Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 May 26

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 25 May	27 May >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. BD2412 T 04:16, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alessandro Famularo[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG, coverage is routine and not clearly independent. Does not appear to meet WP:NMOTORSPORT as far as I can tell as it doesn't seem like F4 Championships qualify, although I'm open to being told otherwise other editors more familiar with motorsports. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:58, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:58, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:58, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet either GNG or motorsports notability. Plus we need much better sourcing to justify having an article on a 16-year-old.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:04, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alessandro Famularo is a professional racing driver, driving in a well-established junior category. I understand the information on his page is limited however Wikipedia is about adding and evolving existing pages. Famularo is a wealthy driver, driving for a top team (VAR) in the junior category meaning he will at least stay at this category if not move up to something with more prestige such as FIA F3. In turn, deleting this page is pointless as it will just have to be recreated at some point in the near future with the exact same content as it already has on it. My aim is to create a wiki page for every driver in the junior categorys: FIA F3, Formula Regional, Formula Renault Eurocup and Euroformula. _signed,User:Motorsporteditor 19:46, 27 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Motorsporteditor (talk • contribs)

Motorsporteditor, are junior categories fully professional series? _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rosguill, Never said they were however professional racing teams sign drivers who have FIA sanctioned super license points. There is no black or white answer or guide to what makes a driver "professional" however someone with any amount of super license points is very much on their way to be considered a professional. Van Amersfoort Racing are the team Famularo is racing for and they, along with teams such as Prema and DAMS are one of the, if not the, most well established junior teams. How is Famularo up for deletion when pages such as Arthur Leclerc isn't. I dont want either deleted.Motorsporteditor (talk

It's up for deletion because I came across it in the new pages feed. As for other pages, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If it's not a fully professional series, then athletes that have only competed in it (or lower level series) fall short of our community-approved notability guideline for the sport, WP:NMOTORSPORT. This doesn't mean that we can't have articles about them, but it does mean that they will be expected to meet WP:GNG, which does not appear to be the case for Famularo. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and the discussion right above this !vote. Java Hurricane 10:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with Rosguill , subject does not meet WP:GNG. Nika2020 (talk) 16:39, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject does not meet any of the criteria demanded by WP:NMOTORSPORT. Fails even WP:GNG. -The Gnome (talk) 19:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:42, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jamil Abiad[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBASKETBALL _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:52, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:52, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:52, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:52, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. Celestina007 (talk) 01:10, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable basketball coach.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:27, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG and ANYBIO. Java Hurricane 10:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NBASKETBALL. Seeing User_talk:Arabsvegan#Help_me!, this seems to be a clear instance of WP:AUTO. userdude 10:56, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable basketball player. Some minor high school basketball awards in Quebec are not enough to show notability. Definitely has COI issues, probably WP:AUTO, with things like "If his shoulders are square and his feet are set, it's going in" or "sharp-shooting guard" or "watch all the running he does off the ball, that's just as worthy of appreciation". Fails both WP:NHOOPS and WP:GNG with coverage being routine sports reporting. Papaursa (talk) 00:01, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn’t meet WP:NHOOPS and doesn’t meet WP:GNG that I can see either. Rikster2 (talk) 14:43, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NBASKETBALL, possible autobio. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 21:40, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG (BeamAlexander25) ~ 13:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails both WP:NBASKETBALL and WP:GNG. Why is this text still up? Because it was created by a kamikaze account that has now been indefinitely blocked and those type of texts were allowed until recently to fly under the radar. -The Gnome (talk) 19:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. From the discussion this content does not appear merge worthy and is already covered in the proposed target. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:08, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Invasion[edit]

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

WP:N. Unofficial term not covered by a wide range of sources. Term is used by only two articles: one from 2011, another from 2017. They do not cover the broad range of the decade. Most of the article goes outside the scope of Canadian influence on American music, and is instead just a list of commercial accolades achieved by three artists. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 23:13, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:32, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not broadly used enough to show it is an actual widely used term meriting an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:05, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Music of Canada. The term is still notable but there is no need of a separate article. D4iNa4 (talk) 15:15, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Invasion of Canada, a disambiguation page. TheAwesome Hwyh 18:10, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Music of Canada, where there already is a section by the same name. Retargeting to Invasion of Canada would not be appropriate because the latter is a disambiguation page, and because it lists invasions into Canada rather than efforts by Canadians to export internationally. PK T(alk) 12:52, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: How would this be merged into Music of Canada, without giving undue weight? Exactly what would be cut from the article? -- Zanimum (talk) 01:46, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete outright. The subject has never gained significant notability - and not just in the strict terms demanded by Wikipedia but in any sense of the term in everyday life. The whole thing smells strongly of dedicated personal work - which, of course, is still personal work. -The Gnome (talk) 19:34, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:09, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mercer Quality of Living Survey[edit]

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

This article relies on a single source which is not independent of the subject. I couldn't find any sources that are independent of the subject. I suggest if this article is not deleted, that it be merged into Most livable cities. Interstellarity (talk) 00:10, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Interstellarity (talk) 00:10, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it was previously discussed at AfD and the result was delete. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussions: 2007-04 ✗ delete

Logs: 2007-04 ✗ deleted

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:53, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is nothing more than a collection of photographs of cities (!) thrown together to support a text about the supposed notability of some quality ranking system of them. It's a pathetic attempt at article creation, with references that amount to practically nothing. Self-references won't do. -The Gnome (talk) 19:41, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vinayagapuram Maha Vidyalayam[edit]

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

Fails the requirements of WP:NSCHOOL, lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources. Dan arndt (talk) 04:15, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 04:15, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 04:15, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 06:06, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it was previously discussed at AfD and the result was soft delete. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussions: 2020-04 ✗ soft delete

Logs: 2020-04 ✗ deleted, 2020-03 ✗ PROD

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

Delete per nominator cannot find anything about the Golden jubilee book,KM/TK/Vinayagapuram maha vidyalayam source anywhere other then Wikipedia mirrors and the only other source is not a independent source 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 11:01, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep a high school with 1000 pupils would normally be included but independent refs are needed, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:38, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we need indepedent references. Size alone does not make a place notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:54, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough coverage with reliable independent sources. Nika2020 (talk) 16:40, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:NSCHOOL. -The Gnome (talk) 20:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PBS Velká Bíteš[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. References are mere mentions, or are not from independent sources, or are about the company's products rather than the company itself, or are about the parent company. The article comes across as a business directory listing rather than an encyclopedia article, and it has excess detail about the engines. Lastly, the article fails to make any claim to notability. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:10, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:10, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:51, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:19, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:12, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zordon[edit]

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

Article is mostly plot and there is nothing notable about this character, similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashley Hammond and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aisha Campbell The Legendary Ranger (talk) 13:31, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 May 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:49, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 18:54, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete there is a total lack of 3rd-arty sources showing in depth coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'm surprised that the nomination doesn't acknowledge the 2016 Entertainment Weekly article and the 2017 Entertainment Tonight coverage currently cited in the article. This is independent, third-party coverage that is specifically about this character. The EW article is called "Power Rangers movie: Bryan Cranston teases Zordon character details", which implies that the magazine considers Zordon to be well-known enough that a casual reader would recognize the name in the headline. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:59, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Power Rangers, the sources provided by Toughpigs are nothing more than passing mentions, being mostly focused around the actor with a few sentence-long in-universe mentions. The other secondary sources in this article are the same, passing mentions of the character in an article mostly devoted to other things. As a result this subject fails GNG. It also fails WP:PLOT, since it is written from an entirely in-universe point of view, meaning there is nothing to merge. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:38, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to a list of PR characters or such. The EW coverage Touhpigs mentions is sadly rather short on the character itself, and really, all it allows us to say is that Zordon was played by this actor in a movie. This is not enough, and the articles by no means contain any in-depth analysis of the film version of the character. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:14, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable per the following sources:

Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Power Rangers#Premise as non-notable. I still don't see WP:SIGCOV - in the sources given as examples, the character is largely mentioned in passing in the context of something else._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:31, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:SIGCOV, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." The sources definitely did not mention Zordon trivially. There are numerous real-world characteristics ascribed to the figure. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The snippets that I can see from Kinderculture: The Corporate Construction Of Childhood are obviously not passing mentions. The snippet from page 124 says:

"...reacts to Zordon's instructions with an unquestioning acceptance of presumably life-threatening missions. It's the perfect image of melting-pot consensus leading to coordinated action on behalf of social justice and the "American way of life". The extraterrestrial nature of Zordon, who is often revealed as a computer-generated image..."

This is an academic book discussing the impact of corporate values on American children, and for at least a couple of pages it talks specifically about how the character of Zordon is constructed in order to further those corporate aims. It is not an episode guide or a plot rehash; it discusses the nature of Zordon as a symbolic representation. I believe that the SIGCOV concerns are easily met. — Toughpigs (talk) 19:13, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SIGCOV. To me, the sources provided are more than trivial, and do establish notability for the character. Rhino131 (talk) 14:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:13, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Margot Knight[edit]

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

A non notable soap actor. WP:BEFORE shows no evidence of secondary coverage. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 21:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 21:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 21:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 21:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 21:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable soap opera actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:08, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It seems that the subject is more of a stage actress than a TV actress (for e.g., https://www.heraldsun.com.au/leader/south-east/hit-show-wicked-widows-at-frankston-arts-centre/news-story/a91f2087d30792c18db4ddcc091fbc31). I will withhold my vote while I get some articles clipped from newspapers.com. Dflaw4 (talk) 15:11, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:22, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see a few passing mentions via my Newspapers.com membership, but nothing, unfortunately, that indicates persistent or in-depth coverage of the kind required to fulfill the requirements of WP:GNG. serial ^# 23:40, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Here are some sources from Australian newspapers: here, here and here. Dflaw4 (talk) 12:47, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: I think there's enough here to justify the article—enough roles to pass WP:NACTOR and a weak case can be made for WP:GNG, too. Dflaw4 (talk) 12:11, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we have comment on the linked sources please?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:16, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - to confirm, I still don’t believe the subject is notable based on the additional clippings. All three newspaper articles come from the same source and are passing mentions of the subject’s local theatre work. Even if this would indicate notability, it doesn’t help verify the current article so a case for deletion could be made under WP:TNT. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:30, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cardiffbear88, The Age is one of Australia's main newspapers; it's not a small or local publication. And the coverage is more than just passing mentions, especially the first article (the latter two are less in-depth). Dflaw4 (talk) 04:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Significant coverage in reliable sources (The Age). Given that she was most active in the 1980s it's reasonable to assume that even more coverage exists offline. pburka (talk) 19:13, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have to agree with Pburka that the coverage is significant and likely to be a mere subset of what is available offline. Deus et lex (talk) 03:37, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Boet Fighter[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:GNG A a s i m 17:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. A a s i m 17:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just double checked and still fails WP:GNG, see this search page. A a s i m 17:25, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are a decent amount of reviews for the game. Seems like it is fairly popular considering it's from South Africa. Wouldn't be surprised if there more that's not popping up for me. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Bluedude588 (talk) 00:50, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Most of these are not reliable sources. TheDeviantPro (talk) 01:37, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per nom. Article lacks reliable sources to establish notability. TheDeviantPro (talk) 01:37, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Extensive coverage in reliable sources ([1],[2],[3],[4],[5],[6], etc.). To coin a phrase^^^ Most of these are reliable sources ——Serial^# 12:16, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Critical Hit is explicitly listed as unreliable at VGRS. SACoronavirus doesn't have an obvious indicator of editorial oversight. South African might be reasonably reliable given their commitment to local editorial practices. IOL has no obvious oversight but looks reasonably reliable given the sources under the hood. Cape Town looks local. --Izno (talk) 21:46, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty meh for me. Not enthused by the quality of the sources offered. --Izno (talk) 21:46, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:09, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 100 Steam reviews suggests its pretty minor even before I look to see where the game's been reviewed, and the article is pretty atrociously formatted/sourced as it stands. --Prosperosity (talk) 11:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:15, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Carrie Welling[edit]

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

Subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them and doesn’t satisfy WP:MUSICBIO. Celestina007 (talk) 21:54, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:54, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:54, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:54, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable singer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:35, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the article creator has posted this message on the talk page of this AfD: "I'd like to recommend against deletion of Ms. Welling's page. She is an up and coming artist who is making inroads in the Nashville scene and was scheduled to tour with Delta Rae prior to the COVID 19 outbreak. I have made some changes to the page in an attempt to make it compliant with at least one of the rules for performers. If at all possible I'd like for Wiki to show some leeway if at all possible." I pointed out to the article creator on their talk page that being an opening act for Delta Rae, even if the tour had gone ahead, does not make Ms. Welling automatically notable. Richard3120 (talk) 22:01, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The user referenced above is not the article creator. bellminer (talk) 03:50, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The subject of the article meets the criterion for notability as per WP:MUSICBIO: "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself." This includes American Songwriter, CBS New York, and an article that is currently a Forbes Editor's Pick. I believe the way forward is to improve, not delete. cc: Wikipedia:WikiProject Women, Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians. bellminer (talk) 03:50, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — It should be noted that the editor above is the article creator.Celestina007 (talk) 02:33, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: as per bellminer point above, sources are reliable to meet WP:MUSICBIO Sweetteaplz (talk) 23:33, 22 May 2020 (UTC) checkuser blocked sock Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC) *Keep: The article in Forbes is a notable source meeting the criteria as per WP:MUSICBIO. Move forward to improve not delete. Teach1983 (talk) 07:42, 24 May 2020 (UTC) onky edit. Obvious votestack and now blocked. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs a little more input from experienced users. Socks need not apply.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Not an outright delete because the American Songwriter article is solid and with just one more of that type it would elevate this out of a TOOSOON designation. The rest of the sources, though, are...meh. CBS New York is about her former band so its good info for this article but not great to prove individual notability. Forbes article isn't about her. ION Indie is essentially a promotional platform. Edible Nashville and Now Playing Nashville are, in all due respect, minor and insignificant. Otherwise, I could find no other evidence of coverage. ShelbyMarion (talk) 01:25, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:15, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Caitlin Brunell[edit]

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

~~Nothing in RS except simple news reports of her winning a beauty pageant. Fails GNG. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 23:34, 18 May 2020 (UTC)~~ struck confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:28, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable winner of a copetition as a teenager.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:34, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:12, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:12, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:58, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator was blocked as a sockpuppet, however I am leaving the nomination open because it has some merit. MER-C 17:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
weak Keep - sources gives merits correct. WP:GNG applies. drive-by !vote for Delete above gives no rationale what so ever.BabbaQ (talk) 22:53, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a winner of a major beauty pageant that has multiple independent sources shows notability. --11:26, 2 June 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 keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:16, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra Hoffman[edit]

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

~~non notable athlete etc. Fails GNG MistyGraceWhite (talk) 23:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC)~~ striking confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable beauty queen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:15, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:ANYBIO She is the first Miss South Dakota Teen USA to win a Miss America state title. And top 15 finish nationally. Wm335td (talk) 16:27, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~:@User:Wm335td State Level winners are not notable if that is the only claim to fame. Top 15 is non notable in anything. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 17:19, 26 May 2020 (UTC)~~ striking sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:58, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator was blocked as a sockpuppet, however I am leaving the nomination open because it has some merit. MER-C 17:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:ANYBIO. And WP:GNG. Good sourcing.BabbaQ (talk) 18:05, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Future Nostalgia. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:21, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Levitating (song)[edit]

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

Article fails WP:NSONGS, all sources are from album reviews of Future Nostalgia therefore it should be redirected to Future Nostalgia. Cool Marc ✉ 15:25, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose — Yes, most of the article's sources come from reviews of Future Nostalgia, but the reason I created this article is one, it has charted on multiple charts that cannot be completely added to discography tables and two, Future Nostalgia reviews gave a lot of information about a song's production and it's reception from critics, that cannot be completely added to Future Nostalgia sections. Overall, I think there is sufficient information for a complete article. Plus, it has a big enough background being the first song recorded for Future Nostalgia. LOVI 33 16:55, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
LOVI33, per WP:NSONGS charting indicates only that a song may be notable, not that it is notable There is no coverage outside of album reviews and interviews about the album. Cool Marc ✉ 17:25, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at Phoenix (Rita Ora album), it is possible to include this content in the parent album page. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 14:41, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – changed stance per above and below. LOVI 33 00:42, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Merge, I'm fed up of seeing articles about individual songs from albums that have charted but have not received coverage independent of the album. Notability is not inherited just because the album received extensive coverage. There is plenty of space/possibility for the content to be included in the songs section of Future Nostalgia and other charted songs could be listed in the discography or "other charted songs section". → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 18:19, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG. I'm fine with this amount of coverage and with Wikipedia having an entry for this song. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:38, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:26, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - song chartued and has enough sourced information for a standalone article. Merging with the album would place undue weight on this song relative to the others on the album. Rlendog (talk) 19:49, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Future Nostalgia: Per Lil-unique1. It's not necessary for every song in the album to have its own article. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 03:36, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This song Charted and there is RS. Meets our Music SNG. Wm335td (talk) 16:24, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Y
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:49, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the song charted in eight separate national charts.Jessicahelen (talk) 11:25, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to parent album, per nominator. Having charted in eight coutries does not grant any song notabilty. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 23:01, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Future Nostalgia. Chart performance is only one sign that a song may be notable, but the best indication is whether or not it has received a significant amount from third-party, reliable sources. From my understanding, it appears like this song has primarily received coverage in album reviews, and I am uncertain if that meets the significant coverage requirement. Aoba47 (talk) 02:38, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - deleting a top 40 song article because of how the reviewers decided to address the song seems like an awful precedent. --Prosperosity (talk) 11:34, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Prosperosity, a top 40 song where? On a component download chart in Hungary? Cool Marc ✉ 14:00, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't Single Top 40 the main chart of Hungary? What's it a component of? --Prosperosity (talk) 22:22, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prosperosity, Hungary does not have a main chart, it has separate airplay, streaming and download charts. Per the IFPI 2019 report, downloads make up only 7% of the music market and streaming makes up 54%. Regardless, per WP:NSONG a song charting does not make it automatically notable. Cool Marc ✉ 07:02, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well no, it also needs to have enough content to warrant an article (which it has). --Prosperosity (talk) 07:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Patriot Scientific Corporation[edit]

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

Cannot find any evidence that this passes WP:NCORP notability requirements. Only sources I can find are press releases which are primary sources and do not establish notability. Rusf10 (talk) 20:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 20:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 20:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 20:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 20:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NCORP. I only see press releases as sources. Shashank5988 (talk) 15:44, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. BD2412 T 04:19, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriella Demetriades[edit]

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

This actress and model has no established any notability. All of the sources are gossip websites. She has starred in films in three films in minor roles (one of which is an item number). TamilMirchi (talk) 20:11, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 20:11, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 20:11, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 20:11, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 20:11, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actress and model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:27, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a reliable source in sight. Trillfendi (talk) 01:15, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 17:34, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to be a case of WP:TOOSOON at this stage with the main reliable sources coverage related to her husband and only minor film roles so far, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non notable actress. Also a case of WP:TOOSOON. Most articles are related to her spouse. Arunram (talk) 08:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:SNOW - Clear case of WP:BLP1E. If the event becomes notable beyond just this one news story, then this should be revisited. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:28, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Cooper[edit]

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

Although there are sources for this person and the event that they were involved in recently, I don't believe this person is notable enough for an article about them. It also appears to me to be a problem with "People notable for only one event", and "Wikipedia is not a newspaper". Especially note (at WP:BLP1E): We generally should avoid having an article on a person ... If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event ... If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Seagull123 Φ 19:54, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Seagull123 Φ 19:54, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Seagull123 Φ 19:54, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Seagull123 Φ 19:54, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Seagull123 Φ 19:54, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Seagull123 Φ 19:54, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No notability. --John B123 (talk) 20:01, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clear cut case of BLP1E. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 22:00, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The policies of the site and behavior of the dominant culture don't support the merit of an Amy Cooper Wikipedia page based on lack of notability. This site doesn't include dedicated pages for more notable assailants that also leveraged systemic or cultural racism as blunt instruments like Carolyn Bryant. Amy Cooper's incident is inline with the status quo. The article should be reframed to call out the time and place has the headline for cultural significance. Hewston Astro (talk) 22:00, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BLP1E. If her actions and their aftermath get continuing coverage, there could be redirect from her name to an article about the event. HouseOfChange (talk) 22:30, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Georg Hartmann of Liechtenstein[edit]

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

No credible claim of notability. DrKay (talk) 19:18, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:44, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. The coverage often depends more on the coverage of Franz Joseph II, Prince of Liechtenstein. Ashishkafle (talk) 04:23, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability evident. Anything here could be easily found in the Almanach de Gotha or various websites. - dwc lr (talk) 10:23, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:51, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey J. Reuer[edit]

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

Not notable as a perfessor, reads like a resume. No sources that are independent of the topic. Ibn Daud (talk) 17:16, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:42, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per #5 of WP:NACADEMIC. He is the Guggenheim Endowed Chair at CU-Boulder's Leeds School of Business. You are right though that the article reads like a resume, but AfD isn't for cleanup. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 19:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:01, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, possibly snow. He appears to pass WP:NPROF C5 several times over, and his citation record looks like an easy pass of WP:NPROF C1. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:40, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF#C1 and #C5. Possibly also #C3 if Fellow of the Strategic Management Society is sufficiently selective. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:57, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: in addition to WP:PROF, also most likely meets WP:AUTHOR, with multiple books published by academic and university presses: Worldcat Identities. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:17, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:Prof.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:40, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A combination of his endowed chair and his highly cited research satisfy WP:Prof. The article could do with some improvement though Pi (Talk to me!) 05:01, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The number of citations indicates that he clearly meets WP:NPROF#C1. He also appears to meet criteria #5 of the same guidelines. Papaursa (talk) 00:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

House 2 Home Network[edit]

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

fails WP:NCORP. Non-notable local organization Graywalls (talk) 17:26, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Priya Bhat-Patel[edit]

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

Council member of a small American city, and "currently running for the California State Senate". Typical local coverage. I was unable to find any significant biographical details in secondary sources. Too soon per WP:POLOUTCOMES. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:44, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:44, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:44, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Being the first Indian-American woman to be elected to a city council in San Diego is certainly significant, and I think she gets past GNG, with multiple reliable sources in the article currently that have significant coverage about her. Not meeting WP:NPOL doesn't guarantee that she's not notable, it only means she's not automatically notable. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 16:56, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- To be precise, she's not the first woman elected to a city council in San Diego. She's the first Indian-American woman elected to a city council in San Diego County, California, specifically in the city of Carlsbad. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:07, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Forgive me, I meant to include "Indian-American", and forgot to - I've updated the comment. That being said, San Diego County is a very large place, and that's still a significant achievement in my view. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 17:40, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KeepPer the references in the page, there are secondary sources and media coverage which would meet the requirements of notability. I'd like to also add that not only is Priya notable for her role as being the first Indian-American women elected in the county of San Diego, Priya is the Council member for Carlsbad which is one of the largest cities in San Diego County. These two reasons I feel make her a notable person. Spacemars88 (talk) 18:21, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep According to the deletion guide for Local politicians, they "are not inherently notable just for being in politics, but neither are they inherently non-notable just because they are in local politics. Each case is evaluated on its own individual merits." Being the first Indian American person to be elected to city council in San Diego County is an incredible achievement given that this county is a population of 3.338 million people^[1]. It makes it California's second-most populous county and the fifth-most populous in the entire United States. Additionally, she was voted the Deputy Mayor of Carlsbad in 2019, meaning on occasion she would preside as the acting mayor in cases when the Mayor would not be able to be present. This additional rank must be seen as another achievement adding to her notability. Bhat-Patel, being evaluated on her own merits and given the multiple sources and news articles featuring her, including one by the national organization, Run for Something^[2] leads me to believe that she most certainly meets the standards of notability. I appreciate that the subjective nature of notability pushes some to vote in the negative, but in this particular case, I would be astonished to see the page deleted. Thank you. Kyotobali —Preceding undated comment added 17:43, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This takes first x to do y to a new extreme. In this case we are going down to the county level to see the first, that is an invitation to madness.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:27, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In what way does she not meet GNG, irrespective of how you might feel about "first x to do y" articles? Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 19:29, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the fact that she is the first Indian American women to get elected in a regional area (which is one of the largest in the United States) is a big deal. Spacemars88 (talk) 22:23, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It would be a big deal if it had made her the first Indian American woman to get elected in the entire United States. But since every town, city or county on earth is always going to have several of its own local "first [woman, person of colour, LGBTQ, person who's more than one of those things at once, etc.] to do this not nationally significant thing around here", thus adding up to tens or even hundreds of thousands of such people, that's not a thing that gets all of them into Wikipedia. A person has to be able to claim that their "first X" status has national significance, not just local significance within their own hometown, before it becomes a valid reason for a Wikipedia article. Bearcat (talk) 23:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unaware of any policy that requires national significance - regional significance, yes, but not national. National significance is a fundamentally meaningless bar, and I'm strongly opposed to limiting Wikipedia articles to only what's picked up on in national press - not least because countries and borders change, and what was a region one day might be a nation the next! I'm minded to think we should examine articles on their merits, not based solely on where coverage about them has been published. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 11:19, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Surprisingly (as I think I've heard of her and started out thinking I would vote Keep) I couldn't find any actual WP:SIGCOV of her. Simply quotes from her, reports on which way she voted on a certain issue (where the issue, not her vote, is the focus of the story) and so-forth. The coverage is all incidental mentions in local papers. FOARP (talk) 20:58, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: flipping to neutral. I'm still not sure that this is a notable subject (I think maybe you can argue either way based on WP:BASIC or WP:NPOL as she meets the first but fails the second) but WP:AUD doesn't apply to WP:BLP articles so I'm not going to hold the fact that the coverage only appears to have been local against this article.FOARP (talk) 10:57, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These two at a very minimum meet SIGCOV for sure - the second article is entirely about her :p Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 21:20, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think both of these possibly fail WP:AUD, and the first ref is a listicle - possibly indiscriminate listing. FOARP (talk) 06:23, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Both of them are San Diego-wide - bearing in mind that the county of San Diego has a comparable surface area to Qatar, and a greater population than Qatar, Lithuania or Jamaica - and I don't think it's fair to call the first "indiscriminate listing", either - the list is accompanied by a pretty substantial collection of paragraphs about her. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 09:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As it happens, I actually agree with you that WP:AUD makes little sense since "local" media (e.g., the New York Post) can often cover a much larger audience than "national" media (e.g., the Malta Times). I even raised an RFC pointing this out - but the vote went firmly for keeping it as-is. It would be fair to point out that WP:AUD is a WP:CORP guideline, not a WP:BIO guideline, though. Switching my vote! to neutral. FOARP (talk) 10:57, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "First member of an underrepresented equity group to do a not inherently notable thing" is not in and of itself a reason why somebody gets a Wikipedia article — so being the first woman of her ethnic background to be elected to a city council in her own county, but not even close to the first in the entire United States, is not a strong notability claim. And GNG is not, and has never been, a question of just counting up the footnotes and automatically keeping anybody who can surpass an arbitrary number of them, either — every city councillor in every city on earth can always show 12 pieces of coverage in their local media, so that's not enough coverage to claim that this one has earned special treatment. GNG tests the sources for their depth, their geographic range and the context of what they're covering the person for, not just the raw number of footnotes — a city councillor in a non-metropolitan city has to show nationalizing coverage, not just local coverage, before she's "special" enough to earn more attention in Wikipedia than other city councillors. Bearcat (talk) 23:02, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again, San Diego County is one of the largest metropolitan areas in the United States. Being the first member of an underrepresented community is in fact a big deal. Again this was reported by a third party here which again makes clear this importance and meets WP:SIGCOV. Spacemars88 (talk) 03:56, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"First person of one particular background to do an ordinarily notable thing in [one of the largest metropolitan areas in] the United States" still is not an article-clinching notability claim. I'll give you a hint: to make it an article-clinching notability claim, you would have to strike everything I wrapped in brackets, and what's left (first person to do that thing in the entire United States) would still have to be true. Bearcat (talk) 20:46, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I pointed out above, San Diego County is comparable in size and population to a lot of small countries, and this is county-wide press. Unless we're arguing that covering those countries is regionalism, I don't see how this is. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 09:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The notability test is not whether the area is "comparable" to a country or not. Our notability standards for politicians have nothing to do with how many voters are served by the political body that the person sits on — they require nationalized significance period, and don't care about the population of said nation or component parts of it per se. Bearcat (talk) 20:46, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Carlsbad is not a large enough city to get its councilpeople over the WP:NPOL threshold (which requires a showing of more than just "this person served on a local council"), and this also fails WP:PROMO as US campaign spam - it's written incredibly promotionally. SportingFlyer T·C 06:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not meeting WP:NPOL isn't a guarantee that someone lacks notability; rather, it's saying that they aren't automatically notable by virtue of their political status. A local councilperson in Carlsbad is not automatically notable, this is true, but one can be so long as they pass WP:GNG - which I'm yet to see anyone successfully argue that Bhat-Patel doesn't. As to the way it's written... well, WP:SOFIXIT. I don't think it's TNTably bad. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 08:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, it means that they're not presumptively notable. We also have a general local consensus that councilpersons who receive only local coverage are not notable, and that persons who are unelected candidates for political office are not notable, unless their campaign has achieved some level of notability above and beyond what is usual, since most unelected candidates sink back into obscurity after an election. There is no coverage in the article that's not routine Carlsbad city council coverage, and there's certainly nothing showing that she's notable through receiving coverage above and beyond what any city councillor would receive - if we assumed this level of coverage, all city councillors everywhere would be notable. Furthermore, the creation, timing, and content of this article clearly seems to violate WP:NOT, which trumps WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 19:27, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a slight absurdity to be discussing the timing of the creation of an article in an AfD, I have to say - we're talking about content here, not about anything to the periphery of that. I also don't follow how San Diego county-wide press, which - again, as mentioned further up the discussion - is of comparable or greater size than a fair few entire countries, can be regarded as "routine local coverage". If it was city press, I'd agree, but across an area that wide, it's significant and notable, in my view. Maybe this is skewed by being a Brit and thus not really knowing what counts as "local" in America, but that does not strike me as "local" press in any sense of the word. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 19:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's absurd at all - every couple years, we get articles for candidates who are running for US office but who aren't otherwise notable. This one raised my eyebrows for including op-eds and a few statements from her own personal website. Furthermore, a councillor for a local council who gets discussed in a London publication wouldn't necessarily be notable either, even though London is four times the size of the San Diego county - otherwise all councillors who received routine press coverage in London would be notable, and that's typically not how we've decided things. SportingFlyer T·C 20:46, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The county is 7.5x bigger in terms of area when compared to London, but using the example of London, I wouldn't be supporting keeping an article that has sources only from my London borough. If, however, the article was sourced by such publications as the London Evening Standard and the London Metro, then I would be in favour of keeping it - because that's significant coverage over a much broader region, covering plenty of people who'd never have heard of the councillor, much less voted for them.
I suppose thinking about it further, the test I'd sort of end up applying is "is this something I'd think 'oh, them appearing again' about?" - and here, it isn't, much like hearing about a local councillor in the Evening Standard wouldn't be. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 20:51, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that standard is anywhere close to met, though - the coverage on her is pretty specifically limited to her own council. The coverage she's received would be analogous to if the Evening Telegraph had local reporters covering each council. SportingFlyer T·C 17:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to highlight that the notability here has nothing to do with her being a council member hence WP:NPOL does not apply. Her notability comes from the fact that she is the first Indian American women to be elected to a political office in the county of San Diego, which again is a very major metropolitan region of the United States. I would think that being the first Indian American women to be elected in a region which is larger then many countries (which has been mentioned by others) is a big deal, just like if she were to be the first African American women, or LGBT women elected. Spacemars88 (talk) 05:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The problem there: Wikipedia notability is based on what others have said about you. The only source which discusses her being the first is the San Diego Magazine, which is a blurb amongst 15 other women which includes the first female advanced sommelier in San Diego and first person to surpass 167mph on a bicycle, none of which would lend notability on her own. None of the routine city council coverage discuss her as the first, and only one of the articles even notes her ethnicity. SportingFlyer T·C 06:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And has already been pointed out several times above, "first person with her particular combination of gender and ethnic identities to hold political office at the municipal level in her own county" is not a notability claim that gets a person into Wikipedia. If she had been the first Indian American woman to hold political office in the entire United States, there would be a valid notability claim — but if she can only claim to be the first in her own county, then that doesn't make her nationally significant regardless of whether the county is a "major metropolitan area" or not. Every single county in the United States has had or will have literally dozens of people who can claim to have been the first X, Y, Z and/or X+Y+Z to do an otherwise non-notable thing within that county — but if they can't credibly claim that their significance goes national, then they're not automatically of interest to Wikipedia just because the article has the word "first" in it. Bearcat (talk) 16:41, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or draftify All local content that does not show notability rising above that of a generic council member for a smaller city. Sources are routine local coverage or non-independent. It's a bit early for 2022 campaign content, likely to be several candidates in that race, but perhaps maintain the content if she wins. Her status as a first is likewise only local and not even mayors of the city are notable. Reywas92^Talk 22:07, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again notability does not come from the fact that she is a council member, that can be agreed. Notability comes from the fact that she is the first Indian American women to be elected to a political office in the county of San Diego which is a metropolitan region in the United States bigger than many countries. And this fact is echoed by various regional and national organizations such as this and this Spacemars88 (talk) 05:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Wrong. There are a whole lot of potential firsts out there and they don’t all get articles for it. First Japanese-American mayor in Santa Clara County, first gay sheriff in San Bernardino County, first Iranian-American councilmember in Los Angeles County, first female Iranian-American councilmember in Los Angeles County, first African-American county treasurer, yadda yadda yadda, mix and match gender, background, location, etc as you will. Notability is not derived from being a specific combination of things; for political figures it is from holding significant office because it is neither feasible nor desirable to have articles on the hundreds of thousands of people who have held local office across the country, many of which were some sort of goalpost-shifting first (how many Indian American men and women have held some sort of office elsewhere? How many other minorities have been elected to something in SD County?). Reywas92^Talk 08:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not sure that's the point here, though. There is significant media coverage here talking about this person - it just so happens that one of the bits of coverage is for that first. Media coverage does not become insignificant just because it's talking about someone having been the first x to do y, it's still just as valid as any other coverage. And again, significant office is for automatic notability - the mere fact that an officeholder does not meet that standard does not in any way mean that they are not notable per GNG. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 10:49, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - As I've discussed above, only one source (which is mostly an interview) specifically mentions that about her, and it also mentions 15 other firsts for local women in San Diego, including the first woman to travel more than xkph on a bicycle. SportingFlyer T·C 17:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was already moved to draftspace at Draft:Bihari Lal Harit. Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:09, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bihari Lal Harit[edit]

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

Has not gotten enough significant coverage to meet the general notability guideline (Google search Bing search) A a s i m 15:23, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nashville Homeless Power Project[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NONPROFIT. The criteria is national/international and adequate coverage; not or and the prior AfD didn't seem to quite address that it needs to meet both. This is a local project. Graywalls (talk) 15:12, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 15:12, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 15:12, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It looks like this organization has dissolved (at least as an official non-profit). Their last tax filings and Facebook posts were in 2010. That means it's unlikely additional coverage will materialize. Kaldari (talk) 16:52, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Componenta[edit]

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

I found the article a case of pure WP:PROMOTION but unable to come to a conclusion. The references also seems unreliable in nature. ~Amkgp ✉ 13:59, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ~Amkgp ✉ 13:59, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. ~Amkgp ✉ 13:59, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Kyykaarme and DGG: Help and request for independent review if interested. Thank you. ~Amkgp ✉ 14:07, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Componenta is a Nasdaq Helsinki company and most of the sources used in the article are external to the company. Try e.g. a Google search with Yle or Kauppalehti or Helsingin Sanomat and Componenta.Jjanhone (talk) 15:53, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: User:Jjanhone is the creator of the page. Your views are also welcome. Thank you. ~ Amkgp ✉ 07:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. the present article is historical , not promotional. Some of the wording is that sometimes used in promotional articles, and can easily be fixed, mostly by removal of adjectives. DGG ( talk ) 17:45, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. (Forgot to vote). Jjanhone (talk) 19:45, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:24, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:NCORP, and WP:GNG, article contains multiple sources that reflect the notability of this company. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:32, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sourced, notable, and agree with DGG on the historical/promotional perspective. /Julle (talk) 10:55, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:52, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

S. Nagy Anna[edit]

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

1. Only one unreliable source. 2. No Google Result for whatsoever, not for her name, not for the topic, not for the photo. 3. Author said on talk page weeks ago that he will add more sources, but he did not. Not the first time btw for this use. CommanderWaterford (talk) 13:58, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 13:58, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - At first I figured that this was an attempted memorial article due to the person's recent death. but something strange is going on in the article's history. If I am seeing accurate time stamps in the history, the article was created at 9:35 pm Greenwich Time on May 17, which in turn was 11:35 pm Hungary time, still on May 17. The very first version of the article ([7]) stated that S. Nagy Anna died after that on May 18, so it was technically looking into the future to foresee someone's untimely death. There are also two Facebook notices listing two different dates of death. A musician of this name has a brief Bandcamp page ([8]} but no other media coverage whatsoever. If a musician of this name truly died recently at a young age, I'm sorry but she does not merit an article as a musician, nor is Wikipedia a place for personal memorials. But I have a sneaking suspicion that there may be a hoax or publicity stunt going on, and not just in Wikipedia. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:44, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that "Nagy" and "Anna" are both very common names in Hungary, and in music there is a different Nagy Anna with the Budapest Klezmer Band of the 1990s. This will complicate the search process, though I will point out that this S. Nagy Anna has no verifiable connection with Sopor Aeternus and The Ensemble of Shadows despite what the article says. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 23:11, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Believe I found the "link" to Sopor Aeternus. I say "link" in quotes because it's definitely not a valid link. On her YouTube channel, S. Nagy Anna uploaded her full album, and the record label the description claims it was published under was Palästra Records. A search of that reveals nothing, I'm not even sure if that record label exists. The only thing that comes up is Sopor Aeternus's apparently popular song, "In Der Palästra". Not a valid connection of course, but potentially put in the article to make her seem more notable. SpringDay03 (talk) 01:36, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No reliable sources for recently-dead person. Two more points to note:

No article in Hungarian wikipedia
Article has been edited by a surprising number of newly-registered (18th May onwards) editors,, not always constructivelt (silly vandalism, self-reverts, etc). Something strange? PamD 11:52, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It does seem like it could be some sort of a hoax or publicity stunt. I put the name of the album (from her bandcamp page) into Google, and found her YouTube channel (which has no media coverage whatsoever) and her Instagram page (again, nothing which could potentially make her notable). Aside from the Facebook notices I can't find any record of her death, or any coverage of her whatsoever. SpringDay03 (talk) 01:34, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Potentially notable, but currently the article is not verifiable and could be a hoax. pburka (talk) 13:08, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am Hungarian and I have never heard of her (of course that means nothing, I don't know every Hungarian :) But still, she does not seem to be notable. I feel sorry for her death, but I couldn't find any reliable source either. Also, it is difficult to search for her since she has an extremely common name. But like others said, the whole thing can be a hoax as well. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 20:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:54, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Osborne Theomun Olsen[edit]

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

No indication of notability, only reliable sources are an obituary and a local newspaper article that makes only a trivial mention of the company. Rusf10 (talk) 03:35, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 03:35, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 03:35, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 03:35, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The links to "Osborne Art Studios" in the article are to the Wikidata item, not another article, so this biographical article is also the article for the studio/business. (No opinion on whether the business has WP:SIGCOV either.) --Closeapple (talk) 18:51, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - Flori4nKT A L K 12:21, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Besides the obit, almost nothing in reliable secondary sources. One passing mention in a book about the Chicago Cubs. Not notable. JimKaatFan (talk) 14:50, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article was also eligible for speedy deletion under G5. MER-C 16:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sunil Saxena[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. Reads like an advert. A real estate builder and writer of a few books. The Ellis Medal references his father and the rest are self adulatory, press releases and sales pitches. Fails WP:GNG by a very wide mile Velella ^{Velella Talk} 12:15, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 12:15, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NPERSON, no indication of notability in the article, no indication arises from a google search. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:00, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:09, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:40, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:40, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:NOTPROMOTION. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:43, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The guy is a Motivational speaker, Author and Enterpreneur with 6 companies at his portfolio. I've seen multiple articles with very little references (I'll provide a link as soon as I could find such articles again), reason I created this article. May be we can put it back in draft and build it better. Just suggesting.UrchanaMehta(shimmer) (talk) 16:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thessaloniki_Forum) A stub with no references at all. I reckon learning Wikipedia is a bit challenging. UrchanaMehta(shimmer) (talk) 17:12, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - but it was in draft for sometime, and should ideally have been reviewed by an independent editor. However it was your own decision to move it directly to Mainspace without review. As for other poorly sourced articles, yes, they do exist but that is no a reason to accept other unsatisfactory articles. In this case it is a biography of a living persons and it is even more important to ensure that all assertions are well supported by reliable and independent sources. But as to your last point, I would agree. Learning Wikipedia is challenging and a big learning experience. Creating a new article is probably best done only after a few weeks experience and a few hundred edits to your credit. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 17:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, paid for spam, likely a sock of Basiliskia. – Thjarkur (talk) 13:29, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now confirmed, the article created has been blocked as a sock. SamHolt6 (talk) 01:07, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 08:36, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

51Give[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

It's thoroughly unclear to me that this meets WP:ORGCRIT. The only sources I can find for it are a single-word brief mention in a Forbes article, a note about its expulsion from the UN Global Compact for failing to give progress reports, a similar page on the Clinton Foundation's website and a paragraph in a list on a website called Investopedia. This is insufficient in my view. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 12:15, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete in the light of current sourcing, unless of course the organisation has much better coverage in Chinese-language media. — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:47, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Worth noting with regard to this that zh:51Give is a redlink. Of course, that's no guarantee that there aren't sufficient sources by any means, but they might be more difficult to find. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 16:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

zh:我要给予 is also a redlink. Run a Google search for 我要给予, but the results were mostly press releases, social media posts (LinkedIn, Weibo) and limited media coverage. I am aware that Google isn't the best search engine for China but also my almost non-existent knowledge of Chinese doesn't encourage me to spend more time on this. Just to note that one may need to have a really enormous business in order to secure reasonable media coverage in the country the size of China, so I'd be cautious with using the same yardstick for China as for smaller countries. — kashmīrī ^TALK 17:25, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The articles cited as copyright infringement on 51Give's Facebook page are the same that we find on the website and that have been included as sources, since the Facebook page is 51Give. So I don't understand how we can say there is a copyright infringement if the Facebook page is theirs. I also noticed that in the previous days other sources such as China Daily had been added besides the 51Give website. https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202003/20/WS5e745991a310128217280c89.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.23.102.122 (talk) 06:42, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 12:15, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 12:15, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 12:15, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 12:15, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 12:15, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - Flori4nKT A L K 12:10, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm open to changing my mind on this but based on my own searching, I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:26, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Beyond the consensus that the article has received significant coverage, the nominator has also been blocked as a DUCK. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:21, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Viva Services[edit]

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

Not notable per Wikipedia standards; article averages only a few pageviews per day Wikieditor600 (talk) 19:08, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The page views of an article are not an indication of a topic's notability and should never be used as an argument in a deletion discussion. Low page views are not a reason for an article to be deleted and high page views are not a reason for an article to be kept. Topics should be judged on their notability and coverage found in reliable sources. See WP:PAGEVIEW and WP:NOBODYREADSIT. MarkZusab (talk) 19:18, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:05, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:05, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:05, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:04, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - Flori4nKT A L K 12:08, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article subject has received significant coverage from several independent reliable sources: [9] [10] [11]. CJK09 (talk) 19:52, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the abovementioned sources (the article, though, needs serious editing). ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 05:19, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Creator was a block-evading sock of a known UPE editor. G5'd. creffett (talk) 23:49, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Renée Hoenderkamp[edit]

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

The subject does not have adequate coverage in reliable sources to meet our notability guidelines. The sources consist of articles written by her and appearances on YouTube videos and podcasts. There is no claim to significance. The absence of in-depth coverage and reliable sources indicate failure to meet WP:GNG Vinegarymass911 (talk) 12:07, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 12:07, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 12:07, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 12:07, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This notable person is the Doctor journalist for a major magazine called OK magazine Ok Magazine She presents on both BBC radio and BBC TV. She has written numerous articlse for many established newspapers and magazines. How notable do you need to be? She has also been a key medical advisor on COVID-19 MarkLondon60 (talk) 15:48, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Writing for OK Magazine is a step above writing for The Enquirer. It's not something that anyone should be bragging about but it certainly doesn't make someone notable writing for a sub-par celebrity gossip zine. Praxidicae (talk) 22:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable media presented.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:04, 26 May 2020 (
Weak keep. This doctor is a frequent medical guest on BBC television and radio (see this and writes medical columns for national magazines and newspapers. She has over 1,000 Google News hits. -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete virtually none of the sources are about her and this seems like some PR puffery designed to inflate her importance. Writing columns for national papers could be notable if they too are covered by other sources and aren't in gossip zines. I also removed some significant coatrackesque nonsense about her personal life that said exactly nothing about her. Praxidicae (talk) 22:15, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was moved to War World (disambiguation) with no prejudice against an WP:RM to change from a primary topic to no primary topic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Warworld (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Proposed for deletion with the rationale: Do we really need this disambiguation page? Of the five entries listed, two are redirects and one is just a brief mention in a list article. The rest could be taken care of by simple mutual hatnotes. I suggest to delete this.

Proposal for deletion removed with the rationale: rm prod - I count 3 full entries which is enough for a dab page

I still count only two full articles:

Warworld - a redirect
War World - a full article
Warworld (Transformers) - a redirect
War World (video game) - a full article
An episode in the List of Justice League episodes - not even a redirect, just a mention

Therefore, the rationale for deletion stands, and I still think this should be deleted. JIP | Talk 12:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:23, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:23, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep At least as the situation is now, there is WP:NOPRIMARY between War World and War World (video game). I think that this should be moved to War World instead, while the article currently there should be moved to War World (novel series). This could change if one of them is non-notable._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but move. Warworld should be at WP:RfD because the term is not mentioned in the target; and Warworld (Transformers) is already at RfD. If they are deleted then that does leave three, but they are all variants of War World, so the page should be moved to War World (disambiguation). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:54, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Võmmorski tsässon[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 15:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Crimson Comedian Talk 18:00, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. Crimson Comedian Talk 18:00, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Boleyn: if not notable, then same applies to other tsässons in Estonia, see category:Chapels in Estonia. I guess these tsässons should be redirected to List of chapels in Estonia--Estopedist1 (talk) 18:38, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:34, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - Flori4nKT A L K 12:01, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(With regret) delete - a see nothing to distinguish this from 1000s of other church buildings. If there is something special, that needs to be explained. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:59, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge with Võmmorski --Cornellier (talk) 12:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Insufficient coverage in reliable sources. ~ mazca ^talk 12:02, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gzero media[edit]

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

Fails GNG: all sources are either nonindependent, not actually about Gzero Media itself, or unreliable. Could not find good sources. PJvanMill (talk) 20:50, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:52, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:53, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - Flori4nKT A L K 11:59, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nominator's rationale: the only available sourcing is WP:MILL, SPS and lacking in persistent, independent coverage of the subject. Fails NCORP. ——Serial^# 12:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. It appears that edits subsequent to the nomination have addressed the sourcing problems. Sandstein 07:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Treaty of Fontainebleau (1745)[edit]

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

This treaty probably existed, but Google only finds 128 unique hits, of which a fair number are to the later 1814 treaty, some reference a date of 1743 instead of 1745, and none have the original source. It looks as if a couple of academic books might. Wikipedia is the leading reference to the existence and content of this treaty, which is never a good sign. The cited source is a Jacobite fansite, and the text of the opening sentence in either French or English is a Googlewhack. Either the guy who runs the website has performed a unique piece of scholarship and inexplicably failed to publish it in the peer-reviewed literature, or there's some error in copying from the original book source he cites (and that also implies that the translation is probably a copyvio). Oh, and this article was created by an abusive sockpuppeteer. Guy (help!) 11:38, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are scholarly sources going back to the 1860s that discuss this treaty and some have now been added in. The text of the treaty has been reproduced in several places, unfortunately not that I can see online. I can't tell whether it is a copyvio or not, but if it is one, it is on an external site and not on Wikipedia, and as it is a fairly short treaty and the the book referred to is lengthy, it may count as an extended quotation. Mccapra (talk) 13:54, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is now properly referenced Naturenet | Talk 21:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 16:01, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 16:01, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 16:01, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Even on the most trivial levels of analysis, this subject screams "Keep". "Only" finding 128 hits should have given the nom pause, really, as should the fact that "a couple of academic books" do actually cover the subject (which by itself is typically sufficient rationale to keep). The 1743 Fontainebleau treaty was a pact of alliance between France and Spain (see here) so there is not confusion with the 1745 treaty which was between the King of France and The Pretender. The full text of the treaty can be found on p.209 of The Jacobite Threat by Williams and Gibson - note that this was a 1990 book and as such not sourced from the website which the nom complains of. In terms of sigcov, the basic details of the treaty (date, signatories, major clauses and purpose), sufficient to write an article, can be found, for example, here: 1 2 3 4. That last reference is particularly relevant as it gives over an entire chapter (Chap. 23) to the treaty - and not for no reason as this was the treaty where James (the Old Pretender) abdicated his claim to the British throne in favour of his son (the Young Pretender). The description in Frank McLynn's 1759 of the treaty is also relevant as it points out that the treaty had long-term consequences for the Jacobites. FOARP (talk) 21:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there may be few GHits, but that's not uncommon for old historical things (like treaties). The treaty is supposedly translated in The Jacobite threat : England, Scotland, Ireland, France : a source book and has a fair bit of Gbook mentions, as discussed in more depth above. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep -- Jeremy Black is a leading historian of international relations in this period, so that questions of RS should evaporate. This is clearly closely related to the Jacobite rising of 1745. It looks as if news of the Young Pretender's initial success in Scotland led to this treaty. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:00, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:55, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vishnu Bharadwaj[edit]

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

Not notable. ~SS49~ {talk} 11:26, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 11:26, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 11:26, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable filmmaker. I just figured out that to reach 1 million articles on Wikipedia on living people by the end of the year tha category has to grow by 177 articles a day. I fear such an outcome is almost inevitable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:48, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. D4iNa4 (talk) 12:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPERSON or WP:GNG, take your pick. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:57, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG, possibly a case of WP:TOOSOON. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:38, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 15:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adil Akhtar[edit]

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

A non notable physician. Do not have enough coverage on independent and reliable resources. Fails WP:GNG Numan765 (talk) 10:15, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the nominator has been blocked as a sock. See WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikibaji/Archive#26 May 2020 -- Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 15:32, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This man does not satisfy WP:GNG criteria. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 10:34, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:16, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:16, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:16, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable as either a medical doctor or a painter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree, not notable as either physician or artist per available sourcing.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:23, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly a personal revenge nomination and some, not all, of the above Delete votes are cast by people who don't like me voting 'Keep' on articles here or even on AfD India and want me to stop doing that at both places. To be candid here, this is an obvious case of AfD Forum being used as a weapon. The subject's notability as a painter has been acknowledged by 2 different and independent major newspapers of Pakistan that covered his painting talent in exclusive articles. In addition, since he's a Pakistani-American painter, his paintings were shown at Gerald R. Ford Presidential Museum in September 2010 in Michigan, ArtExpo, New York in March 2011 and at Canton Museum of Art in Canton, Ohio. Hopefully, our Wikipedia community considers this article on its merits (6 different references back up the article). Ngrewal1 (talk) 17:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since 2016, when I first discovered most of the Pakistani articles on painter-artists were in poor shape and neglected, I have been trying to maintain and improve them all – for those people who are familiar with these noted and award-winning artists from Abdur Rahman Chughtai, Sadequain, Shakir Ali (artist), Jamil Naqsh, Anna Molka Ahmed, Colin David and Ismail Gulgee...just to name a few of the artists' articles out of nearly 25 that I have trying to maintain. I edit artists because I am interested in them and for my own self-satisfaction. Ngrewal1 (talk) 02:43, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject passes the artist guidelines. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 07:42, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't pass any of the "artist guidelines", but please do describe which point of WP:ARTIST you think he passes?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:29, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This individual does not meet the WP:ARTIST notability standards. After searching online, I found some information about him as a doctor, but not anything to distinguish him from hundreds of thousands of other doctors. On Google Scholar I see that there are a lot of journal articles that he has (co)written, perhaps someone more familiar with the WP guidelines for scientists/doctors might want to have a look at these. Netherzone (talk) 15:59, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 5 out of 6 article references highlight him as a painter-artist, not a doctor. As a creator of the article that was my original intent in 2016. Ngrewal1 (talk) 17:42, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ngrewal1, I do see that the article highlights their work as an artist, however they do not meet the requirements for notability standards for artist, as per WP:ARTIST at this time. Perhaps it is a case of WP:TOOSOON, because there needs to be more WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS and/or evidence of several notable awards and/or several museum permanent collections. If verifiable sources exist to substantiate notability, please add them to the article. Netherzone (talk) 17:58, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable according to available sources--Irshadpp (talk) 06:31, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG; commentator in US press on cancer/palliative care issues, recognition in Pakistani press for art, past president of the Pakistan Association of America, coverage in newspapers of record in Pakistan.^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8]

References

^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Diego_County,_California
^ https://medium.com/why-we-run-young-people-in-government/why-we-run-priya-bhat-patel-6fa71373fead
^ Gollayan, Christian (15 December 2018). "Why asbestos allegedly found in Johnson & Johnson baby powder raises cancer fears". New York Post.
^ "This Is the Best Diet to Reduce Your Cancer Risk, According to an Oncologist". www.yahoo.com. March 29, 2020.
^ "Síntomas silenciosos del cáncer de pulmón". El Confidencial (in Spanish). 11 November 2019.
^ Noorani, Asif (25 March 2015). "Adil Akhtar: Our man in Michigan". DAWN.COM.
^ Noorani, Asif (6 August 2011). "Mela at Michigan". DAWN.COM.
^ Saha, Indrani (3 October 2012). "Interview with Adil Akhtar". South Asian American Digital Archive (SAADA).

--Goldsztajn (talk) 20:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:ARTIST notability standards. Is not a notable doctor. One could argue that he's 10% of the way to notability as a doctor, and maybe 50% there as an artist, but I don't think he meets WP:GNG's standards overall. JimKaatFan (talk) 13:27, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn by the nominator GSS. (non-admin closure) Juliette Han (talk) 14:59, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stay Until Tomorrow (Film)[edit]

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

A non-notable film with no significant coverage in reliable sources and no evidence of satisfying WP:NFILM. GSS ^💬 09:49, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 09:49, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A solitary review in Variety and some coverage of the director in the Boston Globe is not enough to pass WP:NFILM. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:55, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep coverage provided by CAPTAIN MEDUSA (mainly the LA Times review) is likely enough to pass WP:NFILM, though I will caution that the SFR reporter is not a review and the LA Times is a review of numerous films in a film festival. IMO there's just enough here. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:22, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — The film was nominated for Audience Award at the New England Film & Video Festival [12]. Was reviewed by Variety LA Times SFR Reporter. Was Semi-finalist for 2001 Sundance/NHK Intl. Filmmakers Award (US) Touring the festival circuit Screened in the Rome Independent Film Festival. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 20:18, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the multiple reliable sources coverage identified above such as reviews in The Los Angeles Times and Variety which show a pass of WP:GNG and that deletion is no longer necessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:01, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Atlantic306 and sources from CAPTAIN MEDUSA. Thanks. Based on search results for the filmmaker and another film she made, I found enough WP:RS to create two more articles: Laura Colella, Breakfast with Curtis. --David Tornheim (talk) 12:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination in the light of sources provided by CAPTAIN MEDUSA. Thank you everyone for your time. GSS ^💬 12:45, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 20:55, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Varun Sood[edit]

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

I think it fails WP:NACTOR and written in promotional way. Princepratap1234 (talk) 09:43, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:21, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:21, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:21, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:21, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actor and VJ.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:42, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable as actor and VJ. Alexdlp10 (talk) 08:34, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete appeared in a couple of reality shows, hosted a few web series and various guest appearances, so iffy on meeting WP:NACTOR for me. Sourcing - there's a lot of sources, but not a lot that I thought were reall strong. Several interviews, many connected to the reality show appearances, some that are just passing mention. Ravensfire (talk) 16:54, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep or Draftify: The subject might just make it for WP:NACTOR; his IMDb profile shows a number of different projects. As for the sources, the ones in the article doesn't seem too bad—not all of them, anyway—and we could probably strengthen the WP:GNG argument. So, while it may be a bit WP:TOOSOON, I don't think deletion—or outright deletion—is necessary, and would suggest "draftifying" as an alternative. As an aside, I have no problem working on the actual text of the article to allay any concerns regarding a promotional tone. Dflaw4 (talk) 07:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Consensus indicates that the subject is notable. (non-admin closure) Devonian Wombat (talk) 05:12, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vipin Kumar Tripathi[edit]

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

non notable physicist. Fails WP:GNG KST981 (talk) 09:26, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the nominator has been blocked as a sock. See WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikibaji/Archive#26 May 2020 -- RoySmith (talk) 15:03, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 30 year Professor of one of the top IITs in India, IIT Delhi. Abundant coverage like Telegraph, Times of India, National Herald India, Daily Jang Pakistan. Normally satisfies GNG. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 10:55, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:23, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Hesides the GNG claims above, the subject also has 11 published papers with over 100 citations each (Google Scholar). Clear pass of WP:NPROF. — MarkH₂₁^talk 15:21, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
MarkH21, link? I am getting a result for one with a total of 100 citations. Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:30, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Usedtobecool: I used this search, assuming that the Vijai K Tripathi whose papers were also on plasma physics was the same person. Looking at this though, that appears to have been erroneous. There are still multiple there that appear to be this VK Tripathi though. — MarkH₂₁^talk 11:01, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:GNG--Irshadpp (talk) 07:18, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:07, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:07, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PROF#C1, many highly cited publications on Google Scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep From above, it seems I didn't miss anything from my analysis, so here it is. In an academic capacity, the subject appears to have at least 100 total citations, no more than 300 at the most. So, I don't think that's quite enough for "Keep" on citations alone. Having been a professor of a top Indian institution is, frankly, a stronger indication of some notability, which is, however, unlikely to translate to lasting notability (as with most biographies on Wikipedia, to be fair). This fact also is likely the reason the media took notice of him when he ventured into political activism. As an intellectual going against the tide on contentious political issue/s, he seems to have garnered enough coverage to suggest he is quite close to reaching the WP:GNG threshold if he isn't there already. The article needs to make clear that he's a professor who's ventured into activism and that's what makes him notable. And care needs to be taken not to attribute academic achievements of others sharing the combination of "V", "VK" and "Tripathi" in their names to him. Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:30, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Usedtobecool: This article alone has 411 citations from the Google Scholar link above, and this one has 198 citations per GS. There’s no mistake about authorship for either, from the journal websites. — MarkH₂₁^talk 12:18, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
MarkH21, hmm... I must've found some other Tripathi, again. This gives a count of 4017. I unstress my point about low academic citations, move that to stress on identifying exactly his and no one else's, from reliable sources, while editing the article. Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:25, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. (non-admin closure) the nominator has been blocked as a sock and was the only delete vote.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Noor Alam Khalil Amini[edit]

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

Non notable scholar, No independent reliable resources. Fails WP:GNG KST981 (talk) 09:21, 26 May 2020 (UTC) Numan765 (talk) 10:02, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the nominator has been blocked as a sock. See WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikibaji/Archive#26 May 2020 -- RoySmith (talk) 15:02, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep — The subject of the the article has been awarded with Presidential Honour, and is subject of a doctoral degree, his book is part of madrasa curricula. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 09:28, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This man satisfies WP:GNG criteria. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 10:37, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:24, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:26, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:03, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Clear consensus that the article passes GNG. (non-admin closure) Devonian Wombat (talk) 05:08, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ababeel (NGO)[edit]

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

Resources are not independent reliable. Self Published. Fails WP:ORG KST981 (talk) 09:18, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the nominator has been blocked as a sock. See WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikibaji/Archive#26 May 2020 -- Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 15:12, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I tried to clean it up a bit. But I agree that this organisation does not satisfy WP:GNG criteria. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 10:38, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — I am satisfied by GorgeCustersSabre's argument. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 10:59, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I change my vote to keep. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 15:34, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:30, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:30, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: WP:GNG is clearly satisfied by the following sources (with at least 1 paragraph about the NGO): The Indian Express, The Kashmir Monitor, Greater Kashmir, Two Circles, News18. Did the nominator or other editors here attempt a WP:BEFORE search? Notability isn’t based solely on references already in the article (although some of these were already in the article anyways). — MarkH₂₁^talk 15:09, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article is about organization, which I started is notable because many reliable sources like The Indian Express, The Kashmir Monitor, Greater Kashmir, Two Circles, News18 and many more sources available online are specially about the organization. So WP:GNG is clearly satisfied. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheChunky (talk • contribs) 19:14, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG. Polyamorph (talk) 06:43, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A notable organization with many reliable references. Ngrewal1 (talk) 01:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG and WP:ORG. سب سے بڑی گڑبڑ^(talk) 13:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn by the nominator. (non-admin closure) Mhhossein ^talk 05:20, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of schools in Botswana[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Unsourced. It has become an indiscriminate list, including primary and even pre-primary schools. There are very few entries with associated Wikipedia articles, (16, excluding links to the town that a school is in) so I am not sure what value the list would have if it only contained bluelinked schools. The purpose is better served by the "Schools in Botswana" category. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:12, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator on reflection, this should be cleaned up rather than deleted. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:05, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:12, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:12, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:37, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, standard index of things by country. 16 is plenty to merit a stand-alone list; all else are issues for cleanup, not deletion. See also WP:NOTDUP. postdlf (talk) 12:36, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per postdlf -- clearly a notable index for any given country, Sadads (talk) 23:07, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep provided all non notable entries are cleared. Ajf773 (talk) 00:26, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I'm not sure we are going to establish a clear consensus here at this time Fenix down (talk) 10:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pappu Hossain[edit]

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY BlameRuiner (talk) 08:05, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:12, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no international caps yet = too soon for an article. Giant Snowman 18:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:20, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the big problem with this article, doesn't appear to be notability, it's that it's dreadfully formatted, and references are broken. I'm working on fixing the existing references, and adding more to demonstrate GNG. Can we hold off closing the AFD until I've finished. Nfitz (talk) 00:35, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Extending for one week while editor attemps to fix article to show GNG. No overwhelming consensus to delete, so no harm doing this
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 08:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Having digging further into this, I'm torn. I've found one good article for GNG here. But just one. Have I missed something? Everything else is routine. Meanwhile, he's arguably one of the best goalkeepers in a not quite fully professional league - but the top league in his country - so doesn't quite meet NFOOTBALL. And he's been called up to the national team recently - but no cap (which lead to the one GNG reference) - so again doesn't quite meet NFOOTBALL. One would assume he'd get a national team cap soon - but he's a goalkeeper ... Nfitz (talk) 03:00, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly meets WP:FOOTYN, the player is playing the national premier league and also a possibility to play in the continental tournament. 11:53, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
- Clearly does not meet NFOOTY, despite what unsigned comment above says. Why was it even relisted? --BlameRuiner (talk) 06:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - The standard for NFooty User:Drat8sub is that the league is fully-professional (and fully-professional leagues are listed at WP:FPL. The source there suggests otherwise, though in terms of professionality, it's talking about scheduling and communications - which aren't really criteria. The criteria is that the players on all teams are full-time paid players. I've always been somewhat suspicious that the teams may actually be fully-professional given the number of foreign players that some teams employ. Do you have references that support them being fully-professional? Nfitz (talk) 20:22, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - BlameRuiner, my bad, face palm indeed, didn't sign. Nfitz,as the other article I want to bring your notice again that WP:FPL has listed the leagues, no doubt, but the most important part of the whole project, i.e, "what is a fully professional league?", is not defined, so I am skeptical on what criteria the leagues are lsited. And along with that, this article shows the clubs are paying or trying to pay the salary in pandemic also. So, I don't know if they are not professional clubs why would they think of paying salary in a pandemic. Drat8sub (talk) 00:49, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Drat8sub I mentioned the criteria above - "the players on all teams are full-time paid players". i.e. they don't have other jobs on the side. Are there references that support this? Nfitz (talk) 01:42, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Drat8sub, also, I refer you to WP:NFOOTY rather than the long-superceded WP:FOOTYN. The reference you've shown primarily discusses pay to foreign players. It doesn't indicate the magnitude of payment. One measure of whether the league is fully professional, would be what is the 20th highest player on the lowest performing teams paid? I've no doubt the highest-paid player is indeed fully professional. Nfitz (talk) 18:50, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete = fails NFOOTY.--Ortizesp (talk) 00:27, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - ah, I finally figured out what I was missing. The name listed in this article is Pappu Hossain (পাপ্পু হোসাইন), but his full name appears to be Mohamed Pappu Hossain, and Bengali media often refer to him as Pappu Ahmed (পাপ্পু আহমেদ). Searching for that, rather than পাপ্পু হোসাইন gives hundreds of hits, rather than a dozen or so. And GNG is met with (https://www.prothomalo.com/sports/article/1614775 one), and (https://priyo.com/e/1150550 two). Nfitz (talk) 19:07, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 09:01, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Nfitz. The article's subject meets the notability guideline for inclusion in Wikipedia. CJK09 (talk) 19:37, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. --SalmanZ (talk) 20:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Arguments for keeping are exactly on point, as this subject clearly and unambiguously meets the relevant inclusion criteria, which is WP:NPOL. BD2412 T 04:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elena Poptodorova[edit]

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

Foreign Ministry service is almost entirely the same as the website [13]. Member of the National Parliament is almost the same as [14] Nadzik (talk) 09:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC) . I was thinking that I should just delete the copyrighted fragments, but that would leave less than half of the article. I know that Ambassador Poptodorova definitely belongs to Wikipedia, but the format of this article brakes our rules. Please discuss Nadzik (talk) 09:01, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Nadzik (talk) 09:01, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Nadzik (talk) 09:01, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep members of national parliaments are default notable, we are never going to delete this article. Feel free to edit out copyright violations and the like.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:11, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Copyright problems can be dealt with by editing, and even revision deleted out of the visible edit history if necessary — so they're not necessarily grounds to delete an article about an NPOL-passing politician, since the article can very easily just be rewritten. There are sometimes contexts where the best way to deal with a copyright violation can indeed be to delete it and then restart it from scratch — but a situation where removing the copyright problem erases half the article isn't one of those, because the other half of the article is still there. Bearcat (talk) 22:48, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a member of national parliament the subject is notable as a default Alexdlp10 (talk) 09:24, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:07, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nadzik: what exactly is the copyvio concern? This looks like it has been translated from the Bulgarian. SportingFlyer T·C 07:07, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Samsung India Software Centre. Black Kite (talk) 20:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Samsung R&D Institute India, Noida[edit]

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

Promotional piece of a non-notable company that lacks in-depth coverage in reliable sources as required by WP:ORGDEPTH. GSS ^💬 08:33, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 08:33, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 08:33, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Meger with Samsung India Software Centre. - Hatchens (talk) 14:04, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Although "merge" has a clear majority, the arguments in favor of merging (or deleting) appear rather perfunctory and most are mere votes, which leads me to conclude that there's no policy-informed rough consensus yet. If discussed further on the talk page, the merger proposal could, however, still find consensus. Sandstein 17:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Universidad de Chile Center for Byzantine and Neohellenic Studies[edit]

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

individual single-university academic institutes of this sort are not usually considered notable in Wikipedia DGG ( talk ) 11:24, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:36, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to University of Chile which can be done without bringing this to AfD, unless there’s some reason why that won’t work? Mccapra (talk) 13:31, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per above Dronebogus (talk) 14:29, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm the article's creator. I didn't know single-university academic institutes of this sort are not usually considered notable in Wikipedia. I confused Dumbarton Oaks with an university. However, besides I was planned to create Pontifical Catholic University of Valparaíso (PUCV) Roman Studies Week. The reason why I created that Study Journal, in first place was linked to Héctor Herrera Cajas (founder of PUCV Roman Studies Week) and, in second place, due to its existence in Wikipedia in Spanish (according the policy of contribute with translation), reason why also I created Miguel Castillo Didier.

This article creation hasn't as goal its only one existence, but to contribute with Chilean culture's conextion and expantion in that Wikipedia. As article's deletion table says, I really want to contribute and want to do it since the own academic production of Universidad de Chile Center for Byzantine and Neohellenic Studies researchers have done, but I don't have all the time in the world (precisely I study at university).Carigval.97 (talk) 14:04, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Merge and redirect to University of Chile. desmay (talk) 20:29, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My initial reaction was to Merge as suggested. This is what is appropriate for the research programme of one academic probably with successive doctoral research students. However, this has rather more substance to it, so that we might treat it in a similar way to a named professorial post. Having said that much if it is a horrid article, far too much focused on the doctoral thesis of its second professor. Keep but prune. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:03, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:32, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are many cases where individual institutes linked to universities have articles. The article seem well-written and source and I see so far no argument for removing this as an independent article. There just some vague appeals to tradition "academic institutes of this sort are not usually considered notable in Wikipedia". That is not argument enought to merge or delete this article. Dentren | ^Talk 07:43, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:17, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to University of Chile. Srijanx22 (talk) 16:57, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There's consensus here that the requirements of the relevant notability guidelines aren't met with sourcing. ~ mazca ^talk 14:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Kent[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NGRIDIRON. Can't find much coverage outside of routine transactional news (hirings, firings, etc.) and this coach's highest position has been as a position coach in the CFL. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:17, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:17, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:17, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:17, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:17, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable football coach.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:11, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment I'm having a hard time differentiating all the possible candidates based on the noise in online searches. As the article is written, I'm going with delete but I wouldn't be opposed to additional sources or commentary if it were to be presented. "Userfy" would be an acceptable option if any editor is particularly enthusiastic about additional research and development.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:33, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment a non-notable football coach, but I don't see why he should be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexdlp10 (talk • contribs) 09:05, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable football coach, possible COI as it's written a little bit close to the subject as well (college degrees). SportingFlyer T·C 19:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. (non-admin closure) the nominator has been blocked as a sock and was the only delete vote.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:26, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ministers' Hill Baptist Higher Secondary School[edit]

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

~~Local school, nothing in any RS. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 20:19, 17 May 2020 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:32, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:32, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:32, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Please keep. This article can surely be improved. There are some coverage on media and it is generally more difficult to source an article from a remoter part of the world, and the fact that it is a notable school in Nagaland. Anonymousme (talk) 17:28, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the argument for deletion is weak. Gumlau (talk) 18:38, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:09, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly notable -- we keep this kind of information for secondary schools in all corners of the world, Sadads (talk) 23:53, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. This was surprisingly difficult to close. Only the creator and WP:SPA Needyhaux wants to keep this article, but they do not tell us which sources now supposedly make this film notable. Pyxis Solitary goes off on a tangent about the great wrongs of Wikipedia, but expresses no opinion on the merits, and neither does Flori4nK. On this basis, I initially thought that I couldn't fault the conclusion that everybody else comes to: that the sourcing is insufficient for an article. But after looking at it more closely, the article does now have a number of sources that may well be "tiny local news sites", but may also not be, and they merit more discussion than they have been given here. As such, I don't think that this AfD provides us with a sufficiently informed "delete" consensus - but a second discussion might well do that. Sandstein 17:52, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Summer of Mesa[edit]

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

Article about YouTube-only film, not making or reliably sourcing any strong claim to passing WP:NFILM. As always, every film is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because it exists -- films need to show some evidence of their significance, such as noteworthy film awards and/or non-trivial attention from film critics. But this cites no media coverage at all, and even a Google search turns up no viable sources either: it only turns up databases and primary sources, not notability-supporting media. According to this article the film is still a few weeks away from its release, so no prejudice against recreation at a later date if its sourceability improves -- but if sources don't already exist yet, then a Wikipedia article isn't allowed to exist yet either. Bearcat (talk) 20:06, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:06, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:06, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable YouTube film. Mccapra (talk) 20:53, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See below (previously del per nom). - Flori4nKT A L K 20:57, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:03, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Put delete on hold for 72 hours. The article was created on 19:05, 9 May 2020‎‎ -- one hour before this request for deletion was initiated. It's an upcoming film. There have been and are articles about upcoming films that have not received the kick in the ass that this one has. The editor who created the article is a noob and obviously isn't 100% familiar with all the requirements for creating Wikipedia articles. He/she should be given 72 hours to add reliable sources. If they have not been added after the 72 hours have passed, then, yes, delete it. (It's distasteful how steam hammers are so zealously brought down on articles when there's nothing offensive about them to warrant such a response. No wonder so many people won't contribute to Wikipedia, and so many other say F-it and leave.) Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 09:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that AFD discussions have to be kept open for at least a full week, right? That means that nobody needs any special 72-hour suspensions of process, because the normal process already gives them more than 72 hours to attempt to fix the article. Bearcat (talk) 17:33, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Pyxis Solitary, for your extremely kind and understanding point of view. You expressing that sentiment touches me and puts this at-first disheartening experience into a positive one. I also now completely understand and respect the citation rules of Wikipedia that I was not fully aware of. I want to fully abide by them. I had emailed a producer of the film yesterday afternoon after seeing this and they told me the following publications are coming out with articles within the next few weeks: Windy City Media Group (Chicago LGBT publication), Cape Cod Times, Boston Spirit Magazine, Bay Area Reporter and CapeNews to name a few. Will those sources be reliable? Furthermore, is it possible for the article to be hidden until I am able to cite these sources properly, instead of fully deleting and re-entering this information? I respect your decision and appreciate the time given to help better this article. I am a very strong proponent and fan of all inclusive and queer representation, especially those that feature people of color in leading roles. That is limited in media even today, so please forgive me for jumping the gun and wanting to further legitimize a project that I know will comfort so many LGBT youth before the right sources are made available. I now fully understand. Thank you again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Needyhaux (talk • contribs) 19:45, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case, you should copy the article and save it in your Sandbox. Bay Area Reporter, Cape Cod Times, and Windy City Times are reliable sources and have Wikipedia articles. Boston Spirit and CapeNews.net (owned by The Enterpise) don't have WP articles, but they are acceptable sources. However, even though it is a film article, other than for WGA credits and MPAA ratings you cannot use IMDb as a reliable source because it's loaded with user-generated content and considered questionable. Take a look at this recently-created film article stub so that you get an idea of how to start one without encountering hassles. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 09:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I have gone ahead and done so. I tremendously appreciate you verifying those sources, and clarifying about IMDb. I look forward to adding the aforementioned sources as they become available very soon and further conforming the article to Wikipedia's standards.Needyhaux (talk) 16:55, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone ahead and included a source from Windy City Times about the film. I look forward to adding the rest of the aforementioned sources as they come in! Thank you to everyone for the clarifications. Needyhaux (talk) 18:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As sources are being made available with one already cited in the article. I am trying my hardest to understand recent notes made, and fully appreciate the edits to better conform this article to standards. Needyhaux (talk) 19:27, 14 May 2020 (UTC) — Needyhaux (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- puddleglum^2.0 20:48, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Has sourcing improvex?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:06, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It had zero sources when created and now it has three reliable/acceptable sources.(talk) 13:36, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it now has 5 acceptable sources.Needyhaux (talk) 15:36, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: It seems to be better sourced now, but I couldn't check the capecodtimes.com and wellfleet.wickedlocal.com articles due to geoblocking. I'll read everything I can access and might change my !vote to Keep/Weak Keep. - Flori4nKT A L K 18:15, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm sorry, I know you want to drive traffic to your film but I'm afraid Wikipedia can't possibly start hosting articles on individual Youtube videos with budgets of $400. We would be swamped with them. Inundated. The reviews in tiny local news sites don't really change that.—S Marshall T/C 23:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. I don't think the question is how much they made the film for or where it was released, I think the question is of its notability and how it has more sources outside of tiny local ones in its reference list -- two of which are fully reliable under Wikipedia standards -- as well as the traffic it has already gotten. However, I must admit that I fully hear you and agree that unreliably sourced YouTube videos would be an issue if they flooded Wikipedia, just like this one would have been had it never have been sourced. This AFD has been open for almost a month which is a very long time to make a decision. Hopefully this article can close and the page stay as the stub that it is for this existing film.Needyhaux (talk) 01:23, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Stricken out duplicate vote. BOVINEBOY2008 10:58, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 20:59, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Upsidedown Cross (band)[edit]

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

Non-notable band. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 15:44, 16 May 2020 (UTC) Non-notable band, no reliable sources. I did a Google search and the things I found were the following: unreliable databases like Metal Archives, Discogs, Sputnik Music (although I have heard that it is reliable when one of the staff members are writing a review there) and Spirit of Metal, the site of their record label (it is not independent from them), and some blogs. These sources don't establish any notability whatsoever. They existed, but they are not notable. While Anal Cunt was a notable band, not everything is notable that Seth Putnam is involved with. Prove me wrong, but I think that Upsidedown Cross is not notable for Wikipedia.[reply]

GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 15:41, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 15:44, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 15:44, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 May 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:01, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:57, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:44, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:37, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 21:01, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Katz[edit]

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

Non-notable professor. Article is an orphan, and no other page on the wiki even mentions him. He had an article on French Wikipedia until 2017; that's the language in which we'd expect most of the sources to be, yet they voted to delete his article. (fr:Discussion:Gregory_Katz/Suppression) A WP:PAID contributor, User:Jkorsunsky, made a bunch of WP:ER's which have sat in Category:Requested edits since 6 May; some were accepted, but most of the ones that are sitting there add a bunch of unremarkable information. After submitting, I'll be putting them on hold. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) 03:51, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:24, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:24, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:Too soon. Very low GS citations for a highly cited field. BLP bears the hallmarks of promotionalism. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:33, 26 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. I don't understand this case. The article description makes him sound like a well-established professor with a long history of past scholarly accomplishment and recognition, already a chaired professor in 2004. The Google Scholar profile tells a very different story, with relatively few publications and citations even now, and almost nothing then. Is there any explanation for this discrepancy? The French discussion hints at similar doubt among participants there, but without detail. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:54, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Power and money. Until clarification arrives the en.Wikiepdia should defer to the French who know him best. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:20, 26 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Delete a non-notable academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:26, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As a paid editor who has put a lot of thought and research into Gregory Katz’ article, I wish to address some of the issues mentioned on this page:

Notability: Gregory Katz was a chaired professor as early as 2004. He received the San Benedetto prize (recipients include Joseph Ratzinger and the Prime Minister of Poland). His research has had an impact on health policy regulations concerning cord blood stem cells in France and Europe. More recently he directed a report endorsed by the European Union comparing 22 member states in Value-Based Health Care practices, and was chosen by Newsweek as one of 6 world experts to validate the methodology for benchmarking the world’s best hospitals. All of these statements are of course referenced in the current article or on the Talk page.
Why English? Katz’ career is French, European, and international. This is based on the above-statements (Italian prize, European publications, Newsweek), the fact that a large proportion of his publications are in English, the Chair of Innovation & Value in Health that he currently heads is designed for an international audience (the website is only in English as far as I could see), and many of his publications are in international journals.
Publications: I do not know how Google Scholar works, but there is a large body of work waiting on the Talk page for verification. The sources used include many in which Katz was lead author.
Sources: Virtual every statement on the page is backed up by one or several factual, verifiable sources from recognized publications and websites with independent publishing guidelines.
Incompleteness & organization: As I mentioned above, the page is currently very incomplete pending a review of the material on the Talk page.
Orphan: Yes, so far the page is an orphan but I believe that in itself is not sufficient reason to delete an article.

Jkorsunsky (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:08, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jkorsunsky: Regarding the San Benedetto prize, it seemed to me a non-notable prize when I nominated the article. I was not able to find a page on it here in the encyclopedia, neither did I find much information online. I believe I may have found evidence Benedict XVI actually went to receive it ([15]), and it wasn't just an honorary designation, so this is perhaps relevant information. (I did not search the Italian name when I nominated.) Let's see what other editors have to say about it. I guess that the Catholic Church finds him praiseworthy due to his research into umbilical cord stem cells, as they're against other types of stem cells? It's certainly interesting information, so thank you for bringing it up. I think that the prize itself should have an article, and invite you to write one. As regards writing reports to the EU, many people do that who are not notable in Wikipedia terms. As regards Newsweek, please see WP:RSP, as of 2013, we no longer consider Newsweek a reliable source. As regards the French language, thank you for your comment. Perhaps I gave too much weight to the assessment by French Wikipedians. As regards being an orphan, this is never itself a reason to delete, rather we use it as a benchmark for a person's general notability. I'd like to ask you to please stop using the {{request edit}} template until this AfD process concludes. You may of course continue to look for sources and continue putting them on the talk page, all editors can see them and decide whether or not they make him notable. We're deciding on notability, not article quality, so there is no hurry for us to implement your WP:ERs until notability issue is settled, and you are taking up space in the ER queue and taxing resources of ER implementers such as myself, who are all volunteers, for an article that may end up deleted. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) 16:21, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jkorsunsky: I suggest you find out how Google scholar works before you undertake further articles about academics, no matter how much they pay you to write about them. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:30, 26 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. He clearly does not pass WP:PROF#C1. #C5 is more plausible, but that criterion is only for chairs given for great scholarly accomplishment, clearly not the case here. The paid editing and promotionalism is also not helping. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:41, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@David Eppstein: What do you think of Jkorsunsky's contention that the San Benedetto prize makes him notable? Possible WP:PROF#C2? Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) 18:01, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be a prize for the promotion of Catholic family values rather than for academic accomplishment. As such it does not pass #C2 and we do not have any plausible claim that it separately passes WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:10, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Prima facie, the closest to a plausible case would be WP:PROF#C5, but it doesn't look like the "Chair of Innovation & Value in Health" is actually the kind of position which C5 refers to. XOR'easter (talk) 19:40, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@XOR'easter: All the criteria for WP:PROF#C5 are satisfied: he's a full professor, holds a Chair at a distinguished university (#1 French university for the citation rate per article - https://u-paris.fr/en/key-figures/) and the university source is reliable. Jkorsunsky (talk)

Being a full professor isn't a criterion anywhere in WP:PROF (what that title means varies radically from place to place). And, again, the "Chair of Innovation & Value in Health" is not the kind of chair that counts for C5. The provided source is irrelevant. XOR'easter (talk) 19:10, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am simply quoting WP:PROF#C5: "The person has held a named chair appointment [...] at a major institution of higher education and research." On what grounds does this chair not qualify? The source is provided to show that University of Paris is "a major institution of higher education and research". WP:PROF#C5 also states: "Criterion 5 can be applied reliably only for persons who are tenured at the full professor level". So this is a necessary requirement that Katz satisfies. I understand these are simply guidelines, but the guidelines here are met. Jkorsunsky (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems like his career peaked in the mid-1990s. Or am I mistaken? [16].Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:32, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Epiphyllumlover: Katz was born in 1971, making him 24 years old in 1995. He didn't defend his two theses until 1999 and 2000 respectively, so a mid-1990s peak is implausible. Jkorsunsky (talk)

Comment While not yet fact but food for thought, Katz is on the verge of being elected a member of the French National Academy of Surgery, founded in 1731. The nomination was delayed because of the Covid lockdown. (https://academie-chirurgie.fr/calendrier/best_of_2019_9_chirurgie_la_qualite). He will therefore soon meet criterion WP:PROF#C3. Jkorsunsky (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:03, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that if the subject were to be elected to the French National Academy of Surgery he would pass WP:PROF#C3 shows a misunderstanding of WP:Prof. The primary criterion is WP:Prof#C1. The others, such as WP:PROF#C3 are just guides to possible notability and do not guarantee it. For example the heir to the British throne is a Fellow of the Royal Society but that does not get him to satisfy WP:Prof. His notability is based on other grounds. It is even debatable if the French National Academy of Surgery is a major enough institution to satisfy WP:Prof#C3 anyway. It is also not clear from the BLP if the subject has ever done any surgery. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:10, 28 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Draftify, to be submitted for review at AfC or similar before move back to main space. Membership in the French National Academy of Surgery would likely be a WP:NPROF C3 pass, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. I don't see a current pass of WP:NPROF or other notability guidelines. The paid editor could meanwhile work somewhat more freely on a draft article. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:34, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Russ Woodroofe: Thanks for your feedback. Two questions: What would be the purpose of creating a new draft article? The Talk page is already filled with well-sourced information. And why doesn't Katz qualify under WP:PROF#C5, as I tried to demonstrate above in response to XOR'easter? Jkorsunsky (talk)

I'm proposing moving the existing page back to the Draft namespace to incubate until notability can be demonstrated, not creating a new article. WP:NPROF C5 depends heavily on the specifics. I don't think anyone will be convinced by it here. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:24, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Drafitfy per WP:TOOSOON, also thank you Jkorsunsky for getting back to me. (Also, the picture in the article bothers me. Could it be replaced in draft with one that does not match the style of a professional photographer and therefore is almost certainly copyrighted?)--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 13:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Epiphyllumlover: Sure, the image could be changed if copyright is an issue. Jkorsunsky (talk)

The photograph has the needed copyright permission and shouldn't be deleted just because it looks like it might need the permission that it does have!--Jahaza (talk) 00:43, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The photographer appears to be a paid photographer, like the author of this BLP. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Delete without prejudice to recreation if the subject eventually does meet one of the WP:NPROF criteria as this is possibly a case of WP:TOOSOON. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:07, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New York Stem Cell Foundation[edit]

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

WP:NCORP, WP:ADVERT. The article was created by the organization itself, and significantly edited by at least one single purpose account and main points are based on primary sources. Some of the sources not related to the page are not significant independent coverage, such as biography page of various researchers. Even if notability as an organization can be established per WP:NCORP, the whole thing would need to be rewritten to be encyclopedic WP:TNT without POV bias infused by the connected editors. Graywalls (talk) 16:15, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 16:15, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 16:15, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 16:15, 18 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, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2007-05 ✗ deleted

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although some researchers associated with them might have gotten coverage in reliable sources, notability isn't inherited and I see nothing notable here about the actual organization itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamant1 (talk • contribs)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – bradv🍁 06:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Politics on trial[edit]

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

Non-notable. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NOT. References are social media and local paper.. No secondary referencing. Local interest only. scope_creep^Talk 20:19, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:44, 23 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, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-05 ✍️ create

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:58, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't seem notable. Probably a case of WP:TOOSOON. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:40, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – bradv🍁 06:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Teri Meri Love Story (2016)[edit]

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

A non-notable film with no significant coverage in reliable sources and no evidence of satisfying WP:NFILM. GSS ^💬 16:51, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 16:51, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 16:51, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary). --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-05 ✍️ create

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:55, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm failing to find the substantial reviews in reliable sources out there that are required for notability. Which isn't surprising considering it's a made for TV

movie.

Delete Unnecessary article about a very less known film. Can't see possibility of creation in future. SyedAfzaal123 (talk) 04:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC) --Adamant1 (talk) 05:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Coronation Street characters (2005)#Yana Lumb. While some sources have been found, there is sufficient concern over the reliability and relevance of them that most participants feel removing the article in favour of a redirect would be a sensible choice. ~ mazca ^talk 14:08, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jayne Tunnicliffe[edit]

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

not seeing how meets gng Laun chba ller 21:18, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:42, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:42, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:42, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:43, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actress. This does not meet GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:54, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep or Redirect: There are a number of Metro and The Sun articles, although they are not considered reliable sources. There is also coverage in The Mirror (https://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/keith-lemons-new-show-horrifies-22005570), where there is no consensus as to reliability, and in other sources for which I haven't been able to find a consensus:

→https://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/18447167.keith-lemon-show-goes-ethos-crafting-says-contestant/ – The Bradford Telegraph and Argus

→https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/showbiz-news/soap-stars-street-art-987997 – Manchester Online

→https://www.cravenherald.co.uk/news/8235391.former-corrie-star-turns-skiptons-sheep-into-pop-art/ – Craven Herald and Pioneer

I'd certainly appreciate feedback on whether any of the above sources are considered reliable. If the consensus is to delete the article, however, I would suggest a "redirect" to Coronation Street characters. Dflaw4 (talk) 14:55, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've never been sure about the reliability of local papers. You should ask at the reliable sources noticeboard.--Laun chba ller 16:12, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for starting that discussion at the noticeboard, Launchballer. It is a good question and I am interested to see what others think! Dflaw4 (talk) 00:34, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 21:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep or Redirect I agree with Dflaw4, it's a keep --although weak-- or a redirect to Coronation Street characters. The question on the reliability of local papers is interesting, any link to get the answer? Innovamus (talk) 04:14, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right here, although I forgot to ask whether that Mirror source was reliable or not and may post again on the noticeboard to ask about it.--Laun chba ller 15:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the redirect target above. I'm pretty sure in most cases local papers are to narrow in audience and therefore not suitable. There's something in notability about how newspapers have to at least be regional and should still be used with caution even in that case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamant1 (talk • contribs) 05:43, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – bradv🍁 06:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Members of Congress who have represented Erie, Pennsylvania[edit]

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

No reason to have a list of members for one midsized city but none of the other US cities. There are websites where these things can be found, and most city articles have their congressional districts listed. Squeeps10 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 00:27, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Squeeps10 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 00:27, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Squeeps10 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 00:27, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:10, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It's kind of synthy to say that these people were "representing Erie" specifically? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:21, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to narrow and regional (doesn't appeal to broad audience) to qualify for a list article IMO. Plus, like said above there is already other articles that cover this type of thing perfectly fine. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:47, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination does not provide a reason to delete. The argument about other cities is a form of WP:OSE and does not explain why this is a problem. Saying that this infomation is found elsewhere tends to justify the page per WP:LISTN. And there seems to be no consideration of alternatives such as merger with the page about the city. The issue which the page seems to be addressing is that congressional districts have been quite plastic and this is a way of providing some historical continuity. Why is this a problem? Andrew🐉(talk) 10:27, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete members of congress lists are grouped by district not by city.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:4360:6C9A:42B2:C9B2:BEF4 (talk) 18:27, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the list has a well-defined scope with clear inclusion criteria relating to a notable subject (Congressional representatives). This list serves a very useful purpose. Congressional district numbers often have no continuity across redistricting, which occurs every 10 years and sometimes more. A state's "1st district" might represent one side of the state one decade and the other side of the state the next decade. Such districts have nothing in common except an arbitrary number. Lists organized by actual community represented is a very welcome addition to the encyclopedia. Furthermore, the rationales of the nominator and Johnpacklambert should be discarded by the closing admin, because they are based on WP:OSDE, which is not a valid rationale for deletion. CJK09 (talk) 19:59, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most cities in the United States (and Canada, and India, and Australia, and the United Kingdom, and France, and Germany, and Spain, and Italy, and I could keep on naming other representative democracies with elected governments until this comment was the size of a small novel) do not have lists like this, and there's no reason why Erie PA specifically needs special treatment that New York City and London and Los Angeles and Toronto and Paris and Berlin and Mumbai and Sydney aren't getting. Bearcat (talk) 22:46, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then those articles should be created. "Other stuff doesn't exist" is not a valid reason to delete a page that meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. CJK09 (talk) 23:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, they really shouldn't. Sometimes other stuff doesn't exist for a good reason: having one of these for every city on earth would be literally unmaintainable, and the value in even trying would be literally nonexistent. Bearcat (talk) 03:22, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We're not talking about every city on earth; just those in the US. There are only about 300 cities of this size in the US and that's not an unmaintainable number of pages.

Why would or should only US cities be eligible for this? That's the flaw in your reasoning: there may be only 300 cities in the US of comparable size to Erie, but there are literally thousands upon thousands of cities in the world of comparable size to Erie, and nobody's even tried to offer a credible reason why cities in the US should get special treatment that cities in the rest of the world aren't getting — literally all you've done is assert US-exclusivity as self-evident, without the first hint of a reason why it should be self-evident. Bearcat (talk) 20:49, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this fails WP:LISTN and WP:SYNTH, there is no reason to suggest that a list of congresspeople that happen to have had a minor city in their congressional districts is a notable topic. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:43, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes our criteria for WP:NLIST aides the readers in navigation and information, and that is what this encyclopedia is about. Additionally the rationale for nominating is that we should not have this city represented because that other city does not have a list. Lightburst (talk) 03:15, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A chronological list of Representatives of Erie is valuable whether or not someone else attempted it for Erie or elsewhere and cannot be rendered within Wikipedia using Categories. I would modify it to place the district name on the same line for instances where one city, like New York City, has multiple districts within its borders. I have often run into this issue of districts bouncing from one district number to another and would frankly see value in deleting district pages instead. They tell us nothing. The page will not require extensive maintenance and a broader application would depend on others adopting the model. Pnoble805 (talk) 04:55, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Duplicates United States congressional delegations from Pennsylvania which may be combined with maps (e.g. from [17] and [18]) to account for redistricting. This should not spawn countless articles covering any possible city in the country. Reywas92^Talk 08:10, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That other page doesn't cite any sources and seems more difficult to understand and use, especially if you need to cross reference with uncited external pages to do so. That page seems to need more work than the nominated page. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:34, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can AWB these citations into these articles pretty easily. What would "need more work" is that we're missing "List of Members of Congress who have represented [Philadelphia][Pittsburgh][any other city in the country]" and this history is best presented with respect to the districts and delegations, not unlimited lists, since members of congress are elected by larger districts, not by city. Reywas92^Talk 23:21, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at the moment, appears to be WP:OR and possibly WP:SYNTH. SportingFlyer T·C 21:26, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as unhelpful. —GoldRingChip (it/they) 17:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think Andrew Davidson, CJK09 and Pnoble805 make good points which are at risk of being missed or misunderstood: listing members who represented congressional districts with an arbitrary number in common, regardless of the geographical location of such districts, as we do at Pennsylvania's 16th congressional district#List of members representing the district and 434 other such articles, is clearly unhelpful and confusing, and listing by geographical areas represented might be more productive. I don't think it's likely that there would be a consensus to delete those articles, since in spite of a lack of clear notability they've become part of the furniture, but I would probably support it if it were proposed. Keep !voters are also right that WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments are not compelling. But this list still has to satisfy WP:LISTN, and fails on that count – there's no indication the topic "has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:37, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think deletion would be hasty given the unique nature of the article's presentation concept. Which experts would you propose should have been summoned? Wikipedia format experts would of course take refuge in the familiar and say the format is new therefore not in compliance. District chronologies are notable, especially when they are useful to those reaching for an encyclopedia. The need for this new format, and perhaps the lack of need for the current District format, is evident on its face. I appreciate you reiterating my point but don't see how at the same time you can propose deletion, which certainly doesn't move the ball forward. A more careful handling of this oeuvre is warranted. Pnoble805 (talk) 16:13, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I support deletion on the basis of WP:LISTN, which, ambiguous and variously interpreted though it is, is our only bit of solid guidance on the question of lists. I favour a stricter interpretation of the guideline than most: in my reading it means (or should mean) that we don't publish lists of things except when reliable sources have also published lists of those things or there's significant coverage of those things as a group. For example, there are probably books about mayors of New York City (not individual mayors, but about mayors of the city as a group), so List of mayors of New York City is a notable list. But there aren't, to my knowledge, sources about members of Congress representing Erie, so this list fails the criterion. (Although the necessity of sometimes splitting lists of officeholders from main articles per WP:SIZESPLIT, resulting in lists which don't strictly speaking need to be notable, muddles things further...) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:24, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can imagine that there are references of representatives from a particular city or region (as I remember newspapers having weekly boxes of how your legislator voted). What is usually lacking in all articles about congressional districts is historical maps or descriptions of which cities were part of the district (and I am sure the same can be true about ridings and electoral districts in other countries). I only comment here because I don't really think that this squarely passes WP:LISTN, but I do not see the harm to this project if it is kept. --Enos733 (talk) 05:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wrong venue. scope_creep^Talk 10:59, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – bradv🍁 06:21, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

General Clutch Corporation[edit]

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

I did source searches on google and couldn't bring anything up. Article is quite undersourced and promotional. Sam-2727 (talk) 00:07, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Sam-2727 (talk) 00:07, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sam-2727 (talk) 00:07, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Way over promotional, lacking reliable in-depth secondary sources, and seems to have been created by someone that has a connection to the company. It would be worth doing AfDs to the articles that are linked in this one, like Francis Mechner and Chyron Corporation. As they appear to be created by the same person and have the same issues. Especially Francis Mechner. Adamant1 (talk) 05:58, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like an "about us" page of a non-notable company. Graywalls (talk) 16:43, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Diego_County,_California

[2] ttps://medium.com/why-we-run-young-people-in-government/why-we-run-priya-bhat-patel-6fa71373fead

[3] Gollayan, Christian (15 December 2018). "Why asbestos allegedly found in Johnson & Johnson baby powder raises cancer fears". New York Post.

[4] "This Is the Best Diet to Reduce Your Cancer Risk, According to an Oncologist". www.yahoo.com. March 29, 2020.

[5] "Síntomas silenciosos del cáncer de pulmón". El Confidencial (in Spanish). 11 November 2019.

[6] Noorani, Asif (25 March 2015). "Adil Akhtar: Our man in Michigan". DAWN.COM.

[7] Noorani, Asif (6 August 2011). "Mela at Michigan". DAWN.COM.

[8] Saha, Indrani (3 October 2012). "Interview with Adil Akhtar". South Asian American Digital Archive (SAADA).

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]