The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (mostly history-merged to Woodbine Community School District (Iowa)) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:31, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Woodbine Community School District[edit]

Woodbine Community School District (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A duplicate article was created accidentally due to a typographical error on a list. The duplicate article, Woodbine Community School District (Iowa), has more information. The duplication was noted when trying to move the duplicate to correct the typo. RickH86 (talk) 23:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 04:49, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 04:49, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 04:49, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy Speedy Delete. Article was speedily deleted by admin K6ka as a blantant hoax (non-admin closure) ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 13:41, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Riggs[edit]

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

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

No useful citations, and I can't find any reliable source mentioning this person. Probably not notable even if one exists. FLHerne (talk) 23:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete appears to be a blatant hoax. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:21, 3 August 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 Princess Madeleine, Duchess of Hälsingland and Gästrikland. A majority is in favor of deletion, redirection or merging because of privacy or notability concerns, but a sizable minority is for keeping the article either per GNG or because they consider the position of prince and ninth in line to the throne of Sweden to be inherently notable. In my view, the "keep" arguments are not compelling in the light of our policies, guidelines and practices: we have always rejected inherited notability, including for nobility and the like, and unlike for politicians we have no community-accepted guidelines presuming the notability of people with inherited titles. The GNG arguments are more convincing, but in my view the WP:BLP1E arguments put forth by the "delete" side are stronger because rather than in a guideline they are based in an important policy, and have not been rebutted. This leads me to conclude that we have consensus to not keep the article, but taking into consideration the substantial opposition to deletion and several merger proposals I think the most consensual outcome is redirection so that any relevant content can still be merged. The definitive merge or redirect target remains open for discussion. Sandstein 06:57, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Nicolas, Duke of Ångermanland[edit]

Prince Nicolas, Duke of Ångermanland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Nicolas is the five-year-old grandson of the king of Sweden, the son of the king's younger daughter. Last year's announcement that he is not a member of the royal house of Sweden and that he will not carry out royal duties as an adult makes me wonder why we have an article about this boy. His mother has stated that her children will "format their own lives as private persons". Wikipedia should take note and tone down the exposure of the child. The article is mostly a list of relatives, titles, and heraldry anyway. Surtsicna (talk) 22:45, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 22:45, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 22:45, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 22:45, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per privacy concerns, lack of continuing (and likely future) coverage, and ease of merging what little info is in this article into his mother's. JoelleJay (talk) 05:09, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Devokewater @ 11:40, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and the other comments above. Smeat75 (talk) 16:31, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. While he's no longer formally a member of the royal house, Wikipedia has a historic perspective as well as a contemporary one, and he has been. More importantly, he remains the duke of Ångermanland (and is still ninth line of succession to the Swedish throne). While I might be mistaken, I sincerely doubt there will be a lack of future coverage. His titles have generally not been rescinded. /Julle (talk) 17:20, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Being ninth or ninety-ninth in the line of succession is all the same: he will never inherit. Most of his titles have not been rescinded but titles are not why we have articles on people. It is the societal or constitutional role the titles entail that makes people notable, and in Nicolas's case, this sort of role in Sweden has been very clearly thrown out of the window. Surtsicna (talk) 20:30, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not temporary. If a subject has been notable, notability doesn't disappear. (It could of course be argued that there was insufficient notability and that the article shouldn't have been created from the beginning, but that doesn't seem to be the argument.) I agree that the constitutional role is no longer relevant. That doesn't mean the remaining titles have no societal role. That is, however, not the main argument for keeping the article. /Julle (talk) 01:51, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do contend that the article should not have been created at all. The coverage of newborns is actually coverage of their parents and of an important event in the life of the notable parent. X AE A-XII, the newborn son of musician Grimes and entrepreneur Elon Musk, has received much more worldwide media coverage than Nicolas, and yet we understand that the coverage of his birth and naming does not call for a baby-biography. Neither does having an unusual name or a courtesy title. Surtsicna (talk) 09:22, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per WP:GNG which is covered. Per good sourcing. Still in line for the throne though will not be officially a prince. Any privacy concerns needs to be more affirmed than a small mention and POV of the nominator. There is no reason for deletion at this point. And the Delete !votes above are Per Nom and vague.BabbaQ (talk) 12:29, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• He also covers WP:SIGCOV. Which trumps POV.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:32, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - simply not notable on his own. Redirect to mother. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:27, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment:I so far count three Delete !votes without a single argument or guideline for its point of view.BabbaQ (talk) 15:03, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you ping the users for further clarification? I would rather not guess which three !votes you find unsatisfactory. Surtsicna (talk) 15:09, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I cannot tell for certain which !votes are deemed unsatisfactory but I am pinging Smeat75, Devokwater, and JoelleJay for clarification of their stance. Surtsicna (talk) 09:22, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I didn't realise it wasn't enough to say "delete per nom." Is it better to say "I agree with everything Surtsicna and JoelleJay said? or should I repeat their reasons "small child, not notable, not going to carry out royal duties, private person, just being related to royalty is not enough for an article"? Is that better?Smeat75 (talk) 13:19, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Does my citing "privacy" not count if I don't specifically link to WP:BLPPRIVACY? This child's coverage is mainly WP:BLPPRIMARY reports from the Swedish royal family's website, with the rest being WP:ROUTINE coverage that is either trivial or easily integrable into a relative's page. JoelleJay (talk) 18:22, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete based on not meeting WP:GNG, WP:NRV and WP:BASIC. None of the references address the subject directly and in detail, all seem very WP:ROUTINE coverage. Any claim to notability would rest on his family and WP:NINI. The privacy concerns are valid for a 5yr old child.   // Timothy :: talk  16:00, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:GNG. Per good sourcing. Prince Nicolas and his sister were mentioned in numerous sources when their style of Royal Highness was removed. They are notable examples of their grandfather's use of remaining power. Due to the notability of their mother and grandfather, they will remain in the media spotlight and remain notable all their lives. He also continues to hold the title Duke of Ångermanland and remains a Swedish prince. --Richiepip (talk) 03:30, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply Being in the media spotlight or famous is not a criterion for notability. per WP:BIO "For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice" or "note" —that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. "Notable" in the sense of being famous or popular—although not irrelevant—is secondary."

This is far from certain "they will remain in the media spotlight and remain notable all their lives" and is WP:CRYSTAL.

If the basis for their notability is "when their style of Royal Highness was removed" at best this makes them WP:1E, but since this was a non-notable event, I don't think it even qualifies for 1E. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimothyBlue (talk • contribs) 03:41, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They are notable examples of their grandfather's use of remaining power. In other words, they are not notable except for their relationship with someone who is – see WP:NOTINHERITED. TompaDompa (talk) 13:51, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:LOWPROFILE child for whom privacy is a serious concern, where the illusion of WP:Notability is purely due to familial ties (but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED). The title "Duke of Ångermanland" is purely nominal – a PR stunt, basically. See WP:INVALIDBIO: That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A); relationships do not confer notability. However, person A may be included in the related article on B. For example, Jason Allen Alexander is included in the article on Britney Spears and the page Jason Allen Alexander merely redirects to that article. TompaDompa (talk) 13:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, agree with Julle, BabbaQ and Richiepip. He is a living royal, direct descendant of a reigning monarch, in line to a throne of an existing monarchy. That is more than enough to meet notability requirements. --Marbe166 (talk) 01:01, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it, though? All of that falls under WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:INVALIDBIO. TompaDompa (talk) 01:25, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or if necessary merge. This child is barely notable. We usually delete when we are unsure about child actors and crime victims. See also WP:TOOSOON. Bearian (talk) 02:00, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Prince Nicolas is neither a child actor nor a crime victim, he is a Prince of a reigning dynaty. --Richiepip (talk) 18:10, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• ... the head of which has announced in no uncertain terms that he will do no princely stuff when he grows up, as did his mother. Are we to have an article about a toddler solely because he has an empty title? Surtsicna (talk) 18:25, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, for the reasons of those who want this article kept. Davidgoodheart (talk) 19:39, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Redirect to Princess Madeleine, Duchess of Hälsingland and Gästrikland per WP:BLP1E, as this person has only received SIGCOV for being born, and also taking into account that they are a minor. If kept, article should be renamed, as there has been an explicit preference not to use those titles. Devonian Wombat (talk) 08:13, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the idea that a five-year-old is notable just for having been born is absurd.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:43, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Based on what guideline? Or article content. A lot of drive-by !votes here based on no guideline. BabbaQ (talk) 14:15, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Including the majority of the five keep !votes. It seems to me, however, that John Pack Lambert is referring to WP:ONEEVENT and WP:SIGCOV. Surtsicna (talk) 14:46, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: GNG requires ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail". None of the refs meet this requirement. The article does not meet WP:GNG. GNG further states "If a topic does not meet these criteria but still has some verifiable facts, it might be useful to discuss it within another article.". There are verifiable facts here, and it might be useful to mention in an article on a parent. Being born is not considered notable; if having your "titles" removed is notable, then they might barely meet WP:1E and the article should still be deleted. These are the guidelines.   // Timothy :: talk  19:49, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I'll second what is mentioned above about this being a child whose parents intend to raise in privacy. If when the child becomes independent, something brings them to public attention then an article may have merit. Until then I think the parent's and family's intentions (and actions that back those up) to keep this child's life out of the public realm should be strongly taken into consideration and the community should choose to err (if it is one) on the side of the parent's wishes regarding the child's privacy.   // Timothy :: talk  14:15, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen nothing reliably sourced about the intentions of the parents, only about the actions of her father & the fact that they have accepted the demotion of all 3 of their children without complaint. This boy is simply not notable on his own. That should suffice. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:46, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Passes GNG.★Trekker (talk) 23:16, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep How on earth can one describe the coverage on a Monarch-heir as routine, that's a rather bizarre view. If anything, birth of royal members are more unique and modern news reporting will report such an event. This give credence to future notability which in turn will result in favour towards GNG. There are rather floored arguments in the delete camp in my opinion. WP:CRYSTAL aside, generally the media obsessed what happens to these type of people, events, where do they go to school, education, where does a royal member end up, working. If wikipedia survives another 10 years I am sure this article might be something more adapt and very different. Govvy (talk) 10:05, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• He is not an heir. He is not even the child of an heir. There is no expectation of "future notability" because there is no public role for him in the future. He is a preschool child. In another 10 years he will still be a minor with no expectation of any future public role. The media is just as obsessed with the children of Beyonce, Kanye, Barack Obama, David Beckham, Angelina Jolie, etc, but tabloid journalism is not significant coverage (WP:SBST). Surtsicna (talk) 10:44, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Any member of a royal household is a lined heir, Govvy (talk) 11:05, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• No, and he is not a member of the royal household either. The king said so. Surtsicna (talk) 11:17, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you even know what the definition of a Royal House? Everyone in the Swedish royal family belong to a royal house, these royalties can be separate between different houses, Prince Nicolas will always be in one house or another which makeup the royalties of the Swedish line. This can't be changed. You can give up a line of succession, only the King or Queen can strip a house, but that is never done. I strongly suggest you do your homework and provide sources with your arguments. Govvy (talk) 12:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"His Majesty The King has decided that the children of Their Royal Highnesses Prince Carl Philip and Princess Sofia, and the children of Her Royal Highness Princess Madeleine and Mr Christopher O’Neill will no longer be members of The Royal House." Here's your source. Surtsicna (talk) 12:40, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

”Prince Nicolas and Princess Adrienne will continue to be members of The Royal Family.”. It is a matter of formality in their everyday life. They are still in line for the throne, though far a away in terms of number in succession. Govvy is right in his assessment.BabbaQ (talk) 13:14, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Being in the royal family without being in the royal house means they are just preschool-age relations of the monarch without any present or future royal role. And as WP:INVALIDBIO guideline states, simply being related to someone is not a reason for a standalone article. Surtsicna (talk) 13:48, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Surtsicna: Why do you feel the rescind of House of Bernadotte takes away notability? That doesn't stop a new named house to be put in place, or to join another house. The fact remains, Prince Nicolas is still a member of the royal family and still in succession to the Swedish throne regardless. Where is there a policy of duties stripped that one fails notability? Govvy (talk) 13:28, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Users have cited multiple policies and guidelines in support of the view that the coverage of a child's birth does not warrant an article about the child. Surtsicna (talk) 13:48, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And again that depends on the child, like each person, every article should have its own assessment, I think you're overanalysing here, what are the key points, what sources are available, where are the sources coming from. I feel you have forgotten it all and throwing it out the window. I think there is merit towards a weak GNG pass and given some time, GNG will surely be established at some point, depends if you want to put the effort in to build something or put the effort in to dissolve something. Govvy (talk) 14:05, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal balling does not make the boy notable and shouldn't. We are not supposed to have articles about people who are clearly not notable today. It's that simple, really. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:10, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are many anti-royalty! So I dont want to say so much. A member of reigning monarch or royal family and ninth in the line of succession to the Swedish throne. Royalty are forever or auto notable. Notability is not based on their age! Hey delete voters from above, If you want to delete this article? To be fair_ Please delete this article first "Archie Mountbatten-Windsor". He is only 15 months old now. Please do not be biased! Ok? shame on you. Cape Diamond MM (talk) 18:20, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Royalty are forever or auto notable. Notability is not based on their age! Well, the community WP:CONSENSUS does not agree with you there (see e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Amalia of Nassau). I would actually be in favour of deleting Archie Mountbatten-Windsor for the same reasons – no independent notability (WP:INVALIDBIO), but seeing as that page has been nominated for deletion twice, most recently last year, I suspect a third AfD nomination would be viewed as disruptive. TompaDompa (talk) 18:59, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I already said that Grand Duke and King are not same position!!!! Grand Duke is lower than King! Btw: I'm working for a long times for Royal Family articles. Some senior editors who were expert on Royal Family, no longer active on Wikipedia as of 2018. Your delete vote team are now active! That's why some deposed royal family related articles are deleted. (However, I'm support to delete for "member of the deposed royal family" but member of reigning monarch is different). WP:INVALIDBIO is not working on reigning Royal Family. I only noted and following on Bearian's standards for nobility. But it is not Wikipedia's rules. Cape Diamond MM (talk) 19:17, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you're not happy with that one, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Luisa Maria of Belgium, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Laetitia Maria of Belgium, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Maria Laura of Belgium. Those are all in the line of succession to the Belgian throne, and Belgium has a King. TompaDompa (talk) 05:11, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect somewhere appropriate, or delete. Weird case: sure, lots of coverage of the fact that he was born, but there's nothing encyclopedic for us to say about it. Hardly any biographical information because he's a young child not being promoted/exploited by his parents (unlike, say, some child actors). So the article ends up as a genealogy database dump about a young child. If the kid were royalty, I guess "he exists and will be king one day" would be a good reason to have such an article; but he's not, actually (per the nom and convincing comments in support of it). So ultimately I find the nom + the reasoning put forward e.g. by TompaDompa to be convincing. --JBL (talk) 20:35, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the only thing in the article that's actually about him seems to be his birth and I don't think that's enough to warrant an article. Even if he has a "notable" title. Wikipedia isn't a news source. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:19, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. We have always kept articles on close relatives of monarchs. A grandson of a ruling king, ninth in succession to the throne, is clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:17, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Deleted yesterday: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Princess_Adrienne,_Duchess_of_Blekinge_(2nd_nomination). So. JBL (talk) 11:28, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Wrongly, of course. But the deletionist coterie are out in force at the moment. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:35, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  So when you say "always" you mean what exactly? --JBL (talk) 12:38, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  More "always": Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Prince_Nikola_of_Yugoslavia_(born_1958)#Prince_Nikola_of_Yugoslavia_(born_1958). --JBL (talk) 13:35, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah, so you think because the coterie have managed to get another article deleted recently (and are clearly really, really proud of themselves for doing so, as though their actions have improved Wikipedia) that supersedes all previous results? No, I don't think so. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:06, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I get that you enjoy making attacks on other editors more than honest discussion, but let me try again: can you please explain what you mean by "We have always kept articles on close relatives of monarchs" that is compatible with observable reality? Thanks in advance. --JBL (talk) 14:45, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I really don't. I simply don't understand how deletionists' minds work or how they think their desire to delete benefits Wikipedia. I'm all for deleting rubbish, but not articles on what seem to me to be clearly notable topics. And I observe a little group of editors who seem to always vote delete, which, as someone who joined a long time ago to help create this encyclopaedia and has worked hard to do so ever since, mystifies me. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:01, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay, one last time: can you please explain what you mean by "We have always kept articles on close relatives of monarchs" that is compatible with observable reality? Thanks. --JBL (talk) 16:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Prince George of Cambridge (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prince George of Cambridge), Princess Charlotte of Cambridge, Prince Louis of Cambridge, Archie Mountbatten-Windsor (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Son of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex). All great-grandchildren of a reigning monarch who are thus far notable merely for existing. But no serious encyclopaedia would not cover them. The only difference is that the Swedish royal family do not come from an English-speaking country. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I give up. Nice to know that your poor contributions to AfD go back years, though. --JBL (talk) 18:08, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you. I have been helping to build this great project for over sixteen years. Mostly adding, not deleting, I'm pleased to say. Although I have deleted plenty of rubbish and non-notable fancruft in my time. But, I'm happy to report, not articles that are clearly encyclopaedic. That I leave to others. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:46, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Hrm. IMHO, D&D goblinoid deities, D&D dragon types, minor Judge Dredd characters and the like (all which you've voted to keep at AfD) would strike the casual observer as non-notable fancruft, but I guess to some people "notability" and "encyclopedic" = "I like it." Ravenswing 23:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Ravenswing, that's because some people have a sense. Surtsicna (talk) 00:04, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  That the 5-year-old Nicolas is a grandson of a king and (still) somewhere down the line of succession are two sentences that are sufficiently covered in Succession to the Swedish throne and his parents' biographies. The two sentences do not call for a standalone article. Neither does relationship with a public figure; see WP:INVALIDBIO. Surtsicna (talk) 11:40, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Very weird to see his sister's article deleted today, but this one kept. Could lead to an unfortunate discussion on sexism. Or do we think the Swedish Parliament is going to reverse itself & change the constitution back to where only boys were in line? Beats me! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:44, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Each article going through AfD are individually assessed. The POV about sexism has no place on Wikipedia.BabbaQ (talk) 14:26, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Could lead to an unfortunate discussion on sexism" is reasonable speculation and doesn't appear to express a POV about anything, let alone an inappropriate POV. Maybe if you're going to chide people in this AfD you should target your energy at those directly attacking other commenters? --JBL (talk) 14:45, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect: As in his sister's AfD, the nom hasn't advanced a valid deletion ground ("no foreseeable public role" is as much soothsaying as any other WP:CRYSTAL violation), but other voters have. Being in line for a throne is not, as I've found, a valid part of any notability criterion on Wikipedia. Neither, despite some assertions above, is being the "duke of Angermanland," which the article itself admits is only titular. Those claiming a GNG keep plainly misunderstand the GNG, which is not a hundred namedrops in however-reliable sources, but actual significant coverage, to the subject, in reliable sources. This obviously has not been forthcoming, and to any voter who might respond "Well, how much can you say about a toddler?" I answer, "You're right. There isn't. Which is why the subject does not qualify for a Wikipedia article."

  And that being said, holy heck, could the venomous rhetoric above slow down a bit? Strange though it might seem to some, one does not need to be a member of a vicious secret society to apply notability standards to articles and find them lacking, even if the subjects are adorable little children. Neither is there any evidence of anti-monarchical or anti-Swedish bias, although a couple of you are sure making a case for the converse. Ravenswing 23:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per User:Julle. Notability is not temporary, and the article is as much about the title as the child, who remains part of the royal family. (The sister's article should not have been deleted either). I agree BTW with Necrothesp's point that Wikipedia makes itself look stupid by perversely deleting articles which are bound to be looked for. Ingratis (talk) 20:23, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Nobody here is saying that his notability has ceased. The general view is that having this article was never warranted. Nobody should be the subject of a Wikipedia article merely for being related to a public figure, especially not someone who is 5 (WP:INVALIDBIO). Surtsicna (talk) 23:06, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "General view"? surely shome over-statement! The other "general view" is that being the grandchild of a living and ruling monarch does = notability. But in any case, as has already been said, the title has notability. Ingratis (talk) 01:06, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• It is indeed the general view because it is enshrined in the project's notability guideline, thus obviously reflecting the consensus of the community. The topic of this article is not a title. Surtsicna (talk) 13:52, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Just a note that Duke of Ångermanland exists as a redirect to the relevant listing in Duchies in Sweden, which seems very reasonable to me. (Likewise, after the deletion of the article on the sister, Duchess of Blekinge continues to exist as such a redirect.) --JBL (talk) 14:15, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• (No apology for using an "argument to avoid": some people ARE notable by virtue of their families, like it or not). Duchess of Blekinge, created by Surtsicna a few minutes ago, redirects to nothing at the moment! I note Duchies in Sweden, but the entries are very brief: there is more significant / encyclopaedic information about the dukedom of Ångermanland that should be kept (arms etc) in the article on Prince Nicolas. Since he is so far the only Duke of Ångermanland, the articles are pretty much the same, with a change of title, which is what I think is a suitable way forward. Ingratis (talk) 14:41, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• No, the WP:INVALIDBIO guideline is very clear about nobody should be the subject of an article solely for being related to someone. WP:BASIC applies to everyone equally. Articles about titles are structured much more differently than biographies. Surtsicna (talk) 14:48, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• To the point: does anyone contest that the Dukedom bzw Duchy of Ångermanland, as a royal dukedom and title, is notable? if it is, it merits an article, which allowing for the necessary differences (scarcely an insuperable obstacle) will use much of the content of the article on the Prince as the only title holder so far. Ingratis (talk) 15:21, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• (Ditto the Dukedom of Blekinge - the recently-created but malformed redirect is I see now fixed). Ingratis (talk) 15:21, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I dispute that there is a need for a stand-alone article for the purely nominal title "Duke of Ångermanland", yes. All the relevant information can be kept at Duchies in Sweden, as is currently done. As far as I can tell the coat of arms you refer to is Nicolas' personal coat of arms, not any coat of arms belonging to the title. TompaDompa (talk) 16:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Uh huh. As already said, a royal dukedom is notable enough for an article. As already said, the entries on Duchies in Sweden are very brief, only a few words, doubtless because they link through to more informative biographical articles: it is proposed here to delete the biographical article. As already said, Nicolas is the Duke of Ångermanland, so his personal arms are also those of the duke, as the two are the same.Ingratis (talk) 00:21, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• We've now reached the "crumpet" stage of the discussion - Speaker A: "Crumpets is wholesome, Sir!". Speaker B: "Crumpets is NOT wholesome, Sir!" and repeat ad inf.. I've no interest in adding to that.Ingratis (talk) 00:21, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory of princelings or anything else. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. In the extremely unlikely circumstances that he ascends to the throne, we can review again. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:14, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. A tricky one here. The article satisfies WP:GNG but notability of this five year old child is entirely grounded on his being member of the royal family. Although many believe royal family members are by default notable. This is a 50-50 situation. Being an inclusionist, I am going for weak keep. Nomian (talk) 04:09, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Notability is not inherited. Someone who is sixth in succession at birth has no prospect of inheriting the throne. If and when this person does something as themselves that warrants significant coverage, then we can revisit. The insistence of some folks here that all royalty are notable simply doesn't wash. They're not. Mackensen (talk) 00:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect I am inclined to say WP:NOTINHERITED. 9th in line for the throne is not really notable. Redirect to Princess Madeleine, Duchess of Hälsingland and Gästrikland or to Ångermanland. Wm335td (talk) 10:17, 15 August 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:41, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of MUFON Chapters[edit]

List of MUFON Chapters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is a completely self-sourced list of MUFON chapters, of which exactly one has a wikilink, and that's a redirect to MUFON. This is the creator's sole contribution to Wikipedia. Google shows a name match to the only linked chapter. In other words, COI and promotion. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:37, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:38, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Clear violation of WP:NOTDIR. Ajf773 (talk) 23:14, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above and nom Spiderone 18:57, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTDIR. Just a fancruft list.   // Timothy :: talk  15:26, 5 August 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 Michael Crichton. Selectively. Sandstein 15:33, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speeches by Michael Crichton[edit]

Speeches by Michael Crichton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

As I said in my PROD nomination (which was removed by Andrew Davidson without explanation), this article has no hope of being more than synthesis of primary sources. No RS has ever discussed this as a coherent topic, and probably none ever will. JBL (talk) 22:32, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. JBL (talk) 22:32, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. JBL (talk) 22:32, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Selective merge to Michael Crichton. This is bascially a selective bibliography with too much detail. Retain the speeches that have received at least some third-party coverage - that looks to be no more than two or three of the lot. Condense into one or two sentences each, add as another subsection to Michael_Crichton#Life, lose the rest. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:51, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/Merge This is just a list and, per WP:NOTSYN, juxtaposition is not synthesis. Michael Crichton's work is the subject of considerable critical analysis and there's at least two books about it. Particular speeches such as the ones about global warming and the Gell-Mann amnesia effect have some specific notability – see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gell-Mann amnesia effect which settled on merger to the page in question. If we did merge further then it should go to the Michael Crichton bibliography. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:19, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Selective merge per Elmidae. ~ HAL333 23:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• (Nominator comment): a selective merge would be completely fine with me. --JBL (talk) 23:43, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Selective merge or just plain delete, as per others. Bondegezou (talk) 18:00, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Michael Crichton period. MissiYasında&& (talk) 19:19, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Selective merge to Michael Crichton, keeping only the speeches with media attention. Exadrid (talk) 22:16, 10 August 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:42, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Radio[edit]

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

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

A non notable factory, WP:BEFORE shows no evidence of notability. Currently unsourced with no potential to improve article. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:31, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:31, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:31, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:31, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No evidence of notabiliy. Factory seemed to have only existed for 2 years. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment Also not to be confused with http://normanweb.ntu.ac.uk/. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Article doesn't link to any other topics. Fails WP:GNG. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 19:59, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Cardiffbear88. Fremontshephard (talk) 17:27, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Barely found anything about it. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 10 August 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 American Philatelic Society. There was no reliably sourced coverage to merge, so I am closing as a flat redirect instead. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:18, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Philatelic Society of Pittsburgh[edit]

Philatelic Society of Pittsburgh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A non notable club with no evidence of influence outside of its local area, fails WP:GNG Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:29, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:29, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:29, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:29, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable club.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:53, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - referened only to a directory entry in the article. I can find no coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 19:15, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect into its parent American Philatelic Society where this deserves a brief mention about its early founding. Not notable in its own right, not that I can see. --Lockley (talk) 05:28, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge I don't think it's notable enough on it's own, but it still might be worth mentioning in the American Philatelic Society article. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:22, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge - Delete per nom, Merge per lockley. That's all. WikiMacaroons^Cinnamon? 16:41, 11 August 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:43, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Manoutchehr Eskandari-Qajar[edit]

Manoutchehr Eskandari-Qajar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

BLP of an academic with only references to his own work. No sign that anyone else thinks he's notable Rathfelder (talk) 22:28, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 22:28, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:41, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete does not meet criteria. --hroest 18:14, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Google Scholar found only single-digit citations to his work, and I also found no books by him let alone well-reviewed books, so I don't see a pass of WP:PROF#C1. Searches for his supposed book "Life at the court of the early Qajar Shah" turn up only Wikipedia and Wikipedia mirrors. His position at a community college is also not promising for scholarship-based notability; certainly department chair is far below the level of administrative responsibility (heading a whole university) needed for notability. So the only possibility for notability seems to be his founding and heading the International Qajar Studies Association. Setting aside whether that association is even notable, it seems to be a small and very specialized research subcommunity, not the sort of "major academic society" for which leadership would bring WP:PROF#C6 notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not sufficient independant coverage. I found some books at Amazon but not any reviews beyond that. -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:17, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I have to admit I am still less than covinced Academic notability point 6 was meant to refer to community colleges. However that only applies clearly to heads of a free standing institution. It may apply to the heads of a law school or medical school in a larer institution, it never applies to department chairs, least of all to ones junior and community colleges.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:40, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete refs are not much. WP:BIO is not met here. MissiYasında&& (talk) 19:20, 9 August 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 06:05, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Genoese naval boarding sword[edit]

Genoese naval boarding sword (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The topic itself is fake originated for Russian wiki. There it is recently exposed and deleted, one can see the whole discussion here Andrei Romanenko (talk) 22:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:21, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as hoax as indicated by the useful notes from the Russian deletion, the oddball sourcing, and that image. --Lockley (talk) 01:16, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to melee weapon as a typical example. MissiYasında&& (talk) 19:21, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as being a hoax per the Russian deletion discussion and the off sourcing. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:24, 11 August 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) —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 22:21, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Denby[edit]

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

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

There's no real major reliable coverage. Many of the sources are straight from his channel, website, and even a tweet. Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 22:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Coverage from Forbes [1], Svenska Dagbladet [2], Ny Teknik [3], The Daily Telegraph [4], Popular Mechanics [5][6][7]. TompaDompa (talk) 23:55, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• TompaDompa, but those just reference his videos. Thanks, Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 01:14, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Anyway, here is a The New York Times article which covers Denby's podcast and here is a The Washington Post article authored by Denby. TompaDompa (talk) 11:10, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Conrad T. Pino (talk) 03:51, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is reasonable to assert that a writer who has directed documentaries viewed by millions meets the criteria for notability. This article is no stub, individuals with lesser reach have their own articles unchallenged.Tar-Elessar (talk) 05:28, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Given that this article was only now put up for deletion despite being up for over 2 years, having a rich revision history, and consistently hundreds of views per day, it would seem to me that the only reason this article was nominated for deletion was because of Denby's connection to Nebula, which has also been nominated for deletion. Association between this article and another which has been nominated for deletion does not itself impact the notability of this article.Tar-Elessar (talk) 05:36, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:02, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:02, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per talk 2804:14C:658B:5025:D4FE:9C9B:DA23:23B2 (talk) 13:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: With reliable sources indicated above, the article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 09:30, 10 August 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:59, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Izak Barnard[edit]

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

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

NN safari guide and business owner, fails the GNG, WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. I looked for significant coverage on the South African Google (figuring that'd be a better bet), and found nothing but Wiki mirrors, his own company, YouTube and so on. None of the sources -- save for a video clip -- cited in the article provide more than a namedrop or casual mention of the subject; the "publications" he's credited with are, respectively, a foreword and two photo credits. Notability tagged for over ten years. Created by a SPA whose sole Wikipedia activity was creating this article and one for his son, who likewise doesn't pass notability muster. Ravenswing 20:15, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 20:15, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 20:15, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Not notable at all. LefcentrerightDiscuss 08:27, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom; and indeed, the notability of Willem Barnard isn't obvious. -- Hoary (talk) 07:34, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 02:22, 9 August 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oak Grove, Calaveras County, California[edit]

Oak Grove, Calaveras County, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I literally cannot find anything about this spot besides what old topos show: a pair of buildings beside the road, and that is it. I get lots of hits on other "Oak Grove" places, but not this one— and I don't see a grove of trees either. Mangoe (talk) 19:57, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:28, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:28, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Notability cannot be established. Not even clear what it is. Glendoremus (talk) 04:24, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A search or newspapers.com found plenty of other Oak Groves, but not this one in Calaveras County. No post office listed at http://pbbook.com/caindex.htm Cxbrx (talk) 18:35, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not appear to be a notable location. Fails GNG. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 20:06, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. BD2412 T 03:26, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shotbow[edit]

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

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

Not notable. Searched for independent reliable sources and found none. Just UGC and SELFSOURCE. The buzzfile source only demonstrates that the company exists, but does nothing for notability. Leijurv (talk) 19:57, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Here's a YouTube video of the founders at Minecraft's signature game convention, Minecon (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pg-Q5Oyiyoo). It was the first Minecraft network to exist and holds huge historical significance. Hypixel has a wiki article which is very similar to Shotbow. //NPCtom — Preceding unsigned comment added by NPCtom (talk • contribs) 20:01, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. -- ferret (talk) 20:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also sent this on WP:DISCORD Leijurv (talk) 02:55, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG. The only hits I could find of significance related to a 2014 change to Minecraft's EULA, where the server owner was quoted in a small handful of articles about monetization changes. No indepth coverage found of the server beyond those passing mentions. -- ferret (talk) 20:09, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the four June 2014 articles that mention Shotbow: 1 2 3 4. All are trivial mentions of the Shotbow server, and they are all quoting the same event. There is also another passing mention here in which Shotbow was again quoted speaking out against Mojang EULA enforcement. None of these are in depth coverage of the server though. Leijurv (talk) 20:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I also searched on Google Books and don't see significant coverage other than single paragraphs. Zakaria1978 (talk) 03:02, 6 August 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. Salvio 07:34, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bonanza Portfolio[edit]

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

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

Unable to locate any in-depth coverage about this company. The references are routine listings, passing mentions and unreliable/PR articles. The article was created by a digital marketer who works for the company. M4DU7 (talk) 19:08, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 19:08, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 19:08, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 19:08, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - zero evidence of notability Spiderone 17:55, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the article is essentially a bunch of name dropping promo crap that is extremely badly sourced. Which makes this a hard fail of both WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Probably along with a bunch of other guidelines. So it should totally be deleted. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:48, 11 August 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:01, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Diggnation episodes[edit]

List of Diggnation episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A non notable list of podcast episodes. Tagged as potentially non notable almost continuously since 2012. To me, this seems to be unsourced fancruft and far too much detail which could be neatly summed up on the main page in a sentence or two. Article was soft deleted but undeleted earlier this month - I’d like to settle the matter once and for all with this nom. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 18:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 18:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 18:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Individual podcast episodes are generally non notable and this is no exception. The article also consists of a horde of external links, so it also fails WP:NOTWEBHOST. Ajf773 (talk) 22:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - zero evidence of notability Spiderone 18:50, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Devokewater @ 09:50, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I have to discount "keep" arguments based on inherent notability, because there's no community consensus about that for nobility. The GNG-based "keep" arguments are stronger, but the "delete" majority's argument that we can't write an article about her because there's nothing more to write than "she was born" appears at least equally valid to me. There's no consensus for a redirection, but anybody is free to create (and then contest) a redirect. Sandstein 06:10, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Adrienne, Duchess of Blekinge[edit]

Princess Adrienne, Duchess of Blekinge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Adrienne, aged 2, is the youngest child of the youngest child of the Swedish king. Her (and her siblings') status as "Royal Highness" and membership in the royal house have been rescinded because, as the Court said, she will not have a public role in Sweden. Her mother said that this would allow the children to "format their own lives as private persons". The family has also relocated to the US. Having an article about an infant, now toddler, was wrong from the start, but exposing her further on Wikipedia despite no foreseeable public role and her mother's clearly stated wish for privacy is simply unjustifiable. Surtsicna (talk) 18:40, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 18:40, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 18:40, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 18:40, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 18:40, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Smeat75 (talk) 19:34, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect to mother's article: my first thought was that as a member, albeit 10th-in-line, of a current royal family she should have an article, but on reading the nomination more carefully, and her mother's sourced article, I agree that this "princess" should not have a Wikipedia article, as a very minor (in both senses) royal living the life of a private person. I think a redirect is still useful, to help enthusiastic royalists to identify "Princess Adrienne" and also to clarify that the article has been created, considered, and rejected - so "delete and redirect" rather than the more quickly reversible "change to a redirect". The unsourced statement about the Order of the Seraphim needs to be sourced and added to Royal_Order_of_the_Seraphim#Royal_family, along with any other post-2014 updates, as that section is apparently incomplete. PamD 09:59, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Devokewater @ 11:41, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, with a redirect to mom as well if necessary. JoelleJay (talk) 07:38, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per WP:GNG which is covered. Per good sourcing. Still in line for the throne though will not be officially a Princess. Any privacy concerns needs to be more affirmed than a small mention and POV of the nominator. There is no reason for deletion at this point. I also see that most of the Delete !votes has no rationale for their stance at all Per Nom does not cut it. BabbaQ (talk) 12:35, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• She also covers WP:SIGCOV. Which trumps POV.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:31, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - simply not notable on her own. Redirect to mother. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:25, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment:I so far count four Delete !votes without a single argument or guideline for its point of view. BabbaQ (talk) 15:03, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I cannot tell for certain which !votes are deemed unsatisfactory, but I am pinging Smeat75, Devokwater, and JoelleJay for clarification of their stance. Surtsicna (talk) 08:18, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my reasoning is that this article is sourced almost entirely to routine press releases about her birth, with the one other news item essentially stating there will be even less coverage of her in the future. BLPPRIVACY should be maintained, particularly for children. JoelleJay (talk) 18:13, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete based on not meeting WP:GNG, WP:NRV and WP:BASIC. None of the references address the subject directly and in detail, all seem very WP:ROUTINE coverage. Any claim to notability would rest on his family and WP:NINI. A 2yr old baby cannot be notable for anything they have done (usually not even dress themselves properly); any possible notability at this point would be from an event (unless its a pretty extraordinary life for a baby) and Wikipedia covers the event not the individual in these cases. As for the future, WP:CRYSTAL. there is no WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC CONTENT in the article.   // Timothy :: talk  16:12, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:GNG. Per good sourcing. Princess Adrienne and her brother were mentioned in numerous sources when their style of Royal Highness was removed. They are notable examples of their grandfather's use of remaining power. Due to the notability of their mother and grandfather, they will remain in the media spotlight and remain notable all their lives. Se also continues to hold the title Duchess of Blekinge and remains a Swedish princess. --Richiepip (talk) 03:31, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Being in the media spotlight or famous is not a criterion for notability. per WP:BIO "For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice" or "note" —that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. "Notable" in the sense of being famous or popular—although not irrelevant—is secondary."

This is far from certain "they will remain in the media spotlight and remain notable all their lives" and is WP:CRYSTAL.

If the basis for their notability is "when their style of Royal Highness was removed" at best this makes them WP:1E, but since this was a non-notable event, I don't think it even qualifies for 1E.   // Timothy :: talk  03:44, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:LOWPROFILE child for whom privacy is a serious concern, where the illusion of WP:Notability is purely due to familial ties (but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED). The title "Duchess of Blekinge" is purely nominal – a PR stunt, basically. See WP:INVALIDBIO: That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A); relationships do not confer notability. However, person A may be included in the related article on B. For example, Jason Allen Alexander is included in the article on Britney Spears and the page Jason Allen Alexander merely redirects to that article. TompaDompa (talk) 14:00, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, agree with Julle, BabbaQ and Richiepip. She is a living royal, direct descendant of a reigning monarch, in line to a throne of an existing monarchy. That is more than enough to meet notability requirements. --Marbe166 (talk) 01:04, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it, though? All of that falls under WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:INVALIDBIO. TompaDompa (talk) 01:25, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or if needed merge, for the same reasons as I wrote about her brother. See WP:OUTCOMES, WP:TOOSOON, and WP:BARE. Bearian (talk) 02:02, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, for the reasons of those who want this article kept. Davidgoodheart (talk) 19:39, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Redirect to Princess Madeleine, Duchess of Hälsingland and Gästrikland per WP:BLP1E, as they only received SIGCOV for being born. Also, if the article is kept it should be renamed as there has been an explicit preference for not using those royal titles. Also, this person is a minor. Devonian Wombat (talk) 08:09, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the notion that a three year old child is notable is absurd.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:45, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Based on what guideline? Because she covers WP:GNG. A lot of drive by !votes here without any rationale based om guidelines and/or notability per sourcing etc.BabbaQ (talk) 14:13, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: GNG requires ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail". None of the refs meet this requirement. The article does not meet WP:GNG. GNG further states "If a topic does not meet these criteria but still has some verifiable facts, it might be useful to discuss it within another article.". There are verifiable facts here, and it might be useful to mention in an article on a parent. Being born is not considered notable; if having your "titles" removed is notable, then they might barely meet WP:1E and the article should still be deleted. These are the guidelines.   // Timothy :: talk  19:48, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep or Draft I fail to see why this should be deleted, it's a good start to an article which will probably be improved over time. The assumption that the article should be straight up deleted I find kind of absurd for an article of this nature. Royals are always going to be in the lime-light and GNG can be established easily from multiple sources. Govvy (talk) 11:33, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• It cannot be improved into anything encyclopedic for at least another 16 years because she is a 2-year-old whose parents intend to raise her in privacy on another continent. It is explicitly stated by the king and the parents that the children will not be in any lime-light. TimothyBlue has explained how this topic does not pass WP:GNG. Surtsicna (talk) 13:58, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll second what is mentioned above about this being a 2-year-old child whose parents intend to raise in privacy. If when the child becomes independent, something brings them to public attention then an article may have merit. Until then I think the parent's and family's intentions (and actions that back those up) to keep this child's life out of the public realm should be strongly taken into consideration and the community should choose to err (if it is one) on the side of the parent's wishes regarding the child's privacy.   // Timothy :: talk  14:10, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• That they would like privacy is POV from the two editors above. WP:GNG trumps that and other POV or drive-by none rationale !votes further up on this AfD. Still in line for the throne. Still royal. Goovys rationale for Weak Keep is good.BabbaQ (talk) 14:20, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Being in line for the throne or being "royal" does not constitute notability, see WP:NOTINHERITED. TompaDompa (talk) 14:30, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• That is not a guideline. And guidelines has been provided by several editors here for Keeping. BabbaQ (talk) 14:40, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• By several you mean two out of five. Surtsicna (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict) Very well, but WP:INVALIDBIO is a guideline, and makes the same point. TompaDompa (talk) 14:44, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarding privacy, I have quoted the children's mother so it is quite factual. The term "POV" refers to something else but as far as I am concerned, you may call it that or clairvoyance or whatever. Also, not royal anymore: expressly removed from the royal house, stripped of the "Royal Highness" appellation, denied any public funding, and relieved of any future royal role. Surtsicna (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply TompaDompa, Surtsicna are absolutely on point about this. In addition BabbaQ assertion, "Still in line for the throne. Still royal." is completely false. They are not in line for the throne per [8] which states "in the future, will not be expected to perform duties incumbent on the Head of State." Being in line for the throne would clearly mean they might be "expected to perform duties incumbent on the Head of State" at some point in the future or even becoming the Head of State. This source also clearly states they are not members of the Royal House, but they are still members of the family. They are not royal, they are members of a royal family. There are plenty of examples of this happening in European royal families, including Harry and Megan (see [9]). They didn't cease to be members of a family; they did cease to be members of the royal house.   // Timothy :: talk  14:56, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• TimothyBlue, the children are still in the line; see this. It has been announced by the riksmarskalk, however, that Princess Madeleine's children would lose succession rights if not brought up in Sweden from the age of six, and since the family moved to the US two years ago, their exclusion is very likely. But their still being somewhere in the line of succession is inconsequential because they will never inherit, and the monarchy has acknowledged that reality with last year's announcement that they would grow up as private citizens with no royal obligations or privileges. Surtsicna (talk) 15:24, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments Just look at the evolution of articles relating to the children of Prince William, Duke of Cambridge. If the editing follows the same pattern I don't see a problem with GNG. Govvy (talk) 15:12, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• William will be a monarch. Madeleine will not. One of William's children will be a monarch. None of Madeleine's will. They will not follow the same pattern. Surtsicna (talk) 15:24, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Articles about royal toddlers function as placeholders for future notability, and in this case it has been made clear that the children will not be public figures when they grow up. The article is now (and will remain, if kept) a mere genealogical entry, stating nothing more substantial than the subject's relationship to adults who actually are notable. Wikipedia, however, is not a directory of genealogical entries; see WP:NOTGENEALOGY policy. Surtsicna (talk) 15:33, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where, reliably sourced, has it "been made clear that the children will not be public figures when they grow up"? I might have missed that. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:49, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's here. The children "will not be expected to perform duties incumbent on the Head of State". Following this announcement, Madeleine wrote that the children would be private people. Surtsicna (talk) 22:50, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where, reliably sourced, has it "been made clear that the children will not be public figures when they grow up"? I'm only asking about that specific wording, nothing else. As far as I know, nobody anywhere has ever made that clear: "that the children will not be public figures when they grow up". --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:48, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that the children will be private people is saying that they will not be public figures. Private people = not public figures. Surtsicna (talk) 16:57, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

She said that they will be free to shape their own lives in their capacities of private people (som is a very tricky Swedish word). That rather obviously would include their right to become public figures, royal or not, if they so choose in the future, and it is not quite correct to foresee a future where they will not be public figures. The girl is not notable today. That's enough. All the other chatter just damages the deletion case. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:22, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course. We are reading it the same: they will inherit no public role in Sweden but there is nothing stopping them from, say, becoming America's Next Top Model. The point I am making is that keeping the articles as placeholders for future notability is senseless because no future notability is guaranteed. Surtsicna (talk) 17:53, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Lol really? She is tenth in the line of succession to the Swedish throne. very important thing !!!!! Cape Diamond MM (talk) 06:42, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the only noteworthy thing about this two-year-old is her place in the line of succession, the appropriate place for that information is Succession to the Swedish throne. TompaDompa (talk) 17:20, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A member of reigning monarch royal family. Royalty are forever notable. Not based on their age! You have no power here! Ok? So go away !! Cape Diamond MM (talk) 17:53, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes. This is exactly the sort of attention to which one of the world's most frequented websites should not expose children. Surtsicna (talk) 18:20, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Go and say at Archie Mountbatten-Windsor first! Cape Diamond MM (talk) 18:26, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Community WP:CONSENSUS does not agree with your implicit assertion that being royalty is sufficient for a stand-alone article to be appropriate. See the similar case of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Amalia of Nassau. TompaDompa (talk) 18:44, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Duke is lower than King ! Not same .Cape Diamond MM (talk) 18:59, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you're not happy with that one, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Luisa Maria of Belgium, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Laetitia Maria of Belgium, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Maria Laura of Belgium. Those are all in the line of succession to the Belgian throne, and Belgium has a King. TompaDompa (talk) 05:10, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Hey delete voters from above, If you want to delete this article? To be fair....Please delete this article first "Archie Mountbatten-Windsor". He is only 15 months old now. Please do not be biased! Ok ! shame on you. Cape Diamond MM (talk) 18:05, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That article has been nominated for deletion twice, you know. The first time it was deleted, and the second time it was kept. TompaDompa (talk) 18:40, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article also has been nominated for deletion twice, you know. The first time it was speedy kept, and the second time is how going? Cape Diamond MM (talk) 18:45, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments to avoid in a deletion discussion: But what about x? WP:WAX. - hako9 (talk) 05:17, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/redirect somewhere appropriate, or delete. Weird case: sure, lots of coverage of the fact that she was born, but there's nothing encyclopedic for us to say about it. Hardly any biographical information because she's a young child not being promoted/exploited by her parents (unlike, say, some child actors). So the article ends up as a genealogy database dump about a young child. If the kid were royalty, I guess "she exists and will be queen one day" would be a good reason to have such an article; but she's not, actually (per the nom and convincing comments in support of it). So ultimately I find the nom + the reasoning put forward e.g. by TompaDompa to be convincing. --JBL (talk) 20:35, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect I totally agree with the voter above this comment and the original nominator as to why this article should be deleted. Everything about this that might be notable is about a single event, that she was born and whatever line of succession she might have been is has been shot down. Plus, her family moved to America and wants to be left alone. So, this article shouldn't really be a thing. Wikipedia isn't a news source. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:54, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect: The nom hasn't advanced a valid deletion ground ("no foreseeable public role" is as much soothsaying as any other WP:CRYSTAL violation), but other voters have. Those claiming a GNG keep plainly misunderstand the GNG, which is not a hundred namedrops in however-reliable sources, but actual significant coverage, to the subject, in reliable sources. This obviously has not been forthcoming, and to any voter who might respond "Well, how much can you say about a toddler?" I answer, "You're right. You can't. Which is why the subject does not qualify for a Wikipedia article." Ravenswing 04:05, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect to father's article: There's no significant coverage for the child. Being born is not a significant event. - hako9 (talk) 05:31, 11 August 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) 08:09, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Empire, Contra Costa County, California[edit]

Empire, Contra Costa County, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Another rail station mistaken by GNIS as a community. Durham describes it as a locality on the Southern Pacific Railroad. This map shows it as a coal station where the old Empire Railroad crosses the SP rail. No evidence that it was ever a community of its own and otherwise not notable. Glendoremus (talk) 17:24, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:07, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:07, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. no post office. WP:STATION applies. The Empire railroad is possibly notable, though as it was a corporation short line, it should probably just go on a list. The Black Diamond Mines book cited in the nom has a map that shows Empire and some hits for the railroad, but nothing about the station other than the map. Searching newspapers.com was tricky and did not yield anything. Cxbrx (talk) 13:14, 9 August 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) 08:09, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Isabel Arzú Escobar[edit]

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

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

Being the child of a notable person does not confer automatic notability on a person, and that seems to be the only true claim to notability here John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:46, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Guatemala-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 17:01, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 17:01, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless somebody can locate a stronger claim of notability. Although the article fails to state this in body text, one of the categories claims that she competed in equestrian at the 2019 Pan American Games — but that's a level of competition where a person has to medal to be notable, not just be in attendance, and according to Guatemala at the 2019 Pan American Games she came nowhere close to that. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, further, so she isn't automatically special just because of who her father is. She has to show more than this to be notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Bearcat (talk) 19:19, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete she doesn't meet the notability standard for athletes and notability isn't inherited. So, I don't see anything worth having about this. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:00, 11 August 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) 08:05, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjiv Das[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. No effective referencing. scope_creep^Talk 16:43, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 16:58, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 17:00, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - zero evidence of notability Spiderone 17:55, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete there's a few things about him that make his notability borderline. They don't seem to be that in-depth though and are kind of questionable. So, I'm going with weak delete. Since there might be enough in-depth coverage of him at some point. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:03, 11 August 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:02, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Korngold[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. Non-notable. Additional BLP refs needed tag since 2017.scope_creep^Talk 16:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:42, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non notable, PR --Devokewater @ 18:15, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:41, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:BIO. -- Dane ^talk 02:37, 9 August 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. Salvio 10:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

College Abacus[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Generic calculator. Notability tag placed.scope_creep^Talk 15:42, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 16:16, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 16:16, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. WP:CORPSPAM. Only serious coverage is in VentureBeat and I have doubts whether they are a RS. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:56, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Stubify: on the basis of multiple New York Times articles this may be notable IMO. But it needs to have the strong COI concerns addressed. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:10, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was heavily used as a useful utility, but there is several other ones now on the go. Also, I think to Stubify it, as an 8k article would be difficult. You could take 3-4k which wouldn't leave much. As well as that, it also been subject to a request of G11 from another editor in good standing, which was the reason I nominated it.scope_creep^Talk 09:26, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have found a way to stubify it, if need be. I will do the work. scope_creep^Talk 14:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bri! College Abacus was indeed mentioned in a New York Times personal-finance column, on two separate weeks. But are you really sure that it therefore passes the WP:CORPDEPTH bar, and that there's enough WP:RS content out there to let us write a well-sourced article about the company? —Unforgettableid (talk) 12:27, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and per Piotrus. [Edit: If deletion is impossible, let's draftify. I can do the work, via script.] —Unforgettableid (talk) 12:27, 30 July 2020 (UTC); edited 08:56, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and per Piotrus. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 11:29, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this doesn't seem to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. There is the one New York Times mentions, but they only count as one source and it's not enough. Other then that, there doesn't seem to be anything to make it notable. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:07, 11 August 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. Stifle (talk) 15:42, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Asia and South Pacific Design Automation Conference[edit]

Asia and South Pacific Design Automation Conference (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Lack of independant coverage to make it notable as a standalone article. Kj cheetham (talk) 19:33, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 19:33, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 19:33, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While the article should be expanded, the conference is very well known in the electronics industry. It's referred to by independent sources, mostly under the name ASP-DAC. For example, ASP-DAC convenes. There are issues of well known journals that concentrate on the results. It's considered an academic honor to be featured there. Finally, I think this may be case of geographic bias. Most of the attendees and presenters are from Japan, Taiwan, and other Asian regions, not surprisingly. So the conference is better known, and more notable among folks who are not likely to be editors here. LouScheffer (talk) 20:27, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd agree there is some coverage. Some of it doesn't seem to be completely independant though, which includes reports from award winners institutions potentially. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:14, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It would be great if some of our Japanese, Korean, and Mandarin speaking editors could check the sources and publications in their languages, since that's where most of the attendees and presenters are from. LouScheffer (talk) 23:23, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If anyone here knows how, that would be a good idea! -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:14, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Nothing about this passes the notability guidelines. The article doesn't have any sources and I was unable to find any when I did a search for them. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:32, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you look for "ASP-DAC"? It's almost always abbreviated. LouScheffer (talk) 23:20, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To be honest I think I missed a trick not searching for it abbreviated... -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:35, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 16:39, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merging to IEEE Circuits and Systems Society seems ideal, IMO. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:39, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Clear consensus in favor of keeping the article after multiple relistings. (non-admin closure) EggRoll97 ^(talk) 21:26, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong Academy[edit]

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

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

Seemingly non-notable school. All the sources in the article are either primary, extremely trivial coverage, or otherwise not reliable. Also the article is largely promotional in tone and has been mainly edited by editors that seem to have COIs. Ultimately, there's nothing about this school that would pass WP:NORG. Adamant1 (talk) 09:05, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:36, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:36, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:36, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Cheng, Margaret (2000-10-08). "KIDS: Dr Margaret Cheng discovers a new school of thought (Hong Kong Academy)". South China Morning Post.
  2. Davies, Kate (January 2017). "Community relations: Kate Davies finds out how Hong Kong Academy is keeping its students on their toes". Expat Parent. Hong Kong Living. pp. 44–47. Retrieved 2020-07-20 – via Issuu.
  3. Forestier, Katherine (2002-12-07). "Breaking down the barriers". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2020-07-20. Retrieved 2020-07-20.
  4. Whitehead, Kate (2001-06-09). "Parents with mission to build new schools". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2020-07-20. Retrieved 2020-07-20.

     This brief mention helps more with Wikipedia:Verifiability more than it helps with Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.

  5. Chong, Dennis; Wong, Olga (2013-01-08). "Education experts angry at possible third school site turned into flats". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2020-07-20. Retrieved 2020-07-20.
  6. Lau, Mimi (2008-11-15). "HK Academy 'frustrated' over school site offer in Chai Wan". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2020-07-20. Retrieved 2020-07-20.
  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Hong Kong Academy to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 07:13, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Agree with Cunard. Also, Wikipedia usually keeps schools in article for deletion nomination battles if they are bona fide schools.Knox490 (talk) 16:23, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely, more trivial sources that don't pass WP:NORG and that most of seem to be on a single topic to. For about the hundredth time, Wikipedia isn't a news source. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:44, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep based on the sources identified by Cunard. There are several articles from the South China Morning Post, which as far as I can tell looks like a reliable source. The Expat-Parent source looks especially good: a five-page magazine article specifically about the school. The nominator's argument that "Wikipedia isn't a news source" is odd. No, it's not a news site, but newspaper and magazine articles are absolutely appropriate for determining notability of a subject. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:26, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All the sources except for like are to South China Morning Post. As far as my "Wikipedia isn't a news source" comment, it was in relation to the triviality of the topics being referenced. For instance stories like "HK Academy 'frustrated' over school site offer in Chai Wan" and "Tales of College Admissions Puffery" are more passing "special interest" news pieces then they are things that IMO would show the long-term or meaningful notability of something. Especially the first one about someone at the school being "frustrated" about something. That's not really an in-depth notable discussion of the school itself per say. Most schools and other organizations get coverage for that kind of thing. There's zero unique or notable about it and it's pretty WP:MILL IMO. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:31, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out this discussion where Adamant1 was judged to lack competence in evaluating sources. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:50, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Toughpigs: Feel free to point it out. Since in the discussion I pointed to two discussion in WP:RSN about the sources I supposedly had lack of competence evaluating where a bunch of people, including long standing administrators, agreed with me that the sources weren't reliable. Including the discussion I started about Wen Wei Po where the overwhelming consensus seems to be that it shouldn't be used for even basic facts and should probably be depreciated. Clearly the fact that I knew as much before starting the RfC must have been because of my "lack of competence in evaluating sources." You clearly have a lack of competence when it comes to following WP:NPA. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:14, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Per the sources above, I believe this would pass notability guidelines for a school. -- Dane ^talk 02:31, 9 August 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:47, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Khmer Improvement Party[edit]

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

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

I believe this should be deleted on grounds of non-notability. This article seems to refer to a one-man, one-election party. I can find no other reference apart from the article cited, which was not so much about the Khmer Improvement Party as about it and similar such parties. There have been no significant additions to the text since the article was posted in 2009. Roundtheworld (talk) 15:30, 27 July 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 July 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:33, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 16:17, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 16:17, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not a Gazetteer of political parties. Article does not provide evidence for notability beyond existence, no achievements of note prior to, or during, an election campaign. Usefulness is not a valid reason to retain. doktorb _words^deeds 06:58, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, article has only one source, meaning it fails WP:GNG, and it is also highly promotional. Devonian Wombat (talk) 08:05, 8 August 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. Salvio 10:14, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Caplin & Drysdale[edit]

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

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

Insufficient notability and lack of independent sources that discuss the organization. Buckaboob Bonsai (talk) 15:06, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:06, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:06, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:06, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non notable --Devokewater @ 15:46, 4 August 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. Salvio 10:15, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Private Trials[edit]

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

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

Insufficient notability and lack of independent sources that discuss the organization. Buckaboob Bonsai (talk) 15:08, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2007-01 ✗ deleted

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:05, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reinhold Cohn Group[edit]

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

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

Insufficient notability and lack of independent sources that discuss the organization. Also, the original author of the article appears to be a marketing professional working on behalf of intellectual property firms. Buckaboob Bonsai (talk) 15:08, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:04, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:04, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:04, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non notable Devokewater @ 09:52, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 02:50, 9 August 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. Salvio 10:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Silicon Valley Law Group[edit]

Silicon Valley Law Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Insufficient notability and lack of independent sources that discuss the organization. Buckaboob Bonsai (talk) 15:09, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Nothing stands out as remarkable with respect to this firm. BD2412 T 00:53, 4 August 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. Salvio 10:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stark & Stark[edit]

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

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

Insufficient notability and lack of independent sources that discuss the organization. Buckaboob Bonsai (talk) 15:09, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:24, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:24, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:24, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I see no indicia of encyclopedic notability. BD2412 T 00:54, 4 August 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 Lee Harvey Oswald. Stifle (talk) 15:41, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ella German[edit]

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

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

Although this article is well written and sourced, there seems no evidence that Ella German is sufficiently notable for her own article. She would not pass the specific guidance in WP:BIO and there is nothing in the sources currently cited to indicate that WP:GNG are met either as she has apparently had no sustained coverage in her own right. In essence, the article depicts her as notable only because of her links to Oswald which raises obvious issues of WP:NOTINHERIT. —Brigade Piron (talk) 14:54, 27 July 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 July 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:11, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• merge to Lee Harvey Oswald.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:18, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:19, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:19, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. While she may indeed have only become notable due to being related to someone precipitating one event, that particular event was profoundly damaging to the American psyche and relatively rare in American history. Had she been one of a string of girlfriends that had come and gone I would be more inclined to agree that she may not deserve her own article, but the fact is that she even appears in the Warren Commission’s report and if they felt she was notable enough for examination, I would concur. It is possible that this relationship had affected Oswald’s mental state in his decision to return to the United States and exploring that relationship deserves more than a byline in that article. I would also be very interested in seeing more existing references put into her article as the majority of them come from one or two books at present. LovelyLillith (talk) 08:13, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No-one has denied that the Kennedy assassination and Oswald are notable which is basically what we can deduce from the Warren Commission report. The question is whether Ella German independently meets the requirements in WP:GNG or WP:BIO in light of WP:NOTINHERIT. I'd also suggest WP:NOTEVERYTHING is relevant. —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:28, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This is really, oddly, detailed, but she is part of the story of one of the defining events of the 20th century. It transcends WP:NOTINHERIT. Caro7200 (talk) 17:31, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a WP:NOTIDONTLIKEIT argument. I'm interested to hear that the Kennedy assassination ranks alongside World War II. —Brigade Piron (talk) 19:14, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't at all, but I can't tell you what the above sounds like to you--only you can do that. And if the assassination of a major head of state is not a defining event, perhaps your list of the defining events of the 20th century includes only World Wars I and II... Caro7200 (talk) 20:39, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure we'd be having this discussion about an ex-girlfriend of the culprit of the Assassination of Olof Palme, but there is an obvious subjective quality to the most important events of the 20th century. There is still no reason to wave the long-established policy of WP:NOTINHERIT just because the INHERITOR is particularly noteworthy. It's the sort of argument that would permit every soldier of World War I and World War II to have their own WP biography. —Brigade Piron (talk) 13:14, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote, I don't think this is a case of WP:NOTINHERIT--this isn't an article about someone who briefly lived next door to Oswald, or something. She was written about in the Warren Commission report. A major writer, Norman Mailer, wrote about her, as did Vincent Bugliosi. She is written about in other RS books and articles, some of which appear in the references, some of which do not. Caro7200 (talk) 15:38, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Lee Harvey Oswald. WP:NINI She is "notable" only because of her connection to Oswald.   // Timothy :: talk  14:43, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Lee Harvey Oswald. Notability is not conferred by association. KidAd (talk) 05:51, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notability is not inherited, but there is clearly information here unrelated to Oswald and the Kennedy assassination. Devonian Wombat (talk) 08:03, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:VALINFO. Does the non-Oswald related information really allow her to pass WP:GNG or WP:BIO, that's the standard. —Brigade Piron (talk) 19:14, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the question of GNG is moot in this discussion, it’s a question of WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:BLP1E. Devonian Wombat (talk) 13:10, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since you raise WP:BLP1E, can you explain how you think the three criteria there are met? It seems pretty clear that (i) EG is only covered in the context of her relationship to Oswald, (ii) "the person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual" and (iii) EG's role in the Kennedy assassination was, to put it mildly, "not substantial". —Brigade Piron (talk) 13:21, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I think the Keep votes clearly demonstrate this is a case of WP:BLP1E (not a single event in her life not associated with the assasination of Kennedy is mentioned) and WP:NOTINHERITED (If it wasn't for her connection to Oswald she would be unknown to history). The keep arguements are not based on guidelines and sources but are based on opinions and feelings. Merge it with Oswald.   // Timothy :: talk  18:34, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Lee Harvey Oswald. This is absolutely a BLP1E issue. Ravenswing 23:07, 12 August 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. While this appears to be a borderline case, there does seem to be enough consensus, given the lack of participation after the 2nd relist, to say that this should be kept. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:20, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ARITH Symposium on Computer Arithmetic[edit]

ARITH Symposium on Computer Arithmetic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Lack of independant coverage to make it notable as a standalone article. Kj cheetham (talk) 11:07, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 11:07, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 11:07, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 11:07, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 18:04, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. As usual, the difficulty here was at least in part that there are so many publications that mention this conference to cite a paper in it that it made it very difficult to find material about the conference itself. But I have added three testimonials to its importance (not very detailed, but all published independently of IEEE) together with a chronology of its first 16 years that was published by IEEE. It is an old, well-established conference in an area that is also maybe a little old-fashioned but still important for computing infrastructure. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:53, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep per the above. Minus the table, it could be merged into IEEE Computer Society, but I don't think keeping a separate article on it would be bad for the encyclopedia. XOR'easter (talk) 23:43, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep for the same reasons as above. Vincent Lefèvre (talk) 08:27, 3 August 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. Mz7 (talk) 03:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

VlibTemplate[edit]

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

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

no citations or evidence of notability; much of text unencyclopedic and promotional Tdslk (talk) 17:17, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:05, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or edit I'd say. Has some online presence, and if someone feels enough notability to expand, then do it soon. WikiMacaroons^Cinnamon? 16:14, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:36, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - It's being used but I don't see substantial coverage to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 21:11, 7 August 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. Salvio 10:17, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OptinMonster[edit]

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

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

Another SEO vanity WP:ADMASQ created by an WP:SPA. All references are obviously non RS. Some might appear RS at first glance but notice that they are written by the company's founder Balki himself and are therefore not independent and don't establish notability. Similar to Ahrefs, Yoast SEO and Moz (marketing software). TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 11:01, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 14:15, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 14:15, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in independent sources. Per nom, most refs are written by founder and are not independent. Refs not by Balki are incidental mentions in low-quality sources, not significant coverage, and a search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 17:50, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The article stands notable with support of adequate WP:RS (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 19:06, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Switzer[edit]

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

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

Non notable voice actor, sourced only with IMDb. WP:BEFORE shows some Google hits but nothing that could count as a reliable source, and nothing substantial to help source and improve article. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 05:21, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 05:21, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 05:21, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 05:21, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 05:21, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 05:21, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as notable as he meets WP:NACTOR with multiple leading roles in notable productions. Eerie, Indiana: The Other Dimension; Mr. Rice's Secret; Sabrina The Animated Series (65 episodes as Harvey Kinkle!), and quite a few others. IMDb page mentions his having won one and been nominated repeatedly for Young Artist Awards. Nominator should have seen these things if he followed the external link to IMDb and saw the multiple roles, award mentions, etc. Naming notability as an issue in the nom statement is disappointing. And I found reliable sourcing on Google Books. If the nominator means the whole package --reliable, secondary, independent, significant--they ought to work on precision. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 12:03, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• DiamondRemley39 Yet again, I need to remind you to focus on the article rather than failing to WP:AGF. WP:NACTOR means nothing without reliable sources to back up, of which IMDb is not one. I have yet to find reliable, substantial, independent sources from Google Books, I don’t see anything in the sources you’ve added. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 12:09, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again, it's not a question of good faith but of competency. See WP:AGF "If criticism is needed, discuss editors' actions, but avoid accusing others of harmful motives" and the essay WP:AAGF. So stop implying that I'm accusing you of bad faith. All I'm saying is you should familiarize yourself with the subject specific notability and write better nom statements if it is the lack of sourcing to which you object. I don't know what to make of your final statement that "[you] don't see anything in the sources [I've] added". Again, be more precise. What do you mean? Last: it's not just the article but the AfD nom that gets discussed in AfD discussions. Weak or incorrect nom statements will be noticed by the people putting in the time to see the facts. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 13:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DiamondRemley39 OK - specifics - the two Google Books sources you’ve added, in my view, do not demonstrate substantial, reliable coverage, and I don’t understand how you expect me to improve an article with them. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 13:35, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. The coverage is reliable and serves to verify some of what is in the article. That's why I added them. I don't expect you to do anything to improve the article with them as the work is done. I found it easy enough to add these and remove the unsourced tag, improving it in a small increment. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 13:49, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The significant coverage is in the four articles I've added so far. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 13:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DiamondRemley39 OK, that’s great - but bear in mind that the significant coverage you’ve found is not covered by WP:BEFORE, so I wondered if you’d like to take this opportunity to rephrase your first comments about IMDB, about my nom statement, and about “precision”? Cardiffbear88 (talk) 16:17, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take an opportunity again to try to help you understand the problem with the nom, though we are beating the dead horse: in the BEFORE process you should have seen IMDb, which had those multiple roles and awards mentioned meeting WP:NACTOR, so you shouldn't have said that the notability was an issue. Don't say something is wrong when it isn't. Notability issues and sourcing issues are not the same things, so if it's just the sourcing, say so. Does that help? DiamondRemley39 (talk) 16:20, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not going to take any notice of IMDb when it’s a deprecated source. So no it doesn’t help. Ceasing this conversation. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 16:24, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Added some sources. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 12:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the sources added by DiamondRemley39, which demonstrate notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:06, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per the multiple reliable sources added to the article as per WP:HEY so that deletion is no longer necessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:48, 2 August 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:35, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Engineer Delwoar[edit]

Murder of Engineer Delwoar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No reason to think that this has Any lasting notability DGG ( talk ) 22:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:03, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:03, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I am inclined to say WP:1E or WP:NOTNEWS. I will think on it. Lightburst (talk) 23:40, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I have improved the article further and have also added more references. To show notability, I will make argument here only considering Delwoar's death (Please note that the article is not necessarily about Delwoar but rather it is about his murder). This article satisfies the criteria for WP:VICTIM and WP:ONEEVENT under WP:BIO. For better understanding of WP:1E or WP:ONEEVENT, consider the examples of wiki page for Rodney King or George Floyd under the same criteria. Do you know George Floyd outside of one single event? And if you do not, then would you like to delete that page? I assume you will agree that in case of George Floyd, the single event itself has lasting impact and hence lasting notability. Now, I have to show that the murder incident of Delwoar satisfies the notability criteria for single event. If you go through the reference section of the article, you will find that all the major news media outlet of Bangladesh has continued to cover the death, investigation and demand of justice for this murder. The dates of those articles are (in ascending order): May 17, May 18, May 21, May 22, May 26, May 27, Jun 2, July 18, and July 19 of 2020. In a country where 1 million people die every year, do you think the news sources have any reason to cover a non-notable incident continuously? Thanks. - Kaisernahid (talk) 01:27, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- I am convinced that given the coverage of his death and the prevalence of corruption in Bangladesh that there will have a lasting effect and coverage. I am also convinced by the arguments put forward by Kaisernahid.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 06:27, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]