< 23 April	25 April >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SPA !vote without reference to any actual sources is disregarded. BD2412 T 01:53, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mona Kakavand[edit]

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

Reason Mohsennejat (talk) 21:51, 24 April 2020 (UTC) she is not a famous person[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 April 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:05, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:30, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:31, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:39, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:39, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mona kakavand, a member of the Iran national Karate team from 2002 to 2008, the winner of the bronze medal of the 2005 Karate Competitions in Rome, Italy and the committee’s silver medal, and the holder of the 4th Dan black belt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pirooz music (talk • contribs) 19:32, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being a 4th dan and daughter of a karate master do not show WP notability. The only record of any success is in a kata (forms) division at a karate club tournament in Italy with divisions for all ages and belt levels (and a number of divisions that only had 1 entrant). There's no record of any success at kumite (fighting), although the article says that is her specialty. My search at the WKF website did not show that she ever competed at its world championships. I found no significant independent coverage and nothing to show that either WP:NSPORT or WP:MANOTE is met. Papaursa (talk) 17:43, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Hatchens (talk) 06:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:05, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Natural Fibre Park[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NCORP. Provided sources fall far short of the mark, with no coverage in independent sources. I wasn't able to find anything online searching for either of the given names of the subject, although I was unable to search in languages other than English and may have missed something as a result. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:55, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:55, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:55, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Organisation does not possess WP:CORPDEPTH & invariably does not satisfy WP:NCORP.Celestina007 (talk) 18:05, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, in agreement with the above. BD2412 T 01:56, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. BD2412 T 01:57, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Thurman[edit]

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

Fails WP:NGRIDIRON, hasn't played in an NFL game, practice squad/offseason only. The coverage I could find were either on unreliable blogs, announcements of signings, etc except for one statement from his college that he was on the watch list of the Senior Bowl, but that's not the basis of notability. His college career fails WP:COLLATH additionally. Hog Farm (talk) 21:48, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 21:48, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 21:48, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 21:48, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As note above, he doesn't qualify under either WP:NGRIDIRON or WP:NCOLLATH. In addition, I'm not finding significant coverage of the type required by WP:GNG, which is not surprising since college linemen rarely receive GNG-level coverage and Thurman's college career appears to have been unremarkable per the stats reported here (less than three tackles per game). Cbl62 (talk) 23:08, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG per nom and Cb162. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:21, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NGRIDIRON, and WP:NCOLLATH, per all above. Ejgreen77 (talk) 05:47, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable football player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:02, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:52, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stonewall & Riot: The Ultimate Orgasm[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable porncruft. It clearly fails WP:NFILM. Porn industry sources count for little since the deprecation of WP:PORNBIO, and NFILM is not met with what we have here even if they did. WP:BEFORE turns up nothing that gets it past NFILM.

The first AfD in 2010 was closed as no consensus; the second in 2015 was closed as keep, but all of the voters asserted with zero evidence that NFILM was met. Both of these past AfDs were before the deprecation of PORNBIO. In any case, any claim that NFILM is met will need to explain how we have multiple, reliable sources with significant coverage. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:38, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:38, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:38, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:38, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:38, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:27, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not seeing how this topic passes WP:Notability. I don't have anything to add to Crossroads's solid argument. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 08:22, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 21:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Sutton[edit]

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

Sutton does not appear to meet the multiple significant roles in notable productions. I do not think he had multiple roles that would be counted as significant. Beyond this, IMDb is not a reliable source. I searched for other sources but found nothing. His run for political office lead to loss at the box office, so even if we could find newspaper coverage of it it would not add up to notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:28, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article dates back to Noveember 2015, a time when you did not even have to be a registered user to create an article. It was not created by a registered user. These facts have no bearing on the article per se, but do show the negative results of our Wild West type building policies in the first few years of Wikipedia. That is also how we got an article on Barahir.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:32, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:38, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:39, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:39, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - There's no reliable source coverage of his career that I can find either. For somebody who was apparently both a actor and politician, getting roles in major films, he seems to have little to no notability. I agree. Deletion is the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 21:41, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- There is coverage of his work in Variety and elsewhere. He was more known for radio. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 01:51, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- CoffeeWithMarkets, would you please look at my contributions to the article and let me know whether that affects your view of the subject? Thank you. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 02:15, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He has over 700 radio credits on the Radio Gold Index. Will someone please add him to radio deletion sorting lists? DiamondRemley39 (talk) 00:39, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passes WP:ENT #1 and WP:GNG. Star of a radio show. Supporting player in many movies, including two Hopalong Cassidy entries. Marriage notice in Billboard; obituary in Variety. I found some coverage when I searched his name and some of the titles in Google Books and more when I looked in databases. There is more I can add if deletion proponents insist, but I think this is enough to establish notability. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 02:19, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the excellent work by DiamondRemley39. Once again, looking like another poor nom from Lambert who should really look at WP:NEXIST, which is part of the overall WP:N page. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:23, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lugnuts, John Pack Lambert willingly ignores WP:EXIST (and consensus for that matter).Oakshade (talk) 21:27, 25 April 2020 (UTC)\[reply]

No one here has presented any good reason that on finding an article that existed with 1 non-reliable source for over a decade and then trying to make a good faith search to find more sources and finding nothing someone should give up and differ to this case of a total lack of adequate sourcing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:08, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had to read your sentence four times; I think I finally understand it now. I'm sure others have explained to you before, but I'm in a didactic mood, so I'll bite. As the nominator, it's your job to a good, thorough BEFORE, and follow the instructions. There is a certain amount of due diligence and work ethic that BEFOREs call for.

Your nominations of the past week indicate that you don't have a historian's eyes. That's ok; most people don't know how to find an answer when it isn't in the first page of Google results or where to go to do specialized research. But it's not ok to ignore really big clues... the article said this guy was the star of a show, which is a huge point in favor of notability. Budding researchers would know to then seek out more info on the show, maybe in conjunction with the guy's name... it's obvious you did not. You nominated rather than asked for help or even mentioned the possibility of notability in the nomination.
It would help people believe you performed decent BEFOREs if you added citations to articles before nominating rather than request other people do that work while they're proving that the nomination isn't great. Your current track record suggests you should stick to editing non-historical topics, and maybe something easier for others with more understanding of the topics to fix, like tagging, over deleting. You also tend not to address or thank the people who make positive changes to the articles you have nominated. What do you have to say about the work done on this article, User:Johnpacklambert?

I hope this helps you understand why so many people are still concerned about your nominations. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 14:45, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I find some of Lambert's work and comments most odd. Actors with a lenghty filmography are not notable, but "Governement ministers, and in fact all national legislature members, are default notable". Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:04, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I hadn't occurred to me that he might not be known in terms of film and politics but be a major radio presence. His career in that medium appears to be documented enough that the page ought to be kept. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 14:51, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Another poor nomination by John Pack Lambert. Notability easily demonstrated by DiamondRemley39. Oakshade (talk) 21:27, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As per WP:HEY. I would also encourage John Pack Lambert to complete more thorough WP:BEFOREs before nominating articles. Dflaw4 (talk) 23:36, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article had had a "needs additional citations" notice on it for 11 months when I nominated it for deletion. So the comment about needing to put on requests for better sourcing makes no sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:26, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I never said that was the case with this article and I don't think anyone else did either. I'm beginning to wonder how well you understand notability, deletion, and related topics. Also: It would read better if you'd put your response to the comment directly after the comment. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 16:36, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DiamondRemley39. Daask (talk) 23:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:41, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hazrat Pir Allaudin Siddiqui[edit]

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

The submission is an unsourced hagiography. Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 20:25, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 20:25, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support per reasons I outlined in my initial PROD of this article. However, a note to AaqibAnjum - you seem to have removed my WP:PROD template from the article in order to place this AFD in, when as far as I'm aware there's been no controversy over the deletion - could you explain why you did that? PROD is an easier process, and it didn't look like it was going to be contested. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 20:48, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Naypta, I added the AfD through TW and it automatically removed the PfD template. 😄 I didn't removed anything from the article. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 20:51, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AaqibAnjum: No worries - just a note for next time: don't create an AfD if there's a PROD active and you don't have a good reason to take it away :) The PROD was about to expire, whereas the AfD process will take longer, so without any particular reason so to do, it's just extending the administrative process unnecessarily. Thanks for helping out with these things though, we need people like you! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 20:53, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Best. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 20:54, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Thebiv19 (talk) 19:47, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Thebiv19 (talk) 19:47, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan -related deletion discussions. Thebiv19 (talk) 19:47, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. Right now, it's an unsourced, poorly-written essay. It must be deleted as we have in the past WP:OUTCOMES. If you can fix it, ping me please. Bearian (talk) 15:17, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:00, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Blow it up and start again. I couldn't find any references of note; but fully acknowledge they are likely to be in languages other than English. --Jack Frost (talk) 11:52, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. BD2412 T 02:01, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of translations of the Paschal greeting[edit]

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

This article has no place on English Wikipedia. This group of translations has no notability as a cohesive group. Sorely lacking in sources and a magnet for problematic edits that add or change without citing sources. Wikipedia English editors are not competent to patrol changes in this type of article without adequate sources because we do not speak the target languages. This grouping would be better served at Wikidata, Wikisource, or some other sister project. Elizium23 (talk) 20:15, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Elizium23 (talk) 20:15, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Elizium23 (talk) 20:15, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Elizium23 (talk) 20:15, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:18, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, it is not encyclopedic to list translations of a particular phrase. Reywas92^Talk 20:40, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons given above. The list is not encyclopedic; since it is unsourced, there is no telling how much of it is original material (WP:OR), which doesn't belong in WP. Bistropha (talk) 01:21, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. It is not the duty of Wikipedia to be a collection of phrases in different languages. Ajf773 (talk) 01:37, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 05:47, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. Glades12 (talk) 14:15, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT and above - the Lord might be risen, but I want to bury this mess. Bearian (talk) 15:38, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate repository of translations of a phrase. --Jack Frost (talk) 11:56, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Daask (talk) 12:42, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to National Football League Draft#Future venues. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 03:02, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2023 NFL Draft[edit]

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

Clear WP:TOOSOON, NFL draft that will be held in three years. No significant coverage at the moment to warrant a standalone article. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:06, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:06, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. There's just too little known about this - the location, and that's it. This can be created closer to the event when enough to write more than a handful of sentences is known (for example, once the dates are relased). Hog Farm (talk) 20:11, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:20, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:21, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete easily WP:TOOSOON. SportingFlyer T·C 20:34, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TOOSOON. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 21:55, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with the above consensus: Three years ahead is just WP:TOOSOON for an event like this. The American football project adopted a "one-year" guideline some time ago for creation of team/season articles. Under that rule, we discourage creation of articles about a future season until the prior season is finished. That seems similarly prudent in the case of future NFL Drafts. Cbl62 (talk) 22:58, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to National Football League Draft#Future venues as redirects are cheap. The venue at least is known, and is mentioned at the target, and there is no real reason not to redirect and preserve the article history since this is a valid search term. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:07, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Devonian Wombat: There is also a draft already at Draft:2023 NFL Draft. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:09, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it's simply too soon. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:26, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:57, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Wombat. If all that's known is the location, it doesn't need its own article but it should go someplace where people can find that information. Smartyllama (talk) 21:18, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At this point, it is not at all a sure thing that there will be a 2023 NFL Draft. BD2412 T 02:04, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to National Football League Draft#Future venues. It's a plausible search term, and redirects are WP:CHEAP, anyways. Ejgreen77 (talk) 05:46, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Jcoolbro (talk) 16:33, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Far too soon. Could also redirect as noted above. --Jack Frost (talk) 12:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to National Football League Draft#Future venues. Daask (talk) 12:42, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:39, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Dodge[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST: the current references are IMDb and two articles about his famous relatives, not him. I have no idea whether this person (co-producer for the American Gypsies reality television series) is the same as the Johnny Dodge with a minor role in "The Innocent and the Damned" or the one whom some unofficial sources list as a producer on Cowboys & Aliens. I looked for news coverage and found only this (which is mainly about his parents and mentions that he has left the film industry) and local society column coverage like this and this. Cheers, gnu 57 19:39, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 19:39, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 19:39, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 19:39, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete people are not notable for having notable relatives.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:04, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG along with WP:INVALIDBIO. All of the sources in the article include passing mentions of the article subject. -- LuK3 (Talk) 20:19, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. He's not notable because of his relatives, per WP:NOTINHERITED. He's not notable as a producer, which is run of the mill, and we have long decided that most producers are not notable, per WP:MILL and WP:OUTCOMES. Bearian (talk) 15:45, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Daask (talk) 12:42, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:40, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of HD2 Radio Stations in the United States[edit]

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

Unsourced list that seems likely to be prone to end up out-of-date/not well-maintained; it's not as if changes to HD subchannels regularly get verifiable coverage, outside of certain national networks' coverage expansions and the usage of subchannels to feed FM translators that effectively serve as the "actual" station. (Even Xperi's own official list isn't entirely kept up to date.) There is a similar list for HD3 channels that is also being nominated:

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

The same user that created both lists also created an HD4 list, that because of the lack of sourcing was repeatedly moved to draftspace and its mainspace title salted. I don't see how draftifying will salvage these particular lists, though. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:38, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:38, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:38, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:38, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Woefully incomplete and the wrong way to catalog these types of stations as they can change on a whim easily. Nate • (chatter) 04:44, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not necessary to have such a list since there are a lot of stations broadcasting in HD2, HD3 & HD4, and those formats may change from time to time. I suggest that the draft of HD4 should be deleted as well. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 05:26, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not necessary for such list. Jcoolbro (talk) (c) 23:53, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 21:14, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Asian Football Hall of Fame[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Asian Football Hall of Fame

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

Does not appear notable based on current sourcing or search for new sources. There is no virtual or physical hall of fame to be found, just a news article mentioning the hall and its 10 inaugural inductees. Only two inductees have Internet articles. There are only four sources total. Fails WP:GNG. dawnleelynn^(talk) 18:16, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 April 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:36, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:48, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:41, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:41, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:24, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It seems that the nominator did not notice that not only all inductees are notable and do have articles (Sun Wen, Soh Chin Aun, Homare Sawa, Yasuhiko Okudera, Harry Kewell, Sami Al-Jaber, Hong Myung-bo, Ali Daei, Bhaichung Bhutia and Homayoun Behzadi) but also all of them are among the most decorated footballers of their countries. The hall of fame was created by the Asian Football Confederation, the continental confederation of FIFA. As a result, that would be not a surprise to find induction of these people being covered in international media (Reuters: [1], L'Équipe: [2], Eurosport: [3]) and celebrated in their own countries. These sources are only examples (in English): Malay Mail, Korean Broadcasting System, India Today, Japan Times, Mehr News Agency, Women of China. I'm sure that more than enough commentary can be found in local media and in native languages of Asian countries (such as Japanese, Arabic, etc.) This website has reported ignition of a debate in Saudi Arabia, on why Majed Abdullah was not included in the list. I wonder why should such articles for countries like Italy and Israel or even a second-tier club deserve to exist, and the largest and most populous continent on earth does not? Pahlevun (talk) 21:32, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources found by Pahlevun, easily passes WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 23:28, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep By virtual of the sources being found by Pahlevun, I reckon this article will be notable enough for WP:GNG. HawkAussie (talk) 23:34, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, the Italian site has an actual external hall of fame: [4] so this is what I am saying is missing for the Asian one. There is no hall of fame site nor inductees for the years following 2014. dawnleelynn^(talk) 23:50, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Recent CFD The category for this award was recently deleted here. Since categories are judged by WP:DEFINING while articles go by WP:NOTABILITY, I'm not sure how helpful this background is. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:27, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A CFD would have no bearing on this article's notability. This clearly passes WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 03:51, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can take a group of notable articles, call it a list and say it is a hall of fame. There still is no source for the hall. dawnleelynn^(talk) 04:40, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody here has done that, though, since that alleges WP:OR. The AFC named ten players to their Hall of Fame in 2014 to celebrate their 60th anniversary per the Reuters article. Whether this was just a one-off award or an actual building isn't relevant to the purposes of notability. Searching just Harry Kewell shows this achievement continues to be referenced by places like the Sydney Morning Herald. The article could do with some editing, though. SportingFlyer T·C 05:56, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets GNG per sources found and listed here; needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 10:30, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per everyone else above. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 16:45, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:43, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly notable per everyone above. Nom's claim that There still is no source for the hall is clearly nonsense -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:02, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:57, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jose Luis Razo Jr.[edit]

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

Another run-of-the-mill offender with no notoriety who fails WP:GNG. Obviously shouldn't be included per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ROUTINE since this was just a blip in a few news articles from 30 years ago. The article was created way back in 2006 when Wikipedia's notability standards were still being developed, and hasn't seen any developments since then. This should belong on another specialty wiki. HᴇʀᴘᴇᴛᴏGᴇɴᴇꜱɪꜱ (talk) 18:09, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. HᴇʀᴘᴇᴛᴏGᴇɴᴇꜱɪꜱ (talk) 18:09, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:14, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing makes him notable on an encyclopedic level.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:57, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:27, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - besides being Not notable, I think this person might be mentally unwell, not a criminal. We are not a counseling service, soapbox, nor web-host. Bearian (talk) 15:43, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:52, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DeVOL Kitchens[edit]

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

I am unable to locate any reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability as per WP:NCORP. References within the article are based on announcements and run-of-the-mill reports and company listings, fails WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:59, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:02, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:03, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Many of the sources are just passing mentions that don't even mention the company. Kori (@) 20:52, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The House Beautiful ref is solid, but the other references are too fleeting to establish notability. JSFarman (talk) 17:43, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to DFS Furniture. Neither of the "keep" voters make a case for why this company meets WP:NCORP. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 21:16, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sofa Workshop[edit]

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

I am unable to locate any reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability as per WP:NCORP. References within the article are based on announcements and run-of-the-mill reports, fails WP:ORGIND HighKing⁺⁺ 17:58, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:03, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:03, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with parent company DFS Furniture. TubularWorld (talk) 18:17, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to DFS Furniture. The refs are just to fairly routine takeover or management buyout articles. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:01, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Owned by DFS, but still trades as an independent brand. High-profile company heavily advertised on British TV. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:06, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article can be made relevant after adding some more information. Lordofthesky (talk) 17:17, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted as G11. (non-admin closure) — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 09:24, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Innocent Virus Films[edit]

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

A recently created production house that is not notable enough for an article. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 17:21, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:29, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:29, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looking for sources there appears to be no argument for notability. 67.243.20.177 (talk) 19:15, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:56, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sourcing is a little thin. Too soon re: notability.TH1980 (talk) 02:11, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it is very promotional like an advert, a case of WP:PROMO imv, adding G11 Atlantic306 (talk) 21:29, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:52, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sony A-mount lenses[edit]

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

Possible FANCRUFT. Also, the article only have 1 reference, which is a link to a forum post. So miserable fails WP:GNG Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:55, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:55, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:55, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:55, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:56, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Ajf773 (talk) 01:49, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable subject seems like a promotional article for Sony lenses. Agree that WP:NOTCATALOGUE and lack of RS. Netherzone (talk) 14:24, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:53, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aleppo Liberation Operations Room[edit]

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

WP:N It doesn't pass the test of time. Ladsgroup^overleg 15:53, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:01, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The page doesn't really say anything; the two references don't either.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 19:33, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed, If this article needs more resources, I have found several sources for it in Arabic that I will provide you with. If this article needs more resources, I have found several sources for it in Arabic that I will provide you with. https://www.enabbaladi.net/archives/27395/amp http://www.shaam.org:8080/news/syria-news/%D8%AA%D8%B4%D9%83%D9%8A%D9%84-%D8%BA%D8%B1%D9%81%D8%A9-%D8%B9%D9%85%D9%84%D9%8A%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D8%AA%D8%AD%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%B1-%D8%AD%D9%84%D8%A8.html http://www.shaam.org:8080/news/syria-news/تشكيل-غرفة-عمليات-تحرير-حلب.html https://www.rojavanews.com/arabic/index.php/su/item/2274-rojava-news https://sqqr247.blogspot.com/2015/03/blog-post_987.html?m=1 https://www.akhbaralaan.net/news/arab-world/2015/02/21/operating-room-commander-aleppo-declares-general-alert/amp — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohammad bahrami cyruc (talk • contribs) 04:39, 25 April 2020 (UTC) Mohammad behrame cyruc (talk) 04:33, 25 April 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohammad bahrami cyruc (talk • contribs) [reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG no WP:SIGCOV. Mztourist (talk) 14:06, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 06:53, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Anix[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

After 14 years since the first nomination for deletion the band is still non notable as they do not satisfy WP:MUSICBIO & have not been discussed with in-depth significant coverage in secondary reliable sources hence invariably falling short of WP:GNG as well. A before which I painstakingly conducted on showed me their music on Spotify & Amazon. Celestina007 (talk) 15:20, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:20, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:20, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:20, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:20, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not sure what I can add as far as arguments go. As stated above, the group simply doesn't appear to be notable. That's it. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:26, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:24, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources cited in the article do not establish the band as a notable group. A Google search of them doesn't show them being discussed in reliable sources. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 17:45, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please also refer to WP:CONFUSESTUB. Mr. Apollo (talk to me bebe) 04:43, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as they have a staff written biography in AllMusic and an album review in Billboard magazine, both sources already in the article. An album review in such a notable magazine as Billboard is a strong indicator that there is more coverage available, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:39, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Atlantic306: You can't continue to used say "there is more coverage available" in AFD discussions. This particular statement of yours doesn't hold any weight because you cannot back it up with reliable sources. In my view, it is wrong to speculate without having any solid evidence. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 07:19, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I said there is a strong indicator, and please see WP:ADHOM. Continuing to vote delete without giving evidence of your source searches is also discouraged and should be given less weight, Atlantic306 (talk) 18:26, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Atlantic306:. Are you able to provide the more coverage that is available? If so I'd recommend adding to the article per WP:HEY Mr. Apollo (talk to me bebe) 14:51, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep A bit sad that a lot of the information online on this band hasn't been archived but Billboard (magazine) has critically reviewed their album "DEMOLITION CITY", they pass WP:Musicbio and WP:Album heres the link, its written in this book. Mr. Apollo (talk to me bebe) 04:38, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — Strinking our !vote of Apollo825 as they are a confirmed sock puppet of TwinTurbo. Celestina007 (talk)

@Apollo825: Contrary to what you've said, the Billboard review is about the band's single "This Game" and not about Demolition City. The latter of body of work is only mentioned ina the review. A short bio in All Music and one short review about one of the band's songs are not enough to warrant stand-alone inclusion. As a matter of fact, the Billboard review is not enough to create a separate article about "This Game". For crying out loud, if this band was notable, their notability should not be in question. They've released seven studio albums, two remix albums and three compilation albums and none of them were discussed in reliable sources. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 07:19, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -@Versace1608, I don’t think you or anyone for that matter should take Apollo825’s !vote in any AFD too seriously as he has gone on a revenge spree & !voting the exact opposite of any entry I make in an any AFD especially the ones I created as can be seen on this particular one, here, & here. The reason is purely revenge due to this AFD. His reply was a sarcastic one as can be seen here. At this point he may houding me unconsciously as he is supposed to be brand new editor as he only registerd his account less than 24 hours ago and perhaps is oblivious of stalking. Ironically from his general comments he implies the he is an “oldie” since he had operated two accounts in the past but forgot their passwords. Very strange indeed to claim to be around here for a while & not know canvassing is a big no no as he was observed doing so few hours ago here & here. Anyways there’s something generally wrong with the !voting in this other Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frenzo Harami in which a different editor suspected sock-puppetry at work. It may not be necessarily sockpuppetry but my gut feeling tells me this is meat. Celestina007 (talk) 10:36, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I assure you, I am not on a revenge spree and I have no bad intentions to you @Celestina007. I am just looking at deletion reviews and only participating in those that I feel has substantial information that meets the wiki guidelines to be kept. Don't forget the fundamental principle of Wikipedia is to assume good faith (WP:GF). In all honestly I didn't know it was you who specifically has requested these articles for deletion and I must remind you that WP:ZEALOUS goes against Wikipedia's assume good faith principle. This is not a WAR ZONE and I am not here to seek "revenge" on you (and what might I be seeking revenge on you for? You haven't done anything to me). Mr. Apollo (talk to me bebe) 12:21, 24 April 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Also, I am extremely offended. I am nobody's puppet, meat or sock. It is bold of you assume this just because I don't agree with your viewpoints even though I have been a Wikipedian since 2014. Mr. Apollo (talk to me bebe)

Comment — Strinking out all Apollo825’s comment & !vote as they are a confirmed sock puppet of TwinTurbo.~~

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 15:39, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Mr. Apollo

KEEP The subject specific guideline for this is Wikipedia:Notability (music). "Has released two or more albums on a major record label" seems to have been met, as was mentioned in the previous AFD. Also they pass the general notability guidelines as Atlantic306 said from the "staff written biography in AllMusic and an album review in Billboard magazine". Dream Focus 19:11, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: In addition to the Billboard review, I found a 2012 newspaper article from the Albuquerque Journal. I've added it to the article. — Toughpigs (talk) 19:42, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Daask (talk) 12:59, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Theory of multiple intelligences. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 03:04, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Physical intelligence[edit]

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

Reviewed as a part of new article curation / review. IMO has two closely related problems. Fails WP: Notability under any distinct topic and also does not appear to be a distinct topic. While the term is used in a search of sources that I made, each appears to be a completely different meaning / neologism promoted by each different writer. The article reads like a vague essay and does nothing to identify a distinct topic. The article creator is blocked as a sock and so further development is unlikely. Has been tagged for wp:notability since January 2020. None of the references were accessible on line and so I was not able to / did not review them thoroughly. Three relate to the same person and / their promoted use for the term. (Howard Gardner). One is to his book which appears to be creating his meaning of the term and two others noting or discussing him. While it is unclear what this article is about, some of it appears to related to Muscle memory a topic which already has an article. North8000 (talk) 15:02, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I looked at this as part of new article review too and more or less came to the same conclusion as you. I thought I’d leave it to see what other editors thought but unless anyone comes up with something persuasive here I’ll probably end up !voting to delete. Mccapra (talk) 15:45, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see a clear distinction between this subject and 'muscle memory'. In addition there are a number of books by a number of authors that have the same title. The subject matter is definitely not made up. article needs more sources to avoid getting nominated againGrmike (talk) 01:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)grmike[reply]

BTW, from a topic standpoint, I didn't say that it is synonymous with muscle memory. I said that there appears to be no distinct topic, just a pair of words used in varying ways and not in any consistent way. Not in sources and not in the article text. North8000 (talk) 11:45, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per reasons in nom. North8000 (talk) 11:46, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:35, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Closer: Please note that User:North8000 was the nominator and has !voted, which is one editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:36, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: Thanks for the ping. I gather I just did something unusual. If so, was it that I voted besides nominating, or was it that I didn't make it clear that I was the nominator when I ivoted? Thanks. North8000 (talk) 11:33, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:North8000 - You !voted besides nominating. The nominator is assumed to favor deletion, and has already made a nominating statement, and is already counted as a Delete !vote. It is rare but occasionally happens for a nominator to !vote Keep or Neutral, but an explanation of why they made the nomination is in order then. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:02, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon:Thanks. I'm newer at AFD'ing articles.North8000 (talk) 14:08, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As an utter newbie in this, i might write complete nonsense...so forgive me if I will: The term described is an OK'ishly documented theory, and maybe the discussion should be whether the content here shouldnt just be merged into Kinesthetic_learning as a section describing the theory upon which Kinesthetic_learning is reliant? Pratat (talk) 11:52, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 15:39, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Thebiv19 (talk) 19:57, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Thebiv19 (talk) 15:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Thebiv19 (talk) 15:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've heard this term in dance education, but still unsure of its notability. Bearian (talk) 15:40, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Having reread the article, looked at others’ comments and considered the suggested merge targets my thoughts are: 1. Physical intelligence is one of 8 forms proposed in Theory of multiple intelligences, which appears to be notable. 2. Some of the eight forms may be notable in themselves because there’s a substantial body of scholarship about them outside the work of Howard Gardner. 3. In this case it seems to me that there isn’t, so I think we should merge content from here into the Theory of multiple intelligences article. Mccapra (talk) 07:13, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Mccapra. I have searched Google Scholar and not found discussion apart from Theory of multiple intelligences and variants. Daask (talk) 13:00, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:48, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Schäffer the Darklord[edit]

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

Multiple issues tag on top of this BLP page for six years (notability and RS). No independent reliable sourcing that I can see on the page. Majority of applied inline sources are YouTube videos. Likely socking here. Page was created by a single purpose account; by authorship over 70% of page is written by SPAs. A reasonable search finds routine band appearance mentions in local newspapers (one of these is in the NYT). I find little directly detailing by reliable source, certainly not enough to support a BLP on this subject. BusterD (talk) 14:42, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. BusterD (talk) 14:42, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. BusterD (talk) 14:42, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:25, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 15:38, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The East Bay Express ref only mentions the subject. The Brightest Young Things ref and The Apiary refs are interviews. The rest are either poor sources, facebook pages, or the subject's site. There's not enough to pass GNG here. --Kbabej (talk) 22:07, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:12, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:53, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maverick Men[edit]

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

the subject doesn't show much of notability. the sources are 3 links of which one is an interview in an not well known website and a book that they wrote. AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 15:19, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:26, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:27, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:28, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:28, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable performers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:06, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:44, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find any RS to support inclusion on WP. --Kbabej (talk) 21:55, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Daask (talk) 13:03, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment they do feature in this published case study. If anyone else can find substantial coverage this might be enough to indicate notability. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 14:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

is being nominated in a book (not notable one) enough to make a person notable?--AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 17:03, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AlejandroLeloirRey please read my comment again. I made no claim to notability, and did not !vote, I only stated that the book might add to notability if accompanied by other sources, especially as published by a reputable publisher. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 21:34, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:06, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zukhriatul Hafizah[edit]

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

local beauty pageant winner. No other claim to notability. Article contains a lot of unrelated citations to prop it up. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 14:47, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article page already cleaned from unrelated citations, like some citations that doesn't realted with english was already being cleaned. So what else is wrong with this article page? each of the information and words are using Reliable sources mentioned, you can check by yourself if not believe me. Just spend some time to check though, if you want to check the references one by one, its already there. I Nyoman Gede Anila (talk) 14:47, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 April 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:16, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:32, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:32, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:32, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:32, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:32, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability or inclusion guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:49, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the achievements were not remarkable enough and did not meet WP:GNG. --Richie Campbell (talk) 00:42, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article describes her as a politician, but then fails to actually contain any content stating what political roles she might have held — the closest it gets to that is describing her as a secretary for a government department, but being a government employee is not the same thing as being a politician. So I can only judge this against our inclusion standards for beauty pageant winners, but even those do not confer an automatic inclusion freebie on just every winner of just every beauty pageant that exists — they still require the person to clear WP:GNG on reliable source coverage about them, which is not the same thing as having their name mentioned in coverage of other things. Bearcat (talk) 15:40, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Does not fully meet GNG or SNG. Sources have about a half dozen medium-length write-ups on her, all relating to pageants. Probably enough to fall under "commonly kept". North8000 (talk) 13:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:07, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wilda Octaviana Situngkir[edit]

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

local beauty pageant winner. No other claim to notability. Fails GNG. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 14:48, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 April 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:16, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:37, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:37, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:37, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:37, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:37, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable beuaty queen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:47, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the achievements were not remarkable enough and did not meet WP:GNG. --Richie Campbell (talk) 00:41, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Almost all of the sites are not reliable. Some of them are quite the same mirror sites of each other, while others are passing mentions, and this one, but I'm actually not sure if it's reliable or not. But either way, the subject is still not notable, as I said before. 🌺Kori🌺 - (@) 03:51, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete failed to satisfy WP:GNG--Richie Campbell (talk) 02:16, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:07, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vania Fitryanti Putri Herlambang[edit]

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

local beauty pageant winner. No other claim to notability. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 14:48, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:35, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:35, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:35, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:35, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:35, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable beauty queen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:45, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the achievements were not remarkable enough and did not meet WP:GNG. --Richie Campbell (talk) 00:41, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:08, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Intan Venlö Aletrino[edit]

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

local beauty pageant winner. No other claim to notability. Article contains a lot of unrelated citations to prop it up. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 14:45, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 April 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:12, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable beauty queen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:19, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Thebiv19 (talk) 19:58, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Thebiv19 (talk) 19:58, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:32, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete did not meet WP:GNG--Richie Campbell (talk) 02:16, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Based on sources, keep. If notability of the competition is not enough, a topic review is needed. Tone 15:58, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yuridia Durán[edit]

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

local beauty pageant winner. Fails GNG. No other claim to notability. Article contains a lot of unrelated citations to prop it up. I Nyoman Gede Anila (talk) 14:49, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 April 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:12, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:30, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:30, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:30, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:30, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable beauty queen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:48, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
These pages have already been reviewed and no problems were detected. Besides that she is not a local but a national queen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocio445 (talk • contribs) 21:46, 24 April 2020 (UTC) — Rocio445 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Angelmtz22 (talk • contribs). [reply]
I do not understand the reason why you want to delete it, if you actually insert references to articles from newspaper magazines and national media in the country. In addition to the fact that she is not a local but a national queen who will represent the country at an international level. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angelmtz22 (talk • contribs) 03:51, 25 April 2020 (UTC) — Angelmtz22 (talk • contribs) is blocked for having used sockpuppets in this debate. [reply]
- John Pack Lambert, (T) We should consider that this user User:I Nyoman Gede Anila is going through all the pages of the beauty queens putting the removal tag. in addition to that he was already warned by the user Praxidicae in his lave od discussion to stop this type of abuse or that he was arrested for doing this sabotage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angelmtz22 (talk • contribs) 04:02, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable beauty queen. This user here >>> contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Angelmtz22, using and creating multiple accounts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by I Nyoman Gede Anila (talk • contribs) 17:46, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@User:I Nyoman Gede Anila you cannot vote on your own AFD, as you have already said delete by sending the article to AFD. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 10:30, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She has won a major national beauty pageant (Mexicana Universal). The razón article has minimally adequate depth, and the minor coverage on other sources is cumulatively adequate. The article is well sourced and not promotional. Daask (talk) 13:15, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 16:48, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 03:05, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have not found anything on wikipedia policy on pageants. My opinion is that the winner of a national pageant officially recognized by the country who have been recognized in non trivial RS articles should be included. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 10:30, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:GNG. Sourcing is decent. Plenty of titles and a national major title.BabbaQ (talk) 15:10, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:48, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Corp Development Pvt Ltd[edit]

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

Run of the mill development company, no claim to notability. Speedy deletion tag removed by the creator. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 14:54, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:05, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:05, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT, WP:MILL, WP:NCORP, and WP:SIGCOV. First off, a real stub would take a lot of work from this mess. I can't even figure out what they do. It appears to have been created by an employee or PR agency, and they were ripped off. From all appearances, this is a run of the mill company of some kind, and one with unsophisticated management at that. (I can hear the CEO in my head: "Ajay, make a PowerPoint on this. Anand, create me a Wikipedia page based on that.") The sources are a random list of business listings and in-industry fluff pieces. Bearian (talk) 15:56, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Hatchens (talk) 03:14, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Daask (talk) 14:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep, per WP:SNOW. —usernamekiran (talk) 22:59, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Teri Mitti[edit]

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

No coverage beyond trivial. Cannot pass WP:NSINGLE MistyGraceWhite (talk) 14:31, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:34, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:34, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: FWIW, there seems to be a lot of coverage here But I don't read Hindi, and can't vouch for what the articles say. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:53, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ User:7&6=thirteen I see less than 70 results, and those include facebook, instagram and youtube. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 15:03, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has been the subject of multiple non-trival published works independent of the subject. The sources go beyond the routine mv release type articles. The first three I opened show at least a mid to high level of depth in coverage. Edit, clear lack of WP:BEFORE on this subject. The single was nominated for multiple wikinotable awards. Was also featured multiple times in a wikinotable film. And the losing of the award for the single caused a controversy in which a wikinotable musician stated he would no longer attend awards show. Sulfurboy (talk) 16:58, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ User:Sulfurboy the song which this article is about was released on 24 April, 1 day ago. I think you may be reading the sources for the original song which was featured in the movie? MistyGraceWhite (talk) 17:35, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For example you added a source dated February 17th, while the song was released on April 24 MistyGraceWhite (talk) 17:39, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MistyGraceWhite, The music video came out on April 24th, the single came out over a year ago [5]. It was featured in a film in 2019 and nominated for an award in Feb of this year, per the information I added to the article. Sulfurboy (talk) 17:57, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The confusion seems to stem from the wording in the article. I'm going to clean it up a bit here in a min. Sulfurboy (talk) 18:06, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per User:Sulfurboy. Bizarre nomination, given the quantity / nature of sourcing. Ingratis (talk) 22:21, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sulfurboy, sourcing is adequate to demonstrate notability. GirthSummit _(blether) 07:50, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passed GNG. Others have said what I wanted to but also see this recent coverage from almost 1 day ago. Srijanx22 (talk) 08:25, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:26, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per Sulfurboy. Article is good enough to pass WP:GNG, especially with the sources presented above. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 05:29, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep' I don't how did this article end up here? It is one of the most notable composition. The nominator need to think twice before placing an AFD.

LuciferEdits (talk) 12:44, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep' Passes reference requirements and notability IMO.-Nizil (talk) 19:20, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' Laying aside the number of references and widespread coverage, number of views, comments by peers, box-office income and response from peers and public, the lyrics speak for themself. In the background lay the efforts of the army and health professionals in India to which the lyrics reference. Whispyhistory (talk) 22:00, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 16:00, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Plastic Pollution Coalition[edit]

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

No proof of any kind of notability. Article was PRODded (and tagged for notability) by Piotrus; this was undone (without explanation) by Kku in this edit, which added a long list of apparent members. The article is nothing more than a mission statement and a couple of promotional POV statements. Searching through Google News reveals more namedropping (because some famous people are associated with it) and press releases disguised as news, like this. There are some indirect references, like this one, but I don't see proof of notability by our standards. Either way, the article should be rewritten from scratch. Drmies (talk) 14:22, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:35, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:35, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:36, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:36, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 16:06, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I must have missed it otherwise I'd have AfDed it myself, clearly fails WP:NCOMPANY, list of non-notable staff nonwithstanding (it fact it makes it more promotional). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:51, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at least for as long as there exist extensive series of rambling articles on fictional themes like Dimension Jump (Red Dwarf episode). And more to the point: The plastics industry is well represented in WP without anyone questiong the bias towards simplification and promotion (see e.g. Society of the Plastics Industry, Plastics News, British Plastics Federation and numerous others). Are you kidding me? Of course I do not think that the deletion proposal is an indirect consequence of year-long neoliberal indoctrination and skewing of the public's perception on all matters concerning the petroleum industry. How could I. But maybe we have a case of selective perception here. Thank you for reading up to this point.-- Kku (talk) 08:04, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kku: Your argument is addressed at WP:Other stuff exists and WP:WHATABOUTX. Our guideline, WP:Notability, has been crafted and debated over a long period of time by many editors. If you wish to understand why articles are deleted or kept on Wikipedia, that is the only thing that matters. Our opinion on PPC or the British Plastics Federation does not. You may also be interested in WP:Subjective importance, WP:Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause, and WP:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing Daask (talk) 16:06, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it isn't. The double standards are painful and debasing. But thanks for your didactic effort anyway. -- Kku (talk) 20:56, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Earth Island Institute#Incubator projects where this company is mentioned. An admirable organisation, but unfortunately not one that has received enough coverage to pass GNG or WP:NCORP per nom. The article is also laden with promotional language. I would encourage Kku to nominate the articles they have mentioned for deletion if they believe they are also not notable. Devonian Wombat (talk) 08:34, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While I still disagree even with a replacement by redirect, the appropriate parent page would rather be Earth Island Institute. -- Kku (talk) 09:13, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I have changed my redirect target. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:02, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There appears to be a very large amount of passing news coverage, and articles like The Ecologist have adequate depth. Daask (talk) 15:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep WP:NCORP satisfied many good sources ; sources that are significant within Cultural ecology. High profile sponsors who publicly support it. tedX talk host, [The Ecologist], international coverage (not just local), an international alliance with branches in 60 different countries [6], major partnerships - [7], [8], change.org Dianna Cohen, CEO & Co-Founder of Plastic Pollution Coalition, has signed on to Heal the Bay's petition to fast-track the approval of the California Circular Economy and Plastic Pollution Reduction Act. even a goop.com feature, indepth, independent and about Plastic only (makes it an article independent of the company that started it).so in summary strong keep (bolded wording in lede some reason not showing up).

NBC News one activist at a time - using this company to represent the entire anti-plastic movement.

significant in the categories : plastic pollution, ecology, business, Marine pollution, recycling.Grmike (talk) 16:49, 1 May 2020 (UTC)grmike[reply]

increasingly relevent since being made a priority issue at the 44th G7 summit.Grmike (talk) 16:54, 1 May 2020 (UTC)grmike[reply]

comment - participated in legislation that will be on the 2020 ballot.Grmike (talk) 19:06, 1 May 2020 (UTC)grmike[reply]

I still think it is a key member because among dozens of organizations involved it is always one of the few listed at always near the top.Grmike (talk) 19:10, 1 May 2020 (UTC)grmike[reply]

Keep. The article meets WP:GNG and has sufficient references. Promotional content in the first section should be modified.Lordofthesky (talk) 17:01, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I believe I have substantially improved the article since it was nominated. Daask (talk) 20:31, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

yes good job.Grmike (talk) 20:54, 1 May 2020 (UTC)grmike[reply]

Keep. The sources cited above are a combination of promotional press releases and passing mentions, and absolutely none of them contribute to notability. However, actually looking at the article, the new sources added about the American Idol video and the article by The Guardian about California's waste do provide significant coverage, meaning this organization passes GNG. Therefore I am changing my vote. Also, User:Grmike, bolding essentially half your comment is really annoying and makes you look obnoxious. Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:15, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had some trouble with the semi-quotes. I think that another user fixed it.Grmike (talk)grmike

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 14:11, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bukunmi Oluwasina[edit]

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO, WP:NACTOR and WP:NMODEL. With the exception of Pulse Nigeria, all of the remaining sources cited in the article are unreliable. A Google search of the subject doesn't show reliable coverage independent of her. Her only claim to notability is one of her films receiving a nomination at the 2016 AMVCAs; this isn't enough to warrant a separate article. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 14:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 14:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 14:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 14:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 14:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 14:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. A before I conducted doesn’t show general notability guidelines being met. Celestina007 (talk) 14:49, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable entertainer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:11, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:11, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maansals[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, no in-depth coverage. Störm (talk) 11:51, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:27, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:30, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable YouTuber.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:50, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:56, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Thebiv19 (talk) 20:03, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Thebiv19 (talk) 20:03, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - zero reliable sources. 15:50, 28 April 2020 (UTC) signed Bearian (talk) 15:51, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There are credible arguments here that the very existence of the subject is not verifiable ([[[WP:V]]), and they have not been rebutted here with references to reliable sources. Sandstein 06:56, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal-Popular Union[edit]

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

Almost all of the page refers to the activities of the Liberal Foundation (chaired by Ferdinando Adornato), in addition there is only one source that announces the "future" foundation of this faction ([9]), but no source attributable to its actual foundation. Assuming that this faction was really born, Adornato left anyway Forza Italy shortly afterwards. I don't think this page can be considered encyclopedic. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 17:09, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:12, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:12, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am very sorry that a deletionist trend has come from it.Wikipedia to en.Wikipedia. This was a small and short-lived faction, but the subject has sources and relavance. And... even the smallest of factions deserve an article. --Checco (talk) 19:35, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It is not a deletionist trend, but Wikipedia can't contain everything. This faction is totally unknown, there are no sources on its actual foundation and above all it is not possible to find any source on it (except one where it was only announced), indeed, almost the entire content of this page is not referred to it. it is difficult to consider this page even minimally encyclopedic if there aren't even sources about it...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:57, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Italian political party factions are worthy of having their own individual articles, particularly a faction that was part of a political party that governed Italy for a significant amount of time.--Autospark (talk) 19:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment. I'm not surprised that the usual two users have expressed themselves in favor of keeping, but how can we consider encyclopedic something that we don't know if it was actually founded? Because there is no source regarding the foundation of this current.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 22:28, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And I was not surprised by who was proposing the deletion. There are sources on the subject, so what? --Checco (talk) 09:15, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What are the sources about this faction? Where is it written that this Liberal-Popular Union was founded? I have not found these sources. There is only one source where Adornato claims to want to found a faction with this name, and that's it. No source about the foundation of the Liberal-Popular Union, the whole page refers to general topics, to Ferdinando Adornato's initiatives or to the Liberal Foundation. From a internet search it is impossible to find information about it. It is very probable that this Liberal-Popular Union never existed, since there doesn't seem to be any evidence, and in any case almost all the text on the page is a fill that does not concern the main topic of the page. It seems almost natural to me that the page on an unknown object and without sources should be deleted. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 12:08, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:54, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:55, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment. It seems to me quite amazing that a page on a non-existent entity can be maintained. It is not written in any source that that this Liberal-Popular Union existed, despite the announcement, on 27 October 2007 it appears that Ferdinando Adornato simply made a meeting of his Liberal Clubs, he didn't founded any official current (which never existed in Forza Italia). This page would be maintained only for the opposition of the user who wrote it and another who follows it on trust, but here it also takes realism. @Checco:, you said that the subject has sources, but you are able to provide evidence of its actual existence? I have not found them... --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 17:05, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pity that the user doesn't want to answer, this shows that he is not able to prove the existence of this object. It is no coincidence that the whole page does not refer to this faction. Due also to the general lack of interest in this Afd, the risk is to keep a page on an object that does not exist due to the (unjustified) opposition of two allied users.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:55, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 03:06, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Anne Sakovich[edit]

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

Non notable BLP. Article only uses IMDB as a source, inappropriately, for years. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:16, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:16, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:16, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:16, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While there are roles here that could get her over WP:NACTOR if the article were sourced properly, simply listing roles is not in and of itself an exemption from having to have any sources. But on a ProQuest search, the strongest source I can find harshly criticizes her acting skill right in its headline, so I really don't want to use it at all for WP:BLP reasons — if she had 100 sources, it might not be so bad if one of them was a bit unkind about her acting ability, but if the only genuinely solid source she has is openly bashing her talent? And absent that, literally all I can find otherwise is glancing namechecks of her existence rather than coverage that's about her in any non-trivial way. And even if I did overlook my concerns and use the tricky source, it would still take quite a bit more than just one source to actually get her over the bar anyway. Bearcat (talk) 01:23, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References Added

added some reference. also,on the website added to the External sites section, there's a number of articles about the actress. I did not list more items as they can be already accessed through this website, and most of them focus on the roles not mentioned in the wiki text (they are mentioned in the filmography though),but in case more reference resourse in needed, let me know and I'll try to add more --FascinatingVelvetRose (talk) 14:59, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that a person's notability is not demonstrated by the self-published production websites of the shows she was in (so sourcing her role in Psi Factor to Psi Factor's own website about itself accomplishes nothing), or by glancing namechecks of her existence in sources that are not about her (so the "Science Fiction Television Series, 1990-2004: Histories, Casts and Credits" book doesn't help either.) To be fair, I will give you credit for catching something I had missed, namely that the two legitimate sources you added (Maclean's and The Globe and Mail) refer to her as "Nancy Sakovich" rather than "Nancy Anne Sakovich", and thus didn't turn up for me because it hadn't occurred to me to try that — but even just getting her over WP:GNG requires more than two sources, so if you really want to salvage the article you still need more sources than this. Bearcat (talk) 17:53, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More References Ok.now I added more sources --FascinatingVelvetRose (talk) 06:04, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actress and model. Notability is not demonstrated by the added sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:15, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As per WP:HEY. Steps are being taken to improve the article by FascinatingVelvetRose. I don't think there is any huge problem with meeting WP:NACTOR, because the subject has had several significant roles in notable TV series. Also, I think that, whether Bearcat adds the ProQuest source or not, it would go towards WP:NEXIST, anyway. There are lots of results from newspapers.com, too. Dflaw4 (talk) 13:01, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:28, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources were added.now the article is also edited to be improved and further match with the added sources.--FascinatingVelvetRose (talk) 05:45, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:54, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Borderline case. The league does not match the criteria but GNG may be there. I am closing as no consensus. Tone 19:51, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Fells[edit]

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

The player does not meet the notability guidelines laid out in Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues. He did not make an appearance in a Football League match during his career and as such does not appear in Joyce's Football League Players' Records 1888 to 1939. Beatpoet (talk) 22:53, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:11, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:11, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:03, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:04, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Umm, he clearly passes WP:NFOOTBALL, the FA ran a split league system between the Northern and Southern leagues from 1888-89 to 1919, and he appeared for Brentford in the Southern league! Then in 1920 The Southern League then was adapted to the Third Div of the Football league. I wouldn't take Joyce's record as complete and I wouldn't use one source like you are doing. Also the fact that each club in the Southern League at that time had a pay players, even it was a small wage was a big strain on the clubs putting a fair few in financial trouble. Govvy (talk) 09:56, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't take Joyce's record as complete and I wouldn't use one source like you are doing - Joyce's book certainly is complete, it's the definitive listing of all players who played in the Football League prior to WW2. When you say "I wouldn't use one source like you are doing", are you suggesting that a different source would say this player did play in the Football League? Because I can guarantee it won't -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:02, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - The statement that "the FA ran a split league system between the Northern and Southern leagues from 1888-89 to 1919" isn't accurate either. The Football League comprised clubs from the Midlands and north during that period (mostly - by 1913 five London clubs and one in Bristol were members) but it was never a deliberate "split league system". There has never been a consensus that players who played in the Southern League during this period pass NFOOTBALL -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:07, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Southern League tried to mirror the FA, don't know why I wrote they were run by the FA, also why are you trying to look up Southern League players in a book for the Football League which was mainly the Northern football clubs? I am just annoyed why you would stamp on the Souther League like that. Govvy (talk) 10:17, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the clubs were fully professional at the time he played for them so doesn't acquire notability via them.--A bit iffy (talk) 10:27, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:48, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It seems very strange to me that we would delete a perfectly fine stub just because a player played in the Southern League during the nineteen teens and not the Northern League. SportingFlyer T·C 04:24, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Your comment could be taken to suggest that in the 1910s there were northern and southern leagues which were parallel and equal, like the two conferences in American football. This is 100% not the case. In the 1910s, the pre-eminent league in England was the Football League, which did consist mostly of northern and midlands clubs but did have some southern representation (as noted above, by 1913 there were five London clubs in it). Then there was the Southern League, which consisted of clubs in southern England and Wales. The standard of the Southern League was much lower (hence why when its top division was eventually absorbed into the Football League in 1920 it became the third division). The Southern League has never been considered to be a fully professional league which satisfies WP:NFOOTBALL. If you think this needs changing, you would need to raise it at the appropriate place....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:33, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think anyone has done their homework here as Brentford operated as a fully pro club when Fells played for them. Brentford had a really hard time during this period and had to sell or release players. This was partly due to league rules as all Southern League clubs had to give a wage to each player on the books no matter how little. Clubs did find a loophole to the regulations as they could play players on apprentice contracts. Govvy (talk) 10:40, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:52, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting that these two leagues were of equal importance - the Southern league was clearly a second option for teams in the South, and in the midlands, and even Bradford Park Avenue, as evidenced by the fact the Southern league had rules on when teams could be expelled. I'm simply noting that a player who was written about in the papers of the time and who ended up playing in the Southern league - remember this is the time when the Charity Shield was played between Football and Southern - would be deleted on what I think would be an odd technicality. SportingFlyer T·C 20:51, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brentford was only in the first division of the Southern League for the 1912–13 Brentford F.C. season. The following season (1913–14 Brentford F.C. season) they had numerous amateurs. So it really comes down to his eight possibly fully-professional games during 1912-13. But isn't this a red herring? There's 4 contemporary media references = which is a lot more than I've found for some contemporary players who did play in the Football League. I've checked and improved one of the references in the article, which confirms he did indeed go to and play for Brentford during the 1912-13 season. Nfitz (talk) 23:06, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 14:11, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Billy the Wizard: Rocket Broomstick Racing[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG very minor game Hippymoose17 13:45, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:51, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We have reviews at IGN, Eurogamer, Nintendo Gamer magazine (Christmas 2007, p. 65), GamesRadar, a comment from SiliconEra about being a ripoff and from GamesRadar the worst box art. I tend toward a keep here. --Izno (talk) 17:51, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This game passes WP:GNG because of having multiple significant coverage in reliable sources. Besides the IGN coverage (Eurogamer bit is lengthy but says pretty much nothing about the game itself and reads like a complain rather than anything else, GamesRadar one can hardly be called a "review", and the other two aren't really indepth), I have found Jeuxvideo.com [10] and Stern (magazine) [11], which is enough to pass the notability guidelines. It may be a shovelware, but it got noticed. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:14, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: ~~This Siliconera article and~~ the sources provided by the others are enough for this game to fly (heh) past the GNG, despite not being very important or remarkable. Glades12 (talk) 10:26, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That was apparently already linked. Glades12 (talk) 10:31, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources listed above. The plethora of reliable sources easily passes the standard established at WP:VG/RS. Nomader (talk) 21:43, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:10, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Arnone[edit]

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

Non-notable politician who has never held elected office and for whom there are no sources passing WP:GNG. User:Namiba 13:29, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 13:29, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 13:29, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is a potential claim of notability but none of the sourcing that would be necessary. The sourcing in the article is far from in depth and I was unable to find anything in a Google search that would support a claim. Alansohn (talk) 14:31, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being a functionary on a political campaign does not make someone notable unless we have multiple significant sources. It is articles like this that lead to us having nearly 1 million articles on living people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:17, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:24, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NPOL. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 22:04, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being co-chair of a political party could get her into Wikipedia if she could be shown to clear WP:GNG on her sourceability, but it is not an automatic inclusion freebie that entitles her to keep a virtually unsourced Wikipedia article just because she exists. She is the bylined author, not the subject, of the only footnote present here, which means it isn't a notability-supporting source — and even if it were a notability-supporting source, she would still need quite a bit more than just one of those. Bearcat (talk) 15:34, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no sourcing to indicate that Arnone passes WP:GNG and WP:NPOL is clearly not passed. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:04, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- RG ² 02:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Van Darkholme[edit]

Gay-Male porno actor. Article doesn't meet the requirements of WP:BIO with regard to porno actors. There are no references per WP:RS. It reads like a vanity bio and as one of the editors was the subject himself there is an element of WP:COI present. The verifiability tag has been present since September but hasn't been addressed. -- WebHamster 19:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 15:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:PORNBIO states "Has made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre, such as beginning a trend in pornography, or starring in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature" and, in terms of gay male porn, I suggest that he was the first muscular Asian top in Western gay porn and the first Asian performer in Western bondage porn (the article mentions this but not in detail) and thus is "iconic" and "groundbreaking". He single-handedly broke down a stereotype that Asian men in gay porn must be slender submissive bottoms. He's written a book (linked here) and illustrated it with his own photographs. He appeared in Playgirl and has both acted and directed in films as per IMDB. All things considered, I'd suggest that he is notable when compared to the average performer. Accounting4Taste 18:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added a reference link to the book and deleted much of the stuff that would probably be WP:COI that would have required a verifiability tag; anything that's there can be verified from within the article, so I trust it will not be incorrect to remove that tag. Accounting4Taste 22:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's actually a minor celeb of sorts in the bondage community and his annual performances at Folsom and Dore allet fair ahve been going on for years (over a decade I believe). Benjiboi 13:18, 29 October 2007 (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 14:09, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of families of Lahore[edit]

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

Non-notable. PepperBeast (talk) 13:09, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. PepperBeast (talk) 13:09, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:15, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:LISTN and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. No reliable sources discuss this, and as far as I can tell not a single one of these random families is actually notable. Not all of the listings are even families. Article is also ridden with promotional material. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:54, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Devonian Wombat; we're not the Lahore society pages. Nate • (chatter) 04:54, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Devonian Wombat. No reliable source that is discussing the criteria for such a list. In the absence of a criteria the list will be indiscriminate. Cedix (talk) 12:09, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Thebiv19 (talk) 20:06, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Thebiv19 (talk) 20:06, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Albert Ebossé Bodjongo#Death. Consensus here is for a merge. Discussion about the scope of the merge can continue on an article talk page, such as at Talk:Albert Ebossé Bodjongo, if desired. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JS Kabylie 1 - 2 USM Alger match 2014[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:MEMORIAL. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 12:50, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:55, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:56, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:56, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:57, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep didn't expect to !vote keep for this initially, but the game does pass WP:GNG as it's been discussed for years in Algerian press due to the death of a player and due to the fact it's a local rivalry, and it doesn't violate WP:MEMORIAL because it's not written as an obituary. Desperately needs a copy edit for wording and neutrality, though, and could see it being deleted on those grounds or potentially merged into the player's article, but I think the topic itself notable. SportingFlyer T·C 20:55, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a good excuse. By that measure, we should have United States v Colombia (1994 FIFA World Cup) be an article and not a redirect because the topic has received even more coverage than the Algerian match and also involved the death of a player from the losing team. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 04:47, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - The fact the article meets WP:GNG isn't a good enough excuse to keep the article? SportingFlyer T·C 05:51, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this is kept can at we least rename to JS Kabylie 1–2 USM Alger (2014) to keep it consist with other single match games. HawkAussie (talk) 23:25, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Albert Ebossé Bodjongo#Death. The article is entirely about his death rather than the game itself. Number 5 7 10:15, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Albert Ebossé Bodjongo#Death per N57, as that is what the article/coverage deals with, and a separate article is not justified. Giant Snowman 10:29, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - the game itself is not notable, just one specific incident, and that is more appropriately covered in the player's article -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:06, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - The game was only notable due to the death of the player that played in this match. This could probably be better used in either the rivally or be placed in the player article. HawkAussie (talk) 00:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Merge? What parts do people want to merge? Just the prose? It doesn't help that the content is really poorly written. No one offered up 2014–15 Algerian Ligue Professionnelle 1 to add content too. The game is only notable for the death at the end? Erm, maybe something happened in the game which partly led to the event. Feels like some people are missing the finer points here. Govvy (talk) 18:55, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:09, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mohanan Vaidyar[edit]

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

pseudo-medicine practitioner who fails GNG MistyGraceWhite (talk) 12:10, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:42, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:42, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable as an academic and fails our guidelines on articles on fringe people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:08, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Thebiv19 (talk) 20:07, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Thebiv19 (talk) 20:07, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of significant coverage by relevant sources of the field. Article might be created in future but should be written without BLP violations. Srijanx22 (talk) 06:55, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:08, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Cruz (actor)[edit]

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

The subject doesn't seem to fulfill any guideline for notability. He only did a few movies and wan a few minor prize. tre out of four sources are unreliable: AFDb and IMDB. The only reliable source its just a mention as the winner of one prize. Many statements are not sourced.--AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 12:26, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:50, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:50, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:50, 24 April 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Delete a non-notable pornographic performer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:36, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:08, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BookBlast[edit]

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

Non notable writing agency with zero independent in-depth sources. Also undeclared paid editing. Theroadislong (talk) 11:26, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:39, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:39, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NCORP fail. Appears to be a promotional effort as well.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:00, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. Thebiv19 (talk) 20:09, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Thebiv19 (talk) 20:09, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:42, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Sultan Shah[edit]

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

I can find very few reliable sources to establish WP:GNG, with many of the references in this article not even alluding to the subject (Wiki page diffs are even used!). Fails GNG and WP:CRIN. StickyWicket (talk) 10:46, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 10:46, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 10:46, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:58, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do not remove this page

Syed Sultan Shah is the first Captain of Pakistan Blind Cricket Team, he led Pakistan Blind Cricket Team in 1st World Cup Cricket of the Blind played in India 1998. He had played 15 International Blind Cricket Matches for Pakistan.

He was elected the President of World Blind Cricket Council twice from 2012-2014 and then 2014-2016.

He is the current Chairman of Pakistan Blind Cricket Council and has been holding office till April 2009

He is a blind person and has won two world cups for Pakistan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maher Yousaf Haroon (talk • contribs)

Please read WP:GNG, and find a number of sources that cover him in detail and are independent of both him and the organisations he represents. It is all well and good saying that he deserves a page, but we need proof that he has done all of this and is notable enough for doing so to require an article of his own. I have tidied a lot of the links referred to above, but as it stands, there is not enough in the article to show that it passes GNG. I have held off !voting, but I tend towards delete at the moment. Spike 'em (talk) 08:39, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough reliable sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:12, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Further to my comment above, I've made my mind up. The article does not demonstrate that it meets WP:GNG and Draft:Syed Sultan Shah was recently rejected at AfC for similar reasons. Spike 'em (talk) 09:09, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:13, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mayukh Biswas[edit]

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

Non-notable politician, lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. Fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 10:34, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 10:34, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:54, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NPOL since the subject has never won any national or state level elections. --Manasbose(talkᗙ)15:36, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'd still love to know why Indian editors seem so uniquely convinced that serving in student government is sufficient grounds for a Wikipedia article — I'm certainly not going to claim that this has never been tried in any other country, because it has on occasion, but it's really only in India that this happens on such a consistent, regular basis. As always, however, it is not "inherently" notable enough to confer automatic inclusion in Wikipedia just because he exists, and as usual the references here are not WP:GNG-building media coverage about him for the purposes of establishing that he could be considered a special case, but a mix of primary sources and glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things. Bearcat (talk) 15:03, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Hatchens (talk) 03:39, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:42, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anita Kashyap[edit]

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

Non notable personality. Apart from a small role in Ramayan Television series there is nothing that make her notable. Fails WP:GNG Jai49 (talk) 09:23, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:53, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:53, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:19, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:20, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Apparently, the subject didn't actually appear in the series—she just bears a resemblance to the actress who did: https://www.ndtv.com/entertainment/all-these-reports-are-false-tahira-kashyap-denies-rumours-of-anita-kashyap-starring-in-ramayan-2214455. The coverage she is getting seems to be over this debate as to whether she did or didn't act in the show. Dflaw4 (talk) 10:42, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is basically a hoax. It makes a false claim of a role, although that one role would not be enough for notability. We have way, way too many articles sourced only to IMDb and other unreliable sources in the actors, actresses, directors, producers and films category for me to believe this is anything less than a widespread problem.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:07, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:02, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apex Designs Entertainment[edit]

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

Article was first created as Apex Designs, which was moved back to draft by Jovanmilic97 on March 23. It got declined at AfC by KylieTastic later that same day. On April 11, creator MaliciousJeff created this article, as Apex Designs Entertainment. IceWelder moved it to draft on April 21, which was moved back to main space April 23. Creator MaliciousJeff has not responded to talk page messages. I suggest WP:SALTing this.

Now, concerning the subject: it fails WP:GNG. There is no WP:SIGNIFICANT coverage on the developer. The WP:VG/RS custom Google search engine brings up very little results. The sources that are there are mostly about one of the two games the company developed, if Metacritic is correct, Payback and Payback 2. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:46, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Having notable games (especially if it is just two) does not make the company notable. Also support salting both targets. IceWelder [✉] 09:16, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – two games, not enough notability, and a poorly written article. Thatone~~weird~~wikier | Say hi 09:51, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Games are notable but still no indication that company is independently notable. KylieTastic (talk) 09:56, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:58, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:58, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:58, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 11:10, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:08, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arabs in North Macedonia[edit]

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

Small group that doesn't meet WP:GNG. Of the sources cited in the article, the Joshua Project isn't considered an RS, and the others are about Syrian and other refugees attempting to pass through North Macedonia, not resident there. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:05, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:05, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:05, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Arabs in Macedonia as well. Any possible trace of Arabs in Macedonia only reeks of Macedonian Muslims. NavjotSR (talk) 06:13, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think something's been lost in translation with that comment, NavjotSR - "reeks of" seems inappropriate here. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:23, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I could be more descriptive, but I would be now. Arabs in Macedonia is a problematic article but so is Macedonian Muslims. Islam in North Macedonia already exists and it should be covered to that page instead. Just like American Muslims redirects to Islam in the United States, there should be only one article. I mentioned this because I believe that more research is needed into the articles related to the subject of Islam in North Macedonia and only deleting Arabs in North Macedonia won't solve the wider issue. NavjotSR (talk) 12:43, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification - I understand your argument now. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:36, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nom and editor above says it all, unecessary fork. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:36, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Contributions by suspected paid editors have been disregarded, especially as they appear to be so new. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:03, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nikita Gordijn[edit]

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

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

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

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

The subject in question fails WP:NACTOR as she has just done one film. Her being a title holder of non-notable pageants is also an issue too. Coverage on her is more sensational then being news worthy. No in-depth coverage and last of all the article is a bit promotional in nature. All said and done this needs consensus to stay on here. - FitIndia ^{Talk Commons} 05:34, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. - FitIndia ^{Talk Commons} 05:38, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. - FitIndia ^{Talk Commons} 05:38, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - FitIndia ^{Talk Commons} 05:38, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:17, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:18, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

votes by undisclosed paid users

Keep The sources that were in the article at the time of deletion were insufficient, but I have found additional sources (including Times of India Articles on Beauty Pageant, Youtube video of Beauty Pageant Femina Miss India Organisation and Online newspaper reviews) to establish her notability as an Model or entertainer. She holds a huge (2.6M followers on one page) global fan following on social media WP:ENT. You can find more coverage with the name Nikita Gokhale as she changed her name to Nikita Gordijn after her marriage. Coverage on her can be sensational for Indian media but her recent work shows she is known for art nude modelling around world. To me, the article appears very brief and far from promotional, but if there are any further issues with the contents of the page, I feel that is a job for cleanup not deletion.

CarlinBasel (talk) 17:15, 17 April 2020 (CET)— CarlinBasel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Note to closing admin: CarlinBasel (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed.

Keep As I am not editor of wikipedia but being an Editor of India’s top newspaper, I feel Nikita Gokhale is a young and talented model hailing from a small village in India who earned reputation and fame by doing hard work in the industry. Her story is inspiration for many girls who wish to become a successful model. She has represented India in scores of International event & titles. If you spend more time examining the sources on google search about Nikita Gokhale you can easily find this information. Nikita Gokhale wiki page is more than 5 years old. A lot of users put their efforts to edit this. Google findings suggest Nikita's name is searched more than 10,000 times daily. Just because you never heard about her that doesn’t mean she is not a notable person.

17:15, 18 April 2020 (GMT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.76.202.42 (talk) 11:30, April 18, 2020 (UTC)

Keep Just saw this article and i think this article needs some cleanup and replace some broken links with it, no need to delete this article as i found so many coverage about nikita gokhale she is one of the best bikini model from india and representing indian bikini modeling. and also notable person for her nude photography shoots. so here i am requesting to the Wikipedia moderators and admin take healthy action on this.

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

Keep I agree that deletion reason given by User:Fitindia for the subject fails WP:NACTOR criteria 1, but fulfils criteria 2 & 3 undoubtedly. The subject has significant fan base & she has been followed by leading news channels although the links on article has not been updated regularly. A simple online search for the subject can give sufficient information that she should stay on. Subject has Google info card on search, with social media listed with over 2.6 Million followers. I request for more relevent info & updates to be given by people who have knowledge on the subject, else AfD can be raised again in future. User:Fitindia has created articles on numerous subjects which fail platform policies and raises concern that current AfD request may be influenced for individuals benefit, as it's being partial & raised ignoring the knowledge of the subject beyond present article. I generally never talk on AfD but the concern has been shared recently by many in community & after sufficient study I believe this article can be kept as per WP:NACTOR 2 & 3 with the commitment to update it regularly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asharma13 (talk • contribs) 07:45, April 25, 2020 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: Asharma13 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic and has logged in after 7 years to vote on this AFD.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looking for comments from people with an established track record at AfD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – bradv🍁 06:32, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non Notable nobody. The two keep voters seem suspiciuos to me. How does an editor make his first edit on wikipedia to an AFD? Within 10 hours of AFD creation? Raises Red flags. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 17:26, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete run-of-the-mill actress/model, no evidence of satisfying WP:NACTOR or WP:NMODEL, awards are non-notable and sources do not meet the requirements set by WP:GNG. GSS ^💬 04:04, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note as per off-wiki evidence there is some paid voting going on. For more details please feel free to drop me an email. GSS ^💬 04:09, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete failed to satisfy WP:GNG--Richie Campbell (talk) 02:19, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:50, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Burnnie the Bunnie: Tails from the Light Side[edit]

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

While it does (or did) have a substantial viewership, there are no notable secondary sources anywhere on the Internet. There are plenty of Youtube shows with impressive viewership figures which aren’t considered notable, so why is an obscure TV series different? Dronebogus (talk) 04:32, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 04:32, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 04:32, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously proposed for deletion, so this can't be soft deleted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – bradv🍁 06:24, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject of the article fails WP:GNG / WP:NMEDIA. MarkZusab (talk) 13:35, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:03, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Aidala[edit]

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

Defence Lawyer who was on the team of some celebrities charged with rape. Non Notable. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 05:07, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:36, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:36, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional article coattailing celebrities by linking them to establish subject notability, and his "considering" seeking political office isn't noteworthy in the slightest. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 06:52, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable lawyer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:07, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional. Mccapra (talk) 07:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to 2020 Luzon enhanced community quarantine. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:41, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Winston Ragos[edit]

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

Not notable. Falls under WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 04:08, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:14, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:15, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just a part of the daily news cycle. No lasting significance. Delete per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. WWGB (talk) 05:08, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWS. Mztourist (talk) 05:40, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~: Being covered in the news for being shot during ECQ period does not mean he should have his own article. Barely found anything about him aside from the incident. Definitely WP:NOTNEWS. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 12:12, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2020 Luzon enhanced community quarantine. This article has multiple in depth reliable sources (WP:GNG), with parallel investigations (WP:N) being done; it can be merged to that article as this is effectively a sideshow of that. Howard the Duck (talk) 01:08, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Death of Winston Ragos. While yes, the person himself isn't notable, the incident is, and I base this decision off of the Deaths of Kian delos Santos, Carl Arnaiz and Reynaldo de Guzman article, where the same was decided. This is not some ordinary shooting; if it was, people wouldn't be so upset about it. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 14:42, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are fatal police shootings every day around the world. They make headlines and people do get upset about them. It doesn't automatically make every single victim notable, however, and WP is not a memorial nor a news site. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 17:00, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2020 Luzon enhanced community quarantine: Changed my vote, per Howard the Duck. The incident about him can be discussed in that page. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 01:18, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The person has questionable notability outside this incident. And even his death itself falls under WP:MILL.--RioHondo (talk) 17:30, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 05:33, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah D. Goode[edit]

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

The article is basically about a writer who writes. It lacks independent and reliable sources.

Analyzing each of the references, the 1st is a non-existent page link; the 2nd is the book of the biographer herself; and the 3rd and 4th are pages that make a brief presentation.

Therefore, I recommend deleting the page, because I understand that the biographer's notoriety has not been proven. The article does not meet the WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:PROF and WP:V. ✍ A.WagnerC (talk) 17:04, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:05, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:05, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:05, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 17:30, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 17:30, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have fixed the link in the first reference, and expanded the article with additional references and providing information on her views and work.Cdjp1 (talk) 13:09, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Closer to a profile than an objective article. Does not meet WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:PROFFreeranging intellect (talk) 22:01, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable as either a writer or an academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:29, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The current page has two reviews of her books. Here are two more: [12] [13]. Two books with several reviews is looking like a marginal pass of WP:NAUTHOR. The non-trivial citation numbers on the first book, while I don't think it's enough for WP:NPROF, helps support the WP:NAUTHOR case. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:47, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per commentary later in the discussion suggesting potential notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:11, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Works in field of pop-pschology/sociology WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:59, 23 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. She's not a pop psychologist; she's a sociologist who's been recognized for her work in her field. There are multiple reviews of her books, other academics reference her work, and she's treated by the press as an expert in understanding pedophiles. Cdjp1 expanded the article since the nomination, and the article now demonstrates notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 23:11, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:07, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:AUTHOR based on the reviews of her works as explained by Russ Woodroofe above. TJMSmith (talk) 06:02, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as others have said regarding book reviews, etc. Kj cheetham (talk) 08:45, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep after adjustments, he started to comply, albeit weak, the WP:AUTHOR. ✍ A.WagnerC (talk) 20:32, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- A.WagnerC: Did you post this on the correct page? This discussion is about a female author, and you nominated this article for deletion. :) — Toughpigs (talk) 20:38, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Toughpigs: I have no further interest in the elimination. ✍ A.WagnerC (talk) 20:41, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - A.WagnerC: Okay. So you're withdrawing the nomination? — Toughpigs (talk) 20:43, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Toughpigs: Yes. The elimination of the article is very controversial. ✍ A.WagnerC (talk) 20:44, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Salmon Creek, Mendocino County, California[edit]

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

No sign of a former settlement here. This appears to be the name of the confluence of Little Salmon Creek (Mendocino County) and Big Salmon Creek (California). –dlthewave ☎ 02:16, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 02:16, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 02:16, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 03:07, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a different gazetteer dump, which makes the issues worse, because no coordinates are given. I can find no obvious indication that this was ever a community, or rather, that there is even a claim that it was. Mangoe (talk) 02:15, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No official recognition of the name to pass notability standard. Sulfurboy (talk) 10:10, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:41, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Dude Perfect 2020 Tour[edit]

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

This tour does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NTOUR. The six references in the article are nearly identical copies of a single press release, and do not establish the tour's notability. A Google search does not turn up any significant coverage in independent sources – just more copies of the press release and listings of the tour dates. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 23:15, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 23:15, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This isn't a music group, and the entire article reads as a non-notable ADVERT. And at this point the only notability it will have is if somehow the entire tour goes off (right now its kickoff date in Columbia, SC is surrounded by cancellations/postponments, and the Lincoln, NE show apprently will take place in a locked-to-the-general-public Pinnacle Bank Arena). Nate • (chatter) 01:24, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Update It's finally been officially postponed in full (nobody's reporting on it neutrally so thus had to use the site). Thus, officially a complete WP:CRYSTAL which may never take place. @Lord Bolingbroke: Nate • (chatter) 01:41, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:39, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't technically exist as it hasn't happened, therefore doesn't warrant an article. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 04:14, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Beemer69. As an alternative, I suppose we could redirect to Dude Perfect, but not only does that article not mention this tour, it doesn't even mention their previous tour which did take place. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:38, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I did consider supporting a redirect, but then we're basically trying to guess if this 2020 tour will even take place at this point since it's been postponed in bulk, and redirecting this, then seeing most of its dates end up in 2021 isn't an optimum result. Perhaps it can be draftified into @Albany6:'s userspace if they agree. Nate • (chatter) 08:58, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Only Keep !vote was predicated on article being improved, which has not happened. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Simmons (comedian)[edit]

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

I'm not seeing enough independent coverage to meet WP:GNG nor claims that clearly meet WP:NBIO. Searching online, I was able to find some trivial coverage but nothing significant, although the presence of search results about other individuals by this name could have led to me missing something. That having been said, based on what I was able to find, I think that this may be a case of WP:TOOSOON _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:30, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:30, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:30, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:30, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:18, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He doesn't appear to be well-known enough to receive the reliable source coverage that we need. I agree. Merely being associated with notable comedic entities doesn't make one notable. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 21:36, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable comedian.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:51, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep f editors are willing to clean up the article. There is enough notability on the comedian online. As seen on google news, there is a lot of information on the comedian and a lot of them are reliable secondary sources. Edits made regarding this will showcase notability regarding WP:HEY. Mr. Apollo (talk to me bebe) 22:59, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

In response to the keep vote before the relist, I'm not seeing anything in the first few pages of search results that would help get this article to HEY standards. There's a lot of false positives, and the few results that are actually about this subject looked trivial/routine. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:45, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:41, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chinedu Ogbonna[edit]

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

By my reading, this player fails WP:NGRIDIRON by not having played in any of the named leagues. However, I'll admit that I understand f*ck all about the byzantine arrangements of these associations, so if you can illustrate that he actually did, I'll be happy to withdraw. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:19, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: Okay, amateur status, so WP:NGRIDIRON doesn't apply, and we are looking at WP:NCOLLATH instead. But unless I'm mistaken, he's not fulfilling any of those criteria either... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:41, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:19, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable college football player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:39, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:30, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Incredibly WP:MILL college football player. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:56, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:41, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harald Baldr[edit]

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

Not notable person. No secondary sources that can be found, he's just a youtube personality without any third-party coverage. Mopswade (talk) 01:56, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:23, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:23, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, he does have a little bit of coverage in independant sources for a viral video ("You won't believe why this man paid $400 for a haircut in India") and a couple of mentions in Italian sources for video on tourist scams in Italy [14], but it's not quite sufficient yet for WP:GNG. – Thjarkur (talk) 09:38, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable vlogger. John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:18, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Erno S. Daniel[edit]

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

This appears to have been created by the subject. I've been unable to find WP:Independent sources and am thus reluctantly sending it for deletion. I've just added a press release from his high school's alumni association, which is the best source I've found, but it is typical for such information to be supplied by the subject, and thus it's not really independent. I'm doubtful that the Who's Who publications are the sort that indicate notability (although perhaps they are not actually one of the many Who's Who scams). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:40, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:40, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:40, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:26, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:27, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn’t meet WP:GNG. I did my own search and like WhatamIdoing, found nothing that would satisfy independent sourcing requirements. Woerich (talk) 03:17, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deletedoes not meet notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:17, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW. Arguably would have met WP:CSD#G10 as well. postdlf (talk) 16:07, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Most Corrupt Leaders[edit]

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

The title declares this list to be based entirely on what is a subjective value judgement, based on no metric at all, or a metric the choice of which would itself be subjective. The list cannot meet WP:NPOV. Largoplazo (talk) 01:16, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 01:16, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 01:16, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:21, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was actually trying to tag this at the same time you were and got edit conflicted. Hopeless POV in this form. It might be possible to create a list on this topic in the style of List of films considered the worst in which various scholars and political scientists who are experts in this matter are cited, but even then, the source would still have inherent bias. Hog Farm (talk) 01:24, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. No measure of corruption for each of the leaders, this is purely WP:NPOV and WP:OR. Ajf773 (talk) 01:26, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - so obviously delete -- someone just snow close this or speedy (somewhere between G10 and A11?) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:18, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Author is a blocked sockpuppet as well. See [15]. Ajf773 (talk) 02:42, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as pointless WP:LISTCRUFT with inherent NPOV issues. @Ajf773: is the author being a sockpuppet/sock puppeteer automatic grounds for deletion regardless of an article’s merit? I’m asking because I didn’t know and I’m still learning. Woerich (talk) 03:09, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete No question. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 04:11, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only source cited is a broken link. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:41, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above. -CoronaEditor (talk) 08:11, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article in its current form. No objective, verifiable selection criteria supported by sufficient sources, fails WP:LISTCRITERIA. Also fails WP:NPOV as rightly pointed out above. --Dps04 (talk) 10:34, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom. Already passes WP:SNOW. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 12:52, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:29, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Callum Andrew Robertson[edit]

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

Politician who has ever held office in a parish council. Does not meet the inclusion criteria for politicians or inclusion in general. Whpq (talk) 01:13, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:21, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:21, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Note that there is also a Draft:Callum Robertson (British Liberal Democrat Politician), created by the same new editor. AllyD (talk) 06:41, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As a co-opted parish councillor, an unsuccessful election candidate and possible future candidate, the subject fails WP:POLITICIAN. The references for his publications and party positions are not independent, and my searches are not finding evidence that he meets the WP:AUTHOR criteria. AllyD (talk) 06:41, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not yet pass the notability guidelines for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:12, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Parish council is not an "inherently" notable political office under WP:NPOL, but the article says nothing else about him that would count as a "notable for other reasons" claim: people also do not get over our notability criteria for being candidates in national elections they did not win, or for writing policy documents whose existence is metareferenced to themselves. Bearcat (talk) 14:59, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:38, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Igor Gavva[edit]

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

I'm not seeing coverage that adds up to WP:GNG. The best of the provided coverage is this article in German, which barely goes beyond trivial coverage. Other coverage is even more flimsy, and I wasn't able to find anything better online, searching in Russian as well. The awards won don't appear to be sufficiently notable to meet WP:ANYBIO. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:03, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:03, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:03, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:03, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:13, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable dancer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:19, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There are a lot of sources there, but the reliable, independent ones give him a passing mention while discussing a show or troupe in greater depth. No doubt that he's worked for notable outfits, but I'm not convinced that he is himself notable. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:02, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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