to be "Single liquid flow battery" as well. Also very promotional as is. Sam-2727 (talk) 20:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Sam-2727 (talk) 20:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Flow battery. This really is a bloated exercise in promotion (while it's worth noting that most of the refspamming was only introduced today, the text has been in that form from the beginning). If all that was condensed to the NPOV essentials, we'd be looking at one short paragraph. This can easily be accommodated in the main article, along with all the other types covered there. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:05, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can this be improved without deleting, since it's a different storage technology? I would genuinely appreciate if anyone can help to improve this article rather than deleting this. I'm Laura, an engineer from western Isles of Scotland and the creator of this page last year. I was a wiki editor for few years. I grew up in Knoydart, which is a remote peninsula and energy came from a small hydro system rather than the main grid, and proud to be the first female electrical engineer to emerge from this remote community:-). The technology used in this article was first tested there and manage to save our community a fortune by not replacing the hydro turbine with a Diesel generator. I thought I should start a discussion about this technology and created this article after obtaining permission from the inventor. It's purely for non commercial purpose. I should admit that I do have an emotional bond with this technology as this was donated to the community and it genuinely helped the community. But I have no commercial intention to promote a company or a product. The technology it self was quite unique as it has only single liquid and had a very simple setup allowing less fortunate remote communities such as Knoydart to easily acquire and maintain it. Having a single liquid makes a massive difference! Other flow battery variants I had come across used two liquids requiring lots of space and lots of auxiliary equipment such as pumps, valves and sensors making it hard to maintain. When I learnt about this, I realised that it's NOT a Flow Battery as the cathode or the anode is not in flow or liquid form, which is the definition of "flow batteries". Instead the electrolyte and part of the cathode is converted to free flowing liquid, making this a different battery variant. It uses solvated electron solution trapped in the anode compartment between the separator and anode current collector, which is clearly a non-flow liquid component (not plating), so this cannot even be classified as a hybrid flow battery. I just noticed that a user called Jamie had edited this and then had deleted "commercially sensitive" section, which has triggered a curator to mark this as AFD. I contacted the user and asked what he did and specifically requested not to add anything which can be promotional or commercial in nature. I have reviewed this article again and have removed any new added sections which I thought was a bit promotional. --Laurawoods1979 (talk) 08:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Laurawoods1979, improvement is always preferable to deletion! If you think you can turn this into a well-referenced, neutral treatment of sufficient length to sustain a standalone article, then by all means go for it. You are welcome to work on the article while this discussion is going on - prior versions remain visible in the history for people to look up. Or you can work on it after a merge and suggest splitting it off again later. - Keep in mind however that being merged into a larger article as its own subsection (which I think is what everyone here is thinking of) is not necessarily a bad thing. It puts the topic in context with similar ones, and also makes it easier for readers to come upon it when reading about other stuff. As you can see at Flow battery, the subsections on individual types are quite long, so there's unlikely to be a problem with treating all relevant material in such a section. The only real pressing reason for having a separate article might be if the single flow battery is not actually a flow battery, as you say, but honestly I'm not getting that from your description... certainly sounds more like a flow battery than any other type... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:51, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(I suggest keeping all the discussion here rather than on individual talk pages. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:51, 10 May 2020 (UTC))[reply]

@Elmidae:, Thanks so much for the advice, I'll research a bit more and add more references and work done by other research groups on this technology. Laurawoods1979 (talk) 11:27, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Laurawoods1979:, something I would recommend is removing the images. They are all from one company, which is one of the reasons I thought this to be a promotional article. If you could provide some sources that indicate that the battery is independently significant from "Flow battery" then it should be kept. Could you try looking for these sources? I tried, but couldn't find any, which is why I nominated the article for deletion. Sam-2727 (talk) 18:30, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sam-2727:, Thanks so much for the guidance Sam. I have removed pictures with any branding or company names visible. All recently added pictures by the editor Jamie-greenenergy have been removed now. I left the Knoydart flow battery picture as it is, which actually looks like an early prototype rather than a product. I will try to contact the inventor and Dr. Kyle Smith of Strathclyde/St. Andrews university (who first introduced this technology to the community) and see what they think and whether this is a seperate battery type. I heard about couple of other research groups working on this technology, but I think I have to get their permission before mentioning about them here. I'll do a bit more digging and see what I can find. Many Thanks! Laurawoods1979 (talk) 11:27, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Flow battery. I cannot find much content that can be merged, but I have no prejudice against a merger either, so a short 2-3 liner can be written, and that too, at most. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 13:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Flow battery. The sources seem to think this a kind of flow battery. I could not find a source defining a flow battery as having two liquid electrodes and common sense tells me a flow battery is just one where something flows. I think readers are going to want to read about single liquid batteries and the batteries covered by today's flow battery article together, and editors are going to want to edit the material together as well. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 03:22, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MER-C 11:32, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Theodore Steinberg[edit]

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

Non-notable rabbi, as I don't believe that raising questions which are dealt with in responsa is a ground for notability. – Fayenatic London 20:08, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: an internet search for his name brings up many sources for a different person, Ted Steinberg. – Fayenatic London 20:11, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Can anyone please point me to the guideline to check for notability of rabbis? Beritagsier (talk) 20:34, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Beritagsier, see WP:CLERGY. Primefac (talk) 21:12, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That guideline is pretty weak. Being a Chief Rabbi is not the only criteria. Being the head of a major synagogue or organization or Hasidic dynasty confers notability. Having lots of articles written about you over the years confers notability. Yoninah (talk) 10:58, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This looks like a memorial page and there’s nothing to indicate notability. Mccapra (talk) 20:51, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:38, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:38, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO. This does look like an obituary for a non-notable rabbi. Yoninah (talk) 10:56, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 04:39, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Linkurious[edit]

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

An analytical software like many others available in the market such as Lynx Analytics, Objectivity, Graphistry etc. References are only passing mentions with no in-depth coverage. Fails to meet WP:NCOMPANY. Beritagsier (talk) 20:17, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

keep yet another revenge nom with no merit. This has more than adequate coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 20:55, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:58, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:58, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:58, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I make no comment on the emotional state of the nomination. I have researched this and I think this should be kept not because there is any problem in the nomination, but because it passes GNg. There are mentions in books so this passes GNG. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 13:45, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:37, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dana MacDuff[edit]

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

Doesn't pass WP:ENT or WP:CREATIVE. Most importantly doesn't have enough coverage in reliable sources to pass the WP:GNG. The depth of coverage after a search shows he knew the Van Halen brothers. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:55, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No claim of notability. I can't find any independent reliable sources. That this bio was written by Billy Hathorn about a subject not from Louisiana screams paid promotion. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:07, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:08, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:08, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No indication of notability. Article created by banned account, as well. 2601:188:180:B8E0:79AD:9587:3F30:15D7 (talk) 20:16, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:08, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:08, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Like most of Billy's creation, doesn't meet WP:BIO. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:17, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Looks like Billy created his dad's article too, Tyler MacDuff, although he seems to be much more notable. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:46, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Mztourist (talk) 05:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete none of the sourcing indicates that he passes WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tyler MacDuff#Biography where he is mentioned as a possible search term per WP:ATD-R. Deletion beforehand is okay, unlikely that he really becomes notable anytime soon. Regards So Why 07:16, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. This is obviously headed for a SNOW keep, and it's worth adding that the deletion rationale ("no mentions in reliable sources") is clearly incorrect. Drmies (talk) 15:30, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RoomieOfficial[edit]

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

non notable youtube guy. no mention in RS. Fails GNG MistyGraceWhite (talk) 19:52, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although there are too many sources to YouTube, there are definitely mentions in reliable sources and the article does pass GNG. Squeeps10 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 20:06, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Squeeps10 youtube does not count as a source for a youtuber. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 20:13, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@User:MistyGraceWhite, hence why I said "Although there are too many sources to YouTube, there are definitely mentions in reliable sources". Nowhere did I say that YouTube is a reliable source. Squeeps10 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 20:19, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes WP:MUSIC. His single Congratulations charted in four countries. It was Billboard number one for US Comedy Digital Track Sales. Mbdfar (talk) 20:51, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Squeeps10 the single Congratulations is by Pewdiepie. Roomie is just with him in the video as a side role. ANo reliable sources say that it is his video, he is not involved as such. The video stars, and belongs to felix. polygon and verge articles show this as they do not even name this Roomie guy. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 20:28, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@User:MistyGraceWhite. Disagree. Roomie is credited as a lead artist (along with Pewdiepie) on the billboard chart, Swedish heatseekers chart, official Scottish chart, and official New Zealand chart. Additionally, all sources state the single was released by Roomie Records. Mbdfar (talk) 20:51, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@User:MistyGraceWhite, Why did you tag me in this? This comment was made by Mbdfar. Squeeps10 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 20:54, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mbdfar. - Flori4nKT A L K 20:53, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:04, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:05, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:05, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per point 2 of WP:MUSICBIO, he has a lead credit on Congratulations which charted on several national music charts. Additionally there is further sourcing [1], [2], [3], [4] and as such passes WP:GNG. Ym2X (talk) 22:19, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable per above. --Seacactus 13 (talk) 15:38, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for all the reasons above. Ed6767 (talk) 20:31, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:54, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Face of Beauty International[edit]

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

Non-notable pageant. It is true that its winners are sometimes mentioned as listicles, but nothing on the pageant in any source whatsoever. This source categorizes it among hyperlocal non-notable talent events. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 19:46, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:09, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:09, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:09, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete did not meet the notability guidelines.--Richie Campbell (talk) 01:59, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:55, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peerachada Khunrak[edit]

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

winner of non-notable beauty pageant. Nothing in RS to help her cross GNG. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 19:46, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:06, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:06, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:17, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the title does not rise to the level to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:18, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:34, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suada Sherifi[edit]

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

unknown beauty queen. She won a local pageant in 2006, nothing else. The title she won is not the official Miss Universe Albania, rather a local one. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 19:36, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable beauty queen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:03, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:34, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Armina Mevlani[edit]

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

unknown beauty queen. She won a local pageant in 2009, nothing else. The title she won is not the official Miss Universe Albania, which was won by Hasna Xhukiçi. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 19:35, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:12, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:12, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:12, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:12, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable beauty queen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:17, 12 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. MER-C 11:26, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maneerat Dangprasert[edit]

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

non notable pageant runnerup. No wins just runner up. Fails GNG MistyGraceWhite (talk) 19:29, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:13, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:13, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:13, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:14, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete did not meet the notability guidelines.--Richie Campbell (talk) 01:59, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable beauty queen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:06, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 04:57, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Love Like Blood (band)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Somehow, it managed to pass its previous AfD, but it's still based on a single source that's not even independent from the subject. People say it's "probably" notable, but no one has ever actually shown this. And I bet they just wouldn't be able to, since Google searches return nothing relevant. Victão Lopes ^Fala! 17:41, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Victão Lopes ^Fala! 17:41, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Victão Lopes ^Fala! 17:41, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The album releases probably satisgy WP:NMUSIC criterion 5, and there are multiple reviews easily found in a Google search from Allmusic ([17], [18], [19], [20], [21]) and German magazine Rock Hard ([22], [23], [24], [25], [26]). --Michig (talk) 07:23, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has multiple reliable sources coverage as shown above and a claim to pass criteria 5 of WP:NMUSIC, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:37, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:25, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because it passes WP:NMUSIC. I do not see a point why it has been nominated again? Beritagsier (talk) 20:36, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with the argument in favour that NMUSIC#5 is satisfied. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 13:46, 10 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:56, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Intel Play[edit]

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

Not sure why this exists and seems to promote products Tsla1337 (talk) 11:40, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tsla1337 (talk) 11:40, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Tsla1337 (talk) 11:40, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I think the article can be merged with Intel. I believe we can mention the collaboration - couple of sentences is enough. I wouldn't call it promotional even though there are some elements. Less Unless (talk) 13:29, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Simply not a valid nomination reasoning. Also virtually any mention of this in Intel is possibly undue so I'm not in favour of the merge. The concerns of promotion of 28 year old products is over the top ... the historical position is of more note.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:26, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:02, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Product line is dead, so unless you're promoting buying these toys on eBay, it doesn't meet WP:PROMO at all. One of the first attempts to market educational technology to kids. Nate • (chatter) 21:16, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree that WP:PROMO is not a concern anymore, but I'm not sure how to establish the notability of a toy product discontinued since 2002. If a mention in Intel and/or Mattel is undue, I don't know if a stand-alone article is justified.

I'm not seeing much independent coverage. Doing a quick search I found these two, which are not great:

http://brandingsource.blogspot.com/2019/02/from-1999-intel-play-by-sapient.html http://www.cyto.purdue.edu/archive/flowcyt/isac2000/abstr5.htm

On the other hand, there is a great analysis on the QX3 done by Michael Davidson at the Florida State University. It is an extremely well done primer on this microscope which also serves as a microscopy tutorial.

https://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/optics/intelplay/index.html

Sorry, maybe that was a bit of a digression, my point is that I'm unsure about the applicable notability criteria for this case (I just started participating in AfDs recently). Alan Islas (talk) 17:30, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As I mentioned in my comment above, I don't see the coverage in enough reliable sources to meet notability criteria. Alan Islas (talk) 18:22, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
keep per User:Mrschimpf. I see a number of sources like [27], [28],[29] and [30] which together do push this beyond the threshold. Product line is long dead so there should be no reason to think of promotionalism. SD0001 (talk) 12:44, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. bibliomaniac 1 5 02:26, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Rapid[edit]

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

this bio doesn't fulfill any notability criteria on guidelines. The most important part of this bio is the fact that his company offered 2 million to Justin Bieber to shoot a pornographic scene with him. Nevertheless, this is something that companies did at that time, it was to make papers write articles. In fact, they did a public offer, they never even speak to Bieber's manager (and the source shows that no one took it seriously). Another thing that might seem notable is his role on "I am a porn star" but judging by its source it is a pretty irrelevant thing. The sourcing is incomplete and partly unreliable. In his sources we can find commercial web sites (see manhd) and iafd. AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 09:00, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:28, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:28, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:28, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:29, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:47, 25 April 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:09, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources can be found to substantiate nor prove article’s subject is notable hence fails WP:GNG. Celestina007 (talk) 14:30, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nom and Celestina007. No significant coverage in reliable sources that are not promotional, which is what any site does when clicked on and pop-ups for watching live porn results, or about the subjects relationship issues (legal or gossip) --- or that the subject garnered attention by offering to do a porn movie with someone else. The subject apparently bragged that negative news reporting has made him more popular. Wikipedia is not censored, but an encyclopedia, and is not a porn redistribution site. geni.com is not reliable to even mention. Otr500 (talk) 07:56, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject has had coverage in the Harvard Crimson (where they write "Rapid has filmed over 240 sex scenes. In 2017, he was one of the most widely searched actors on Pornhub, and in 2014 he won the Cybersocket Web Award for Best International Porn Star"), Observatoriog (where they call him "one of the most beloved personalities in the world of international gay porn"), The Gay UK (where he's called "prolific"), Gay Star News, five Queerty articles (three with him being the focus), and San Diego Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender News. Between the coverage, opening his own studio, being one of the most widely searched actors on Pornhub, and winning a Cybersocket award, the subject meets GNG. --Kbabej (talk) 21:46, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

About sources: not exhaustive, but: 1. Student newspapers like the Crimson are not considered reliable sources for notability or verifiability purposes. 2. Aside from the arrest story, the coverage consists of publicity stunts by the subject, quotes from a porn star or incidental mentions. 3. Queery: The only two articles are substance are written by the same reporter about the same publicity stunt. As for other claims: Being widely searched: Internet presence counts for very little toward the notability of a porn subject in Wikipedia. Being prolific was dropped as a notability factor way back in 2007. The Cybersocket Award didn't count when PORNBIO was a working SNG, and it doesn't count now. RS coverage is non-zero, but still thin for passing WP:BASIC/GNG. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a policy that says coverage has to be something that isn't a publicity stunt? Because if it's covered in RS, it doesn't matter what the intention was. As for multiple articles being by the same author, there's no policy against that either. I also didn't mention internet presence or PORNBIO. I still believe the subject passes GNG. Barely, but he does. --Kbabej (talk) 23:43, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

source should be independent and I can't see how any "publicity stunt" can be independent. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 11:01, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are independent. Again, it's about the RS, not the intention of the action. --Kbabej (talk) 13:54, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Publicity stunts raise the concerns about depth of coverage and its quality. Coverage coming from this performer's self promotion is fairly shallow in terms of the significant coverage standard for WP:BASIC/WP:GNG. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable pornographic performer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:43, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per Kbabej. Student newspaper aside, there may be just enough here for a reasonable claim of notability. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 21:38, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Godsy: specifically, which sources do you believe can be suitable to claim the subject notability?. thank you --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 22:11, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I said "per Kbabej" which means I find their arguments regarding sources and notability compelling enough to take the stance of weak keep. You have already disagreed with them above, thus I see no point in rehashing their arguments again between us. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 22:16, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Godsy: actually you are right, I shouldn't have answered to you. sorry. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 02:01, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:01, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Wasn't pornhub insights blacklisted? -- Otr500 (talk) 08:15, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Quick news search [31] shows several _dozens_ of different (and non-primary) sources referring at least to three different events. Come on (and last time I read it, there is no reference to 'publicity stunts' in WP:GNG). Ipsign (talk) 14:45, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Kbabej - Sources aren't great however notability is certainly there, Certainly meets BASIC IMHO. –Davey2010^Talk 14:04, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. bibliomaniac 1 5 21:06, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zeb Khan[edit]

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

Notability (WP:GNG) issue, the content is written in a promotional format (WP:PROMO) and the creator (Ashishraikar) of the article has been banned because of sock puppetry (WP:SOCK). Hatchens (talk) 14:24, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 14:24, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 14:24, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:38, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:19, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Keep~~ Weak Delete: My vote is primarily based on WP:NACTOR, because it seems the subject may meet the first criterion. I am very much struggling to find reliable sources, though. If none are found by other editors, I will likely downgrade my vote. Dflaw4 (talk) 05:48, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Given that no progress has been made vis-à-vis sources, I am downgrading my vote. If someone does find sources, please let me know. Dflaw4 (talk) 02:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here is a link that works for The Hindu article provided in the references: https://web.archive.org/web/20121107104930/http://www.hindu.com/mag/2005/06/05/stories/2005060500180300.htm. It doesn't mention the subject, as far as I can tell. Dflaw4 (talk) 08:51, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:15, 9 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 18:30, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fender Custom Shop NoNeck Stratocaster[edit]

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

This page describes a fairly niche product that does not seem to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines as per WP:PRODUCT and is only supported by references to two `dead' blogs that are unlikely to meet the standard required for notability. A more general page describing the 'parent' product is available at Fender Stratocaster. The Parson's Cat (talk) 12:43, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:18, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:14, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ Delete ~~to Fender Stratocaster, the parent product's article is not too large,~~ and this product doesn't warrant a separate article. Ym2X (talk) 23:04, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer Delete - the references are not reliable sources, and the original article seems to have been created in order to advertise the product. There are an infinite number of Fender Custom Shop products - we couldn't document them all! :-) The Parson's Cat (talk) 06:27, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've had another look at this and I've changed my !vote, the parent article is very broad compared to this article which is very specific, so while you could add a couple of lines, they probably aren't necessary as you say, and this guitar is not notable on it's own. Ym2X (talk) 23:41, 14 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 Nomination withdrawn. See nominator's statement. StarM 13:55, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery of Mariam and Eranuhi Aslamazyan Sisters[edit]

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

Article is sourced only by the museum's own website. Has been tagged for needing better sources for a year. My own searching failed to find anything beyond social media and directory entries in travel guides and the like. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:38, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. I don't agree with many of the arguments here, but it's clear this is going to be kept, so no need to consume additional editor time debating it. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:09, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:48, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:49, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:49, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not seeing much of anything in the way of sourcing, but there may be something in non-English languages. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:29, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly redirect if there's any incoming traffic that warrants it? Mariam Aslamazian is notable. The gallery is mentioned, so no need to merge. StarM 22:31, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. Redirect to Mariam Aslamazian.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:34, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:27, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:30, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the article states: "This building has been protected by the Government since 1980 as a historical and cultural heritage site." (unfortunatel unsourced), but if the case would it then meet WP:NBUILD ie. national heritage? Coolabahapple (talk) 23:36, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. wp:ITSAMUSEUM. And it has strong assertion of notability, roughly that it is the only Armenian museum celebrating women artists (not sure if I am overstating that). What, would you men like to delete, say, the Georgia O'Keeffe Museum in the U.S.? Take a look at its article, not so great, and just about some woman whose paintings of flowers were highly misinterpreted or whatever. --Doncram (talk) 01:25, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to state the obvious, Georgia O'Keefe is famous and these artists are not. Of course, notability is not inherited.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:06, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WP:ITSAMUSEUM is an essay written by Doncram. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:29, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep presumption of notability. Likely sources not online (via internet) and in Armenian and Russian.07:43, 6 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djflem (talk • contribs)
Keep. Would appear to be notable enough for an article. Gallery exhibiting the works of a major artist. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:06, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:14, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes GNG barely. Is mentioned in RS. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 13:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is mentioned in WP:RS is not a reason to keep. Has WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS is. Can you provide some examples of the later? -- RoySmith (talk) 18:27, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's hard to imagine a gallery of this scope and dedicated to such fundamentally important artists isn't notable and simply being challenging to find online English language sources shouldn't mean we jump to the conclusion that it's not notable. I did find coverage in Armenpress, Armenian Heritage (the Armenian equivalent to English Heritage), the Ministry of Territorial Administration and Infrastructure and Yerkir Media. [32][33][34][35][36] Oakshade (talk) 04:35, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think calling them "fundamentally important artists" is really a stretch. We only have an article on one of the sisters; if they were fundamentally important, we'd have articles on both sisters. (Come to think of it, why is Mariam's name spelled differently in the article Mariam Arshaki Aslamazian?)ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:45, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In Armenia they are. As for the OT question, it's common for Latin alphabet spellings to non-Latin script proper nouns to have varying spellings. The last name of Muammar Gaddafi was famously spelled "Qaddafi", "Kadafi," and "Gadafy" by different outlets of the western press during the same periods. Oakshade (talk) 05:35, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As per sources found above. In addition to the museum itself being a notable cultural institution, both sisters are notable as they each have multiple works in museum collections globally, therefore it does not seem to make sense to redirect to the Mariam Aslamazian article. Netherzone (talk) 14:17, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deserves to stand as an article, passes WP:GNG. Sources may not be in English. Nika2020 (talk) 18:33, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As per sources found above. - MA Javadi (talk) 11:25, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MER-C 11:25, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon Strucci[edit]

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

run of the mill youtuber MistyGraceWhite (talk) 09:17, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:12, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:12, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While she is a small Youtuber, I think there's enough coverage of her from reliable sources to justify a page about her. FlyingKangeroo (talk) 23:40, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough coverage to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:49, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:11, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Found 4 articles where this person is mentioned. One [37] mentions one of her projects in the title and dedicates a few paragraphs to it and then moves on to something else. There is a Kotaku article which is a bit more substantiative and discusses a different project [38]. She also gets a mention here [39] and is mentioned in passing in this Wired article [40]. These sources are either from very obscure or subject specific sites or don't contain significant coverage as stipulated in WP:GNG. Her channel is the smallest i've seen on Wikipedia for a YouTuber aswell. Narrowly fails WP:GNG and fails WP:BIO by a long way. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 21:07, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a small YouTube following and being a member of a podcast is not notable Barrettsprivateers (talk) 05:03, 10 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. bibliomaniac 1 5 21:08, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dorpskerk, Staphorst[edit]

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

It exists, but I couldn't establish that it is notable. Boleyn (talk) 18:12, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:13, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:13, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:30, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There's a couple of mentions on travel guide sites, but nothing more. There are pages for this building on the Frysk and Nederlands Wikipedias that have more content, but they appear entirely unsourced. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cei Cae Gwyn[edit]

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

It exists, but I couldn't establish that it meets WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 17:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:35, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:35, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unfortunately, I've seen many articles about similar places in Conwy and Ceredigion (many of them being SSSI's), but they don't have any significant coverage or reliable sources related to them. Some of the articles stay for many years before being deleted by AFD, like Alexanderstone Meadows. So deletion is my vote. Koridas (...Puerto Rico for statehood!) 17:17, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:52, 13 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) 20:17, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coacoyula De Alvarez[edit]

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

Some neighbourhoods are notable, but I couldn't establish that this one is. Boleyn (talk) 17:14, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:36, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:36, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Searching for this neighborhood returns geodata websites and other things that exist inside of it, but nothing about the neighborhood itself. No indication that there is sufficient coverage of the neighborhood on it's own. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 18:35, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 22:18, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Cochran[edit]

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

the source is very poor, unreliable and doesn't prove any notability AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 16:39, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:38, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:38, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:38, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:40, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:41, 9 May 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Goldsztajn (talk) 17:57, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV and WP:NACTOR Mztourist (talk) 05:57, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails ENT, too. --Goldsztajn (talk) 17:53, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails NACTOR & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 13:51, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable pornographic performer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:13, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn by nom. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 05:00, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Will Wikle[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

judging by the sources subject doesn't qualify as notable, the sources are not enough to prove notability (2 very similar interviews). AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 16:32, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am withdrawing the nomination --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 18:42, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:44, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:44, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:44, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:44, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:46, 9 May 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Keep News search [41] reveals quite a few independent articles about him. Ipsign (talk) 09:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

look, I am happy if you can find sources but you should go though it and find some that are relevant and that prove notability. I am not surprised that a porn actor name on google returns a lot of results but we need only "good" results. it is not how many times your name was on an article, it's more to get a reliable second source. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 17:34, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Added few refs to page.Alrofficial (talk) 10:01, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The subject was well-known for a time on the reality show Big Brother, and has since done a legitimate film and a porn film. The refs from TV Guide, Attitude Magazine and Huffington Post are acceptable. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

i am not sure if they count toward notability as they are all interviews, so primary sources --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 11:12, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep as per sources in the article, Meets BASIC. –Davey2010^Talk 13:50, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
comment I gave another look to the sources (are there more sources now?) and his name is only, and ever, associated to big-brother. if u did a reality tv show is quite normal to have a few interviews and a few short bios in big-brother related pages. apart from big-brother he didn't seem to have done anything "memorable" nor in porn nor in other fields. The question is, as I don't know, what is wikipedia policy for reality's competitors? I stongly belive that those sources proves that the only reason why he could be here is as a reality competitor. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 10:02, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The EW mention is about a different TV show, and the Attitude Magazine and Huffington Post are anout the porn film. His coverage always memtions Big Brother because that's how he became well known, but it has been sustained over time because he's done other things to remain in public attention. -- Toughpigs (talk) 14:06, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Toughpigs:I am satisfied with your answer, how can i delete my proposal for deletion? thank you.--AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 14:20, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AlejandroLeloirRey: You can just say that you're withdrawing the nomination. You can put that at the top, in bold so that the closer sees that you want to drop it. — Toughpigs (talk) 17:15, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Toughpigs and Davey2010. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 21:42, 12 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. bibliomaniac 1 5 02:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ERa Eternity[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted in 2017, this article has been recreated, yet still sporting the very weak sources. WP:BEFORE reveals some coverage in 2018 about controversy, but these are unreliable sources. Additionally, there was some concern in 2017 about the accounts that created/edited this article being connected or paid editors and I find the same concern again applies here. Operator873^talkconnect 16:25, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:35, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:35, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:35, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - A plurality of the sources are either fan wikis or social media. I'm not sure what to make of this 'Dot Esports' source, but it looks to be a small tabloid-y website covering the esports industry, likewise with 'Dextero'. There don't appear to be any other outlets covering this subject, so unless someone wants to make a case for these sources, I'd say delete. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 18:40, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The sources referenced above (Dot Esports and Dexerto) are both independent news outlets covering the gaming and esport industry. Dexerto is one of (if not the biggest) news network of anything video games-related, and is behind Charlie Intel (for Call of Duty) and Valorant News (for VALORANT). The sources should (imo) justify for encyclopedic relevance and notability in enwiki as a stub under construction. The articles creation (and deletion) in 2017 appears to be due to a COI, which I can assure you isn't the case three years later. I look to continue building on this specific article in good faith, and expect it to stay on Wikipedia.Tabhinator (talk) 21:57, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe the referenced information in the article justified for encyclopedic relevance (ref above^). The article is (still) under construction and will be contributed to in good faith. There is no COI. Tabhinator (talk) 11:12, 11 May 2020 (UTC) — Tabhinator (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete Little to no notability. See also simple:Wikipedia:Requests_for_deletion/Requests/2020/ERa_Eternity Naleksuh (talk) 20:33, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 22:26, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cape Horn, Alpine County, California[edit]

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

This is a "scenic vista", as this page makes quite clear. "Cape Horn" itself is apparently the promontory which forces a bend in the road at this point. No settlement of any kind here now or ever. Mangoe (talk) 16:07, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 00:31, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Called a community here [42] and the vista here [43] is probably also notable. Sleuthing hard because of Cape Horn but I think there's clear notability here. SportingFlyer T·C 01:51, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The first link is about Cape Horn, Placer County, California. The vista discussed in the second link is also in Placer County, not Alpine County. Mangoe (talk) 02:47, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Nothing found on the Alpine County location yet. SportingFlyer T·C 04:03, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A number of sources mention the other Cape Horn in Placer County, but this one hasn't received significant coverage and is an incredibly unlikely place for a settlement. –dlthewave ☎ 04:28, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete KingSkyLord Why did you remove my prod without explanation? Do you really think this "is a community"? This is not a notable place, thanks for wasting our time here. Reywas92^Talk 20:45, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Reywas92: Rude, but yes I did assume that based on a Google search. Seeing the new evidence, I'll vote to delete it too. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 21:06, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  So maybe say so in the prod removal with a link?? Not sure why the map and "Cape Horn Vista Point Picnic Table" pin wasn't enough evidence... You seem to never use Help:Edit summaries, please fix that, it's rude. Reywas92^Talk 21:29, 13 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. MER-C 11:20, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Meir Lichtenstein[edit]

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

Non-notable mayor who does not meet WP:NPOL guidelines, was mayor for one year. Rusf10 (talk) 14:57, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 14:57, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 14:57, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lakewood Township NJ is not a significant enough place to clinch the "inherent" notability of its mayors just for existing as mayors, but there's nothing here that's relevant to actually getting him over the notability test that mayors actually have to clear. For starters, the most solid source in the article explicitly reveals that Lakewood is a place where the mayoralty rotates annually among the municipal councillors, rather than being directly elected by the general public — and for another, the key to mayoral notability requires the ability to write and reliably source a genuinely substantive article about his political impact. But of the nine footnotes here, five are the county's own self-published tables of election results and one is the municipal government's own website — so six of the nine footnotes are primary sources which are not support for notability at all. And of the three that are media, there's one that just briefly namechecks his existence as a coda at the very end of an article whose primary subject is someone else, and one that's completely not as advertised — it does not link to a "front-page article in The Forward that profiles Mayor Lichtenstein", but to an article about a one-man theatre show in San Francisco by an actor named Josh Kornbluth. And the one genuinely strong source is from Ocean County's community hyperlocal, which means it isn't enough coverage to get him over the bar all by itself — and even if the Josh Kornbluth article is just a bad link and an article about Meir Lichtenstein in The Forward can actually be recovered just by fixing it, that still won't be enough, because GNG is not just "count the footnotes and keep anybody who gets to two". Bearcat (talk) 17:36, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable mayor of a place that does not actually have much notability. Figurehead mayors do not generally pass the notability test. Even in places where they are directly elected, even more so when it is a rotational figureheadness.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:09, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Usual practice for determining notability of mayors is if the place in question is of sufficient notability, which Lakewood Township, New Jersey isn't. There are no other additional things Lichtenstein seems to have done for him to pass any other notability criteria. PoliceSheep99 (talk) 21:47, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:27, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Durham Student Theatre[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A non notable student theatre group. WP:BEFORE shows some local coverage but nothing that isn’t WP:MILL Cardiffbear88 (talk) 08:36, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 08:36, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 08:36, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 08:36, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 08:36, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there was an AfD in 2007 where the result was merge - as the organisation is independent to the university I’m not sure how appropriate that now is. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 08:39, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:12, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Most instances of coverage that I've been able to find mainly mention the Durham University theatre program, with this organization being mentioned tangentially at most. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 18:50, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. Graywalls (talk) 17:49, 12 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. While lots of sources are presented ultimately no editor seems to think they establish notability. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:50, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Annie Rupani[edit]

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

non notable pageant contestant. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 19:33, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:47, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:47, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:47, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:47, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-norable beauty pageant contestant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:51, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:51, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ (talk) News from Times of India, DNA India, Tribune Pakistan, The NAtion, The News Pakistan , hindustan times and Dawn are not unreliable. They are not unsourced. None of the links are spam. But you have removed the complete data from Miss Pakistan World. Do you have any clue what pageants are ? Can you see this page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Femina_Miss_India ? This page is all about Pageants in India.

Can you see their detailed report?

You removed the Miss Earth pageant from the page of Miss Pakistan World, that was all the winners who went to Miss Earth. There are over 150 pageants done by the contestants, yet only that information of Miss Earth was added. No one is hungry to add a lot, as I dont have time to look at links for the other 100 pageants. But you are removing data that is history. How come Miss India is having this data where as Pakistan cannot have the data, even though there were enough links stating that those particular contestants went to the Miss Earth pageant.

You have not done any research on pageants in wikipedia. Ask me? I can give you the help. Rather than you vandalizing the pages, when you dont have the capacity to learn about pageants and how they work. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_Venezuela https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_Brasil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Femina_Miss_India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_Universe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_World

Look at the pages of these national pageant. Miss Pakistan World, Mrs. Pakistan World are national pageants for Pakistan. For almost 18 years, the history of these pageants are reduced by you to just half a page. It seems you targeted all the winners of the pageant, the pageant and the organizer and deleted all the sources as well as nominated all pages for deletion.

I can give you over 1000 examples of pages on beauty queens. The winners of Miss Pakistan World have more links than any of these beauty queen pages mentioned to you. I dont see you going on a rampage to delete them. It seems no matter how much proof is given to you, you are aiming to delete history. Salut65 (talk) 06:22, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a winner of a pageant that does not confer notability. Salut65 (talk) 04:52, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs discussion of the sources in the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:04, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just scanning through the sources, a lot of them seem to be broken links. I'm not sure anyone should feel comfortable voting either way until an effort is made to archive some of the sources here. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 18:58, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Further discussion about a possible merge can continue in the appropriate venue. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:40, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Escalator school[edit]

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

Violation of WP:GNG. Page is mostly a list of anime. MatryoshkaNL (talk) 17:49, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:51, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:55, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Removed the zero-sourced list of anime uses (which honestly could go forever), which takes it down to a concise definition and addresses the nominator's concerns. Nate • (chatter) 04:38, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Thebiv19 (talk) 19:54, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Thebiv19 (talk) 19:54, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Thebiv19 (talk) 19:54, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Thebiv19 (talk) 19:54, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article can be used to describe educational systems and not be limited to anime discussions. lullabying (talk) 20:02, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as stub term but remove list of anime/manga as cruft and not necessary to explain the term. Add see alsos to Educational stage, K-12 and All-through school. It's similar to K-12 and their K-16 and K-20 definitions when extended to university, so that could also be a merge possibility. I would remove it from being Japanese only term unless it is a term originating in Japan. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:56, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep click the link to Google news search and you can find this is a real thing with ample coverage of it. Dream Focus 10:00, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The topic may be notable, but the article is effectively a one-sentence once the unreferenced content is removed and does not show how it is notable. If someone expands it, ping me and I'll review my vote. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:18, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article should be expanded a bit, per Piotrus. Other than that, additional sources stated by AngusWOOF make the article good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:27, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. Completely fails WP:GNG. No notability exists.Lordofthesky (talk) 17:15, 1 May 2020 (UTC) Struck vote of sock who's been using multiple accounts to try to disrupt AfD ‑ Iridescent 16:06, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 01:52, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: It should be covered at Education in Japan#School grades. WP:NOPAGE applies until there's more than enough for WP:SPINOUT. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 10:27, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NEXIST and the rest is a matter of ordinary editing not deletion per WP:PRESERVE. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:34, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to All-through school, not an independently notable concept that requires separate article. Education in Japan also works. WP:NOPAGE definitely applies even if there's coverage of the topic. Reywas92^Talk 05:39, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:48, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Education in Japan#School grades - While there are sources on the concept, even expanding this article to include them would not produce enough content to make this a necessary WP:SPLIT. As all of the sources seem to point towards this being a term that is largely specific to the Japanese education system, the Education in Japan article would be the best place to cover it. Rorshacma (talk) 16:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Education in Japan#School grades, not enough content on either page to require a split, much better to have all the information in one place. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:46, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. AFD is not cleanup. If nom disagrees with content, they can change it. I agree that it passes GNG. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 13:57, 10 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. I see consensus that the subject may become notable in future, but the coverage is not there to establish notability at this time. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:57, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Priya Singh[edit]

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

Coverage is a long way from meeting WP:GNG, and her two leading roles in (likely) notable films thus far are a bit shy of the multiple requirement specified in WP:NACTOR. I think that this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:11, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:11, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:11, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:17, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:58, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Delete~~ Weak Keep or Draftify: Putting aside the fact that most of the coverage on the subject—and there is quite a bit of it—comes from sources of questionable reliability (Times of India and International Business Times), my greater concern is the notability of the films in which she has starred. I read "multiple" to mean "more than one", so I think she has had multiple significant roles—but the films themselves are only moderately notable, in my opinion, and one of them hasn't been released yet, it seems. If the subject's filmography were greater, I would be more inclined to overlook this; but, as it is, I am not sure that WP:NACTOR is met. I agree with the nominator that the page was created prematurely; however, I don't think outright deletion need be the only option here, and would suggest "draftifying" the article, because the subject may meet the notability criteria in the near future. Dflaw4 (talk) 10:40, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Given the argument that the films may be notable, I am upgrading my vote; however, I still believe that "draftifying" would be appropriate if the consensus is to delete. Dflaw4 (talk) 12:42, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaning to Weak Keep with this one. The article does seem to be made TOOSOON but she is definitely still notable having starred in 2 films written by well known writers including the Paruchuri brothers. Mr. Apollo (talk to me bebe) 02:01, 24 April 2020 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE Primefac (talk) 18:54, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:31, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 05:31, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR as of now.A case of WP:TOOSOON.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:29, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. bibliomaniac 1 5 02:16, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quata (singer)[edit]

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. A Google search of him doesn't show in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources. Majority of the article's sources are promotional links to the subject's music. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 13:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 13:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 13:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable singer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:23, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. bibliomaniac 1 5 02:16, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Medal of Merit for Blood Donation[edit]

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

fundamentally trivial award, with no third party sources. DGG ( talk ) 11:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:38, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:38, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We have 2 allegattions: 1. topic is not in Wikipedia scope. 2. topic is not properly referenced. Ad 1. National (State) Orders and Decorations are recognized topics on Wikipedia. I think there is no doubt of that. There are thousands of such articles. Encyclopedists can't discriminate recognized topics and regard some as "trivial". This is not our job. It is not any minor private award, or organization award, this is national award. You can find on Wikipedia hundreds of articles about awards which are more "trivial". For example: NASA Space Flight Medal. This is NOT National awards, this is organization award only, much lower grade than national, but nobody nominating this for deletion. Ad 2. Topic is fully referenced. There are first party references - official decrees from government site, second party references - article describing topic in publication of Luxembourg Red Cross and third party references - additional information published by RTL. What we need more? There are hundreds articles without any references at all. E.g. Decoration for Services to the Red Cross. I really can't understand nominating this article for deletion. KarlHeintz (talk) 11:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. National state decorations are certainly notable, whatever they may be for. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:36, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:37, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep National decorations are normally considered notable. The sort of thing people turn to the Wikipedia for. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:09, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 22:31, 16 May 2020 (UTC) The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).[reply]

Veronika Cencen[edit]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. bibliomaniac 1 5 02:20, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Van Darkholme[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

the subject notability is exclusively based on the fact he is Vietnamese-American. he didn't win any important prize in porn and didn't have much coverage either. the sources include are 2 of his personal pages, IMDb, IAFD, a porn web site with his movie and blogs apart from from those sources we can only find a couple of interview and a book he wrote. AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 13:16, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:54, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:54, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:54, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:55, 24 April 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:57, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:57, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:58, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:04, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:04, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 April 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:15, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

yes but he's a very known internet meme, search gachimuchi. If he can't have his own wikipedia arcticle, then so can't András Arató, for example. (Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.83.245.112 (talk • contribs)

I don't have a problem with rough talking but I don't think it is well taken by wikipedia community. If he is so well known there must be something out there to prove it. Something like articles or books. this is how I feel: while we can be a little more flexible than usual with porn actor because sourcing is hard to find, being a porn actor can't become a free pass for whoever to be here on wikipedia. there are plenty of porn stars on wikipedia with full coverage across their whole life. If you feel the page can be improved you are well come to do it and feed us with more information... may be in a slightly more refined way than the one you just used.--AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 17:20, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable individual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:45, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable hardcore gay porno figure, dungeon master and well known internet meme. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.193.245.193 (talk) 20:10, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notability can't be just taken for grant or stated by an user, it has to be proven. If you have any reliable web site please feel free to enrich this bio. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 08:19, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.kink DOT com/director/54/Van-Darkholme [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.193.245.193 (talk) 17:55, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let me explain you. the first website mention as you obviously know is on a black list so not reliable. the first of the five links you give: his name appears only one time in a reported conversation, he is definitely not the subject of the article. second link: could be a good reference as long as the web site is reliable. third link: not the subject of the article but passes mention. fourth link: IMDb which is considered unreliable. fifth link: it's his own web site. so out of 6 sources you presented only one and half can be used to prove notability, and honestly I don't this this is still enough. but you can start putting them in his bio and see if they sum up to something.--AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 20:38, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He's a gay porn actor, he used to suck cocks and pump semen into his co-presenters rectal cavities. It's not something you put in a newspaper. Still, that does not mean he's not a notable person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.193.245.193 (talk) 17:15, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

well, many porn actor ended up on news papers for different reasons. plus, it would be acceptable also if he was constantly on web sites like AVN or Xbiz which publish only porn related stuff.--AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 20:07, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep as there are possibly enough sources to indicate notability. As mentioned above, AVN and XBiz can help to establish notability. There are plenty of other interviews in related LGBT sites such as Cybersocket (NSFW). He was also featured in Kink, a James Franco documentary, and there are sources for this. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 00:27, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also 101 Rent Boys documentary about gay porno. Van Darkholme's notorious part in this documentary explaining how he decided to go full♂master♂♂♂ and changed his entire house into a hardcore BDSM dungeon♂♂♂♂♂♂♂ where fisting is $300♂♂♂♂♂♂♂♂♂♂♂♂♂♂♂♂♂♂♂♂♂♂♂♂♂ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.193.245.193 (talk) 07:43, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A bit more about the doCUMentary — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.193.245.193 (talk) 07:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

you mention a few sources but one article on Xbiz and AVN doesn't prove much of notability. for the other sources you give one is only a mere mention, another one doesn't even mention him and the last one is a youtube video which is not good to sustain notability. this page was already nominated on 2007 and probably survived because "may be we can find better sources", well 14 years have passed and we are in the same situation noting showing notability. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 09:53, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 16:49, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources identified by Cardiffbear88. Alejandro said earlier that "it would be acceptable also if he was constantly on web sites like AVN or Xbiz". Cardiffbear88 found sources on AVN and Xbiz. Now Alejandro says that those sources don't prove notability. This is moving the goalposts based on whatever is offered at the moment. Alejandro has now posted five times since his original nomination, responding to every Keep vote or comment. This is WP:BLUDGEON behavior. I would suggest that he reads that essay, steps back, and allows other people to look at the arguments and sources, and make their own judgment. — Toughpigs (talk) 19:24, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The AVN and XBiz articles are obvious press releases. The porn project's guidance on sources expressly mentions that AVN does not indicate that an article is a press release. The articles are based on what the subjects say, not the news organization, and they follow the standard press release format. Failing the independent secondary source test, they are not proof of notability. • Gene93k (talk) 21:14, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The copy for both AVN and Xbiz sources are completely different, leadImg me to believe that one or both have been substantially edited from any press release, giving it editorial independence. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 21:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't change my mind, if he was CONSTANTLY on those web sites, how do you translate having 2 articles on 2 web sites to being constantly on those webs sites?. yes You are right, I answered to too many keep vote and I apologize so I will not do that again but I am still answering when my name is made. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 08:21, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per those above. Adequate sourcing has been demonstrated. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 21:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest someone checking AlejandroLeloirRey's edit history. Large amount of deletion nominations suggests that this account was made only for vandalism. User_talk:AlejandroLeloirRey#Too_many_deletions Special:Contributions/AlejandroLeloirRey — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.193.245.193 (talk) 14:29, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this a personal attack? WP:PA go ahead and check my history and you shall see I spent a big amount of time on gay porn actors bios (I wrote one myself). When I felt there was nothing more I could do to improve those bios I decided it was time to get rid of the non notable ones. Most of these bios were accepted basing on old guidelines and they simply do not meet anymore the wikipetia criteria. I nominated 11 bios, of which 1 have survived, 4 have been deleted and 6 are still into the process, it looks like I didn't nominate random bios to me. In a few days there are other bios I would like to bring to the attention of the community, I don't do it right now because I was asked to slow down. so if there is something wrong with my intention please just let me know. by the way, why don't we ask everybody here to clean up their language? I can see some posts that are totally inappropriate. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 08:11, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Each deletion nomination should stand on its own (except in the case of bundled group noms). The nominator's history is of only limited relevance, address the article, not the nominator, please. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:03, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Of the sources now cited in the article, BN seems the only one to help establish notability, and that is not much more than a passing mention, rather minimal. Of those brought out in this AfD, interviews are generally not independent, and Gene93k's point about the AVN and Xbiz sources seems to reduce their value. Notability is always a judgement call, and I think this case is close but not over the line. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:09, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think GNG has been met, it’s unsurprising that an extreme gay sex master(?) or whatever the terminology isn’t highly populating mainstream sources. However he is found throughout more kink-laden ones, and a good article is possible. Gleeanon409 (talk) 08:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Less accusations and more detail on the claimed sources would be best
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep important and notable figure in Bay Area LGBT and BDSM communities, also current internet meme. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.193.245.193 (talk) 12:01, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: two links were added, please re-evaluate with them in mind. Ipsign (talk) 13:48, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per WP:GNG I added two links - hopefully reliable ones; if they stand - we do have two independent articles about him; this IMO qualifies as "Multiple" in GNG. Ipsign (talk) 13:47, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ipsign: can you please tell me which are the link you added? ok, found them. one is a blog so doesn't count for notability, for the other one we need someone more experienced than me to tell. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 16:12, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kotaku is an acceptable source for video game news. I encourage Alejandro once again to step back and allow other folks to judge. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is notable. --Sharouser (talk) 13:10, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Sulfurboy (talk) 08:36, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shyla Stylez[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:BIO1E: Besides the Orange County Weekly article about a local political scandal, the only mainstream news coverage Ms. Stylez received was in relation to her untimely death. Tragic and untimely deaths, while tremendously unfortunate, usually do not make the victim notable. Cheers, gnu 57 20:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 20:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 20:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 20:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 20:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:00, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If my math adds up, that seems like at least two events (death, OC sheriff scandal) to me.[49][50][51][52] Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:21, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The International Business Times is a churnalism site. Harris M. Lentz (the author of the obituary book) says that he uses Wikipedia and IMDb as sources, so I tend to discount his books. I don't think that Stylez' alleged minor involvement in a local scandal is significant at all: if appearing in one local news article were taken to indicate a significant event, then half my neighbours would become wiki-notable. Cheers, gnu57 22:14, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well there was the New York Post article in addition to [53][54][55] to establish the other event. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:29, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Morbidthoughts and the awards the subject has won. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 21:33, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that, since the deprecation of PORNBIO, adult industry awards no longer count towards notability. Cheers, gnu57 22:14, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - The qualifications to become a member a member of the AVN Hall of Fame (i.e. significant contributions to the adult industry & at least 10 years in the industry) seemingly constitutes unique, prolific, or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. The Maxim list and source is also compelling. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 07:04, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Her coverage in the Maxim list is a two-sentence listicle entry. Quite a few other AVN Hall-of-Famers have been deleted at AfD recently (e.g., Vaniity, Felecia, Robert Bullock, Micky Lynn, Keisha, etc.). gnu57 12:50, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - While precedent deserves its due, it is not infallible. Nor were the situations neccesarily the same in all aspects. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 21:30, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:34, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we have source analysis please
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:53, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG (2 independent sources).Ipsign (talk) 14:05, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above - Meets GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 14:00, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Goldsztajn (talk) 10:49, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hem Chandra Chowdhury[edit]

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

Can't find any reliable sources to support any of this trumpery and not clear how he passes WP:GNG Theroadislong (talk) 18:23, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 18:23, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:26, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:26, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd like to say we should keep this, but I have not so far found any book or other usable sources for what appears to have been a well intentioned article commissioned years ago by descendants. Here he is on Banglapedia, but can we cite that, it gives no sources, and he was apparently a zamindar rather than a king, and do we assign any automatic notability to local aristocratic rulers? The palace is now used by a local college and has some reviews online as a tourist site, but I see no sign it itself is notable. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:45, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have expanded the article and added more sources. The subject was a noted philanthropist and landed aristocrat who had contributed significant amounts to development of the region. He helped establish a number of educational institutes including Dhaka Medical School, which is known today known as Sir Salimullah Medical College. Hemnagar Union, which has a population of more than 36 thousand, was named after him after his death. This is a strong evidence of notability. The article may have been started by someone with a close connection but it been significantly edited by uninvolved editors since then and most of the promotional stuff were removed by the nominator themself.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 08:32, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:45, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep This looks like a person who'd be a dozen times notable in Europe but sourcing presented does not seem to establish WP:GNG. The time period suggests there should be books covering him if he is notable, which have not been presented. At the same time, it's hard to imagine he would not have WP:THREE when everything is dug up, as it will be in time, especially considering Banglapedia, which looks reputable enough, apparently a work of hundreds of Bangladeshi scholars with a grand mission. So, I suggest a Keep on WP:NPOSSIBLE grounds, but wouldn't fault an opposite outcome based on what has actually been presented. It would be an unequivocal delete if Banglapedia turned out to unreliable/spam-prone, but there's nothing to suggest that such is the case. Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:31, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The books are most likely in Bengali and unfortunately the vast majority of the Bengali language books are not available online, especially from that era.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 17:16, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — The nom Theroadislong, is very thorough with his/her analysis of our general notability guidelines as I am & thus I agree with them that the subject of the article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. Celestina007 (talk) 14:47, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article should be deleted because you are more thorough with your analysis according to you? Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:22, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 07:18, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG, agree with talk on obvious notability due to naming a town after him. Ipsign (talk) 14:30, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that he passes GNG. A town is named after him as well as other institutions etc. Clearly notable enough to pass GNG. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 14:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment User:Vinegarymass911 has vastly improved the article (thank you) since my nomination, it looks like the person is notable. Theroadislong (talk) 14:37, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 05:11, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Stern Zisquit[edit]

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

Article does not demonstrate notability. Was proposed for deletion in the past using the template for unreferenced BLPs; that was only removed because it was the incorrect template, as the article was not wholly unreferenced. – Fayenatic London 06:52, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:38, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:38, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Added a few sources I think its enough --Shrike (talk) 09:05, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Jerusalem Post profile demonstrates notability, and being a finalist for a national award helps, too. pburka (talk) 22:47, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but add more reliable sources. the only independent source at the moment is the Jerusalem Post. I did find one book review at PW which should add some notability. I didn't check other book review sources and I don't know the Israeli sources so I can't check those but presumably they exist. Lamona (talk) 06:42, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's usually hard to find reliably published reviews of poetry books, but I found and added eight reviews of five of her books; I think that's enough for WP:AUTHOR. Also her woodcut collaboration with Maty Grunberg is in the permanent collections of the British Museum and La Salle University Art Museum (sources added), giving her a shot at WP:ARTIST #4d. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:51, 14 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:36, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DHVANI[edit]

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

Not meeting WP:ORGDEPTH. Advertorial to much extent. The article has been created on mainspace after gaming the system. I sense COI or Paid Editing in this creation. Overall, not meeting WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Hitro talk 06:53, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 06:53, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 06:53, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 14:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Local PR-driven coverage of non notable company. All the coverage relates to their recent claimed aspiration to create COVID masks for ‘all Americans’, which seems somewhat far-fetched on the face of it. Several of the refs just link back to their own YouTube promotion. Absolutely not notable. Mccapra (talk) 03:45, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Such coverage as exists relates to the company's promotion of its mask initiative which in my opinion falls under Trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. I see nothing indicating attained notability. AllyD (talk) 07:52, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The deletion nomination is open-ended, somewhat ambiguous, and parts of it are not based upon English Wikipedia's Deletion policy. Some parts are essentially guideline based, (e.g. WP:NOTRIVIA, and potential innacuracy issues per WP:NOR), but no further qualification is provided in the deletion nomination to justify these claims. Relative to this, per the discussion herein, consensus is for the article to be retained North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:29, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Minister of State for Competitiveness[edit]

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

Unsourced, inaccurate, trivial and unnecessary. Alex 04:36, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Alex 04:36, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:36, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I’ve added content and sources. It may still be trivial, but hopefully no longer inaccurate. Mccapra (talk) 08:40, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Can't see what the problem is with an article about a ministerial office. We have plenty of these. They are clearly encyclopaedic. No good reason given for deletion other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:13, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:14, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As a ministerial office, it is clearly encyclopedic. It is similar to Minister for Social Exclusion and Minister for Portsmouth as they we're short-lived ministerial offices with them only having a few ministers under one government. PoliceSheep99 (talk) 16:54, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No real basis for nomination. Mccapra (talk) 03:47, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Having seen the arguments here, I've expanded the article and added sources. Alex 07:24, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:39, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IntelliCAD[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

12 years after the last AfD, the article hasn't improved. Not seeing how this passes WP:NSOFT/GNG. BEFORE does not show any reviews or in-depth coverage outside [56] which does not look very reliable, everything else I see are press releases, unreliable user reviews and mentions in passing. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:25, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:25, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:08, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:56, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per keeps from previous AfD.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:36, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:13, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly a none notable piece of software and the article is blatant advert. All the sources that are mentioned in the first AfD seem to be trivial and they were never added to the article anyway. If they and this piece of software were notable, the sources would have been added by now. More then enough time has passed IMO. Notability is not just about the raw number of Google search results. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:48, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article has been subject to what seems recent and promotional/spam editting by ZengaONE and rather than tackling the editor this article seems to have been taken to WP:AFD. ZengaONE feel free to defend that. I think the content added by ZengaONE has been reverted. I've added (Cohn, 1997) to the article and I'm currently looking at [57] ISBN 9789633659106?. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:39, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Hoya Corporation#ReadSpeaker. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ReadSpeaker[edit]

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

Effectively unsourced since its creation in May 2010 (!), with just one press release added intermittently. The article is written like an advertisement (has been since its creation, tagged as such since 2011) and the creator appears to have a COI. A WP:BEFORE does bring up some news bits, but most of them are rehashs of press releases. Nothing constitues significant coverage and just displays another WP:RUNOFTHEMILL case. IceWelder [✉] 18:32, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. IceWelder [✉] 18:32, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:38, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:38, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:38, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Hoya Corporation#ReadSpeaker, which acquired ReadSpeaker in 2017, per Wikipedia:Editing policy#Try to fix problems. Here are sources I found about ReadSpeaker:
1. Salse Rovir, Marina; Ribera Turro, Mireia; Satorras Fioretti, Rosa Maria; Centelles Velilla, Miquel (2015-07-08). "Multimodal Campus Project: Pilot test of voice supported reading". Procedia. 196. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.07.027. Retrieved 2020-04-25.
  The abstract notes:
  Nowadays, education systems should offer flexibility to serve any kind of learners, including those with special needs. “Campus Multimodal” project took advantage of Moodle Learning Management System to offer students two reading aid tools: ClaroRead and ReadSpeaker. A pilot test was run with one thousand students during a semester and the mentioned tools usefulness was measured through an interview and user logs. Results confirm the existence of widespread reading and writing problems among higher education students and also the utility of speech technology to minimize them.
2. Squires, Robert I. (2018). "Universal Design for Learning in Online Credit Recovery: Do Course Features Impact Achievement?". Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers. University of Montana. Archived from the original on 2020-04-25. Retrieved 2020-04-25.
  The dissertation notes:
  The reading and writing support tools incorporated into the English credit recovery course in this study are ReadSpeaker and TextAid. ReadSpeaker is primarily a text-to-speech tool, which can be accessed anywhere in the online course pages. In terms of the typology above, ReadSpeaker provides presentational and translational functionality. Text and words can be highlighted as they are read, customizable options for viewing are present and include the ability to download an mp3 and listen offline or at different speeds.
  ...
  ReadSpeaker. ReadSpeaker provides text-to-speech and text-highlighting options integrated into the online course pages. As can be seen from the results below, ReadSpeaker was used by participants in every month of the study with use varying widely across months. ReadSpeaker logged use when a number of characters were selected and played back by a course participant. Individual participant use was not tracked by the tool.
Cunard (talk) 22:05, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting would be an option, however, merging not so much, given the current state of the article and its content. The two sources you provide are student papers (not exactly reliable sources) and consist largely of mere explanations on how they used the software. I would still favour deletion to make sure the present version cannot be restored by vandalous editors. A redirect may still happen then. IceWelder [✉] 22:29, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The first source is a study published in the peer-reviewed journal Procedia and is written by by Library and Information Sciences faculty at the University of Barcelona. I am fine with a protected redirect to prevent vandalism and so that the content can be preserved for merging. Cunard (talk) 22:48, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:43, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is about the company/organization named ReadSpeaker. None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability as none provide any in-depth information on the company. Topic fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:30, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I merged some material in ReadSpeaker to Hoya Corporation#ReadSpeaker and added more content and sources to the section.
Cunard (talk) 10:20, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hoya Corporation#ReadSpeaker. No evidence of independent notability and Cunard has already merged the only RS information. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:01, 17 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. Don't see the point in draftifying if no one has proposed to work on it, but I will restore to draft/userspace on request. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:12, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nora Dagva[edit]

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

fails NACTOR MistyGraceWhite (talk) 09:16, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:14, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:14, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:14, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - the article concerns a Mongolian model. I was unable to search for Mongolian-language sources, but her work as the host of what seems to be a significant TV show suggests she may be notable enough. --MrClog (talk) 15:44, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:21, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:09, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert: would you be OK with draftification? --MrClog (talk) 09:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or draftify. Fails NBIO right now but if someone wants to work on it, go for it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:19, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Sulfurboy (talk) 08:34, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lone Echo II[edit]

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

Upcoming videogame in VR. Only coverage is a trivial mention that it is "upcoming'. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 09:18, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 10:08, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the referenced Development section to Lone Echo: Where the previous entry in a series meets GNG, and the unreleased sequel doesn't yet, coverage should appear at the predecessor until the sequel can be spun out (by analogy with WP:NFF). ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 10:06, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the page should stay up as it is a well known VR game, and adding it to the Lone Echo I page would just prolong the inevitable when this page will be created again sometime around release. FlyingKangeroo (talk) 23:48, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP They already have ample coverage such as: https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2019/05/pre-e3-2019-oculus-wants-to-you-to-paddle-a-stealth-vr-kayak-and-its-awesome/ Dream Focus 04:51, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:08, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have added several more RS to it. It meets WP:GNG. OceanHok (talk) 05:49, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The source Dream Focus posted and this one [58] should be enough of a WP:GNG pass and beyond what upcoming games usually get before the release (which are WP:ROUTINE announcements). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If anything, this would be a WP:TOOSOON case, but Ready At Dawn's games usually receive plenty of coverage (we have three FA's, even), and this one is no exception. WP:VG/SE an apt amount of previews, news, and interview already, and the game is yet to come out. IceWelder [✉] 16:08, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:GNG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 03:18, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:12, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arbanaška vera[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:COATRACK which in parts becomes a WP:POVFORK of Dušan's Code. Also, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 17:17, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 17:17, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 17:17, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 17:17, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:05, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Topic is notable, and is mentioned in anthropology studies. Calling this WP:COATRACK is not good enough. The article is part of Albanian Christian history, not Stefan Dusan, which is a different topic.--Fa alk (talk) 15:39, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The existing bibliography can be used to expand this as a standalone article. I'll do that within the next couple of days.--Maleschreiber (talk) 07:32, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This specific proviso was pivotal in relations between Albanians and Serbs. Dushan's code as a whole was still of course important, but it is this part in particular that mattered most. Such a role is pretty widely discussed; it has the necessary notability for further expansion to be hopefully ultimately made into an impressive page. --Calthinus (talk) 19:12, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:37, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harlequin Brass Ensemble[edit]

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

A non notable music ensemble. Unreferenced with WP:BEFORE showing no evidence of any reliable sources. No edits to text since 2010. Most of the article explains the general concept of a 10-piece brass ensemble, which is not unique to this group. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:15, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:15, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:15, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:15, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:15, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No compelling coverage. Virtually no mention in the media other than conductor changes and additions to the ensemble. The ensemble seems to have one non-notable recording and that's about it. Sulfurboy (talk) 03:01, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nominator and Sulfurboy, my research brings up the same lack of results theirs did. Thryduulf (talk) 11:53, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the article is very promotional to the extent that a speedy deletion G11 would be justified. No reliable sources in the article and I found no obvious rs on google and little coverage of any kind at this time, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:25, 14 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. MER-C 11:23, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Outdoor Church[edit]

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

Contents primarily from their own material, there is a book written about this organization, but the author is primary source related to this place. "Outdoor Church founder Rev. Jedediah Mannis". No apparent evidence of WP:SIGCOV in multiple WP:RS, thus fails WP:NORG Graywalls (talk) 21:29, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 21:29, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 21:29, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 21:29, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This entry was not written with an informative tone and instead reads as promotional material. Lack of independent source diversity.

Rmirmotahari (talk) 02:36, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 03:51, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. bibliomaniac 1 5 21:11, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Karbonn Mobiles[edit]

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

Looks like a non-notable company. Article is sourced to routine listings, press releases and a product review. Not enough to fulfil WP:NCOMP criteria in my view. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:24, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:24, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:24, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - Hatchens (talk) 06:29, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I went thru the existing sources, plus there are at least a few more (in doing a basic Google search) such as this, this and this that help the article achieve notability. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 09:56, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article may be in bad shape but it passes GNG. Shanze1 (talk) 05:57, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:45, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A page which has been existing at WP since 9 years has just 9 unique refs. Furthermore these 9 refs appear to be plain promotional PR activity:

^[1] which has been deliberately mentioned twice to superficially increase the number of refs is non existent. Similarly ^[2] is also non existent. ^[3] is extremely glorified and fails WP:NPOV. ^[4] is WP:UNENCYC since it has nothing notable to offer.^[5] has been mentioned in the article under the tab "History". I have never seen such kind of chicanery to promote a subject. This ref is just about promoting the subject and has nowhere historical information.

^[6] is about a product launched by the subject company. Such kind of refs does not ensure WP:INDEPENDENT. ^[7] is a ranking report made by Trust Research Advisory, an enterprise whose WP page was speedily deleted as it was ""blatant advertising, used only to promote someone or something"". Similarly ^[8] is a ref from the same enterprise and moreover this ref is no more in existence.

A user mentioned a ref above: ^[9]. I would like to draw your attention that this is a paid media coverage and is evidently cited at the end: (This story has not been edited by Business Standard staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.) and completely fails WP:RELIABLE. Thereafter the user mentioned ^[10], which is fails WP:RELEVANCE and is WP:UNENCYC & Wikipedia:Out of scope since it just talks signing a sponsorship deal. All refs are WP:HOAX and requisite deletion.

References

Yourmasterishere (talk) 16:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep well-known Indian mobile company. Easily passes GNG with sources like [59] and [60]. There are also plenty of reviews of mobiles made by them in reliable media. SD0001 (talk) 13:44, 16 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. bibliomaniac 1 5 21:08, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By Time[edit]

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

Fails to meet criteria for Wikipedia:Notability (films) Pahlevun (talk) 20:41, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:13, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:13, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable enough for Wikipedia, sources can not pass WP:RS. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 17:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:44, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable enough for Wikipedia. - 185.181.63.36 (talk) 12:14, 17 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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:54, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shropshire Family History Society[edit]

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

Non notable local organisation. There is some local coverage but nothing beyond WP:ROUTINE that would help to indicate notability. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely non-notable local organization. Sulfurboy (talk) 14:57, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:41, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not seeing any in-depth coverage that's independent of the subject. Thryduulf (talk) 11:50, 10 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:37, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Felicia Hwang[edit]

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

Beauty pageant contestant. Non notable because she did not win and has no subsequent feats to claim any fame. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 11:15, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:34, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:34, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:34, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:34, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete she did not even win the competition.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:55, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:41, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, coverage is in passing and WP:ONEVENT.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:15, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete failed to meet notability guidelines. See WP:GNG--Richie Campbell (talk) 22:12, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:38, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Markham home massacre[edit]

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

Tragic though it may be, this event does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards. For one, there is no WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE: nearly all the attention this incident received was in the five-day period immediately following the murders, and all it's received since is scattered reports about court appearances (for example) and a single salacious profile. For two, there is a limited WP:GEOSCOPE to the coverage: Markham is in the Greater Toronto Area, and all the reports are from Toronto-based papers or the Toronto-focused sections of larger new orgs; it does not appear to have received wider play elsewhere. Finally, there's no indication that these murders, gruesome as they are, are particularly noteworthy: it has not received the sort of coverage, attention or outcry that other mass killings in Canada have, no major news cycle or public investigation (note the motive is still unknown), nor looks like there will be any WP:EFFECTS in terms of legislation, etc. This isn't at the level of WP:DOGBITESMAN but it's not high enough for WP:EVENT. — Kawnhr (talk) 19:03, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — Kawnhr (talk) 19:03, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — Kawnhr (talk) 19:03, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — Kawnhr (talk) 19:03, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. — Kawnhr (talk) 19:03, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I say keep. It's useful. New3400 (talk) 18:14, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Useful" in what way? Please note that personal points of view are to be avoided in deletion discussions. — Kawnhr (talk) 23:19, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2019-07 ✍️ create

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:35, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete Seems to have gotten nothing but routine, local coverage. Mangoe (talk) 16:14, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no any long-term significance in this episode, whatsoever. My very best wishes (talk) 16:54, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. This clearly had a blip of local coverage at the time, but it's not our job to keep an article about every single thing that happens everywhere on earth. To warrant an article, this would need to show evidence that it was significantly more important than most other murders in some way that would pass the ten year test for enduring significance, but there's literally no evidence of that being offered here whatsoever. Bearcat (talk) 16:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unfortunately the article does not pass the WP:NOTNEWS policy. Also, massacres similar to this one occur many times, which makes the subject fail WP:MILL. I've seen many articles like this, and sadly, their subjects are very similar. Koridas (...Puerto Rico for statehood!) 23:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As mentioned above, the focal incident is, sadly, not inherently noteworthy. TheAnayalator (talk) 03:32, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 16:33, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Working Parts[edit]

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

Non notable corporation with article sourced only to source's social media and press kits (except for an X-box link). Would not meet WP:CORP, but if memory serves we don't apply that to articles that predate the revamping thereof(?). At any rate, not notable and dePRODed by creator. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 15:00, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:53, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:54, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:54, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking reliable sourcing. --Izno (talk) 15:58, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:34, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable developer that has thus far produced only non-notable games. No significant coverage is available, either. IceWelder [✉] 16:02, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:51, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Palred Technologies[edit]

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

The content is written in a promotional format (WP:PROMO). And it fails WP:NCORP and WP:ORGCRITE. Hatchens (talk) 06:43, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 06:43, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 06:43, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 06:43, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm only seeing run of the mill coverage of routine MA and funding type announcements. No WP:SIGCOV to meet the rigorous standard of WP:NCORP Sulfurboy (talk) 14:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:30, 9 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. Since no sources can apparently be located for this list, there is consensus to delete it. Keep comments are mostly per OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Should such sources become available, any editor may ask for the article to be draftified to do so. Black Kite (talk) 14:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Back Benches episodes[edit]

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

Entirely unsourced, incomplete and every single episode unlikely to satisfy WP:EPISODE and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Ajf773 (talk) 04:00, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 04:00, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 04:00, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 04:00, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 04:00, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Why is this different than the thousands of other episode list articles? Too long to fit in the main article so a justifiable spinoff article. Dream Focus 04:41, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Ajf773 (talk) 06:34, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTSFORAREASON would be a good essay to have. If thousands of articles exist just to show the episodes of notable shows, then maybe they are suppose to exist and you shouldn't waste people's time with this. Dream Focus 18:29, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't waste peoples times with such poor reasoning to support an inclusionist agenda. I've already explained why the list should be deleted. It is unsourced, lacks notability and is incomplete and is borderline FANCRUFT. What standard of Wikipedia are we trying to upkeep? Television episodes are not inherently notably, and that also extends to lists of episodes. And just because some stuff exists is NOT a reason why other stuff should. Ajf773 (talk) 19:42, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above, article does need to be cited however. Epluribusunumyall (talk) 04:53, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- article should be improved with sourcing, as noted, but episode lists as forks for notable shows are widely accepted. The fact that the list is currently incomplete is irrelevant for its deletion argument. matt91486 (talk) 21:51, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:EPISODE: While each episode on its own may not qualify for an article, it is quite likely that sources can be found to support a series or season page, where all the episodes in one season (or series) are presented on one page. Such pages must still be notable, and contain out-of-universe context, and not merely be a list of episode titles or cast and crew: Wikipedia is not a directory. This does not meet the criteria. Sources have not been located (and I have attempted to find them) for both the episode dates and the context. The notability of the television show itself is also questionable. Ajf773 (talk) 01:15, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The show is notable enough to be in the national library of New Zealand. [61] Anyway, it shows summaries of what each episode is about, the issues discussed, and other information, it not just an empty list. Educational programming doesn't get the coverage that celebrity gossip and mainstream entertainment media gets of course so we're not flooded with references, nor are they needed. You can confirm any information on their official website, or the credits of the episodes. Primary sources are fine when there is no possible reason to doubt them. Dream Focus 02:14, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The link doesn't do anything to help the episode list article. There is NO official website for the show as well, considering it was not broadcasted on one of the main freeview channels. Ajf773 (talk) 02:38, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Information in their national library and in the credits of the show. It was broadcast on TVNZ 7. What do you mean "main" channel? Its number 7 in the listing so it isn't buried among a lot of other channels and hard to find. Dream Focus 02:54, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For someone who may not be familiar with New Zealand free-to-air broadcasting TVNZ7 is a now defunct station that used to broadcast reruns or locally made programmes that were too low budget for the premier channels (TVNZ1, TVNZ2 and Three network). My reasons also echo the recently deleted Shortland Street nomination. Although this is a completely independent AfD to that one, Shortland Street is a long running prime-time soap spanning over 27 years. Ajf773 (talk) 10:21, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if sources can be found to support it, delete if they can't. Episode lists can be kept if they're supported by reliable sources, but we do not have any policy that every television show that exists is always entitled to have a standalone episode list separate from the main article about the show: keeping or deleting an episode list still depends on how sourceable it is or isn't, not just on the show's existence. Bearcat (talk) 14:52, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And so far, no sources have been found. Just so everyone is aware Back Benches is not the same show as Back Benchers. Ajf773 (talk) 21:19, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The episodes cite themselves, and judging by the talk page, it appears that the major editor did actually watch them. However, the lead is in need of references. It also seems like this list is extremely outdated given that the show was cancelled in 2017? While there are enough episodes to warrant a separate list article, I think it should be merged with the main page unless the list is expanded and references in the lead (or elsewhere) are added, as there wouldn't be any establishment of notability in my opinion. Heartfox (talk) 06:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The entire point of references is the ability to actually consult said references if you need to verify what they said, and/or are seeking out additional information. So we can't just decree that television episodes "cite themselves": we still need to cite the information to sources that people can obtain in order to read or watch. Bearcat (talk) 17:05, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in its current state. While notability issues are mitigated by being a spinoff, and TV is an acceptable primary source for itself, we cannot carry articles that are entirely without references to reliable secondary sources. Sandstein 07:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless cleaned up and sources added. Stifle (talk) 08:23, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:09, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bearcat and Sandstein. While it is fairly common practice on Wikipedia for TV shows to have an episode lists as a spin-out article, the information on those episode lists still needs to have sources. It is against Wikipedia policy to retain content that cannot be referenced to reliable sources. The fact that, after over two weeks in AFD, not a single reliable source has been found or added makes me doubt that sources exist, and without them, this list can not be retained. Rorshacma (talk) 06:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in current state, keep if sources are found per Bearcat and others above. I agree with Rorshacma in that if sources haven't been found yet, they may not exist. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:59, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) SD0001 (talk) 13:29, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ida Kidder[edit]

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

Does not meet notability guidelines Melcous (talk) 04:41, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Google Books is full of librarian newsletters mentioning Ms. Kidder, which are not in her article at present. There is also this: Women Academic Librarians on the Western Frontier, 1900-1920 Joanne E. Passet The Library Quarterly: Information, Community, Policy Vol. 60, No. 4 (Oct., 1990), pp. 320-336. This is the sort of unique Wikipedia article that we should endeavor to keep around, if possible. Caro7200 (talk) 13:41, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:32, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:32, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:32, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as meets WP:GNG. There is enough sourcing, both in the article and out of it, for a woman of her time. There is little enough coverage of women librarians of this era; it would be a shame to see this one deleted. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 00:14, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant sourcing, albeit very localized. Recently created article so must assume that further research may result in broader range of sources. Lamona (talk) 06:22, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. bibliomaniac 1 5 02:22, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Polish National Agency for Academic Exchange[edit]

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

No claim to any notability. Fails WP:NORG. Deleted in Russian Wikipedia. Mitte27 (talk) 15:11, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As a governmental agency in Poland NAWA has relevant programs for international community. Some links were added to the article to confirm its notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Algirdas2018 (talk • contribs) 09:31, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Mitte27 (talk) 15:11, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Mitte27 (talk) 15:11, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Thebiv19 (talk) 20:00, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Thebiv19 (talk) 20:00, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'd like to request relisting to allow further time to look for sources. Daask (talk) 20:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per Daask request. The AfD has been open for a full 7 days.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 21:18, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Pinging Daask again. If you don't plan to comment back with a conclusion you might want to comment as much. :)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 03:02, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Improvements by Algirdas2018 and Daask since nomination demonstrate coverage in independent, RS that meets minimum level of WP:SIGCOV (assuming my interpretations of the Polish sources are at least in the ballpark). Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:15, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. The subject has been the primary subject of multiple news articles. I believe I have substantially improved the content and sources of the article since it was first nominated. Daask (talk) 11:32, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think my earlier remark was careless. On second look, I see only two in-depth news articles which are fully independent, Zespół (2017) and Mokrzycka (2018); I hadn't realized that Science in Poland was a state-sponsored publication. Still, there are several journal articles focused on the organization, specifically Bachmat (2017) and Dytko (2019). Daask (talk) 21:07, 16 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:37, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ayu Diandra Sari Tjakra[edit]

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

local beauty pageant winner. No other claim to notability. Article contains a lot of unrelated citations to prop it up. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 14:46, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 April 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:10, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable beuaty queen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:08, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ayu Diandra Sari Tjakra has been reviewed already by User:Amkgp a long time ago, so many wikipedian has been contributing to give a hands for the page. I don't know why you guys dont want to check first instead of report and report deletion. Plus this article page already cleaned from unrelated citations, like some citations that doesn't related with english was already being cleaned. So what else is wrong with this article page? each of the information and words are using Reliable sources mentioned, you can check by yourself if not believe me. Just spend some time to check though, if you want to check the references one by one, its already there. If you say she is an non-notable beauty queen, maybe you're not checking her biography very well, cause it's all mentioned there that she is an beauty queen that won Miss Friendship or Miss Congeniality on the 3rd oldest beauty pageant in the world, Miss International. She is the First Miss Bali that ever won the Puteri Indonesia pageant, beside she is also work as a doctor and she also has another wikipedia page in Bahasa Indonesia.I Nyoman Gede Anila (talk) 19:47, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Thebiv19 (talk) 20:01, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Thebiv19 (talk) 20:01, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:02, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 00:47, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 00:47, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 02:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:55, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete failed to meet notability guidelines. See WP:GNG--Richie Campbell (talk) 22:14, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep qualified to meet notability guidelines. She has won a major national beauty pageant (Puteri Indonesia), specifically Puteri Indonesia 2008. The Kapanlagi article, Bali Post Newspaper, and many References has minimally adequate depth, and the minor coverage on other sources is cumulatively adequate. The article is well sourced and not promotional. I have not found anything on wikipedia policy on pageants. My opinion is that the winner of a national pageant officially recognized by the country who have been recognized in non trivial RS articles should be included. I Nyoman Gede Anila (talk) 13:31, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ User:I Nyoman Gede Anila One line mentions are not enough to pass GNG. Notability is not inherited. SIGCOV required in RS. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 10:55, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) serial ^# 07:56, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Rogal[edit]

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

No indication of notability. The article itself states "Rogal has performed mostly in supporting roles". The roles include even unnamed characters, such as Hooker, Prostitute, Bartender, and Papergirl. Source #1 is fine. Sources #2 and #3 are interviews, so not RS. Sources #4, #5, and #6 are mentions. There isn't enough here to justify a WP article. Kbabej (talk) 16:01, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 16:03, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:04, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was able to find some newspaper coverage that she got in her home state of Pennsylvania. 1, 2 Not familiar with her work, so won't be voting for now. GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 17:04, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a bunch of supporting roles does not notability make.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: This is, in my opinion, a borderline case. The sources identified above help make an argument for WP:GNG. As for WP:NACTOR, the subject's role in the play, Muckrakers, is significant, yet all other roles are supporting, at best. Therefore, I think a "Weak Keep" is the best I can do in the circumstances. Dflaw4 (talk) 04:15, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:04, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 02:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She has acted in almost 20 films, so for me she is notable. TheImaCow (talk) 15:19, 9 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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:44, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Worship Leader (magazine)[edit]

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

Since the only references in the article are primary and I could find no in-depth secondary sources in a WP:BEFORE, this fails both GNG and NCORP notability standards. Adamant1 (talk) 04:03, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:59, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:59, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:59, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- The problem with this article is that its only source is related to the publisher. The question however is whether this is a notable publication. If it is, we ought to have an article on it, even if we only have sources connected with it. The issue here is in a sense the reverse of the BLP issue. There is no libel worry over using the connected source. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:15, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:09, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A topic may be significant for some reason, but if RIS can’t be found for it then by our definition it’s not notable. Mccapra (talk) 03:58, 16 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. bibliomaniac 1 5 02:14, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

American Catholic Church in the United States[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Procedural nomination on behalf of TimOliv who states: "This article was discussed in 2012. Since then, there are still no supporting sources to indicate that this particular church is notable according to Wikipedia standards. There were no sources then. They had nearly a decade to become notable. They have not. This is a very small group of 12-13 clergy members and, by all accounts, very few if any non-ordained clergy beyond this. There is simply no reason that this should be a standalone article and not a subset of some other independent catholic article." b uidhe 05:29, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:43, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:43, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:43, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Denominations are generally notable, in part because they often feature in the Handbook of Denominations in the United States and similar publications. The ACCUS is no exception. St Anselm (talk) 16:07, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And here is a second source. St Anselm (talk) 16:30, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Texas Monthly article isn't terrible, but the handbook notes they conduct primary research. News coverage on Newspapers.com is scant, in part because "American Catholic Church" is already a separate denomination - narrowed down I only get 35 hits, the best of which are about a Catholic priest who tried to defect. It would fail WP:NCORP but just might scrape by on WP:GNG. Not sure what standard to use here, so just commenting, but if nothing changes with regards to the available sources I lean delete. SportingFlyer T·C 19:46, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
comment - it's interesting that there are books out there that are based on "high quality content by Wikipedia articles" [62] guys we're famous !Grmike (talk) 22:19, 1 May 2020 (UTC)grmike[reply]
Keep: As User:StAnselm pointed out, there are several reliable sources that discuss the American Catholic Church in the United States. The subject thus satisfies WP:N and WP:RS. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 05:53, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. It was small 8 years ago and it's still small. There are thousands of Christian denominations. being one doesn't guarantee notability.Grmike (talk) 13:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)grmike[reply]
Keep as has reliable sources coverage as per the comments of St Anselm, also WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 17:37, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:09, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Still doesn't seem notable. Juno (talk) 23:02, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) SD0001 (talk) 16:55, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A group where we all pretend to be boomers[edit]

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

Insufficient notability. LibrarianDaemon (talk) 10:45, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:38, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:38, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Appears to have received enough coverage per the sources mentioned on article. lorstaking 15:48, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Keep, but only just. This is a weird one, because this group has been the subject of a bunch of news coverage. As much as I'm unenthused about the subject... the article only just appears to meet GNG. -- a ^{they/them | argue | contribs}
Keep - Mentioned by many, many, many, reliable sources like this one. Also, there really isn't any context in the nomination. 🌺Kori🌺 - (@) 17:48, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above Mr. Apollo (talk to me bebe) 01:52, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - although there are multiple instances of coverage, all of it is from a very short period in July 2019, with nothing since then (that I've seen, anyway). This is pretty indicative of something that went mildly viral for about a week, then vanished back into obscurity without much further interest. WP:N looks for more: it demands that subjects have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time (my bold). The coverage of this group fails that second criteria, as all of the coverage clearly comes from a single short period. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:12, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 May 8
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 01:25, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, coverage of this group was maintained for several months, such as here: [63] from late October 2019 by Deseret News, and here [64] from early December, published by Coconuts Media, and here:[65] by Wired (magazine), again from December, though the last one is rather brief. There is also tons of coverage from August 2019. I believe this showcases that this group received coverage over a period of time sufficient to pass WP:N. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - even though this topic didn't have much coverage after a few weeks, there still was some. KevTYD (talk) 11:44, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per at least a little bit of coverage later in the year. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 14:34, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I was the original author of this page, but I still feel that it meets notability guidelines, especially with some of the more recent sources for it, as noted by Naypta above, and with my recent edits, where I added a few more sources to the article. Seagull123 Φ 22:20, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. Would have been better in wikinews. --evrik ^(talk) 15:48, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of trans-Neptunian objects. Black Kite (talk) 14:31, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2000 YH2[edit]

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

Just your solar system object. All references are in the to-be-expected tables. No actual prose coverage. Was prodded by Nrco0e but contested so bringing this to AfD as I agree with them. Sam-2727 (talk) 02:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Sam-2727 (talk) 02:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - references are only geocoordinates. needs more informative sources.Grmike (talk) 05:29, 1 May 2020 (UTC)grmike[reply]
~~Keep~~ based purely on What We Do With These (apparently). A random sample of articles linked from List of trans-Neptunian objects came out as the following: (119070) 2001 KP77, (87269) 2000 OO67, (33001) 1997 CU29, 58534 Logos. I don't see how one can make the case that these are acceptable but the nominated article is not. Yes, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and all that, but I'm getting the impression that a) either some notability guideline for objects of this type is being ignored here, and then why is no reference made to that above?, or b) no such guideline exists and there's a tacit agreement that these objects are notable. In neither case does an AfD on the subject's individual merits seem like a suitable approach. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:50, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so I gather it's more of a case of a large amount of technically non-NASTRO-compliant articles muddying the waters? Sounds like a concerted discussion & decision at the project would be the way to go (rather than thrashing each out individually). If you are sure that all these comparison cases would be goners too, fair enough... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:03, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elmidae, I'll bring it up at WP:ASTRONOMY. Sam-2727 (talk) 16:16, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ per Elmidae. I think that the relevant SNG would be WP:NASTRO, and WP:MAPOUTCOMES indicates that articles like this don't always survive AfD. However, there are plenty of minor articles orbiting the Wikipedia globe that are stubbier and more poorly sourced than this one, and while this does feel a bit like saying OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I don't have a problem with retaining this article. I would be prepared to reconsider if someone feels motivated to demonstrate that this object clearly fails all the criteria at NASTRO. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC)strike vote, explanation below GirthSummit _(blether) 14:05, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Girth Summit:, here's the requested comprehensive review under NASTRO (there are really only four criteria)."The object is, or has been, visible to the naked eye." The object has an apparent magnitude of 22.8, and thus is not visible to the naked eye. "The object is listed in catalogues of interest to amateur astronomers...or a catalogue of high historical importance." This object isn't listed in astronomical catalogue of historical/amateur interest. "The object has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works." Although this is harder to "prove," a search on google scholar only returns trivial results (i.e. only in large tables and no significant mention in prose). "The object was discovered before 1850." It was discovered in 2000. Sam-2727 (talk) 20:24, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Elmidae: many of those articles seem to have been created around 2006-2007. A large majority are very likely not notable in of themselves and should have their own deletion discussions some time in the future. Sam-2727 (talk) 20:28, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sam-2727 Fair enough, you've done your homework and I can't counter anything you've said - I can't find any sources with significant prose content about this subject, just lots of tables of observations. I guess this is a NASTRO fail; I tend to agree with Elmidae that this might be better addressed by a wider discussion at the relecant wikiproject, since there are a lot of these minor articloids floating around (and I regularly see them in the NPP, people are still creating them). GirthSummit _(blether) 14:05, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to List of trans-Neptunian objects. Isn't that why we have lists like that? BD2412 T 21:47, 17 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. Redirect left to editorial discretion. MER-C 11:21, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Misbah Yasin-Iqbal[edit]

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

won a beauty pageant, for Pakistanis in Canada. No other claim to fame fails GNG MistyGraceWhite (talk) 11:18, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:19, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:19, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:20, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:21, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

She is the first winner of the only pageant for Pakistan. Due to the political and religious turmoil in Pakistan, there is no Miss Pakistan or Mrs. Pakistan. If you look at other beauty queens, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manpreet_Brar as well as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolina_G%C3%B3mez and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paula_Andrea_Betancur

There are tons of beauty queens on wikipedia. Fame does not only means movies and becoming actresses, they have contributed to participating in the worlds only pageant for pakistan that sends them to international pageants.

Salut65 (talk) 21:47, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable beauty queen. It is such articles on non-notable people that have nearly propelled us to 1 million biographies of living people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:07, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:18, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:11, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing any in-depth coverage. It's enough for her to have her name mentioned in Mrs. Pakistan World, no need for a subarticle. Fails GNG/NBIO in my view. As for other articles, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mrs. Pakistan World. The article fails GNG, as it is sourced entirely to passing mentions. However, as she is in a table at the main article there should be a redirect pointing there. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:46, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:37, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

William Hockey[edit]

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

His company is notable, but he does not inherit that notability. Fails GNG MistyGraceWhite (talk) 15:40, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:19, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:19, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you reviewing it! Thank you. Is there more content or substance I can add to change your thoughts on it? Plaid is an extremely critical company in the ecosystem, and having more transparency on the company and founders is really important. I think it would be very useful for the broader financial services community to know more about them and the companies background, given they are extremely private, quiet, and have stayed mostly out of the media. There are similar scaled founders like Patrick or John Collison who seem to have fairly thorough pages. Fintechmafia (talk) 16:45, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment no doubt that plaid is an important actor, but if you compare the his article with the collison's brothers one, it seems to me the two brothers have done notable work outside of the company they founded, while hockey is only notable for plaid. Epluribusunumyall (talk) 11:48, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:47, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clear lack of WP:BEFORE in the nom and the above drive by delete vote is not compelling and should bear no weight. While the coverage of the subject is in connection to the Plaid company, many of the articles about its buyout and founding focus on the subject's life story as well showing plenty of WP:SIGCOV to pass WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Some articles that show incredible depth include this CNBC article that goes into great detail about his life's work leading up to plaid, and this Forbes article discussing his work before the company. And this this Forbes India article which also shows great depth. Sulfurboy (talk) 15:13, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Sulfurboy if you read the sources, you will find that other than plaid, the so called their work before the company is actually nothing and is given 4-5 lines at most. All articles are about plaid, how it was created and how it works. It is common for these articles to give 4-5 lines to the founder/CEO, but nothing in depth. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 15:41, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

is it also common for the articles to focus on the founders more than the company itself ? the websites, prominent in business circles, have given Hockey a lot more attention than they need to.Grmike (talk) 06:09, 1 May 2020 (UTC)grmike[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:17, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Forward to Plaid (company) as he is not notable on his own. I always find it weird when there are articles like this, where the actual notable article it's releated to doesn't even mention what the spin off is about. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:19, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it doesn't matter how many companies they are receiving attention for just that they are receiving a lot of it. plaid, an important tech company, whether it moves forward without them or not will always give them attention because they are part of its history.Grmike (talk) 05:19, 1 May 2020 (UTC)grmike[reply]

You should really read through the notability guidelines for these things and learn them before voting. Instead of just voting keep on almost everything, based on personal opinions like your doing. It really isn't fair to or good for the AfD process. Let alone users who put their time into this. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:50, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

you mean like drive-by nominating like you did with dentsply sirona ? if this isn't good enough for you then you are not looking hard enough.Grmike (talk) 06:03, 1 May 2020 (UTC)grmikeGrmike (talk) 06:00, 1 May 2020 (UTC)grmike[reply]

comment according to Bloomberg William Hockey is now a billionaire. Just in time to show up on next year's The World's Billionaires list, likely as the youngest new addition.Grmike (talk) 06:35, 1 May 2020 (UTC)grmike[reply]

While not speaking to that particular source, people find different sources when doing a BEFORE sometimes. That's just life and how Google Search works. In no way does it equate to something being a drivr by AfD when it happens either. Nice deflection though. You sure told me. It sounds to me from your answer that your arbitrarly voting keep in AfDs I'm involved in as personal targeting for me doing an AfD that you disagreed with. Otherwise, I'm not sure how an AfD from a month ago is relevant. Or maybe it was just an extremely weak whataboutism that I'm reading to much into. I rather go with personal targeting, but which do you prefer? Are you targeting me or was it just an extremely weak response? --Adamant1 (talk) 06:38, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

no I am not after you, maybe you are being paranoid. Your nomination of Dentsply Sirona is the reason I started paying more attention to this section of Wikipedia. I did work on that article and know that it is definitely something worthy of its own article. For much of the last ten years it was part of the nasdaq100 composite index (100 largest non financial companies). That is the AfD that brought my attention to this part of Wikipedia and since then I have been nominating (and learning) at the same time. I'm still learning so bear with me. I apologize if I said anything wrong.Grmike (talk) 06:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)grmike[reply]

also want to say that if I nominate keep on article that should go an administrator will likely ignore my comment since they review the comment for merit before tallying the final result.Grmike (talk) 06:51, 1 May 2020 (UTC)grmike[reply]

That makes sense. Most of us, including me, are still learning. So no worries. There's a lot to learn. I appreciate the apology though. Civility like that is a rare thing around here. I'm not paranoid. I was just asking. I have a few people that follow me around and do crap because of past issues I've had with them. That's just the reality of Wikipedia unfortunately. At least the article about the dentist wasn't deleted. AfDs aren't suppose to be cleanup, but I still semi-consider them a success if it leads to the article being improved. I'm not much permanent badly sourced stubs. On the voting, I think it really depends on the admin. They don't think they are obligated to do a good review of everyones reasoning and sometimes they don't. So its important to put thought into your vote before making it. Maybe it balances out though. Who knows, but I have seen some AfDs go ways IMO that they shouldn't have based on the votes and peoples reasons for giving them. A lot of people have agendas to. Especially with certain article categories. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge doesn't have any notability outside of the one company may be WP:Toosoon, also worth noting that original creator has a conflict of interests as he disclosed when creating it. Epluribusunumyall (talk) 11:48, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment - q: is bilionaire status enough to get someone their own page ? ie Jason Chang Grmike (talk) 14:51, 1 May 2020 (UTC)grmike[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:11, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 04:39, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sayantani Guhathakurta[edit]

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

The actress is not known for being in mainstream Indian cinema. The most of the content is a direct rip off from another language Wikipedia i.e., Bengali. More than that, the same person is editing both the wiki pages. Hatchens (talk) 15:42, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 15:42, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 15:42, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Contrary to the nom, translating articles from other language Wikipedias is allowed, as long as proper attribution is given. See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Translating from other language Wikimedia projects. Nor is it wrong for one editor to edit articles about the same subject on both the English Wikipedia and another language Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:06, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:17, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:18, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:18, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Being in the mainstream is not the criteria we need to meet, being notable is. A quick search of Google news finds enough to think that notability may be there. As to "a direct rip off from another language Wikipedia", users are encouraged to translate articles from other Wikipedias. I've done so myself. That's not even close to a deletion reason.----Fabrictramp | talk to me 04:18, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: The subject seems to have enough supporting roles in films to scrape through under WP:NACTOR. She also seems to be getting a lot of media attention, although most of it seems to be coming from the only-sometimes-reliable Times of India. But, given the volume of coverage, I don't think WP:GNG is necessarily failed in this instance. I'd be happy to let the article stand, especially as the subject's notability seems to be on an upward trajectory. Dflaw4 (talk) 11:34, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:08, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Played in over 15 movies, which is notable for me. TheImaCow (talk) 15:23, 9 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:32, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jet Set Racing[edit]

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

Did not find any sources about this game, leading me to believe this fails notability. GamerPro64 00:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. GamerPro64 00:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. I was unable to find any reliable sources. Metacritic has zero reviews, and the only hit with WP:VG/RS's custom search is a one sentence mention. A general search turned up nothing. -- ferret (talk) 00:54, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:48, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete It's a spin-off of a notable franchise ... but that's about it. This particular title fell off the map. (Like so many games for non-smart phones.) Of particular interest is this interview with franchise-owner Matthew Smith where he doesn't seem to even understand that it's a kart-racer and not a remake of an earlier game in the franchise! Even he seems to know nothing about it besides the fact that it existed! This article can live on as a one-line trivia item in the Miner Willy article. ApLundell (talk) 05:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was unable to find anything about this game, literally nothing despite tweaking my searches with developers and mobile plaftorm terms. It fails WP:GNG for the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:11, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There’s nothing in this article that isn’t covered or couldn’t be covered on existing pages. Dronebogus (talk) 14:25, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced and non-notable. IceWelder [✉] 16:16, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article brutally fails WP:GNG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 03:14, 12 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.