< 29 April	1 May >

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

The result was delete. TIL what Rule 34 is. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:39, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Glasses fetishism[edit]

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

Sure, it exists; if it exists, there is porn of it. But there is no significant coverage of the topic in reliable sources. The article's sources are 1) a fringe psychoanalytic case report on a man with various fetishes, including a glasses fetish. 2) a two-sentence dictionary definition. 3) two blog posts about "megane", a Japanese term for attractive anime characters with glasses. It's debatable whether "megane" is even the same thing as glasses fetishism - finding a trait attractive is not really the same as having a fetish for it.

A WP:BEFORE search turned up nothing better, mainly passing mentions and random self-published websites. There's one case report on Pubmed from 1966 [1] - obviously not WP:MEDRS, a couple sentences in a tabloid [2], and some lightweight stuff about megane on Kotaku [3]. Basically, all that RS has to say about this subject is that it's a fetish for glasses and it exists. That is not enough to justify an article. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 23:27, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 23:27, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SIGCOV. Yes, Rule 34 applies, but no, there's insignificant coverage in reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 01:52, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Found out that a man was recently jailed due to his uncontrolled glasses fetish, other than that the internet is silent on this fetish. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 11:54, 3 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. Keep votes offer little policy basis. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:14, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Injected (TV series)[edit]

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

Unreleased with no sources evident. This is one of a series of articles on non-notable content related to director Pratham Sharma created by Noobmaster29, LuciferEdits. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/That Day Over the Moon and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saat Rang. Daask (talk) 22:33, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Daask (talk) 22:33, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:57, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. And, also Delete the related spammy pages. - Hatchens (talk) 04:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:39, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep LuciferEdits (talk) 08:42, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable Noobmaster29 (talk) 10:28, 8 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 Rascal Does Not Dream of Bunny Girl Senpai#Main characters. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:34, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sakuta Azusagawa[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and has only one source. Character is not notable. lullabying (talk) 21:22, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:57, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Independent notability for any character needs to be established to justify a separate article. For future reference, @Franki3971:, see Naruto Uzumaki and how that article is laid out, specifically how most of that article (or any featured article about a character) mostly contains real-world information about the character's creation, and their reception.--十八 22:26, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:31, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rascal Does Not Dream of Bunny Girl Senpai#Main characters (quite a mouthful), as this article fails GNG. The one source does not even discuss the character outside of a passing mention done in an in-universe style. The article also fails WP:PLOT since it is written from an entirely in-universe point of view. Devonian Wombat (talk) 05:54, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: @Devonian Wombat: To be honest, this character isn't even particularly notable so I don't think it warrants a redirect. lullabying (talk) 20:48, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps not, but the character does have a pretty extensive bio at the main page, so unless that is removed a redirect is probably the best choice. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:52, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, notability is not inherited. GNG fail. dibbydib ^boop or _snoop 02:56, 8 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. Sole keep vote is arguing that notability is inherited from one actress; has not addressed the argument made against this. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When Duty Calls (film)[edit]

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

Non-notable television film, no independent coverage, does not meet WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 14:48, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:03, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:35, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This appears to be another run-of-the-mill television drama without any particular notability. Deletion seems to be the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:21, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I would like the choice to be this one. While I did place some reception info the other day in order to get some improvement, this was Daniella Monet's first starring role in a TV movie as the other known TV movies like the Fred movies she worked in had her in supporting roles. --Rtkat3 (talk) 14:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is, notability is not inherited. Why would this movie need an article? There is no coverage by any significant source. Sure it exists, and sure, some notable people are in it, but the movie itself does not seem to be notable. BOVINEBOY2008 16:01, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:52, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Thebiv19 (talk) 15:20, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 20:59, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no indication that this meets WP:NFILM and a search revealed no further sources. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 01:49, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:41, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Antiverse[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, and if not then WP:TOOSOON. Probably also WP:FRINGE. The primary source is a non-peer-reviewed New Scientist article, and the two secondary sources are web reflections of it. Lithopsian (talk) 19:23, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:35, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do not think that WP:FRINGE really applies, at least not the way it usually does in physics-related AfD's (perpetual motion machines, etc.). The work was published in a real journal. My concern is that it's simply too soon — one very recent paper and a splash of press do not the basis for an article make. The Physics World item is just an interview with one of the authors — basically a press release in all but name, without any effort to even get the standard quote from an expert not involved in the work. New Scientist is famously sensationalist; I wouldn't rely on their reporting to establish the notability of anything, though they're probably OK for supplementing material on a topic whose notability is already demonstrated. The Futurism (who?) source is just a pointer to the Physics World interview, with a few brief paragraphs of summary, so it's neither independent nor in-depth. (Amusingly, it also gets the title of the journal wrong: Physical Review of [sic] Letters.) The publicity people at Perimeter Institute earned their paychecks, but proposals like this appear all the time, and few of them go anywhere. This article is simply not warranted at the present time. XOR'easter (talk) 19:54, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's definitely not WP:FRINGE, although I'm also skeptical that this idea will prove fruitful. In any case, it's not our job to judge scientific merit: it suffices to notice that there's no significant coverage in secondary sources (how could there be? the paper has just been published!). The coverage it received is pretty much only the announcement that the paper was published. Such coverage is nowadays routine for papers published by major institutes, if we would allow that to establish notability Wikipedia would have hundreds of articles about papers that got ignored by the scientific community. If this one makes an impact, then it will be the time to write an article about it. Not now. Tercer (talk) 20:39, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – it is definitely too soon, as noted above. The paper is available online, with the title "CPT-Symmetric Universe" (the title "Antiverse" for the article is a popularization). WP does not (and should not) include articles on a published proposal before the notability guidelines have been met, and these cannot be met until some secondary source reviews the topic. —Quondum 21:23, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The discussion here seems to be about whether the subject of this article is true or not as part of science's description of nature.

I believe we should be talking about whether it is true that the anti-universe hypothesis is a serious topic for debate within the scientific community.

I contend that it is a genuine part of serious scientific debate. because it originates from a highly prestigious institution and has already made some experimental predictions that have been born out.

Wikipedia should be helping it's users who come across this debate for the first time with a brief introduction to its nature ,origin and the arguments on all sides. If the hypothesis is proved wrong then it will form part of the history of science and should be kept to help our readers understand how the debate went and the reasons the hypothesis was rejected.

We are not here talking about fringe or crank science. The encyclopedia is an educational tool often turned to when something new is experienced for the first time. It should reflect all sides of genuine debates in science as they occur.Lumos3 (talk)

Lumos3, I'm afraid you're missing the point. All three comments in favour of deletion argued about WP:TOOSOON, not WP:FRINGE. As I stated above, the paper is definitely not WP:FRINGE, and I think the AfD nominator made a mistake in saying that it probably was.

Note that being true is not a criterion for deciding whether a scientific hypothesis should be covered in Wikipedia. We have, for example, an article on Steady state cosmology. The criterion is notability, and the steady-state hypothesis is definitely notable, as it was debated by several serious scientists. The antiverse, on the other hand, hasn't been debated by anyone yet, simply because the paper has just been published. Perhaps it will inspire follow-up work by other authors, and so become part of the scientific debate. In this case it should be included in Wikipedia, but only after that happens. Now it's WP:TOOSOON. Tercer (talk) 19:15, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What Tercer said. We're not here to evaluate truth, but rather noteworthiness. There's no debate yet to cover. XOR'easter (talk) 14:37, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then surely a debate beginning at a well respected institution of science will be noteworthy , or will become noteworthy very soon. Are you suggesting we should delete this article and then reinstate it when the debate is more fully engaged? Isn't this just a bit bureaucratic? Wikipedia's prime purpose is to educate. As the debate progresses people new to it will come here to find a summary of what is going on, they will find nothing. We should note in the article the tentative nature of this hypothesis and that it is part of an ongoing debate , then record the debate as it happens and eventually any outcome.Lumos3 (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be so sure. Plenty of papers published by major institutes fail to cause any impact. This policy is not pointless bureaucracy, it is there precisely because we shouldn't try to predict which papers will be taken seriously by the scientific community. There's no harm done in copying the current article to your userspace. If and when debate starts we can reinstate it, so that the readers can know what is going on. What we shouldn't have is an article about a non-existing debate. Tercer (talk) 15:47, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia's prime purpose is to educate." No, it is not, even though it may be useful in that way. Wikipedia's purpose is to benefit readers by acting as an encyclopedia, a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge. The goal of a Wikipedia article is to present a neutrally written summary of existing mainstream knowledge in a fair and accurate manner with a straightforward, "just-the-facts style". And yes, we are proposing to delete the article, because it does not meet the criteria for inclusion. There is good reason for deleting articles that have not yet been established as having encyclopaedic value. —Quondum 16:34, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then surely a debate beginning at a well respected institution of science will be noteworthy , or will become noteworthy very soon. There's certainly no guarantee that it will. Prestige of an institution has little to do with it, apart from their being able to afford more publicity. XOR'easter (talk) 00:52, 7 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. Per WP:HEY (non-admin closure) Sulfurboy (talk) 19:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Klee Passage[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a non-notable channel of water. Poydoo can talk and edit 19:01, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Poydoo can talk and edit 19:01, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Poydoo can talk and edit 19:01, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islands-related deletion discussions. Poydoo can talk and edit 19:01, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GEOLAND, as there are sources to support this (search Klee Passage Marshall). Mccapra (talk) 21:16, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's now sourced. It's not the Don Bradman of water features in terms of notability but I think it still passes WP:GEOLAND. SportingFlyer T·C 14:17, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GEOLAND is is now sourced. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 21:41, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:39, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TurningWheels for Kids[edit]

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

Article about local charity that has been unsourced since 2007. Some sources suggested on talk page but nothing that strongly supports notability. In my view does not pass WP:NCORP. Mccapra (talk) 18:55, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 18:55, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 18:55, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 18:55, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability for corporations. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:24, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm finding one bit of decent sized coverage in The Mercury News, but that appears to be it. All other coverage appears to be only in local sources, or merely mentions of the charity with no further information. That single source would not allow this to pass the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 15:16, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article has 0 refs. First page Google presence (which is considered to be the most reliable and followed) is on Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube, Yelp, Subject's Website & Mercury News. Just one article (that too which is too less) certainly does not make notable. Yourmasterishere (talk) 13:17, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:39, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Navpravah Media Network Private Limited[edit]

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

Promotional spam. I nominated it for G11, a brand new user contested the tag with their first edit. Entirely promotional, unsourced apart from directory listings - no indication of an NCORP pass. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:51, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:51, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:51, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:26, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just adding that an IP editor saw fit to blank this AfD discussion earlier. Someone is very eager to circumvent our editorial processes to retain this page. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:53, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Hatchens (talk) 04:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no indication of notability. Mccapra (talk) 04:43, 7 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 Best for Britain. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Naomi Smith (campaigner)[edit]

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

There's a fair amount of trivial and primary coverage of the subject, but I can't find any coverage that actually attempts to paint a biographical portrait or otherwise actually analyzes her life or work. I don't think that she meets WP:GNG or WP:NPOLITICIAN at the moment, and would suggest redirecting to Best for Britain, the context that a majority of the currently cited sources refer to her in. A separate issue that I'm realizing now is that this isn't a great disambiguator; if kept or redirected the page should probably be retitled Naomi Smith (politician). _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:33, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:33, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:33, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:33, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or at best redirect to Best for Britain. Subject fails WP:NPOL/. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 21:25, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with redirect. Lack of secondary independent sourcing indicates the subject fails NPOL.

Also, change title as recommended to Naomi Smith (politician). ---Steve Quinn (talk) 08:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Best for Britain. This is Paul (talk) 17:33, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mai Sakurajima[edit]

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

Fails the general notability guideline. Only one source referenced. A a s i m 16:33, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:57, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:57, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:58, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:58, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No reception/review of the character and no notability. lullabying (talk) 17:27, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can go away because of the missing sources, besides, I don't think you need the article. (no notability) TheImaCow (talk) 17:53, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Independent notability for any character needs to be established to justify a separate article. For future reference, @Franki3971:, see Naruto Uzumaki and how that article is laid out, specifically how most of that article (or any featured article about a character) mostly contains real-world information about the character's creation, and their reception.--十八 22:27, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Character is not notable at all. No significant, non-primary, non-trivial mentions for the subject. Kori (@) 03:21, 3 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. Pretty clear consensus to remove the article. Whether this should happen through a merge or a deletion isn't so clear, but there are unrebutted concerns about the sourcing that make the delete argument the stronger one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Q42 (Wikidata item)[edit]

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

Not a notable enough topic for an encyclopedia article. The sources use Q42 as examples, but they don't discuss Q42 as a topic in its own right. The compilation of examples in the wild thus constitutes original research. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:56, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:56, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:56, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources are little more than passing mentions. Ionmars10 (talk) 15:34, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikidata Easter eggs including q42 are discussed in the 2019 Wired piece in the article's further reading, and again in Wikipedia Is the Last Best Place on the Internet, Wired, 2020. I think that plus the ubiquity of its use as a pedagogical tool make it notable.
sign here ☆ Bri (talk) 15:47, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Passing mentions are insufficient to meet WP:GNG. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:04, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is just ridiculous and WP:CRUFTY. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 16:12, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Wikidata#Reception. The sources are either passing mentions or uses of the item as an example. There is no substantial analysis of the topic, thus it fails WP:WEBCRIT. Probably deserves a mention on the Wikidata page, but a stand-alone article is silly. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 19:19, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Am not opposed to merging; thanks for suggesting the target ☆ Bri (talk) 05:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Wikidata#Reception, per above. Sources provided merely mention the item, but are not about the item. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 21:19, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per the past two arguments, which seem sensible considering the skimpy sources available to be used. 67.243.20.177 (talk) 00:43, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dthomsen8 (talk • contribs) 02:27, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I can't support merging as, unfortunately, Wikidata is a very bad article (I count five independent sources cited, out of 41 citations—WP:REFSPAM?), and this item doesn't strike me as particularly significant to the project's history. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:00, 7 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! 21:37, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G.I. (comics)[edit]

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

Pure fancruft; fails WP:GNG and totally unreferenced WP:ALLPLOT article. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:55, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:55, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:55, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:55, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Searching for additional sources brings up nothing but additional mentions in plot summaries, and no kind of actual discussion or analysis. This could possibly be used as a Redirect to Rogue Trooper, though personally I'd imagine people using this as a search term may actually be looking for information on G.I. Joe (comics) instead. Rorshacma (talk) 15:09, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I agree that it's not a very searchable term on its own since it is so broad. It doesn't look to be viewed very often to redirect to Rogue Trooper, anyway (not zero, but not frequent): last month, last year. -2pou (talk) 18:20, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article is sourced only to primary sources and described from an entirely in-universe point of view, and therefore it fails GNG and ALLPLOT. It is not a useful redirect, since anyone looking for this title would probably be more likely to be looking for information on G.I. Joe. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:21, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE If the information isn't already in the main article you can merge it over, but this article needs to be deleted so people searching for G.I. Joe comic don't accidentally come here by mistake and get directed to the wrong place. Dream Focus 02:08, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if the current trend swings and this is kept, I would recommend moving to Genetic Infantry as a WP:NATURALDIS to avoid all the confusion referenced by every participants thus far. -2pou (talk) 05:38, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What "current trend"? The nominator and four others said delete it, no one saying anything else. Dream Focus 11:55, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. So far we have unanimous delete !votes (myself included), which I'm suggesting is the current trend: everyone !voting delete. However, that is only after one day, and things could potentially change over the course of another six days. If that trend were to swing, and we subsequently get 10 keep !votes that are convincing and potentially sway some existing delete !votes, possibly even improving the article a-la WP:HEY, then that kept article should still probably be moved. Is that likely? Probably not, but you never know. Perhaps someone uncovers a number of print magazines or someone uncovers a number of publications they studied in college... Likelihood? One in a million...? "So you're telling me there's a chance..." GAHAHAHA!!! *sigh* ... Hahaha! ha... ha... Classic. -2pou (talk) 17:29, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 01:51, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

E3 expressway (Pakistan)[edit]

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

No coverage, delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Störm (talk) 14:24, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:29, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:31, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 14:55, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

George Khalife[edit]

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

Other than vapid celebrity gossip (ie. Look what this hunky guy got his supermodel wife as a push gift!) there is no coverage of Khalife or his company. Praxidicae (talk) 14:22, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:32, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some of today's hottest Wikipedia editors are voting Delete. Caro7200 (talk) 14:48, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

so hot right now! Praxidicae (talk) 14:55, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:50, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep, the sources provided include numerous business mags which show that the jeweller has significant coverage online which make it passable for gng. The tone could also be changed as well. Mr. Apollo (talk to me bebe) 01:57, 24 April 2020 (UTC)sock strike Praxidicae (talk) 14:24, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources specifically? Praxidicae (talk) 16:39, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 14:55, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the sources mostly look like tabloid promo nonsense to me, maybe with a few scattered industry magazines, but I don't think those altogether look like enough either. 67.243.20.177 (talk) 01:10, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:39, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mani and Hira[edit]

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

This page should be deleted owing to reason that it is not at all important to have it. The duo it is talking have their separate biographical pages Hira Mani and Mani (actor). Thus the said husband wife duo page is useless and not making any sense, so it should be deleted. USaamo (talk · contribs) (uSaamo 14:20, 30 April 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Delete Not notably different from individual pages for Hira Mani and Mani (actor). XVDC (talk) 14:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. uSaamo 14:29, 30 April 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by USaamo (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:40, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:40, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:41, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reason to have this article when we have articles on the two people in this couple. They are not a performing group. I have no opinion on weather we should merge their articles, but we should not have 3 articles, only 2 or maybe 1 (although I suspect 2, but that is an issue for another day).John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:52, 8 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! 21:42, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chronotopos[edit]

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

Indexed pretty much nowhere, fails WP:NJOURNALS Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:54, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly move to "Draft", that would be an advisable proceeding. Regards, --Fadesga (talk) 14:10, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing to indicate that this would pass WP:NJOURNALS or WP:GNG. Sending to draft would be pointless because the article could not be developed to an acceptable state. A case of WP:TOOSOON at best. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:19, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NJOURNALS, it does not appear to be cited significantly or influential, too new to have historic importance. XVDC (talk) 14:57, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:42, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:42, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Carriker[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

non notable youtuber, the sources are largely unreliable or small time, super local papers or a less read equivalent of bored panda (which is definitely not reliable.) Praxidicae (talk) 12:33, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 12:39, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 12:39, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 12:39, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:44, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or delete Non-notable. Unimportant. TuorEladar (talk) 15:57, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your comment but how would a redirect even work here? What would it even redirect to, TuorEladar? Praxidicae (talk) 16:01, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, now that I think about it, I don't know, Praxidicae. TuorEladar (talk) 16:34, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 04:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Warren Blank[edit]

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

Non-notable writer. User:Namiba 11:39, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 11:39, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 11:39, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:03, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 12:19, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Highly promotional. More a motivational speaker than an author, no real RS to be found. Caro7200 (talk) 13:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is basically a CV without RS. --Kbabej (talk) 13:57, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article is a gigantic bag of promotional, unsourced, trivial, unnecessary content. Kori (@)

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:36, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Fasha[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable person, there is no meaningful coverage of her in english or arabic, her pageant placement isn't notable as the pageant itself isn't notable and the only content about her anywhere else is gossipy nonsense about her posing naked. Praxidicae (talk) 11:56, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't found any Arabic reliable source about her, and all Arabic coverage is meaningful related to unreliable websites. Also, I can't found anything about that she won "Queen of the Universe Pageant" on 2013! About enwiki sources: 1=general link for queenuniversepageant.com, 2 (same as 8), 5/7/10/11/15 not work, 5 (same as 10), 7 (same as 11), 6/16 her own account, 12/13 unreliable talking about "Miss expo"(???), 14 TedX. So non-notable from what I found --Alaa :)..! 12:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 12:35, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 12:35, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 12:35, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 12:35, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete failed to satisfy WP:GNG--Richie Campbell (talk) 02:15, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:00, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Liz Boston[edit]

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

non notable artist - I can't find any sources that cover her in depth and the few mentions I can find in reputable sources aren't even about her. Praxidicae (talk) 11:33, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:37, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:37, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:37, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I looked for significant sources and found one brief interview from a source I'm not confident is reliable. I did add it to the article, though it adds next to nothing. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 12:29, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, not enough RS to be found. Caro7200 (talk) 13:05, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not finding reliable sources. Curiocurio (talk) 02:19, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any coverage to add - looks like a non-notable small (creative) business owner to me. Tacyarg (talk) 20:16, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:36, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dimetri Hogan[edit]

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

non notable person/creative professional, no coverage in reliable sources, mostly sourced to black hat SEO sites masquerading as legitimate outlets. Praxidicae (talk) 10:09, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:26, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:26, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:27, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:27, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I hesitated to nominate this for deletion due to the Maxim coverage, but I see now that it is marked as an article sponsored by an advertising company. – Thjarkur (talk) 20:20, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - undisclosed paid-for spam. MER-C 15:40, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessman and photographer. Wikipedia is not LinkedIn.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:26, 7 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! 21:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Voice UK finalists (series 1)[edit]

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

Per WP:LISTPEOPLE - The list of finalists is already available on the show's article. Most names do not satisfy the WP:BLP requirements thus do not have inherited notability. There is no need for such low level profiling on a separate list. Of the seven seasons of this show, only season 1 has a spinoff like this. Also various other articles relating to the Voice TV series in other countries have also been deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Voice of Ireland finalists (series 1) Ajf773 (talk) 09:40, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:40, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:40, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:40, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per established consensus in multiple recent AfDs. --Gonnym (talk) 10:28, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:37, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ayush Sabat[edit]

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

non notable music producer MistyGraceWhite (talk) 09:01, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Available references are just PR work. - The9Man ^(Talk) 10:05, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete this is, like many others, just PR spam from unreliable sources (the outlets cited may have legitimate uses but these specific publications are undeclared press releases pushed by agents.) Praxidicae (talk) 10:37, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All sources are blatantly paid articles. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:10, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks substantial coverage Spiderone 16:14, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Panoche Junction, California[edit]

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

The GNIS spot is off a bit to the west; looking back into old topos and aerials, the actual spot is a building on the south side of an orchard. Searching seems to show that this building houses a pumping station for an oil pipeline. At any rate all evidence is that there was never a settlement here, and the pumping station doesn't seem notable. Mangoe (talk) 02:10, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:12, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:12, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At least one person is "from there:" [4] Also recognised as a place several places: [5] [6] "panoche%2Bjunction" And has a weather station: "panoche+junction"&ots=5xIesINcA7&sig=14K15RI9AbQ4cUyGKBadgFyp_7E#v=onepage&q="panoche%20junction"&f=false. It at least appears to be accepted as a place name. I'd defer to keeping this. SportingFlyer T·C 02:37, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if this Dave McCurley lived in one of the two buildings near Panoche Junction on the contemporaneous topos. The junction first appeared on the 1946 map but reviewing the rest of the sources I'm not convinced it's a notable community: it was a junction of roads and a gas pipeline near Panoche Road leading through the Panoche Hills to Panoche, California. Reywas92^Talk 21:59, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep In addition to the evidence SportingFlyer found, there's evidence of the name's continued use; see here (referring to utility work in the area) and here (referring to a nearby overcrossing). The one thing that gives me pause is that we only have one piece of evidence that anyone lived here, and that's the stated home of a person in an out-of-town yacht race; if that's somehow a mistake, then this looks a lot more like a locale than a populated place. I'll take the source at its word, but I'd really like to find more evidence of habitation here. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 22:38, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Newspaper coverage is almost entirely within the context of the pipeline. There's no indication that this was actually a settlement beyond the single "someone lived there" reference, and it certainly doesn't have enough significant coverage to meet GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 03:57, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – bradv🍁 04:33, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Actual location. Meets GNG per above sources. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 20:18, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:49, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment Being an "actual location" is of course not a claim to notability, and we are (as usual) foundering on that issue and falling back on the claim to be a community. But the best anyone seems to be doing, it seems to me, is that the pumping station is used as a reference point of a locale. There's just no discussion of the place as a community, much less as one officially established. Mangoe (talk) 17:44, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability under WP:NPLACE (which is what the article claims the location to be) and the application of WPNGEO is iffy, at best. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:13, 6 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! 21:47, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abi.deen[edit]

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. None of the references cited in the article discuss him. As a matter, all of them are promotional links to the subject's music. A Google search of the subject doesn't bring up coverage in reliable sources. The award he is a recipient of is not notable. This lengthy review is from an unreliable source. None of the subject's albums or singles have been critically reviewed. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 23:54, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 23:54, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 23:54, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hi, kindly note ghanacelebrities is a notable site in Ghana which writes about celebrities and lifestyle. With the awards, WMA is a major award in Ghana hence the musician passes for GNG Kwamevaughan (talk) 14:12, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kwamevaughan: Ghanacelebrities is not a reliable source; the website does not have an editorial oversight. Per this page, they promote artists and the artists' music on their site and on social media for a maximum fee of GH₵ 4700 ($1000 US dollars). Ghanacelebrities also offers advertising services. With regards to the Western Music Awards, a Google search of the ceremony doesn't show it having in-depth coverage. I was only able to find is announcements about previous editions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 15:25, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

—- @ User:Versace1608 , the awards ceremony is relatively new as compared to other awards such as vgma and its in the same league as 4syte music awards and 3music awards. Kwamevaughan (talk)

@Kwamevaughan: First you said WMA is a major award in Ghana and after I challenged that assertion, you claimed it is "relatively new". I don't know what your definition of "relatively new" is, but I do not consider any awards ceremony with three previous editions held new. As it currently stands, there aren't any in-depth coverage of WMA available online. If you're going to keep your position, you will need to provide in-depth coverage to support it. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 17:47, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

== @User:Versace1608 Hi, I looked yo the award ceremony and could get two independent articles on. Do have a look: http://233times.com/2017/05/made-in-tadis-review-of-western-music-awards-2017/ https://ghanandwom.net/western-music-awards-2017-launching/ Most of these write ups starting from the 2nd edition of the award program. Thanks Kwamevaughan (talk)

@Kwamevaughan: The sources you provided here are not reliable sources; they are self-published blog sources. If WMA is a "major" award in Ghana, why is there no coverage of it in any major Ghanaian newspaper? Per Wikipedia's reliable sources guideline, in-depth coverage needs to be published by scholarly and newspaper publications. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 20:13, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Versace1608: There are publications in these newspapers. Do see below:

https://dailyguidenetwork.com/3rd-edition-of-western-music-awards-launched/

https://newsghana.com.gh/april-29-reserved-for-western-music-awards/

Kwamevaughan (talk)

@User:Versace1608

Delete - User has made many articles similar to this one, none of them have any notability due to lack of reliable sourcing. 🌺Kori🌺 - (@) 17:54, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – bradv🍁 04:28, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:49, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Chula Vista, California#Government. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chula Vista mayoral elections[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Chula Vista is not a major city. Its mayoral elections are not significant enough to pass WP:NEVENT. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:59, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:08, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:08, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree that we should not automatically expect articles for every small city/large suburb, especially if it's just a results table linked to the official primary source. A potential Mayor of Chula Vista article could support this content but Chula_Vista,_California#Government with link to that source is enough for a non-major city. Reywas92^Talk 23:47, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Chula Vista is on of the top 100 cities in USA population wise; this election of a 1st of a Latina.Djflem (talk) 06:31, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The 2014 election is notable by being the first time a Latina was elected in its city's history. Likely additional sources are available. --Enos733 (talk) 16:02, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Djflem and Enos733:, nothing you said addresses WP:GNG or WP:NEVENT. I looked for sources only found one noting the result. The election of the first Latina in Chula Vista doesn't automatically make this notable. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:12, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are more RS, one which specifically mention major cities. Wikipedia:POLOUTCOMES doesn't speak directly to elections, though it does it does mention firsts.Djflem (talk) 17:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources do exist for its expansion. For instance the 2014 article could be expanded using https://www.kpbs.org/news/2014/oct/08/jobs-top-issue-race-chula-vista-mayor-council-memb/ and https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-2014-chula-vista-candidates-debate-2014oct08-story.html and https://timesofsandiego.com/politics/2014/11/04/salas-mccann-leads-in-chula-vista-mayor-council-races/ and https://www.baltimoresun.com/sdut-chula-vista-city-council-election-results-2014nov04-story.html The 2018 election could be expanded using https://www.nydailynews.com/sd-se-chula-vista-mayor-election-20181012-story.html and https://www.10news.com/news/chula-vista-mayoral-candidate-called-anti-muslim and https://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2018/mar/13/stringers-anti-immigrant-tweeter-wont-change/ SecretName101 (talk) 22:58, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is not the primary city in its metro area, so it really does not warrant separate articles for each election. The mayor of Chula Vista is rarely mentioned in media outside of California, so it's unlikely that such a race would be covered with original reporting (not the reprinted wire feeds as shown above). Sounder Bruce 04:35, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That the Daily News & Baltimore Sun carried the stories is not to be discounted.Djflem (talk) 19:22, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the nature of the election, the issues raised and the broad range of coverage received for the election (as listed in the article and as described above) satisfies WP:NEVENT. There are huge numbers of election articles that should be deleted; this isn't one of them. Alansohn (talk) 19:26, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:19, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we do not need articles for every local election that occurs globally and this local election was only locally notable. Some mayoral elections will receive greater than local notability and those can be kept. The Baltimore Sun and NY Daily News are not actually national coverage - those articles were clearly written by local San Diego journalists and were re-run on those websites, possibly as part of an affiliate program - we've seen this before with the Atlanta Journal-Constitution hosting online local content written elsewhere and for a different community. At best this should be merged into a "Mayor of Chula Vista" article. SportingFlyer T·C 20:50, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

San Diego paper is "regional", not "local". It was an editorial decision by two major East Coast newspapers to print news they found to be significant and national. There's no need to speculate about the other stuff.Djflem (talk) 10:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Topics do not become more notable just because some newspapers outside the local coverage area happened to make an "editorial decision" to reaggregate a bit of wire service coverage originating in the topic's own local area. For either the Baltimore Sun or the NY Daily News to count as notability-bolstering coverage on "nationalizing" grounds, those papers would have to have sent their own journalists to Chula Vista to generate original coverage that existed separately from the wire-serviced local stuff. Bearcat (talk) 13:01, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Was the news of the election carried in two East Coast newspapers? Yes. Is standard "papers would have to have sent their own journalists"..."to generate original coverage" stated anywhere in Wikipedia? Please provide link.Djflem (talk) 02:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't actually carried in two East Coast newspapers, which is the issue - we're not applying an arbitrary standard here because we don't like it. A Newspapers.com search for the Baltimore Sun shows this article was not printed. The sources you found were Tribune wire articles, written in San Diego, and added to a database that most Tribune websites pull from. For instance, [7] or [8] - notice how the sd-se-chula-vista-mayor-election-20181012-story.html is the same in all of those? The article hasn't actually been printed in any those newspapers, they're just Tribune Publishing newspapers, it takes the story and wraps it in that newspaper's outline. As an example, I randomly clicked on [9], currently in the news, and changed the URL to [10] and bam, the story comes up. Clicking the Chula Vista tag or the author's name in any of the articles doesn't bring anything up, further proof it wasn't actually of interest to anyone on the east coast. SportingFlyer T·C 04:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. That "papers would have to have sent their own journalists" and "to generate original coverage" was the claim I was curious about.Djflem (talk) 19:45, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:49, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While I appreciate the effort to make Wikipedia a useful source, Wikipedia is not a news website. Maybe election records could be kept for larger cities, but as some users pointed out above, Chula Vista isn't a particularly large city. To users pointing out this was an important election - perhaps add a stub tag and start adding content about why this was important. I haven't heard anything about these elections on my local news. WallabyWombat ❯❯❯ Let's Talk! 09:36, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:58, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge in a very limited form to Chula_Vista,_California#Government. A regular election in a mid-size city cannot satisfy WP:NEVENT and the coverage demonstrated is not significant. "The first X elected to Office in Place"-type articles are only notable if the office in that place is already notable and Mayor of the 76th-largest city is not automatically notable. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:01, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Sulfurboy (talk) 16:07, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tristan Eaton[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a graffiti artist, not properly referenced as passing WP:NARTIST. The sources here are a neighbourhood hyperlocal and a Q&A interview in which he's talking about himself in the first person on a local interest blog, which are not notability-clinching sources in and of themselves if they're the best references you can find -- but nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to show more than just two pieces of local interest coverage. Bearcat (talk) 05:08, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 05:08, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 05:08, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He seems to be in the collection of the Museum of Modern Art, NY (link).ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:33, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Every claim in the article is now reliably sourced. He appears to be very notable.

The New York Times had this to say about him on January 29,2020: The Los Angeles-based artist Tristan Eaton has been painting mostly with spray cans since his teenage hit-and-run graffiti attacks in Detroit and New York. But he designed the Super Bowl tickets and game program on his computer, wrapping a century of N.F.L. highlights around a gleaming Lombardi Trophy. The look and the spirit of street art is there,” he said. “The computer is just another tool.” Mr. Eaton, 41, went back to spray cans to turn a 9-foot tall, fiberglass model of the Lombardi into a dazzling collage of aquas, pinks, purples, oranges and greens, art deco, palm trees and N.F.L. milestones. It will be outside the stadium as fans arrive on game day.

An October 2019 New York Times article said "The women in Tristan Eaton’s mural are striking, strong, steady in their gaze. They project power. Their silver and blue complexions, the red accents and the white stars streaming across them, shout authority. He grew up in Detroit and New York, now lives in Los Angeles. “I’m cheering the idea of women having a greater voice and an equal seat at the table,” Mr. Eaton said. “Sometimes seeing imagery like this can solidify people’s viewpoints and they realize they’re not alone.” ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:18, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Hollywood reporter has an article on his mural at Universal studios.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:30, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a transcript of a CNN program titled The Art of Tristan Eaton. Video is here. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:55, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, does authoring a chapter in a book like The Art of Spray Paint reflect how well known/respected Eaton is in this art field? Coolabahapple (talk) 10:42, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Only if other sources independently wrote about his authorship of a chapter in a book to contextualize the importance of that work, and not if you simply use that work as circular sourcing for its own existence as a work. Bearcat (talk) 16:05, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Coolabahapple: I found "The Art of Spray Paint" book you mentioned. The book is by Lori Zimmer, not Eaton. So it is about him, not by him. There is a three-page profile on him on pages 78-81. Example text: "These cultural conglomerations have become Eaton’s calling card, permeating his commercial, gallery, and mural work, which has reinvented architectural facades in cities across the globe. Eaton’s work has a discern- able dynamism and complexity that has consistently attracted commercial clients, especially lifestyle and fashion labels seeking to expand their brand with art. The artist’s ability to mash up elements from a brand’s identity into gorgeous murals is as alluring to his clients as their size. His murals often sprawl to expansive sizes, sometimes upward of 20 feet (6 m) and more, meshing art and branding, and have a much greater effect than any billboard ever could. Much like artist Shepard Fairey, Eaton’s style transcends the genre and bleeds into commercial work, attracting clients for not only his skill set, but also his vision and brand understanding."ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

thanks very much ThatMontrealIP, i have made my recommendation below accordingly. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:19, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sourcing is not indepdent and indepth enough to show notability. We can not use a subjects own work as a direct show of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:08, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Johnpacklambert, Did you actually read the article? The subject is not used as a self-published source anywhere. It is full of independent sources that talk about his work, as well as the NYTimes above. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:35, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Above people are trying to cite the fact he wrote a chapter in a book as a sign of notability. A chapter is a book is not a sign of notability, since you wrote the work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:36, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but that is one proposed source that is not even used in the article. What about the sourcing contained in the article?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert: see above, the spray paint book is not by him, it is by another author and contains three pages about him. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the Google Books overview page here denotes Eaton as a "Contributor" (select the "More about this edition" to expand the box). It is unclear to what extent Eaton contributed toward the book, though, because I cannot access the content about him in Google Books at this time, for example, to see if the content is attributed to him. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:09, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being in the collection of MOMA is almost sufficient by itself towards passing the notability bar, but in addition the article is well sourced. Curiocurio (talk) 19:10, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:14, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Thebiv19 (talk) 15:27, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:46, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sourcing present (NYT, CNN, etc.) collectively convince me that Eaton meets GNG/NBIO. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 01:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST, sources are discussed above (a big thanks to ThatMontrealIP for bringing attention to them), and being represented in the collection of MMA, the clincher for me is being covered in the book The Art of Spray Paint that, according to WorldCat, is held by around 1000 libraries reflecting that he is "well known" for his art. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:21, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per a source review, the subject meets WP:BASIC. Some of the articles contain interview content, but also contain non-interview content that discuss the subject and his works in significant detail. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:04, 7 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. The delete arguments that do an in-depth analysis of the sources are stronger. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:35, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Baran Nikrah[edit]

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

Non-notable Instagram figure, no coverage (some of the sources in Farsi is about university result announcement ), no reviews, fails GNG, I did a thorough research about her and couldn't find anything showing her notability. It should be speedy deleted Mardetanha (talk) 11:45, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:55, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:27, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:27, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:27, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:07, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough reliable resources mentioned her and this is a criteria for notability. Although her notability isn't as much as great and famous actors and presenters. I suggest that speedy deletion tag changes to refimprove tag. I suggest that you take a look at her Instagram profile. 860K followers is big enough to name her an influencer. MrInfo2012 Talk 21:13, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Having Xk followers is not criteria for notability, I couldn't find single source about her biography. only some poor metions in Iranian tabloidsMardetanha (talk) 16:27, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Mardetanha. Baran Nikrah has many followers on Instagram and it seems she's a famous person. In the other hand, I checked the Persian sources that show she's a famous person in Iran.(Hamid Alizade333 (talk) 10:05, 25 April 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:09, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:45, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable at all. Deleted 3 times in fawiki. You can't find any reliable source about this person. One of the references is a personal blog about his PhD test result! ARASH PT talk 16:19, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. From what I understand from the sources, none of the ones (other than potentially, and probably not, the Gilan Media video) constitute actual substantive (non-trivial) coverage in reliable secondary sources. Even if the Gilan Media video was a good source (which I doubt based on the quality of the other sources) it wouldn't be nearly enough. The fawiki deletions, from people who know the language and the sources better, are also indicative of Nikrah's lack of notability. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 02:02, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Hatchens (talk) 06:26, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Arash.pt. A search on her name in Persian shows no important results. Clearly non notable even locally. Diderotd (talk) 07:55, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nominator and Arash.pt. Barely found anything about her. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:18, 2 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:00, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Frozen Crown[edit]

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

Non notable musical band having no in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. Each member of the group is non notable & references provided are not reliable sources as they have no reputation for fact checking & lack editorial oversight. They also do not satisfy WP:SINGER. Celestina007 (talk) 13:13, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:13, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:13, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:13, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The group doesn't appear notable. I agree. This is a great example to illustrate the principle that "well-known doesn't necessarily mean notable" since we have all kinds of sources about the band, but none of them that I've seen appear particularly reliable. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:07, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The band satisfies notability requirements in WP:SINGER on at least points 1, 4 and 5. The easiest one to document is 5: Frozen Crown have released two albums on Scarlet Records^[1] which comfortably satisfies the requirements for a "more important independent label": the label was founded in 1998, and its own article lists 16 other current artists notable enough to have their own pages as well as more than 30 former artists that do so. I could make a case for the other points, but I don't believe that discussion would be very productive, as notability should now be established and I would prefer to use my time improving this and other articles. As the original contributor of the article, I do take the point that the first version could be better sourced and will work to address that. Laanders (talk) 09:30, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://scarletrecords.it/artists/frozen-crown/

Keep - I feel that a band with over 13 million views on Scarlet Records is probably more than "well known", they have physical media available and are obviously a successful band — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.75.94.117 (talk) 01:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:08, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:45, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 22:01, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yumdda[edit]

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

Non notable rapper who doesn’t satisfy WP:MUSICBIO although he has won awards, both are non notable & under #6 of WP:MUSICBIO, it emphasizes on winning “notable” awards. Furthermore WP:GNG isn’t satisfied. Celestina007 (talk) 13:58, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:58, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:58, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:58, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I believe the articles does satisfy WP:MUSICBIO because the artist meets this criterion: "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart." Lenoresm (talk) 18:38, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passes WP:NMUSIC criteria 2 (only one criteria needed) with charting releases on the Korean national music charts, namely one album and five singles as confirmed by the references in the article. Also, the awards he won and was nominated for are notable awards, but its the charting that clinches it, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:43, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:06, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:45, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Users paid to edit arguing to keep are generally given less weight then users without skin in the game. Obvious meatpuppets need to be policy based to have any impact in the outcome. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Taha Heydari[edit]

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

his article was deleted recently on fawiki, I did research on his and I didn't see enough sources about him, fails GNG Mardetanha (talk) 07:41, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:14, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:14, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the 5 sources in the Reference section of the original article should be sufficient for an article of this type. Additionally any show at a permanent well known gallery should serve as additional proof of notability. Slipandslide (talk) 12:59, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Slipandslide: an art show at a "well known gallery" is irrelevant to GNG. Jooojay (talk) 07:48, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jooojay:Art shows at well known galleries, not owned or controlled by the artist should always be considered when applying GNG to artists. To state otherwise is to ignore common sense.Slipandslide (talk) 20:20, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that makes sense if its a notable gallery, or if your being paid for the article creation. Jooojay (talk) 20:30, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where you exhibit is not specifically mentioned in WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST, which only mentions shows at siginficant venues like the Venice Biennale. You could show at lots of well-known galleries and never get a review, and thus not be notable as there would be no coverage.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 12:22, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see many new citations were added today to this article, however they don't seem like they are reliable sources (see WP:RS). A lot of gallery PR publications. Jooojay (talk) 21:44, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jooojay:Art Daily and BMore Art can hardly be described as gallery PR publications.Slipandslide (talk) 21:50, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bmore is not a national publication, and the ArtDaily link appears to be an ad for the "Haines Gallery". The majority of your new edits today are not done with inline citations and as of now appears to be original research, I don't see you demonstrating any notability or strengthening your argument yet. Jooojay (talk) 22:06, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't meet GNG. Jooojay (talk) 07:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:ARTIST fail on all counts. GNG fail as well, since the coverage found is too sparse.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:44, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ThatMontrealIP:I don't think you can claim that here when there are seven distinct citations.Slipandslide (talk) 21:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Slipandslide: Ohhhhhhhhhh, I see. Please then describe which part of the special notability guideline WP:ARTIST is met by this artist? Looking forward to your answer and learning something new, as there is always time for learning!ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:52, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've tagged the article as undisclosed paid editing, since Slipandslide just told me this is a paid editing gig, but I do not see it mentioned on this AFD page, nor on the article talk page or on their user page.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:35, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ThatMontrealIP:I also told you that I had disclosed the contribution on my User Talk page by adding the required template there. My understanding from Paid-contribution_disclosure is that the disclosure may be made in any of 3 places including the User|Talk page. Therefore I will ask you to remove that template.Slipandslide (talk) 00:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It makes sense that it was made by a paid editor. The template should stay on the article for now, and the article (if it's not deleted) needs deep clean up per WP:CONPOL. Also this maybe a COI situation, per WP:PAID.Jooojay (talk) 01:17, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Slipandslide: please discuss the UPE issues on the article talk page, in the thread you have started there. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:35, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI am the director of exhibitions at the Southeastern Center of Contemporary Art (SECCA). Many, now well known, artists have been featured in exhibitions at SECCA. Taha Heydari is one such artist. We feel that his work measures up to the other artists who have come before him and we see Heydari as a strong voice for for Iranian artists living in exile. KEEP Signed CDossel— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdossel (talk • contribs)

Comment I am the former Curator of Contemporary Art at SECCA and the curator of the exhibition ^[1]. Heydari is an innovative contemporary painter and his exhibition made a valuable contribution to the institution and was warmly received by the North Carolina community. Signed C. Fisher. 2601:193:8201:6F0:C1DB:5FED:D695:D52E (talk) 13:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC)2601:193:8201:6F0:C1DB:5FED:D695:D52E (talk) 13:29, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Holy external coordination of support for this article batman. Delete per nominator.VViking_TalkEdits 14:02, 8 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! 22:02, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Odunayo Eweniyi[edit]

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

promotional and non-notable. Probable paid editor rsponsible for a number of similar articles. The references look impressive, but they do not hold up: they are promotional interviews where the person speaks whatever he pleases--as can be seen from the titles and confirmed by looking at the text, some of them duplicate.

The various annual "OKAYAfrica's 100 Women" and "Forbes 30 under 30" and similar awards are promotional gimmicks, and do not lead to notability . Even the WorldBank Live page was clearly written by her own publicist. Unlike some other people written about by this editor, there is a possibility that she might become notable, in which case there will be no need for her to pay for an article, for a volunteer will know about her and write a proper article. DGG ( talk ) 23:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 06:18, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Promotional article for a non notable individual.Celestina007 (talk) 06:39, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:19, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:19, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:19, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The subject has co-founded several non-notable businesses. Some of her awards and recognition do appear to be valid. However, these accolades are not enough to warrant a separate article at this time. She fails WP:GNG and it is WP:TOOSOON for her to have a separate article. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 14:17, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have removed promotional content and added more reliable sources. The subject of this article have significant coverage in a good number of secondary sources. She passes WP:GNG, WP:NEXIST and WP:NRV applied.Kojomo (talk) 19:31, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:24, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:34, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MIAMUN[edit]

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

Uncertain if the subject meets the club notability guidelines; page currently has no meaningful sources. Was tagged for speedy deletion under A7, but as a borderline case with potential notability, User:Dibbydib has asked for a deletion discussion. Passenger pigeon (talk) 06:15, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Passenger pigeon (talk) 06:15, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Passenger pigeon (talk) 06:15, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Passenger pigeon (talk) 06:15, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for mentioning me. I'm gonna go with delete as its only "references" are its website, instagram, and its YouTube channel. (permalink) dibbydib (T ･ C) 09:56, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tagged this for speedy deletion because I can't find any independent sourcing or even local news coverage. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:44, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There is a narrow but policy-supported consensus that the sources provided do not suffice to support notability for this subject. No prejudice against restoring to draft if further improvements can be made to overcome these objections. BD2412 T 01:43, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kristel Kruustük[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Kristel Kruustük

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

Non-notable person, Wikipedia is not LinkedIn, even the mentioned company is not on Wikipedia. The business person is only locally "known", the Stanford link is a generic set of interviews done in Estonia to record and archive local lives of locals (notable and non-notable people). One startup person among dozens of thousands. Article wrote by only one editor with an excessive promoting tone. Userland12 (talk) 15:57, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:30, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:52, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:52, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:52, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

She is the youngest Estonian female millionaire and definitely notable enough for English Wikipedia. There is nothing do debate about. Anyone who claims something else has not looked into the topic. Ivo (talk) 16:41, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notability has already been proven in the article, which is well sourced. Pelmeen10 (talk) 13:17, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Some other sources I found in a quick search: [11] in Forbes, [12] in VentureBeat, [13] in Äripäev. Pelmeen10 (talk) 13:26, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 20:07, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:34, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I cannot fully access the sources, as most of them are in Estonian. But I just wanted to note that the Forbes article linked above by Pelmeen10 is a "contributor article" which is more like a blog than a magazine article; it does not suffice for notability. BenKuykendall (talk) 07:19, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not only it fails WP:PROMOTION but also fails WP:GNG. "Millionaire" is not enough to describe notability. According to List_of_countries_by_the_number_of_millionaires there are 10'000 millionaires in the country of the subject. Let's be honest, the company is nothing special (there are much bigger and notable companies that are not on Wikipedia). A local wood factory in Siberia can easily earn 1 million USD and may even have interviews in local newspapers or mentions in international websites but it doesn't mean it's worth for inclusion so the argument of money is pointless. The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity. On the outside sources, what we can see is PR organized by the subject's own company. Yes money can buy that, and you can pay to get articles written for you, but it doesn't make you notable. It's very visible by the promotional tone. For example the main source of the Wikipedia article is "Estonian World (press release) (blog)-Oct 27, 2016". No offense if but an article based on press releases and promotional interviews and guests posts, well that's PR and marketing, not encyclopedia content and therefore should be deleted if we don't want Wikipedia to become a PR garbage (especially when the notability is not established by repeated and independent sources). - Userland12 (talk) 12:57, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. PR and self-promotion are certainly valid concerns here, but I think this article just makes it over the GNG bar. I view the Forbes and VentureBeat sources more favorably than some of the other commentators above. The overall sourcing is not ideal, but I see it as just reliable and independent enough to meet our criteria.--Mojo Hand (talk) 14:41, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL. How can she be a millionaire when she's in debt for $7M? Bearian (talk) 17:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable person whose company doesn't even have a page. Kori (@) 00:04, 2 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mamak railway station[edit]

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

This train station has no claim for notability. Essentially no content either. Mopswade (talk) 08:37, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if it exists, it passes WP: GEOFEAT, which is all it needs to do. ——SN 54129 08:46, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does it? GEOFEAT says this "Many artificial geographical features may be mentioned in plenty of reliable sources, but they may not necessarily be notable. The inclusion of a man-made geographical feature on maps or in directories is insufficient to establish topic notability." I don't think this train station warrants a standalone article, if this is all the information there is on this station, one for the entire line will be more than fine. Mopswade (talk) 09:17, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but only if someone adds a source. Failing that, redirect to the line, if the list of stations is supported by a source, or delete if not. PamD 11:37, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a source to the article, Phil Bridger (talk) 17:08, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That source is a Wikipedia mirror/copy-paste, see [14]. SportingFlyer T·C 19:10, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If the source is a mirror then that link certainly doesn't show it. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:40, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia: Sincan ile Ankara İstasyonu arasındaki demir yolu hattı 1892'de tamamlanmış ve hizmete açılmıştır. Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Devlet Demiryolları'ndan önce hatta çok az sayıda tren hizmet vermekteydi. Tren setleri buhar motorlu bir lokomotifin çektiği üç adet vagondan oluşmaktaydı. 1972'de elektriklendirilen hatta E23000 banliyö tren setleri hizmet vermektedir. 11 Temmuz 2016 tarihinde yenileme çalışmaları nedeniyle kısmen kapatılmıştır. 12 Nisan 2018'de tekrar hizmete girmiştir.

Rayhaber.com (the source currently in the article:) Sincan ile Ankara Garı arasındaki demiryolu hattı 1892’de tamamlanmış ve hizmete açılmıştır. TCDD’den önce hatta çok az sayıda tren hizmet vermekteydi. Tren setleri buhar motorlu bir lokomotifin çektiği üç adet vagondan oluşmaktaydı. 1972’de elektriklendirilen hatta E23000 banliyö tren setleri hizmet vermektedir. 11 Temmuz 2016 tarihinde yenileme çalışmaları nedeniyle kısmen kapatılmıştır. 12 Nisan 2018’de tekrar hizmete girmiştir.

It's not impossible Wikipedia is a copyvio, but this post was posted after the link I posted. Not a reliable source. SportingFlyer T·C 20:31, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We always keep articles on railway stations. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:54, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:55, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the other related AfD, this also fails WP:GNG, the article should be redirected to the line until it can be further developed. Still not sure where in WP:GEOFEAT a train station is "automatically" notable. SportingFlyer T·C 19:47, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Consensus, per WP:RAILOUTCOMES. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:27, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - "generally kept" not "always," probably because stations typically get sources. Where are the sources? SportingFlyer T·C 18:48, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - In Turkish, I expect. Have you looked? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:59, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yep. "Mamak Tren İstasyonu" brought up only directory sites, and the Turkish Wikipedia doesn't have an article, and most of the stations on that website are unsourced anyways. SportingFlyer T·C 19:05, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        See my reply at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cebeci railway station. It's good that we have someone who knows Turkish involved, but I'm not convinced that that search is in any way exhaustive. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:29, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        As noted, I don't know Turkish - just trying to search in Turkish to find sources which pass WP:GNG, none of which have been found yet. SportingFlyer T·C 20:31, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Mainline commuter rail station of major city which WP:OUTCOMES demonstrate we always keep. It's absolutely impossible for such infrastructure to exist without extensive government reports, surveys, budgets and overall scrutiny by the public. Just a brief search in the Turkish language, which I don't speak a word of, shows the scope of this project.[15][16] Such a station would never be considered for AfD in the US or UK. Might this be systemic bias? Oakshade (talk) 15:46, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:32, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Previous consensus typically keeps stations such as this. Sulfurboy (talk) 16:06, 7 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. BD2412 T 04:16, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bhagna Hriday[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. There is no meaningful content in this article that cannot be covered in the article of the corresponding author. Mopswade (talk) 08:58, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mopswade is a blocked sockpuppet

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:13, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:13, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:26, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:26, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If a book by Nobel Prize for Literature winner Rabindranath Tagore doesn't pass WP:NBOOK criterion 5 then I don't know what would. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:55, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ~~Rabindranath Tagore~~ List of works of Rabindranath Tagore; leave for later development.--Goldsztajn (talk) 20:25, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amend comment--Goldsztajn (talk) 21:05, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. Satisfies criteria 5 of NBOOK. The author, Rabindranath Tagore won the Nobel Prize for Literature. James500 (talk) 15:03, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:25, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per all the other vexatious and disruptive nominations by this blocked editor of Tagore’s works, all of which are discussed extensively in English-language critical literature. Mccapra (talk) 10:51, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NBOOK 5 .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:22, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets criteria 5 of WP:NBOOK. Tagore is the first Asian recipient of a Nobel prize. He wrote the national anthems of not one but two countries (India and Bangladesh). This was one of his published works and earned him widespread acclaim. It has been reviewed and analysed in numbers books and journal articles.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 17:21, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:NBOOK. --Zayeem ^(talk) 19:05, 3 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. CEOs are not inherently notable by any policy and no sources put forward. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:05, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ivar Brandvold[edit]

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

Very borderline, but I couldn't establish he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Successful but not notable. Boleyn (talk) 17:16, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:30, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:30, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- CEO of a significant off-shore company. Eisfbnore ^(会話) 21:08, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Eisfbnore, I'm sorry to bother you, but just because you are a CEO of a big company doesn't mean you are automatically notable or pass GNG. Kori (@) 17:14, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I found quite a bit of sources like this one, and this one. Kori (@) 17:15, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Agree with nom, might be successful, but not notable. The two previous keep votes are not compelling. Being a CEO does not automatically make someone notable. In the second vote Koridas presents two 'sources'. One is just a standard Bloomberg profile directory entry (which there are thousands of) the second is some obscure, unreliable site that put him on their "wall of fame". The site looks like it is some site for a convention? Either way nothing reliable about it, and being fully independent from the subject can't be confirmed. In my search on this subject, I only see WP:ROUTINE coverage of hiring/firing stuff. No WP:SIGCOV that would denote WP:GNG or WP:BIO Sulfurboy (talk) 20:12, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. CEOs are not necessarily notable4, but they should be considered notable--and generally are-- if the companies are as famous as this one.
Strong Delete CEO is not inherently notable, regardless of company size. Does not meet WP:GNG as lacks significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Sources cited by Koridas are business profiles, not significant coverage. XVDC (talk) 13:19, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:20, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Sulfurboy. The sources presented above are especially unpersuasive, and while there's bits and pieces referring to him there's no substantive, non-ROUTINE, independent secondary coverage that I found. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 02:08, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A discussed enough person, in a standout field of business. Geschichte (talk) 13:29, 8 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 East Lansing, Michigan. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:40, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whitehills, East Lansing, Michigan[edit]

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

Non-notable neighborhood according to GNG and WP:GEOLAND, and it isn't turning up any reliable sourcing via Google. Merge and redirect to East Lansing, Michigan. Citrivescence (talk) 00:19, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:19, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:19, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Subdivision fails GEOLAND and GNG. Reywas92^Talk 00:52, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. My understanding is that neighborhoods are considered to pass WP:GEOLAND as long as they are official, city-designated subdivisions. Can someone link me to some previous AfDs where articles for such neighborhoods were deleted or redirected? If this is accepted precedent, then a lot of neighborhood articles will need to be brought to AfD. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 13:28, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This applies to larger neighborhoods and broader districts of cities e.g. Community areas in Chicago, not subdivisions and neighborhood associations for which there's not significant independent coverage of the areas. This is a housing development ("developed by Al White") that has a homeowners association. While the city provides a map of the HOAs, they are not officially city-designated and Stonelake Condos or Shaw Estates would not be notable either. East Lansing, Michigan#Neighborhoods (or an overview subarticle if warranted) would be the appropriate place for this, not up to 25 articles on each. We've had quite a few housing developments at AFD recently (1, 2, 3, 4, 5); though they've tended to be subdivisions not within a city, there's even less of a case for separate articles for incorporated ones since they fit more easily into a Neighborhoods section as here, without independent notability. Yes, there are indeed a lot of non-notable articles out there so redirects are a way to go when there's not significant independent coverage per GNG. Reywas92^Talk 19:29, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 02:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to East Lansing, Michigan or any other suitable article. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 02:10, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable subdivision.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:44, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to East Lansing, Michigan. Non-notable neighborhood. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:18, 6 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 Sistema. Sandstein 16:53, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kronstadt Group[edit]

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

I attempted to let this incubate in draftspace, but it was moved back out. Zero justification for a standalone stub article separate from its parent company Sistema. Any coverage seems to be trivial or routine, per WP:CORPDEPTH; mostly just shallow coverage of weapon contracts/announcements/releases that are akin to press releases. There's some very modest coverage in military blogs and sources with limited audience WP:AUD. There is two Newsweek articles where the CEO is quoted, and other articles that parrot those quotes and then a national post article that gives a one line shoutout to them, but no real coverage of the company, at least nothing that would pass the rigorous standard of WP:NCORP. Sulfurboy (talk) 00:08, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Sulfurboy (talk) 00:08, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Sulfurboy (talk) 00:08, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Sulfurboy (talk) 00:08, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing there at all, certainly doesn't satisfy WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 06:14, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Article doesn't need to be immediately very long. Oranjelo100 (talk) 13:18, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Sistema. Subsidiaries are better covered in the parent co. article. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:18, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:37, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to Sistema, the main company for Kronstadt group. I don't see any other options. Kori (@) 20:50, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 22:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lahna Turner[edit]

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

Comedian and actress who fails WP:GNG and has not had multiple significant roles. There is one reference from an independent, reliable source (the ABQ article) but no others that I could find. Delete. Citrivescence (talk) 00:36, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Citrivescence (talk) 00:38, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:39, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:39, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Citrivescence You stated there is only one reference from an independent, reliable source. The New York Times is cited as well as Heavy.com and laughspin. Are these not reliable sources? --DaJerm (talk) 00:08, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DaJerm: I generally use WP:RSP for consensus on reliability of sources, and there The Heavy is not considered reliable. The Times article does not provide in-depth, significant coverage about Lahna Turner. Citrivescence (talk) 03:16, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:57, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Citrivescence ah, gotcha, totally understandable. I'll dive into it this weekend and research better sources. Thanks for the feedback! --DaJerm (talk) 16:39, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable comedian.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:05, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: There is a fair amount of coverage of the subject, which I am poring over now, and the subject also won an award—though I'm not sure whether it is considered notable for the purposes of WP:ANYBIO. Dflaw4 (talk) 03:21, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dflaw4: Please link the coverage that you've found. In addition, what award did she win? Thank you. Citrivescence (talk) 16:00, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to her IMDb page, the subject won a DOC LA Award for her documentary, What's Eating Ralphie May. Here are a couple of the sources, although I think you already may have referred to one of them above:

→https://www.abqjournal.com/1351215/creative-disability.html

→https://www.houstonpress.com/arts/things-to-do-lahna-turner-at-sable-gate-winery-11312167

She's also brought up in a lot of articles in respect of her late husband, Ralphie May. That being said, I don't think this level or quality of coverage would allow me to argue for anything more than a "Weak Keep". Dflaw4 (talk) 12:49, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:37, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources found by Dflaw4. Two unrelated long and indepth news articles from reliable sources from different states about her pass the General Notability Guideline. --GRuban (talk) 13:24, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:27, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Living Loaded[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable television pilot, lacks the significant coverage needed to meet long-term notability per WP:GNG. All sources (including the ones presented at the last AfD) are simply reworded press releases, not independent of the subject, reporting verbatim casting news, attached crew, and the mere existence of this pilot's development – none provide significant coverage. Thousands of unaired broadcast network pilots exist, and this one is not unique enough to merit a standalone article. -- Wikipedical (talk) 01:12, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:20, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:03, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, has sources that reliably pass GNG. Independent means the source site is not related to the article's subject itself dibbydib (T ･ C) 07:48, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They are reliable sources, but they are separately repeating information from the same exact press releases, which is not independent of the subject. It's not significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. Typically unaired pilots do not meet notability guidelines, since there are thousands of them. -- Wikipedical (talk) 16:54, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:37, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources all constitute WP:ROUTINE coverage. There's no way this article passes WP:10YT in my mind. Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate repository of information, and it would take a pretty unusual set of circumstances for me to think an unaired pilot is long-term notable. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 02:15, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources are as noted above (several times) - rephrasing of the same press release material. This is not substantial independent coverage. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:40, 5 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 16:53, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jacinth Headlam[edit]

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

Subject of article does not satisfy any criterion from WP:NACTOR nor WP:AUTHOR. She won a non notable award & does not have in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of her. Celestina007 (talk) 09:25, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:25, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:25, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:25, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:25, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:51, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:54, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep. Passes WP:GNG as she had been the subject of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, e.g. WFMZ-TV, Jamaica Gleaner Stayhomestaysafe (talk) 14:00, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep : The subject seems to pass WP:GNG, as per WP:AUTHOR and WP:NACTOR, also awarded from Philadelphia Independent Film Festival.[17] Covideditnerd (talk) 23:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Covideditnerd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment — Following the investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stayhomestaysafe the !votes of all socks & sockmaster have been struck out.Celestina007 (talk) 06:57, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:27, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:47, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jellystone![edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. The sole source provided in the article is essentially just a press release, and I was only able to find similar coverage online. Alternatives to deletion to consider include redirecting to C. H. Greenblatt, the show's creator, or to Yogi Bear, as both the show and the fictional location Jellystone Park are mentioned there. I think that I prefer to redirect to Yogi Bear at this time. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:25, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:25, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:25, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is a show premiering on HBO Max on May 27th, less than a month away. The early press coverage included The Hollywood Reporter, Deadline and Cartoon Brew; I've added references to the article. There will be more press coverage when the service debuts next month. I don't see the point of deleting the page after a week of AfD discussion and having to re-create it two or three weeks later. — Toughpigs (talk) 03:20, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ack, I somehow didn't notice that the show hadn't premiered yet. I still disapprove that this article was created so far in advance of the release of a show, but agree that it's not worth bringing to AfD. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:47, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lack of WP:BEFORE. Clear pass of WP:JUDGE (non-admin closure) Sulfurboy (talk) 16:02, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Devendra Kachhawaha[edit]

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

non notable judge. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 15:45, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:15, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:15, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am relatively a new editor on Wikipedia, and so I studied the criteria of notability, and this is what I found:

Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Politicians_and_judges

As per the clause - 1, a judge who has held an international, national or state level office in a country is presumed notable. Here, in this case the subject of the article has been an officer of the State Judicial Service throughout his service, till the age of 60 when he got appointed as the Judge of Rajasthan High Court (A court of original(in some cases) and appellate jurisdiction). The court is second from top in the heirarchy of the court and is a higher court of jurisdiction, the first being the Supreme Court of India.

Additionally, the total number of judges in the RHC is 28. The nomination of him was done by the Chief Justice of India and appointment by the President of India. More information and references regarding the same can be gathered by a simple google search of his name. That's all to be said in the matter. MahakMaatiDi (talk) 09:54, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as per User:MahakMaatiDi - I agree with his/her interpretation of WP:JUDGE. Yet another nomination lacking WP:BEFORE. Ingratis (talk) 22:08, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:18, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets notability for judges Spiderone 12:17, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MahakMaatiDi. --Yoonadue (talk) 05:04, 7 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. Per WP:HEY (non-admin closure) Sulfurboy (talk) 16:01, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Bennett (actor)[edit]

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

Seemingly NN actor. Unable to find any in-depth coverage. Toddst1 (talk) 21:45, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Toddst1 (talk) 21:45, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:59, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:59, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is one of literally hundreds of articles sourced only to IMDb. In a discussion on another such article yesterday it was determined that IMDb had conflacted two different actresses into one article. Not everyone who ever had a credited role in a commercially released film production is notable, but that may even be a more strict criteria than IMDb uses. We need to stop being an IMDb mirror. This is a long standing problem, with many of these IMDb only sourced articles dating back well over a decade.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:15, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's more than just an actor: I've update a little bit with a number of references Piecesofuk (talk) 14:13, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: The subject seems to pass WP:GNG, as per WP:HEY. WP:NACTOR is less clear-cut, but the article is worth keeping, in my opinion. Dflaw4 (talk) 12:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep passes WP:GNG Covideditnerd (talk) 23:19, 29 April 2020 (UTC)~~ — Covideditnerd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WP:SOCKSTRIKE 21:28, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:HEY, DiamondRemley39, Piecesofuk, nice work with the adds. The additions show that enough sources WP:NEXIST to at least satisfy GNG. Looks like plenty of room to improve the article still, but that's not really grounds for deletion. --2pou (talk) 05:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to additional sources found by Piecesofuk. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 01:41, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to be notable due to his work with Tony Hart alone. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:14, 7 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 16:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bangali Chhatra– Yuva Samaj[edit]

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

Non notable student organisation.Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Fails WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Sources listed in the article doesn't pass WP:RS & they just mentioned their name only (no substantial coverage). I did google search, apart from some passing mention, found nothing. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 01:31, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:10, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:10, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One can expand Amra Bangali instead if they see anything really of value. Srijanx22 (talk) 06:41, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:10, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zaheed Sabur[edit]

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

Non notable engineer. Being an engineer at Google doesn't give someone automatic notability. Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Fails WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Sources listed in the article are primary (interview). I did google search but didn't find anything substantial. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 01:16, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:05, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:06, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - Hatchens (talk) 06:59, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 02:37, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:09, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Meta (musician)[edit]

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

I'm not seeing coverage that adds up to GNG. Provided sources are either interviews ([18], [19]), affiliated ([20], [21],) otherwise don't look like reliable sources ([22]), or don't have significant coverage of the subject ([23], [24]). I wasn't able to find more coverage online. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:42, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:42, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:42, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Best nom I've seen in a while, actually. Thanks for providing so much info dibbydib (T ･ C) 01:10, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable music producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:17, 4 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. Sorry, NealeFamily, search results aren't the specific, reliable sources that we would need here. Sandstein 16:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New Communist Party of Aotearoa[edit]

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

Not notable enough Nexus000 (talk) 00:28, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 April 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:39, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. dibbydib (T ･ C) 01:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. dibbydib (T ･ C) 01:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see significant, in-depth coverage from independent sources here. Neutrality^talk 16:59, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was unable to find any significant coverage of this party and so this subject is not notable. It may be that notability is demonstrated if they receive more coverage during the 2020 election; if so this page can be recreated then and based on that new information. HenryCrun15 (talk) 19:36, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 02:31, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there is quite reasonable amount of coverage in National Media if you search under the Parties Chairperson. Enough to reach the required standard for notability albeit for a small political party. NealeFamily (talk) 10:08, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Kyle Chapman. Sandstein 16:33, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right Wing Resistance[edit]

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

WP:ILLCON Nexus000 (talk)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nexus000 (talk • contribs) 00:19, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:26, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:26, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ILLCON does not apply because they do not appear to be accused of illegal actions, just despicable ones. Recommend merging with Kyle Chapman, founder of the group, because it's not clear the group is independently notable per WP:NORG. b uidhe 09:27, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:54, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Redirect to Kyle Chapman as group seems solely based around him and his philosophies NealeFamily (talk) 09:59, 5 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.