< 3 April	5 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 keep. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 23:51, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Nation Is Built[edit]

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

Obscure (state-funded?) film is not notable per WP:NFILM. KidAd (talk) 23:58, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:09, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:09, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Frank Hurley. This is kind of confusing, but according to this book: [1] which devotes a sentence and an earlier passing mention to this film, not significant coverage, the film was made for the 150th anniversary of European settlement in New South Wales. I think it also says that Hurley made this film under sponsorship from the government, although that detail is ambiguously explained and I might be wrong there. Due to this, the government archives on this film are not independent sources, and cannot contribute to notability. However, it still definitely deserves a mention at the Hurley Page, which it does not currently have, and therefore a Merge is appropriate. Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:33, 5 April 2020 (UTC) Changing my vote to Keep per Aoziwe's analysis. Devonian Wombat (talk) 06:16, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a definite keep I suggest:
- There are hundreds of independent reliable references here for 1938–1939.
- It still gets mentioned by IRS in 1941–1942.
- It is still in IRS publications in 1988.

Strong in-depth coverage for at least two years with lasting coverage fifty years later. Aoziwe (talk) 05:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:NFILM and WP:GNG, it is held in the collection of the National Film and Sound Archive (NFSA) (see here, curator notes here), the NFSA deemed it significant enough to release it on dvd, it was also released on VHS as part of "Reel Australia Study Package: National Fictions 2 ... of films based on Australian myths and legends." and covered in an associated book (this is details of the 1990ed. published with the VHS release), in addition to the SMH review listed in the article, here are some more: The Bulletin "Making "A Nation" Film", the Telegraph (Brisbane) - "Wintergarden's Choice Is Varied and Original", The Advertiser (Adelaide) - "Notable Australian Film: "A Nation Is Built" Previewed", the film's narrator received a favorable review in the Labor Daily here, the State Library of New South Wales holds a number of photographs from the film in its collection (like this). Coolabahapple (talk) 11:02, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, btw, i've just reread the crossed out "merge" recommendation that states "Hurley made this film under sponsorship from the government, although that detail is ambiguously explained and I might be wrong there. Due to this, the government archives on this film are not independent sources, and cannot contribute to notability", this is incorrect, Australia's collecting institutions (NGA, NLA, NFSA, NMA, NPG and so on), are independent statutary authorities, and their collecting policies are independent of Government, indeed, it would be a brave Government to attempt to direct any of them as to what is deemed significant for their collections. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:23, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the sources identified above that show significant coverage in multiple reliable sources so that the film can be seen to pass WP:GNG and deletion is therefore no longer necessary imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:48, 5 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, but draftified at Lajmmoore's request. – Joe (talk) 09:56, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Edward Montgomery Ramirez[edit]

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

Non-notable postdoc per WP:ACADEMIC. Could find no notable articles of note (no citations), and no mention of his work besides those listed here, which include his own affiliations exclusively. The El 19 articles are very minor in scope, and I don't think they demonstrate his influence in the field. Probably an instance of TOOSOON given his age and employment history. PK650 (talk) 23:43, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PK650 (talk) 23:43, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. PK650 (talk) 23:43, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nicaragua-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:46, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Almost certainly WP:TOOSOON at best for this 2019 PhD. I don't see WP:NPROF nor any other notability criterion; citations certainly don't support. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 01:45, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't find any references that indicate he meets criteria set in WP:NPROF. Glendoremus (talk) 03:53, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:TOOSOON for WP:NPROF. I don't think the Nicaraguan award is enough, and that's all we have to do on. And what a coincidence that both the subject and article creator are postdocs at the same place. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:33, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' Hi everyone, I made the article! The reason I put the article together is because of the subject's indigenous heritage - to be fair, quite soon after I began editing. I'd agree (now I have more knowledge) that WP:Academic isn't met, but I do think there is a case for inclusion for his role in championing his community through activism (some of which is through his academic work). To answer @David Eppstein: yes we both were at York at the same time for a few weeks, but I don't think there's a COI as we barely spoke. I'm very happy to do a re-write/move the page to draft (and happy for other people to edit too). All advice gratefully received and the existing comments are taken on board! Thanks for the support. (Lajmmoore (talk) 08:24, 6 April 2020 (UTC))[reply]
Delete does not currently meet the inclusion criteria for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:01, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or userfy per WP:TOOSOON. As an academic he is far too early in his career to be included. However, as an activist, he might be barely there; more work on that side is needed. Bearian (talk) 15:03, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi All, I've moved the page back to Draft to make some changes. Thanks very much! (Lajmmoore (talk) 20:29, 9 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. ~riley's comment capture the consensus - keep for now, without prejudice against a future merge or redirect. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:43, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 International Rules Series[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Event has been canceled due to coronavirus.^[1] The nature of the International Rules series as an occasional (i.e. non-regular) event which was seven months away and in this case hadn't even had venues selected yet is such that I don't think it warrants retaining the whole article just to say the event was canceled. Comments in the relevant AFL and GAA season pages, plus International Rules Series should be enough to capture the event's cancellation with commensurate importance. Plus with no event actually taking place, there's nothing other than WP: ROUTINE coverage of a canceled event's potential existence left, which doesn't satisfy GNG. Aspirex (talk) 21:48, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Glenn McFarlane (5 April 2020). "AFL calls off International Rules series this year, with doubts on its future viability". Herald Sun. Retrieved 5 April 2020.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:54, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:54, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:55, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:56, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the event has been cancelled sure, but this is clearly something that passes WP:GNG. The article already contains in-depth information published months apart from reliable secondary sources, and there is tons more out there. There is clearly enough here to form a good enough article, and the information present within the article would not be appropriate when merged to either the AFL or GAA season page, since it has no relation to either of those events. A merge to International Rules Series is also not appropriate, as the information here would be out of place there as well. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:17, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how a sentence stating "a series was scheduled in 2020 but cancelled due to coronavirus" could be out of place in the IR series article. Aspirex (talk) 01:38, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have you even read the article? It contains a lot more than "a series was scheduled in 2020 but cancelled due to coronavirus". Clearly a lot more than that is backed up by reliable secondary sources, and deleting that information just because the event they were covering ended up not happening is not the right course of action. Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:51, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've read the article. Nothing in it which covers the topic directly is from a source which would not be considered routine coverage. Whether it's months apart, from different sources or otherwise, there's still just articles stating that an event is going to happen, which is not enough to establish GNG. The 'routine coverage' policy is meant to get away from this notion that something meets GNG just because news services acknowledge its existence (or in this case, potential existence). The fact that there is peripheral content about hurling exhibitions and Bloody Sunday memorials does not establish the notability of the actual core topic of the article. Aspirex (talk) 04:37, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to International Rules Series#History, per nom. – Teratix ₵ 12:49, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'd think at the very minimum there would be enough out there in the world regarding the cancellation and its larger impact to fill the article even if there are no games. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 16:35, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Firm keep. This had been a long time in the planning. It is not entirely clear that all events have been cancelled. There has, for instance, been much prolonged and detailed discussion of the centenary challenge match in national media. Also the following quotes should deter any hasty deletion: "That commemoration is still expected to go ahead, possibly with another game added" and "Hopefully an agreement can be made over new dates..." There is also the precedent set by other international events cancelled due to the virus, such as Eurovision Song Contest 2020, which is still intact. To sum up, while we know the AFL won't travel, we don't yet know that nothing will take place. That something, which given the importance of the centenary is quite likely, would then have to be created - with much of this page forming the background. Best wait until at least year's end and then, if renaming is necessary, do that. --Bygmester (talk) 14:23, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - when we're drawing direct parallels between the biggest annual television event in Europe canceled two months out with 41 songs already selected mostly from independently notable national finals, and a sporadically staged two-nation tournament canceled eight months out that is mildly popular at best and for which only the dates had been chosen - anyway, clearly this is going to be a keep for now. But I expect a less controversial merge and redirect elsewhere in the future once we know whether this is rescheduled or not. Aspirex (talk) 01:11, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. Considerable change for merge or redirect down the road per Aspirex. ~riley (talk) 01:22, 12 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:50, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dimensions Magazine[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:N and WP:V Tatupiplu'^talk 21:40, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Tatupiplu'^talk 21:40, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - This article is a WP:COPYVIO of this site, which predates this article. That site has no "about" page, no disclaimers, no privacy policy... There is no indication at that site that this text has been released under a compatible license, so it must be treated as a copyright violation. Grayfell (talk) 22:42, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Grayfell: I am the author of the text on that other site. So no, there is no copyvio. Throwawiki (talk) 22:56, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is not good enough, because how can we know this, and how will future editors know this? Since the account on that website claims to represent multiple people, it's not clear how this could be clearly attributed, which is necessary for Wikipedia. Without this attribution, you cannot just claim to have written something. Please see your talk page, which mentions this in more detail.

You will also need to cite real sources. If sources exist, you will need to cite them, or at least provide some way for other people to verify that they exist, not just suggest that they exist somewhere else. Grayfell (talk) 23:03, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Speedy delete as copyvio. Although the text was written by Throwawiki, it has not been released under a compatible license and is thus a copyvio - see WP:Donating copyrighted materials. Additionally, the magazine doesn't appear to be notable. Searching for "Dimensions Magazine" on Google, Google Books, Internet Archive, etc. mainly turns up unreliable blogs and forums or mentions of other magazines with the same name. This book has some decent coverage, but it is a book about fat fetishism from a small BDSM oriented publisher and is not necessarily indicative of significance outside of the fat fetish community. That's all that seems to exist, so I don't think this meets GNG. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 23:41, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing speedy delete to delete as the copyvio issue is (mostly?) resolved, but the notability issues still remain, per my comment above and the analysis by Grayfell. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 15:18, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The notability of a site is based on the existence of sources, not the current state of sourcing in the article. The issue regarding speedy deletion has been fixed, because the text is licensed as CC BY-SA 3.0 here. It does fulfill some points also through the book cited before in this thread, from here. It has been cited multiple times in academic research, 10.1007/s10508-012-9925-7 and in books such as ISBN-10 1597190179. They have gotten requests for media attentions, but those were mostly rejected due to a negative bias. See here. If they would not have rejected them, there would be more sources. I'd argue this is a good case for WP:IAR. Note that I'm still working on adding more sources, so speedy delete doesn't give any room for improvements. Throwawiki (talk) 17:12, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CC BY-SA 3.0 requires attribution. This still has not been handled well, or at all, here. Just copying content from one site without any indication where this original came from is still not enough. Who is this currently attributed to?

Further, all content needs to meet WP:V. We do not care that coverage was "rejected", because Wikipedia isn't a platform for public relations. Therefore, a forum post from the magazine in 2005 is irrelevant. We are not interested in whether or not the magazine allows coverage, we are interested in coverage in reliable sources. Further, the use of independent sources for notability is not something we're going to ignore without a very good reason, and you have not yet provided such a reason.

ISBN 1597190179 is a work of fiction, published by a niche publisher, which Worldcat lists in only two libraries. It does very little to demonstrate notability, for several reasons.

"Feederism: An Exaggeration of a Normative Mate Selection Preference?" from Archives of Sexual Behavior needs to be evaluated in context, and merely being mentioned is not sufficient. Here is the only mention of Dimensions:

Individuals communicate through chat rooms and message boards on group websites such as FantasyFeeder.com and DimensionsMagazine.com. Individuals provide each other with weight gaining advice and encourage one another to meet their weight gaining goals. In addition to the group websites, there are also personal...[2]

This is very flimsy. Grayfell (talk) 20:02, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete paid for creation, spam and no coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 20:36, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Praxidicae: No, this is false, I am not being paid. Please retract that. Throwawiki (talk) 15:05, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're engaged in promoting this magazine across multiple platforms, misrepresented sources and wrote a blatant advertisement. Assuming you have a conflict of interest is, at the very least, reasonable. Praxidicae (talk) 15:07, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Doesn't look like a paid article to me though, looks to be written more from a fan point of view. However, there just sufficient coverage to demonstrate notability and most of the content is not verifiable. – Thjarkur (talk) 11:18, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Praxidicae - while the paid for creation bit can be disputed, there is still no coverage and there is a clear COI. ~riley (talk) 01:23, 12 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. bibliomaniac 1 5 04:56, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Knope[edit]

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

seems self promotion and creators sole contributions IW. (talk) 11:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. IW. (talk) 11:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. IW. (talk) 11:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:42, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I worked on the article, which is now reorganized and improved upon, with reliable, third-party sources now referenced. Puffery and seemingly self-promotion verbiage has been removed. The subject has received substantial coverage in his field. Meets WP:GNG and passes WP:BIO. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 21:18, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 19:32, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. Great work by AuthorAuthor. Bearian (talk) 18:18, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:28, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC KidAd (talk) 00:40, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Firstly the subject comes nowhere near passing any of the criteria of WP:NACADEMIC, so I don't know where that idea came from. As regards WP:GNG, as far as I can see the only of the citations in the article that do any more than namecheck the subject are links to Youtube and to an interview with him by a web site that anyone can write for. I can find nothing better in my own searches. I can't see even one independent reliable source with significant coverage. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:39, 5 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. bibliomaniac 1 5 04:59, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge Scholars Publishing[edit]

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

Doesn't look to be a notable publisher. A search for sources (always difficult with a publisher) isn't turning up much. Most of the sources I see about the subject are e.g. forum posts asking "has anyone heard of this publisher" or "do they really have a connection to Cambridge" (no seems the answer). Article itself is largely primary sourced and somewhat promotional. Tried to PROD, but apparently a past RfD may disqualify it (or at least throws a wrench into the Twinkle script). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:52, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:52, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:52, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is a publisher that has established itself as well known in the predatory publishing world, at least as a book publisher, and that is counting on people confusing them with Cambridge University Press, so I thought it would be helpful to have an article on them as part of our coverage of predatory publishing. However the current (promotional) article bears no resemblance to the original article, as an IP address has replaced it with the current puff piece a few days ago. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 15:05, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have restored the article to the state it was in before the IP edit of 23 March. If a similar attempt at whitewashing is made in future, I suggest the article should be protected. I am about to add info about the "library" where it is based. PamD 16:01, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per @Bjerrebæk:. PamD 16:01, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt Even in its restored version it still lacks in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources. In light of that I think the best option is to delete it, with added salting so it isn't just re-created by the white washers. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:44, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here are sources I found that provide more information about Cambridge Scholars Publishing (these sources currently are not cited in the article):
1. Anderson, Douglas A. (2017-10-15). "The Fantastic of the Fin de Siècle. Eds. Irina Grubica and Zdenĕk Beran". Mythlore. 36 (1): 219. JSTOR 26809273. Archived from the original on 2020-03-30. Retrieved 2020-03-30.
  The article notes:
  Cambridge Scholars Publishing was founded about fifteen years ago by some former lecturers and researchers from the University of Cambridge. The publisher is based in Newcastle upon Tyne. Over the last decade it has published a number of collections of academic essays pertaining to J.R.R. Tolkien, C.S. Lewis, Mervyn Peake, and to fantasy literature across the board. Most of these collections have been smallish in size, elegantly produced but published at prices rather high for any casual reader. Distribution in North America has been very spotty, but the usually strong representation of European scholarship gives an added reason to seek out these volumes.
2. Paiz, Joshua M. (2019-05-08). Coburn, Jeremy (ed.). "Review: English; Applied Linguistics; Computational Linguistics; Sociolinguistics: Martin-Rubió (2018)". Linguist List. Archived from the original on 2020-03-30. Retrieved 2020-03-30.
  The review notes:
  As a co-editor of a collected volume, I know all too well the challenges of quality control and project management (Silva, Wang, Zhang, & Paiz, 2016). That being said, with a good press and diligent editors, both book editors and copy editors at the publishing house, amazing things can happen with this kind of book. ‘Contextualizing English as a Lingua Franca: From Data to Insights’, however, suffers from many of the problems that typically plague edited collections, and these problems are exacerbated by the publishing model of Cambridge Scholars Publishing, which researchers on sites like researchgate.net have described as being overly reliant on contributors to perform even basic copy editing of the texts.
  ...
  Again, I fully understand the challenges inherent in edited collections, but this speaks to a fundamental issue with Cambridge Scholars Publishing's production model. Many of the more established presses that I am aware of—Oxford University Press, New York University Press, Equinox Publishing—will have a manuscript go through a round of in-house copy editing to avoid exactly this kind of error. Additionally, the book is missing an index, which makes it difficult to see how ideas might cross over from chapter to chapter, or to guide your reading, or raiding, of the text. Issues with production quality persist throughout the book.
  ...
  This book represents an ambitious effort, but it gets stuck in a quagmire of editorial and copy-editing issues that simply shouldn’t have been allowed to occur if proper quality control was exercised by Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
3. Kutzinski, Vera M., ed. (2012). Alexander von Humboldt's Transatlantic Personae. London: Routledge. p. 13. ISBN 978-0-415-69787-3. Retrieved 2020-03-30.
  The book notes:
  There are also a number of print-on-demand or reprint publishers, such as Kessinger, BiblioBazaar, and Cambridge Scholars Publishing which, in 2009, flooded the market with cheap editions of just about everything available by Humboldt, most often reprints of old translations. Even the seven volumes of Hanno Beck's incomplete and not very thorough edition of Humboldt's Werke from the 1990s was reissued as a set in 2008.
Cunard (talk) 10:30, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It can be surprisingly difficult to find information about a publisher amid all the things printed by them. In this case, I think there are just enough sources available to make an article justifiable, and it is in the public interest for us to document when publishers are predatory (or gray-area or dodgy) when we can. XOR'easter (talk) 15:47, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is so very important for readers of WP+ to be able to find information about hte status of journals and their publishers, that the notability requireents should be interpreted as liberally as possible -- I would even say particularly liberally for less-than-reputable publisher. There's enough material here to support the article. DGG ( talk ) 03:50, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A brand new editor (first and only edit) using the edit summary "Correction of incorrect and misleading information, and addition of information" has recently reverted to the whitewashed version of the article. I have undone their edit. PamD 15:09, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - While I'm yet to see anything resembling WP:GNG, it seems like people want readers to be able to find something about this publisher on Wikipedia in order to understand its reputation. But stand-alone articles, with few watchers and scant content based on few sources, are not the only way. List of predatory publishers is currently a redirect, for example... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:50, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:19, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think it's worthwhile having information about the predatory publisher. If it continues to be whitewashed, it can be protected. — Toughpigs (talk) 23:24, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment another whitewashing edit has been followed up by a post on my talk page which makes some useful points. I've reverted the edit (which lost all formatting, refs etc) and will do a little work on the article now, having done some research. PamD 11:34, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. PamD 12:45, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think having a list along the lines of what Rhododendrites suggests would be a lot more effective than a stand alone article that needs continued vigilance against white washing. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:28, 13 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) Atlantic306 (talk) 23:49, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Swarm (1990 film)[edit]

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

I didn't think this met the criteria for CSD but there's really not much here. This user is autopatrolled and it looks like this happens a lot. cliffsteinman -- Discuss 03:44, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 04:00, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 04:00, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this autopatrolled (@There'sNoTime:) user creates articles in unknown language and does nothing to improve them, other users do that for him: see [3] + [4] and so on. Nikolai Kurbatov, could you please enlighten me on your terminology: what do these syn, otets, muzh, zhenikh, sledovatel etc. mean? --VLu (talk) 06:56, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- This was copied from imdb. I have already fixed it. And i didn’t ask to give me an autopatrol. Nikolai Kurbatov (talk) 07:38, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nikolai Kurbatov, no, it wasn't you, who fixed that. And thanks for your confession - it is what you really do: unreadable texts + copyvio from external sources. --VLu (talk) 07:48, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Murder_on_Dante_Street&action=history Nikolai Kurbatov (talk) 07:52, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - ???? What was this: [5]? You've reverted other users' edits to your illiterate version? May I call it vandalism? --VLu (talk) 07:58, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Sorry, it was edit of the old version, on which i ended up from my talk page. Nikolai Kurbatov (talk) 08:54, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Cliffsteinman, under what rationale are you asking for deletion? The only thing I can see is "there's really not much here" - which is not a rationale, nor are comments on the creator being autopatrolled, and what specifically do you mean "happens a lot"? VLu, please stay on topic. What is your objection to this specific article? Comments on the creator's further expansion or improvement of articles, or their use of English, are not germane to this discussion, please find a different venue for that. Spokoyni (talk) 20:00, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - With no rationale offered, or response to a request to add one, this afd should be withdrawn. For what it's worth, this article appears to satisfy all requirements, and though it can certainly be expanded and developed, nothing about it is afd worthy. Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup. Spokoyni (talk) 23:39, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:11, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:11, 4 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:22, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trijang Chocktrul Rinpoche[edit]

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

Non-notable religious figure. Does not appear to have received significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources. Fails WP:BIO. Uncle Dick (talk) 04:24, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Uncle Dick (talk) 04:24, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. Uncle Dick (talk) 04:24, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided, subject has many hits on Google News. The Wiki article needs serious trimming though.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 11:08, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those Google News results appear to be in reference to a different Trijang Rinpoche who is now deceased. The one result that does appear to reference this Trijang Rinpoche is only a passing mention. Uncle Dick (talk) 15:02, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge into Trijang Lobsang Yeshe Tenzin Gyatso/Trijang Rinpoche. This article was originally split out of that article. Google shows a number of articles that mention Trijang Chocktrul Rinpoche rather than his predecessor- sufficient at least to verify that he is a real person, recognized as the tulku of a significant rinpoche, and holds a position of authority in an Indian university/monastery and an American Buddhist center. The article needs de-peacocking, but there are sufficient sources to establish the basics. --Spasemunki (talk) 23:44, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's no question that sources exist. The question is, how many of them are reliable, published, secondary sources? The argument that TCR is notable because he is the reincarnation of a notable person would seem to run afoul of WP:NOTINHERITED, though a merge might make sense. I suppose we would have to know more about the unnamed "Indian university/monastery" to judge whether or not TCR meets the criteria of WP:ACADEMIC, but I haven't seen any evidence to support notability from that direction. Uncle Dick (talk) 00:58, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the sources seem to be acceptable- local news reporting visiting universities and discussion in the context of the Dorje Shugden controversy: [6] [7] [8]. Shar Gaden is the name of the monastic university- [9] [10]- but I'm not sure if it would have sufficient English-language coverage for notability. I notice that this particular tulku appears to be associated with the Dorje Shugden controversy, which has some systemic bias considerations in my opinion. --Spasemunki (talk) 02:15, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First of all I agree with Spasemunki on de-peacocking the article. Dalai lama actually gave him a sacred statue of Buddha and not status of Buddha. That was type on my part. I fixed that. I have been interested and been doing a lot of research on the Dorje Shugden controversy and Lamas quite recently and it seems he is one of the highest Gelugpa and Dorje Shugden Lamas recognized by HH The Dalai Lama. Not just google, but if you search Trijang Choktrul Rinpoche on youtube, there are tons of results. below are few examples:- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-ArMmE0Rm0 Trijang Choktrul Rinpoche leading the procession during the buddha's relic tour. He is carrying relics and leading the procession from United Nations to the exibhition hall in Geneva, Switzerland.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAfItTO-SZM Trijang Choktrul Rinpoche arrival at the Mongolian airport covered by Mongolian City New Channel

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yMC0Pft9F0 Trijang Choktrul Rinpcohe visiting Chojin temple covered by Mongolian City News Channel

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aW6AsIW6s4 arrival to Mongolia convered by Mongolian National Television

His birthday seems to be celebrated by his follower all over but here is a youtube link where his birthday is celebrated by the entire town of Chatring in Tibet and celebration is done in the city center. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9PIaj3g-Lk

Trijang Choktrul Rinpoche arrival in Tashi Rabten center Austria and welcome by the town Feldkirch, Vorarlberg in Austria. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9US8tuxZik

Also there are lot of videos of his visits and teachings in Bloomington, Canada, Switzerland, Austria, France, Italy.

In Italy he has been invited by Lama Gangchen; head of Lama Gangchen World Peace Foundation – LGWPF – is a Non Governmental Organisation associated with the United Nations Department of Public Information and in special consultation with ECOSOC http://www.buddhanet.net/masters/gangchen.htm https://kunpen.ngalso.org/en/kunpen/lama-gangchen-world-peace-foundation/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mY3oDlRvtxA DHUKTOPGYAL (talk) 16:28, 21 March 2020 (UTC)DHUKTOPGYAL[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:10, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:10, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:16, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aremo Oba[edit]

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. None of the references cited in the article are independent of the subject. The subject was a non-notable footballer before he became a businessman. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 18:51, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 18:51, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 18:51, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 18:51, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Aremo Oba's notability and personality is evidential as used to title some Nollywood movies, kindly check here. Geezygee (talk) 19:35, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Geezygee, Please find an actual source instead of Google. When you do this, we don't understand what source you are showing us. And we cant cite google, not everything is a reliable source 🌺Kori🌺 - (@) 20:09, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources so invariably fails WP:GNG. Celestina007 (talk) 01:36, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ Celestina007, I will suggest you take time and to go through the provided sources provided which are very dependent on the article and passes WP:GNG, the sources are from credible media houses. Also, consider the fact that the article is coming from Africa where we are now learning to put information in the press as a sources. Everything here is basically verbal. Geezygee (talk) 11:45, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:05, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:10, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:26, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. Has no reliable sourcing. 🌺Kori🌺 - (@) 20:07, 11 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 Procedural close. WP:BUNDLE suggests using bundles cautiously (sample quote Inappropriately bundling articles can cause a confused process or "trainwreck". Or to put it more succinctly, if you are unsure of whether to bundle an article or not, don't.). It is expected that AfD participants be able to verify the notability of any given article and those advocating delete suggest that they have not verified that all articles should be deleted. All of these may indeed not be notable but 85 simultaneous nominations, whether in a bundle or individually, is not an effective way of determining that lack of notability. No prejudice to selected articles (in other words not all of them initially) being immediately renominated individually or in a smaller bundle. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:20, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Allen Shop Corner, Virginia[edit]

(View AfD · Stats)

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

Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acors Corner, Virginia, these are mass-produced from the GNIS, a listing in which is not automatic notability. These are not communities, rather locations of people's homes. See topo where Allen Shop Corner and Carlton Corner lacked a notable concentration of population. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dabney Estates, Virginia. Reywas92^Talk 21:07, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 21:07, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 21:07, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge ONE line of text. TuorEladar (talk) 21:17, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Gwaltney Corner, at least. I haven't been able to go through all of these, because there are a lot of them, but Gwaltney Corner sticks out as being an actual place. First of all, it's recorded as the closest community to Snow Hill, a house on the National Register of Historic Places. Second of all, it's consistently used as a location in news reports. Here's an article about local hog farms. Here's an article about a dump site being developed there. Here's an article about a local highway project. Additionally, an aerial view does show a small but clear concentration of homes.

I'd say to procedurally keep the others unless this nomination is drastically reduced. It's unreasonable to expect !voters to evaluate the dozens of articles in this nomination, at least one of which is clearly more than a corner with a single home, and all of which seem to be included on the basis of being stubs with "corner" in the name. Even if you want to debate the individual merits of some of these "corners", if that needs to be done at all, it invalidates the premise that these are all single people's homes and not communities. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 23:32, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gwaltney Corner struck, though here's a topo showing how sparse it was; clippings certainly use it as an identifiable site on the map but not necessarily establish notability. Perhaps the creator should have "evaluated the ~~dozens~~ hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of articles" before mass-creating them, but now it's my WP:BURDEN to verify that. I certainly encourage this to be relisted or considered a WP:SOFTDELETE for anyone to recreate should better sources exist. Reywas92^Talk 00:28, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gwaltney Corner wasn't even part of a mass creation. I created that article specifically because it was the location of a historic site, which I figured was evidence enough that there was an actual community there. The other Virginia articles I created around that time were about communities with post offices, which meant a government source other than the GNIS verified their existence (and which I still consider legal recognition). And based on a quick spot-check, quite a few of these articles aren't one-liners and weren't created by the same user. I'm still not sure what the basis for lumping them all together is, aside from them all being stubs with "corner" in the title. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 15:42, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And I did look at these, and those that aren't one-liners are two- or three-liners which are not and were not notable communities. The basis for grouping is that none show evidence of notability in archive searches or current and historical maps; none have post offices. Do Willy Dick Crossing, WA and Susie, WA automatically need their own articles because the GNIS "legally recognized" them? Reywas92^Talk 20:23, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The historic site Snow Hill (Gwaltney Corner, Virginia) is about two miles away and although the NRHP does use Gwaltney Corner as a landmark, it's a stretch to say that it lends any notability or demonstrates the existence of a community at that location. –dlthewave ☎ 16:42, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. I've spot-checked enough of them to feel confident that these are non-notable. Just the usual click-bait website entries for realtors, etc. GNIS is not reliable indicator of notability. The USGS Virginia Geographic Names catalog lists these as "locales", not populated places. Glendoremus (talk) 04:47, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep, around 85 locations in the one afd! i know we're all meant to be social isolating and may have more time to wikipede but this is ridiculous! just entering each name into, say gsearch, and newspapers.com will take an hour let alone actually going thru the results, lets say ... 10 hours (excluding coffee/toilet breaks:)) for a superficial analysis, suggest nominator withdraws, breaks them up into manageable lots, say 1/2 dozen for each afd and releases each separately every couple of days.... ps. i note that one has been taken off the list after this afd has been up for a couple of hours, does this suggest the time it might take to seriously consider each/ reflect the lack of WP:BEFORE carried out? Coolabahapple (talk) 05:06, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- How many lots do you want? 400? Where was the BEFORE when OVER 2,500 one-liners were mass-created within seconds of each other? I absolutely did enough BEFORE on these to tell you that "is an unincorporated community" is only true to the extent that at least one person has lived at these sites at some point in time. Maybe. Glen Roy Estates, Virginia? A single mansion. Barker Crossroads, Virginia? Just a intersection of two roads. Rio Heights, Virginia? A small subdivision. The Country Store, Virginia? Who knows, it's not even on topo maps. And I stand by the one struck being a "Corner" site, not its own notable community. The GNIS is not verification that an entry is a notable community, if it is a community at all. The WP:BURDEN to verify these claims is not on me. Reywas92^Talk 08:23, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia is a gazetteer-Thank you-RFD (talk) 15:21, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Wikipedia "combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." That means that we cover geographic topics. That does not mean WP:Notability or WP:Verifiability is thrown out the window. That does not mean that we must have individual articles for every single entry imported en masse from a database. Reywas92^Talk 19:25, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep A (better) WP:BEFORE is required.Djflem (talk) 20:05, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Djflem I have gone back and provided links to my before searches. Reywas92^Talk 21:21, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep This is a bit overwhelming. I was able to look at about 10 of the entries and most were clearly not notable, but not all. Different editors hunt down obscure sources in different ways, but it is a time-consuming endeavor, and lumping such a plethora AfD's together undermines the integrity of the AfD process, while a more staggered approach to AfD submissions affords editors time to search out sources to establish notability. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Puritan, Colorado is an example. One thing we all have a lot of these days is time, so let's not rush this and throw some babies out with the bath water. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:13, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Magnolia677 I have now provided links to my searches, none of which the creator ever did. It undermines the integrity of WP:Notability, WP:Verifiability, and the encyclopedia when pages are mass-produced from a single database source that does not establish that a place is even a community, less a notable one. I don't see a single "baby" in this lot. Some embryos perhaps, but anyone is welcome to recreate them should they be adequately gestated with coverage. Reywas92^Talk 21:21, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reywas92, we all know you don't see any of these places as notable, otherwise you wouldn't have nominated them all for deletion. Duh. Just let others have their say and wait for a consensus to be reached (and don't bugger around the original text after others have started commenting). Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 22:07, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Shady Grove Corner, Virginia is mentioned in various sources [11][12][13]. Located there is Shady Grove Church and cemetery. The church was notable during the Civil War, and is mentioned in many sources [14]. This source uses "Shady Grove Church" and "Shady Grove Corner" interchangeably. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:37, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep Simply too many locations to process. Some very well may be non notable, but probably not all as the users above note. Try spacing out the noms instead of all at once. Also we don't need to nominate 20+ locations per day as it is cumbersome to review them all. Just because it has "corner" in its name does't meant it isn't a real settlement, although many of these are undoubtably little more than crossroads. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:07, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You think this is too many to process? Stop whining about 20+ nominated a day (it's actually been far, far less Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Geography) until you contribute to sifting through the 30,000+ articles in Category:Unincorporated communities in the United States by state. Maybe it wouldn't be so cumbersome if so many weren't mass-created with zero review whatsoever in the first place. I and others have been spacing this out and working on this nonsense for months now and you're just complaining about procedure. Reywas92^Talk 01:22, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, WP:AGF Reywas92. I'm not whining, just pointing out that this is a mass, mass nomination of stubs. Of which, I wholeheartedly agree there is a lot of junk. And I don't support the creation of one-lined stubs about a particular crossroads. Some editors above have demonstrated at least 2 and probably several more of these communities are, in fact, notable. And I take it that your suggestion to sift through 30,000 articles was facetious, as many of these articles may be stubs but have at least a few refs. Hell, I just expanded a CDP today that had one source. And I don't have an issue with you spacing it out, as my guess of 20+ a day was just that, a guess, influenced by the 80-some here. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 03:01, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry for getting testy, I know you are working in good faith, and this is an unusual nom. But I fixed the category link and that's not entirely facetious; I know the number of those that are one-liners is much smaller, but several states like VA have huge numbers. CDPs are a different case since we know at least the state's statistical entity found it identifiable enough to have the census count it with defined boundaries. Reywas92^Talk 04:08, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural delete - These were all mass-created from the GNIS database with zero effort to verify or establish notability; we're being asked to put hours of WP:BEFORE research into articles that were made in a matter of seconds. Best to just TNT the whole mess. If folks are interested in finding sources and building viable articles, they can keep a list and create articles one at a time with sufficient sourcing to establish notability.

In my spot check, the few "corners" that had any coverage at all were simply mentioned in passing as landmarks, not distinct communities of any sort. –dlthewave ☎ 01:34, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's at least enough to demonstrate it may have notability, rather than nuking everything. And I don't have an issue with selectively nominating these substubs. For an example of a "corger" that is a recognized community, see Ludwig's Corner, Pennsylvania. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 03:01, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but I've looked at these and they're not recognized communities. I did exclude Nancy Wrights Corner, Virginia and a few others since I found a few sources on it. Ludwigs is identifiable on the map. Like there's nothing to nuke...and anyone can recreate. An WP:ATD is redirecting to the county. Reywas92^Talk 04:08, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As an editor who has created hundreds of stub US (and Canada) settlement articles, I have always been reluctant to create articles relying solely on GNIS (though two of my articles, Giveout, Idaho and Comical Turn, Idaho, were recently deleted). I also gave up on creating Great Good Place, Delaware because I simply could not find any sources to support its existence except GNIS and a map. User:Reywas92 and other make a good point; most of these corners have nothing to indicate anyone ever lived there, and GNIS clearly mislabeled a "locale" as a "populated place". For example, at Shady Grove Corner, Virginia I spent an hour searching for sources and the best I could find was a few passing mentions, a notable church and cemetery, and a blog stating it was named after an early-1800s farm. Wikipedia was a different place when many of these articles were created, and the threshold for notability was not so stringent. But hosting articles about places that aren't really places does not benefit the users of Wikipedia. I guess I'm still cheezed I wasn't notified when my articles were nominated for deletion, so I at least could have had a second look for sources, but I'm beginning to see the value in redirecting many of these places to the local county. It seems clear this AfD is not so much about the notability of these places, but about the best way to remove them. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:02, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pollards Corner - Pollards Corner should be deleted because of no notability or significant coverage. Koridas (Speak) 16:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all the GNIS items fail our inclusion guidelines and the nominator has saved us all time. Nominating these one at a time just to avoid offending the sensibility of some editors is nonsense. WP:GEOLAND is our SNG and these items not only fail GEOLAND but they also fail WP:N Lightburst (talk) 23:09, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Some of these are notable though. Dahlgrens Corner, Virginia for instance was the site of a famous raid during the civil war. Several others above have been sourced as well. If we delete these all, it would be a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. So it's not just a matter of offending someone's sensibility, rather a matter of making sure we do our due diligence which is impossible if there are so many to sift through. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:05, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  Yet when you expanded this article, you failed to correct the massive error that this is not and was never a community! The source Official Virginia Civil War Battlefield Guide says "There, at a junction even today known as Dahlgren's Corner, Pollard laid an ambush". The other source never uses the name "Dahlgren's corner"! Stevensville, Virginia mentions this event, having been the nearest actual community to the location of Mr. Dahlgren's death. This article is the bathwater, still containing false information! Reywas92^Talk 02:56, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  And yet is is considered to be a community [15] and is marked on Google Maps, unlike some of the other "corners". Even if it's not a "community" as such (though folks nearby might say they live there), it's still notable as the location of the famous raid. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 14:44, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - How dense can you be? These websites make the same negligent import of data the creator did! Our favorite industrial railroad spur Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susie, Washington is also falsely called a "populated place" on home(nota)townlocator.com and marked on GMaps! The raid itself it notable, not the damn road junction. Reywas92^Talk 16:09, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all because they were mass-produced and fail GEOLAND. No prejudice against anyone re-creating any of these that actually meet N. But we shouldn't go through them one-by-one to determine if they're notable. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 01:24, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep – Nominate separately or in much smaller batches, to better enable users to perform source searches to assess. That is, unless we want to risk throwing out the baby with the bathwater, potentially blindly deleting geographic locations that may actually notable (e.g. Shady Grove Corner, Virginia, Gwaltney Corner, Virginia [struck in the nomination, but the AfD template remains in the article]), all in one fell swoop. I also disagree with the use of spot checking here as has been stated above in the discussion. This method could lead to some potentially notable places slipping through the cracks, making the encyclopedia inferior. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:48, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- So we're not at all concerned about hundreds of literal falsehoods misinforming our readers making the encyclopedia inferior? These "babies" are swimming in a sea of junk, not a tub. Reywas92^Talk 03:01, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At less than 0.005 of all WP articles theres probably no need to panic. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:18, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
and just because they are "one-liners", a statement you have made above on numerous occasions, doesn't mean they are not notable. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:22, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It does mean they're not "babies", that they're someone's valuable hard work it'll be so so sad to lose wah wah wah. It's not my WP:BURDEN to prove a negative. If it's so few articles maybe you shouldn't panic about them being deleted then? Why have individual AFDs at all? one wrong article is only 0.00000016% anyway! Reywas92^Talk 16:09, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, DING!!! and another locality has been removed from this afd..... Coolabahapple (talk) 06:25, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope, still just one. Gwaltney Corner's not notable. Reywas92^Talk 16:47, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Gwaltney Corner was removed for several days, in which several people commented on the overall notability of the articles, until you just added it back. If you think that one's not notable, have a separate AfD about it instead of trying to cram it back into another one at the last minute. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 18:22, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Whatever, struck for now then — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reywas92 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment these are probably all correctly deleted, but since one was called into question, the entire nomination unfortunately collapses. I'd recommend detailing before searches for each article on a user page, as there are simply too many GNIS stubs to process right now - I'd be much more confident supporting a mass deletion if I could see how these had been checked. SportingFlyer T·C 21:32, 12 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 Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 22:45, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on the video game industry[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Yes, these are things that happened, and the media have covered them, but they are disparate and varied and of rather low importance compared to the impact of the pandemic on other fields of human activity. This is highlighted by the text about how the games industry as a whole didn't suffer that much from the pandemic. This and other parts of this article could be merged to Socio-economic impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic and/or Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on the arts and cultural heritage. Sandstein 20:52, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. Clearly most people disagree with me here. Sandstein 19:49, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 20:52, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:59, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We're probably going to see a lot of articles like this in the coming weeks and months, it might be prudent to wait a bit and see if a project-wide consensus emerges. ApLundell (talk) 21:03, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - already an enormous level of reliable source coverage. Sergecross73 msg me 21:20, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep When nearly every other industry has had to make drastic cutbacks or adaptations, continuing mostly as if nothing happened is unusual, and perhaps even notable. While the topic as a whole is a current event, many parts of this article are history at this point, and are based on reliable sources. I think it is prudent to keep for now, and begin to summarize lists into a more encyclopedic tone when appropriate. When the coronavirus dies down and we have a better idea of what continued to be important after the fact, I would be more in favor of a merge with relevant articles.Mbrickn (talk) 00:06, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:13, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly keep Kanghuitari (talk) 03:28, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I originally had started the basis of this as part of the 2020 in video games article for the reasons that the nominator discussed that I had brought up at WT:VG (it felt wrong at the time, around the end of Feb, for us to have a page about the trivial impact the virus had on the industry). In other market articles like film, people make standalone impact pages, and as all these grouped into a larger structure of pages, someone broke out the section from the 2020 in video games into this standalone. Now, I agree that the VG market is still far less impacted compared to others, and if there was a concensus towards deletion, I would push back on a merge back into 2020 in video games but there's enough both ways on the VG market to be documented separately, though I do think there's a few more bigger picture things now we need to look at and add into. --Masem (t) 14:09, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, on the WP:NOT#NEWS argument, that applies to about 90% of the coverage across all COVID-related pages. We are documenting too much at this at too fine a resolution for an encyclopedia; this page doesn't have that issue, but other pages in the COVID coverage area does. But that's an issue to do deal with after the matter. --Masem (t) 14:12, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this pandemic has had a clear effect on the industry, and reliable sources reflect that. TheAwesome Hwyh 19:02, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The information is sourced, and the article is more than just a stub. There really is culturally significant stuff going on here. Serentty (talk) 19:39, 5 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 speedily deleted per WP:CSD#G7; the article creator has moved this page to draftspace (see Draft:Sean Kennedy (Singer-Songwriter)) and blanked this page. Whether the draft should be kept or deleted should be dealt with separately. Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:41, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Kennedy (Singer-Songwriter)[edit]

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

This is an article about a musician that lacks the significant commentary in multiple independent reliable sources to establish notability. Much of the sourcing is from Instagram and Twitter does not establish notability, nor does iTunes. The remaining sources are blogs and PR sites with the exception of one which takes stories form a network of community newspapers. None of these are usable for establishing that the subject warrants inclusion on Wikipedia and my own searches do not find any useful sources either. Whpq (talk) 20:52, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Whpq (talk) 20:52, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:54, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. A previous version of this page was deleted and redirected a year ago: the creator of that article has edited this article too, along with the SPA who created it. I'm not sure whether there's some sockpuppetry going on, but the whole thing stinks. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 21:07, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the page in question has been blanked by its creator: the content when this AfD was started is viewable here. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 22:21, 4 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. No consensus among participating editors that WP:HEY level improvement happened. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:14, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Sutherland (headmaster)[edit]

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

No apparent notability , bur enough material that I'm not comfortable using speedy A7 DGG ( talk ) 06:13, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:17, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Response by author:

This is the first time that I have encountered the issue of notability as a problem. I have made some changes to the article in the hope that this will help to justify its inclusion.

I would argue that in the case of this article, the notability which David achieved was largely within the relatively isolated community of Wick. Going to study in Edinburgh from a two-roomed cottage and a one-teacher school in a poor highland community in the late 19th Century was a significant achievement in itself. The success of such students was regularly celebrated in the local newspapers. He helped to establish the local golf club in Bonar Bridge, with some help from Andrew Carnegie. It still exists: (https://www.bonarbridgegolf.co.uk/). He subsequently returned to live in Wick near where he grew up and took an active part in the life of the town both before and after the First World War. His war service was not insignificant, and the book which he subsequently published (https://www.electricscotland.com/books/pdf/war_diary.htm), illustrates clearly how the war was managed at the front by officers like himself who believed firmly in winning the war. It would be easy to consider the Wick Lifeboat Parade or the Gala as not being of great significance, but at the time they provided much-needed entertainment for the community, and had to be organised properly.

Readers who are interested in the life of Scott Sutherland, sculptor of the Commando Memorial might also use the link to his father in the article about him to find out more about his family background. I believe that history should not be the exclusive preserve of people born into privilege. There are entries in Wikipedia for people whose only real achievement was to be born into the aristocracy. This article deserves to be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TriodeFollower (talk • contribs) 20:52, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose deletion. This article is very well written, very good and extensive documentation, about a fine educator who did many civic activities, and served in the reserves as a MAJOR.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 20:20, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why you've capitalised "Major" as though this meant an obvious keep. It's not a very senior rank and nowhere near senior enough for any sort of inherent notability (that would be brigadier or above). -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:33, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:43, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete none of the sources or activities rise to the level of notability. The combination of hyper local coverage and primary sources is not what we need to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:36, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:35, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:44, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing here shows that he was known outside of Wick. It's possible that there's some notability through his book War diary of the Fifth Seaforth Highlanders but if so I haven't been able to find it (and I would need multiple books with multiple published reviews each before being convinced of a pass of WP:AUTHOR). —David Eppstein (talk) 06:52, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I will stay neutral in terms of keep or delete, as I think a case could be made for either option. But if the article does survive, then in my view it requires a clean-up. It seems to be partly written in a rather informal style. His Christian name "David" is used throughout the article rather than his surname "Sutherland". Phrases such as "lads learning trades" seem informal rather than in an encyclopedic tone. Phrases such as "his unwavering commitment" and "he distinguished himself" seem to be giving Sutherland a bit of positive spin rather than in a neutral encyclopedic style. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 14:29, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you Kind Tennis Fan for your constructive comment, in the light of which I have incorporated a number of changes. I have also added a link from which a copy of his book can be downloaded. TriodeFollower (talk) 12:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY; good work by TriodeFollower. Bearian (talk) 15:18, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject seems, in conventional terms, an industrious achiever but I struggle to find anything that approaches the GNG. There's a lot of material that I genuinely think "well done you" but I'm not sure why it is noted in an encyclopedia. If there is any wheat there, can it be pointed out and if it's enough for retention, can the considerable chaff be winnowed away and the tone made encyclopedic? Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:51, 10 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. bibliomaniac 1 5 05:03, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

F. P. Reed[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:NSPORTS. Reed wasn't really a football coach (as a job): he was a student at the College who during his studies coached two regional games of the team, and that's his whole career. There is no reliable source giving significant attention to him: what we have is a database listing, a very passing mention, another passing mention in a primary source, and another very short mention in a book in a short section about his family. Nothing really about him, and why should there be? Looking for sources not in the article yet doesn't yield anything. Presumably there can be found some mentions in routine game coverage in local newspapers from the period, but nothing that would get him past the WP:BIO requirements. Fram (talk) 14:19, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:19, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:19, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:19, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:23, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We have a New York Times article mentioning him. This is from 1892 and mentions him on the list of those who would edit the yearbook for Dartmouth College that year. I think we are all agreed that being on the production team for a college year book is not a sign of notability. There are lots of these early college football coaches who we should not have articles on.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:35, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG with sources in the article. Typical outcome for college football head coaches are to keep the article, especially for those that the highest level of the sport (which in 1892 is "college football").--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:17, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Which of these sources do you mean? I analysed them all above, and none of them comes close to meeting the GNG requirements. And calling every college football program "the highest level of the sport" makes it a very, very broad "highest level", with some regional games without a real competition. The "highest level of a sport" should at the very least be at national level. Fram (talk) 07:58, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness, 1892 was still the early days for American football, and there were no teams playing on a "national level". Doane was at least playing the game regionally, as evidenced by its 1892 game vs. Illinois (> 500 miles distant from Doane). Cbl62 (talk) 13:02, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, analysis requires opinion and personal preference. Based on the time period this works. The term "highest level" is used in WP:SPORTBASIC.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:00, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the term "highest level" is used in SPORTBASIC, in the sentences "a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level (such as the Olympics). " This is obviously not an international competition, never mind one at the highest level like the Olympics. Please don't use such quoted terms out of their context, which in thise case makes it clear that it doesn't apply here. Fram (talk) 15:35, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So are the words "for example" --Paul McDonald (talk) 17:54, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:14, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:44, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets GNG with sources in article. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 19:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Which of them meets the GNG requirements? Most are passing mentions or primary sources. Fram (talk) 06:59, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources in the article do not come anywhere close to meeting GNG: in source 1 Reed is merely listed among thousands of others in a general catalog; he receives a one-paragraph mention in source 2; source 3 is a one-line listing of student newspaper editors; and sources 4-11 are primary. I have done my best to look for sources but admittedly I don't have access to many historical archives. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:53, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy I'd like to request that this article be userfied to my user space in the event that the result of this discussion is delete. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 19:25, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jweiss11: Just a note that draftspace is the preferred area for drafts instead of user subpages nowadays. Per WP:COPYARTICLE, "[Userspace] [p]ages that preserve material previously deleted, without an active attempt to address the reasons for deletion, if left live, may be deleted by tagging with ((db-g4))." Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:42, 12 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. Wikipedia follows sources. If sources exist to demonstrate notability then they are notable. NOTMEMORIAL does not mean that post-death coverage cannot be used to establish notability. However, there is no consensus among participating editors here after extensive discussion about whether the coverage does indeed establish notability or whether some alternative to deletion is appropriate here. Would suggest this sit before any possible renomination. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:10, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Al Haynes[edit]

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

Some of this article is just restating info from the article on flight 232. Other parts are just saying that he’s from the navy and that he's a hero. This article should be deleted, just add the part that he’s former navy on the UA 232 page CZ3699 (talk) 18:27, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CZ3699 (talk) 18:32, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:36, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:36, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:40, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting the discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Akhiljaxxn (talk) 02:02, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to United Airlines Flight 232. His notability is inherently tied to that flight. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:41, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a BLP1E, nothing in the article indicates he was of note outside of UA232. MilborneOne (talk) 06:35, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United Airlines Flight 232. Honestly that article covers him better than this one does. Devonian Wombat (talk) 08:15, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What distinguishes Haynes from Chesley Sullenberger, who I think almost all would agree is notable enough for a stand-alone article? There are many reliable sources in the article already, and there is a slew of articles on newspapers.com about him; obviously it's mostly tied to UA232 (and his public speaking afterwards), but enough for an interested editor to write an article about him. Had the crash occurred when Wikipedia was around, I suspect notability would be less of an issue. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:23, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I wrote the article about Tammie Jo Shults. There was an over-zealous attempt to delete her but the result was a Keep. There was an AfD for Chesley Sullenberger too, with a similar result. The nomination in this case is of poor quality because it is implicitly suggesting merger and that's not done by deletion. WP:BLP1E is likewise not an argument for deletion because that's intended to cover minor participants in an event -- people like the passengers. But the subject in this case was the captain and is the subject of specific coverage as the article contains 8 sources whose title includes the name of the subject, such as "Remembering Al Haynes, the pilot who...". And, of course, the subject is dead and so talk of BLP is nonsense. There's plenty more coverage to find such as The Human Contribution, Pilots, Personality, and Performance and How Expert Pilots Think in which the subject is discussed in detail as an exemplar. The subject got an obituary in the NYT which is excellent evidence of notability per WP:SIGCOV and so passes WP:BASIC. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:17, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The two pilots that you mentioned were kept because of the fact that notability already existed with them, such of the fact that the pilot of SW 1380 was one of the first female fighter pilots. No notability exists here besides the crash of UA 232, which is already covered in United Airlines Flight 232. Also my nomination doesn’t apply merging, just adding one little detail. CZ3699 (talk) 02:15, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Isn't the "Smithsonian Wall of Honor" a notable award? Also I click Google news search and a lot of major media publications are mentioning him such as CNN: Former United Airlines pilot Al Haynes, who saved 184 lives during 1989 Iowa crash landing, has died [16]. That has a lot of information about him, not just a brief passing mention. They don't write that much about just anyone. Dream Focus 20:34, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All I really see on that article is the timeline of UA232, the fact that he died, and that he never saw himself as a hero. It also only talks about good things, a sign of potential bias. CZ3699 (talk) 02:15, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"It only talks about the good things". You are saying there are bad things left out? What are they? Sometimes there are no bad things, notable enough. -- GreenC 03:29, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I should mention that this article was originally created in 2006. A VFD was done, which saw the redirect to United Airlines Flight 232. It was only when he died that this article came back. If Haynes was still alive, it wouldn’t be as notable. CZ3699 (talk) 02:24, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK some people become (more) notable after death. -- GreenC 03:38, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was created in 2004. There was a VfD then (the process before AfD) but it wasn't done properly as it wasn't added to the list. The article was then revived last year when the subject died and there was a flurry of obituaries. Editorial obituaries in journals of records such as the New York Times or Daily Telegraph are high quality sources because they include a full account of the subject's life with the biographical details such as place and date of birth that we want in a biography. They also confirm that the subject is dead and so BLP is no longer an issue. The sources are significant coverage and so the subject passes the notability guideline. The job of editors now is to use these many sources to expand and complete the article per our editing policy. We might reasonably expect an article of GA quality which we can feature at DYK. I would go with the following hook:

Did you know that ... in simulator studies, other pilots were unable to repeat Al Haynes' feat of flying and landing his crippled DC10 using only two engine throttles?

Andrew🐉(talk) 08:46, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:ANYBIO Wall of honor at the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum. In addition his involvement as the Captain during the incident: United Airlines Flight 232 is WP:LASTING Lightburst (talk) 22:58, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I don't see anything patently problematic with the article, although it could be fleshed out a bit. The subject is arguably one of the most well-known airline captains of all time, known for his airmanship, and he would be one of a small number of pilots who has attempted to land an aircraft using differential thrust. There doesn't seem to be an issue with sourcing, so deletion seems unnecessary. Dflaw4 (talk) 08:05, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep CZ3699 I know there are individuals who routinely nominate article for deletion defiantly giving a Foxtrot Oscar to the rest of us, by adamantly refusing to comply with WP:BEFORE. I urge you, in the strongest possible terms, please, please, don't follow their terrible example.
As to your argument that information about him is better covered in the article about the crash... Sorry, I think this assertion shows you are confined to an old-fashioned pre-digital mindset. In pre-digital times all documents were confined to paper. They could not branch. There was no convenient mechanism to link one document to another.
Here, on the wikipedia, documents can branch. We can give our readers choices, as to how to transit a web of human knowledge. And that works best when we keep each article restricted to a single topic, keep article relatively small, but make sure they are richly linked to other articles.
Our nominator does not understand how it is the wikilink that makes the wikipedia powerful.
No offense CZ3699, but your nomination illustrates both hubris and a terrible failure of imagination. You assume that the only reason a reader would come to the wikipedia, to read about Haynes, would be they wanted to learn about the crash. Haynes was born in Texas. What about the school-kid told to write a paper on heroes born in Texas? For them the details of the crash could be completely irrelevant. A kid at a military academy might be told to write a paper on former military types who were recognized for heroism after they retired from the military. What about the reader who was interested in his career as an umpire?
If Haynes really is better covered in the article on the crash than in his own article that is a sign his article should be improved, not deleted. Maybe some of the information in the crash article should be moved into the Haynes article. In general, redundant duplication of information, across multiple articles, should be avoided - except for providing context to the reader, so they have a good idea where a wiki-link will take them. In general the main details about a topic should be in a single article, with other information about that topic merely being a summary in the text that surrounds wikilinks to that topic. Geo Swan (talk) 12:23, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:37, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: According to the current direction of this discussion GreenC might be absolutely correct ("That's OK some people become (more) notable after death"), even if the rationale may be directly against policy. The policy concerning this reads: Memorials. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements. This is policy as to why we should consider not having a stand alone article on a subject that was not considered notable enough before they died. The death of the subject (See: WP:Notability (events)) apparently resulted in the removal of the redirect and a flurry of edits that are common with breaking news that may result in Wikipedia:Recentism. The article had been under a redirect from what seems to be 2006. When the redirect was removed (August 26, 2019)‎ the edit summary stated "(died)".

Looking at a recently created or restored article, possibly to determine if it is a fork or WP:SPINOFF, should be considered good editing.

Here is some information that might be at odds with some comments above:

1)- That "he never saw himself as a hero" is not a factor per low-profile individuals,
2)- that the subject "died" does not advance notability,
3)- A merge consensus ("merger and that's not done by deletion") can absolutely be determined at WP:AFD; "Common outcomes are that the article is kept, merged, redirected, incubated, renamed/moved to another title, userfied to a user subpage, or deleted per the deletion policy. Disambiguation pages are also nominated for deletion at AfD.". An article should not be brought to AFD for consideration of merging. That should be done on the article talk page and a "merge" discussion. However, it is still an option at AFD,
4)- The article can possibly be covered by WP:BLP1E. WP:BDP states: The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside. WP:BLP1E states, WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of living people, or those who have recently died, and to biographies of "low-profile individuals".
5)- The mentioned "Wall of Honor" does not have an article and the notability of being bestowed this award is certainly questionable. A determining factor for inclusion on the wall indicates the criteria for getting the "honor" is only limited to the size of the writing, according to the amount of the donation given. I would hold more stock in the Dr. Earl Wiener "Lifetime Achievement Award", that has only been presented to three people since 2001.
I have to try and determine if there was enough notability for a stand alone article, before the subject died, and if future improvements can result in more than a pseudo-biography. As it stands now 7 references are about the death and 1 about the wall (total= .6666%) which does indicate the restoration as a memorial like the edit summary shows. Otr500 (talk) 23:13, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notification of this discussion provided at Talk:United Airlines Flight 232 --- Otr500 (talk) 23:48, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The memorial policy says if they are notable it's not a memorial. We are trying to determine if they are notable. Beyond that, there is no hard definition of what memorial means except "deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances" which is not the case here. You infer it is a memorial because they are "not considered notable enough before they died" but the policy says no such thing. You are welcome to believe that, it is your opinion of what memorial means, but not policy. -- GreenC 23:56, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to closing admin and everyone using the "Smithsonian Wall of Honor" as a reason to keep because it supposedly is an indication of notability: there are more than 31,000 people on that Wall of Honor, so not really selective. More importantly, the Wall of Honor is purely and simply based on donations, anyone can get their name on it: and the biographies are provided by the one paying, not by the Smithsonian either. So this so-called "Wall of Honor" is purely a list of people who have donated to the Smithsonian, with biographies provided by themselves, and there is absolutely zero notability in being included in this list. Please ignore all comments made which are based on the supposed notability of inclusion in this wall. Fram (talk) 08:00, 10 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. No support for deletion. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 22:07, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dale Partridge[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPERSON. Most of the focus in this article is on two controversial statements that the subject made that were published under various headlines along the lines of "you'll never believe what this pastor said!" These are two minor events that do not focus on Partridge, instead on what he said. The other coverage (i.e. in the Los Angeles Times and Mashable) is actually not of him, but of his company, Sevenly. The Forbes Profile was written by a Forbes subscriber and not staff writer, and therefore is not a reliable source. Remaining coverage is in several small Christian publications. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:35, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:36, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:46, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:47, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Akhiljaxxn (talk) 02:00, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--christianpost.com & Faithwire are not small Christian publications, and even if they were, they are still reliable sources. Along with the sources about the women's leggings controversy, he meets GNG.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 23:36, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:36, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - he started the whole controversy over leggings, which affected middle school girls; I heard anecdotally it from my students and it's in reliable sources in the article. I suspect he doesn't want this article, but too bad. Bearian (talk) 15:27, 9 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 Parvin Darabi#Works. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 23:50, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Women of Truckee Making History[edit]

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

Fails to meet the Wikipedia:Notability (books) criteria. There should be at least two non-trivial published works about the book. Pahlevun (talk) 01:30, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:04, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:04, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:04, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am sorry as I deleted the AFD template by mistake. Please accept my apologies. But I have added some references. As the book was published 18 years ago and it is very hard to find more reliable references. I did my best. However, the book covers part of US local history and more importantly covers women. I believe the article has enough reliable sources to cover books notability. Thanks. Gharouni^Talk 09:17, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Reno Gazette-Journal does have an article mentioning the book from Sunday, February 23, 2003, page 14. (https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/150830448/) If anyone has library access or newspaper.com privileges they can determine if it constitutes significant coverage in combination with the more local coverage. 24.151.50.175 (talk) 17:42, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the article" link. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:03, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. 24.151.50.175 (talk) 16:42, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet notability standards and doesn't meet basic threshold standards as set in Wikipedia:Notability (books). This book is self-published, does not have an ISBN number and is not cataloged with the Library of Congress. Glendoremus (talk) 22:15, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Books need to be very notable before a WP article on them should be allowed. Local history publications are generally NN. Possibly there may be scope for including something very brief on the book in the article on Truckee. If any of the 30 women meet WP notability standards, there might be a article on them in which the book is cited. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:44, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Parvin_Darabi#Works (author). The Reno Gazette-Journal article and other sources in the article contain enough information to improve the section in the target article. 24.151.50.175 (talk) 16:51, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above, that article needs expanding and it would be relevant there, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:35, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:36, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge Unimportant. TuorEladar (talk) 20:43, 4 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. There is a consensus that there is a notable topic at the heart of this article (incident). No consensus about possible rename which may happen according to the normal processes. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:52, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agnes (1904)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. A small boat with 2 crew sinking is not notable even if sources can be found Lyndaship (talk) 15:59, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:09, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:09, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:10, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- This launch is mentioned because it was involved in an accident, but the accident was no more notable than a car crash would be. If I am wrong in that the article needs to be expanded to explain what was significant about it. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:46, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Absolutely not notable at all. If it really was historic, we would have significant coverage, but I see none of that. Analog Horror, (Speak) 17:50, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:48, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but refocus on the collision. The ship wasn't notable, but the collision was - plenty of coverage here. Widely reported at the time with an inquiry afterwards. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:43, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good find but I still doubt that a collision between a launch and a steamer resulting in one death is sufficient to warrant an article. It is already listed in List of shipwrecks in 1906 which is what is done for vessels which do not merit their own article. Would we have articles on every road collision involving a HGV and car - why should boats be different? Lyndaship (talk) 10:37, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The sources provide the guidance - dramatic collision in the middle of Sydney Harbour gets the solid coverage and the inquiry prolongs it. These things are not something determined by an objective rule. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:50, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Every collision at sea results in an inquiry by some official body and is going to be reported by some newspapers. Just as every fatal car accident does. Lyndaship (talk) 13:02, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can't think of any car crash not involving a famous person that got that amount of coverage. The Drover's Wife (talk) 20:35, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can think of plenty. A recent one.[17] On the other hand, at least one such accident does have its own page.[18] That later case did provoke a change in the law though. Focusing on the merits of this case, I still think deletion is appropriate. The page is about the launch and there is so little information that a merge does not make sense. It is mentioned elsewhere and if the accident were that notable then a new page on the Sydney Harbour collision, written from scratch, would make more sense. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:04, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep provided the article is retargetted about the collision. The vessel itself is totally not notable. I was going to go for a weak delete until I found this 2017 reference, so SUSTAINED?, and this international reference at the time. There is more than enough WP:NEXIST to write a non trivial article with some level of depth about the collision. Aoziwe (talk) 13:14, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - merits a referenced entry on the List of shipwrecks in 1906, but that is all. Mjroots (talk) 20:17, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep theres enough sources (see: Talk:Agnes (1904) for details) from across australia that makes this notable especially given it happen 1906 where media wasnt as inter connected, also a second incident which appears connected but will need extra investigation to confirm. Found on Trove using this search. Gnan garra 07:27, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Can't argue with the merit of the sources. Doctorhawkes (talk) 08:59, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 00:29, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is a keep per WP:NEXIST. Aoziwe has demonstrated the WP:LASTING impact of the event. And the other keep !voters have pointed to the many RSs that exist to add to the article. A good place to start is the talk page. Lightburst (talk) 00:53, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some RS has been added- and a name change has occurred. Take a second look if you can. Lightburst (talk) 01:42, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Bold move rename to a collision article. Feel free to revert if you think so. Name is based on sources. -- GreenC 01:09, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is possibly a post-AFD discussion, but I would suggest a title of Manly–Agnes collision, to use an endash between the vessels' names and to make the term collision a common noun. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:24, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A routine accident with no lasting impact. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:57, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:32, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Comment, usually with an article like this it would be a case of WP:NOTNEWS, but this was covered across the nation:- The Sydney Morning Herald (Sydney) - "Sydney Harbour Traffic", The Albury Banner and Wodonga Express (Albury) - "Sydney Harbour Collision.", The Argus (Melbourne) - "Sydney Harbour Collision", Western Mail (Perth (Western Australia)) - "Collision in Sydney Harbour", The Brisbane Courier (Brisbane) - "Collision in Sydney Harbour", (even so, editors may call this routine coverage but then, there's just no pleasing some people:)), however, with the additional sources mentioned by Aoziwe above that it was reported on across the ditch (international), and in 2017 (lasting), this does raise it above the usual news reporting so is a Keep from me. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:39, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep under the re-named article, per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 15:28, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:15, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rosslynn Taylor[edit]

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

Non notable producer and minor actor. No evidence of secondary sources to improve article. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 20:29, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 20:29, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 20:29, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 20:29, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 20:29, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:40, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:41, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Small. Not notable. TuorEladar (talk) 20:46, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not supposed to be an IMDb mirror. It is at present, but that is not how things are meant to be.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:15, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I tried to find better sources, using different varieties of her name and with the title CSA (Casting Society of America), but found nothing. Bearian (talk) 15:32, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:GNG; also can't find better sources. ~riley (talk) 01:25, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:15, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dabney Estates, Virginia[edit]

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

I'm submitting these as a batch because they have several common factors:

Subdivisions with no sign of being distinct communities
Created as batches from the GNIS database, citing no other sources
No sign of official recognition other than being listed as "populated places" in the GNIS database. In all cases, GNIS cites a private publisher such as Map and Guide of Emporia, Jarratt and Greensville County, Virginia. n.p.: Vernon Publishing Company, 1994. Note that maps and databases are specifically excluded from the WP:NGEO notability criteria

For places lacking official standing, WP:GEOLAND #2 requires that we default to WP:GNG, which these housing developments do not meet. –dlthewave ☎ 20:03, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 20:03, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 20:03, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable per our SNG or GNG. Not legally recognized places per our guidelines. Neighborhoods and the like need to pass WP:GEOLAND#2. These do not. Lightburst (talk) 20:18, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Mass-produced without regard for significant coverage and notability guidelines. Adding Glen Roy Estates, Virginia, which is literally a rich person's (singular) estate [19][20]. Reywas92^Talk 20:40, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added Creekwood Cove Estates, Virginia. –dlthewave ☎ 21:57, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:14, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rajpal Singh Solanki[edit]

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

Non-notable, and fails to meet the Wikipedia guidelines for WP:N and WP:V, I have read the citations attached, and if you observe closely. It is published by a PR Agency. Tatupiplu'^talk 19:03, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tatupiplu'^talk 19:03, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:17, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep How do you come to that conclusion? Hans India looks like an independent source to me. Throwawiki (talk) 20:50, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Absolute nonsense article. Fails the very basics of the WP:CRIN guidelines which states a player must have appeared at first-class/List A/Twenty20 level. As for the player, he sounds like another Adrian Shankar; he doesn't have profiles on either ESPNcricinfo or CricketArchive. StickyWicket (talk) 22:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with STORM and FIRE!': Fails to meet the criteria for WP:CRIN and WP:N -- Steven655 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:19, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of cricket-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 21:56, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable cricketer, can't find a mention of him on Cricinfo. All of the links on the article have exactly the same text, so it is either a press release or someone has managed to get this onto a news feed and all the sources have very low standards of what they accept. Spike 'em (talk) 08:00, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with fire, no storm - fails WP:CRIN. Individual quite clearly isn't notable and there is an evident COI aspect to this. ~riley (talk) 01:26, 12 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:20, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logan Williams (actor)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

With respect to the deceased, I don't believe his having recently died makes this teen notable in the Wikipedia sense of the word. All of the sources from major news media outlets exist because of his death. Anything else is trivial or unreliable (for example, the source about trading cards is just a fan-made list of them, not even any kind of critical commentary on them). The Joey Awards are non-notable and there is no independent coverage about him winning the award. On the whole, we are not a memorial, and it's clear that the coverage (at this stage) wouldn't exist in the absence of his death. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:52, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Side note since I just realized: this is actually the first nomination for Logan Williams the actor. The previous AfD is in regards to the subject now at Logan Williams (entrepreneur), which the creator of the current article moved there in order to create this article under the undisambiguated title. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:52, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:52, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A case of WP:BLP1E. - Brojam (talk) 19:00, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep literal award-winning actor (the Joeys are Canada's youth awards, if Young in Hollywood and the Obies are notable, so are they) with a couple notable roles. Not 1E at all, which wouldn't even apply because the 'event' (his death, I assume you mean) doesn't have an article. His death has been reported on by the likes of Hollywood Reporter and Deadline, which not every actor gets. Fair coverage of his short career. Kingsif (talk) 19:16, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course BLP1E applies. You're completely misunderstanding that policy. It has nothing to do with the event having or not having an article. It has to do with the fact that reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, which is 100% accurate in this case. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:38, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Me misunderstanding? Am I not getting the 'living' part? Really, BIO1E might apply more, though I still don't consider death an 'event', which also notes that a person can be notable for more than one thing but only get sig. cov. for one, at which point they're still considered notable. I've seen RDs kept with less coverage than this, though I do consider here that he was a minor and swaying to delete in any case isn't a bad thing. Kingsif (talk) 14:43, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First, BLP applies (and has always applied) to recently deceased persons. Second, BLP1E has nothing to do with whether or not the event in question has an article, which is the argument you presented in your first post. So yes, I think it's quite accurate for me to say you were misunderstanding the meaning of that policy. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:31, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As a point of information, I've seen a few discussions before where bios have been kept when they are 1 event people, half the time because the event does not have an article but is covered suitable in the bio, the other half because they had semi-notability and were just put into the public eye because of the event. That's why I mentioned it. I could probably re-read BLP1E and find whatever part can be read for these situations, but since you know so much about it I guess it doesn't matter. While BLP covers RD, trying to argue that BLP1E is relevant when the 1E is death just seems against the point. Kingsif (talk) 04:16, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I agree this is a BLP1E. The Joey Award is not even notable. © Tbhotch^™ (en-3). 20:29, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:44, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - and also move the content of Logan Williams (entrepreneur) back to Logan Williams (which is now a disambig page) and delete Logan Williams (entrepreneur). A tragically young death, but I agree that this is a BLP1E and falls under WP:NOTMEMORIAL. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 20:52, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Davidbena (talk) 21:33, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Death does not establish notability. Recipient of non-notable awards. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 05:54, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This person has been cited in multiple reliable sources with an acting career that contains several major works. This person is notable prior to the coronavirus. Fox News and ABC News among others has given this actor significant coverage. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 21:00, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Both of those stories (merely recycling Tri-City News and AP) are about his mostly-private death (clearly after the virus became famous), only mentioning his brief career for context. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:31, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, there's no indication in any source that coronavirus had anything to do with his death. (His mother stating that social distancing has made grieving difficult is different). This is a recently-deceased teenager - we need to be careful about the assumptions we're making. This is exactly why BLP applies to the recently deceased. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:34, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The difficulties of grief have something to do with death, but yeah, not like that. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:52, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per InedibleHulk (talk · contribs), after a through search and assistance from Cunard (talk · contribs), there appears to be a lack of source covering him prior to death. He does not appear to pass WP:BLP1E. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 23:36, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Phew! Could you not ping me in case of future harmony, though? Red bells get me feisty. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:45, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay sure, what about a thank? :) Valoem ^talk ^contrib 23:51, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely welcome! InedibleHulk (talk) 23:54, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Kingsif. --DavidHuai1999※Talk 07:04, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's not "Because of social distancing rules in effect during the COVID-19 pandemic his family can't grieve", but "The Flash's Young Barry Allen Actor Logan Williams Dies At 16". The current sources are enough to summarize the life of him, while not all describe his death. So this won't result in the problem of non-neutral.--游魂 (talk) 10:23, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This rationale makes no sense. The nomination has nothing to do with neutrality issues, but notability. All of the reliable sources are about his death; none of the coverage pre-dates it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:26, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. "^[1] In addition to his death, the reports have enough content about his career, so this article has value to be kept. --游魂 (talk) 10:37, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per myself above. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTMEMORIAL, WP:RECENT, as well as WP:NOTNEWS. There is no doubt that notability was lacking and the recent event (death is an event) in news reports provides "imbalance" that does not advance notability. All this does is fuel speculation as to what really happened to the young actor, that didn't really have enough notability until a flurry of news events because of the death, is catapulted as becoming more important. Yes Wikipedia is dynamic, but these types of situations is why we have policies and guidelines directing us not to fall into the drama of being steered to becoming a newspaper, or falling for wanting to create a future "Death of" article as 8 out of 14 (57%) of the sources are about the "death of...". When considering the trading card and Joey awards (not notable) are added it is something like 86% of the sources do not advance notability but just providing ref bombing. Otr500 (talk) 10:32, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a Canadian and some one that new Logan personally I find much of what is being said in here distasteful. Wikipedia represents a global community so if some Americans or Europeans have issues with the Joey awards as not being popular or well known in the USofA or Europe just think about some of the lesser known but locally iconic awards in your own little corner of the world. Joey awards are valid enough to not be discounted. Logans achievements should not be invalidated just because a bunch of Wikipedia users are fixated on the fact he died and for them that is the only notable moment in his young life. For others including co-stars and fans of the show Flash Logan work and life means a lot more pre-dating his death. He has a few shows under his belt, a award nomination. This makes him a public interest more so then some regular person. His page as its allowed to be completed is going to be like most other actor pages dead or alive. Most of his work is listed on IMDB because he never got around to setting up a wikipage yet. I guess I need to ask what exactly counts as a nobody to be deleted from Wikipeda. How many film credits, tv credits, awards does it take to go from a nobody to somebody worth being listed. I am curious huzur79 19:16, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find sources which give him significant coverage before his passing that would be a good start, I was not able to find anything giving him coverage prior to his death. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 08:22, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As a Canadian who watched Canadian TV closely from 1984 till 2009, this is the first I've heard of a Joey. No offense. Just is. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:44, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ WP:BLP1E

Keep As per Kingsif. twerk000 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:21, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Joey Awards are not a notability-clinching award per WP:ANYBIO: that status does not just automatically attach to every award that exists, but applies only to awards that are notable enough to generate media coverage about the award presentation. In Canada, that's the Canadian Screen Awards and its predecessors, the Prix Iris, a small selection of top-tier film festivals (TIFF, VIFF, RVCQ) and the Toronto, Vancouver and Quebec film critics association awards — and kindly note that I'm saying this as a Canadian, so spare me the "you're just biased against Canadian topics" crap: I literally work on almost nothing but Canadian film and television, and basically am Wikipedia's entire Canadian film project task force. It works the same for every award everywhere: if the award can be referenced only to its own self-published website about itself, because media coverage about the award presentation is nonexistent, then it is not an award that makes its winners notable for winning it, regardless of whether it's a Canadian, American, British, Australian, German, Italian, Spanish, Indian or Nigerian award. The notability test for awards is not "it's Country X's version of this other thing from Country Y", it's "the award gets coverage about it in real media".
But there's no stronger notability claim being made here, and there's very little in the way of quality reliable source coverage: except for the blip of death-announcement coverage itself, literally everything else here is referenced to blogs and primary sources that aren't support for notability at all. This is not how you demonstrate that an actor is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Bearcat (talk) 22:03, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:54, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the concentration of the article and the sources used all apply to one event so it is a case of WP:BLP1E. Take away the coverage about his death and there is not enough left to satisfy BASIC/GNG. Mysticair667537 (talk) 21:11, 9 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 redirect to Enclosed Alphanumerics. Note that this is a "soft" close given the limited participation. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:49, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Enclosed R[edit]

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

Not notable as a Unicode symbol, we don't create articles about every of the Enclosed Alphanumerics. Other than that, the article has one sentence about the separate encoding of the symbol, which has been unsourced for over ten years. I suggest creating a redirect to either the mentioned party or to Enclosed Alphanumerics, with a hatnote about that party and the trademark symbol. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:46, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Redirect to Enclosed Alphanumerics for now, to match other capital letters. It may be better to have the unicode characters go to the letter, as ⓐ sort of does, but it is all pretty inconsistent right now.Spitzak (talk) 19:21, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 00:00, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There is consensus that the coverage that exists does not satisfy the criteria necessary to establish notability. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:47, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Claudene Christian[edit]

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

With the exception of her death, a BIO1E that merits (and has) a brief mention in the article on the Bounty, this is all hyper-local human-interest coverage (oh wow, she was an opening act for a Marie Osmond tour gig?!) that does not pass WP:BIO. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:15, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:15, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:15, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:16, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:17, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:17, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:18, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:19, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think this nomination makes two serious mistakes.

It misleading asserts that, other than her death when HMS Bounty sank, all the other RS coverage of her was "hyper-local human-interest coverage". Ms Christian was in a long-running legal dispute over whether the business she started, Cheer-leader dolls, infringed Mattel's intellectual property rights to its highly successful line of Barbie Dolls. This dispute went on for years, and I think it clearly marks her as an individual who transcends one-event status.
Us wikipedia contributors must remember our role. We are not RS. Sadly, one sees AFD where a nomination is written as if the nominator's personal opinion that a topic is not notable matters. No offense to the regulars who make this mistake, but this is a clear lapse from NPOV, and OR. We are not newspaper editors. RS, like newspaper editors, make the decision as to whether a topic merits coverage in their publications. What policy requires of us is to look to what RS decision makers, in our determinations as to what measures up to our inclusion criteria.
Yes, by long-standing convention, we interpret WP:NOT so we give very little coverage, or even no coverage, to pure tabloid fodder, like when paparrazi snap photos of drunken celebrity getting in or out of a limousine, that shows they went out without wearing any panties. But the coverage of Ms Christian is not tabloid fodder, and I think it was misleading for the nomination to dismiss the extensive substantive coverage of her as trivial "hyper-local human-interest coverage". Geo Swan (talk) 20:05, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article needs a rewrite. The lede is very confusing; it needs to say "Christian died while sailing on a replica of the original HMS Bounty", or something to that effect, rather than give the long history that it gives. I would agree this is a one-event thing, or maybe 1.15 event thing, with the Mattel lawsuit. If you take away the Bounty death, you just have an article about someone who was a cheerleader, sorority member and founder of a doll company who happened to sue Mattel.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:26, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Bounty (1960 ship)#Loss. Most of the media coverage appears to be in relation to this event: had she not been involved in that, I don't feel the dispute with Mattel would have warranted her having her own page. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 20:33, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I moved the Bounty info to later in the article. It was so oddly ordered before. Also reworded her tie to Fletcher Christian -- alleged by her as it was. I have not yet found so much as a tree. It's possible she was a collateral descendant, but direct descendant is less likely. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 21:13, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete when the article scapes the bottom to mention the local newspaper mentioned (as in comprehensive listing of lots of names) her several times as a teenager, this is not a sign of notability but a sign of trying to twist virtual directory style listing into something showing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:42, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- failed to meet WP:GNG.---Richie Campbell (talk) 00:25, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:14, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Madana[edit]

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

Not meeting the notability criteria. The available references are either PR or passing mentions. - The9Man ^(Talk) 06:55, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:55, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:55, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:03, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Akhiljaxxn (talk) 17:33, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no significant coverage. Apart from one story about an unauthorised video shoot, the refs are either interviews, or the same press release in different publications. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 20:15, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet music related inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:04, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete paid piece, sourced to spammy blackhat SEO fake sources. Praxidicae (talk) 12:45, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Engineers and producers are run of the mill. If this was written by a fan in 2007, we could excuse it, but in 2020, everybody knows we are a charity not a free webhost for your resume. Bearian (talk) 15:39, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable per WP:GNG. ~riley (talk) 01:27, 12 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. bibliomaniac 1 5 05:08, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brian T. Fitzpatrick[edit]

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

Absolutely no evidence of notability, and no secondary sources on this page for many years Cardiffbear88 (talk) 21:37, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 21:37, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 21:37, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:50, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:50, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Absolutely no evidence of WP:BEFORE. StrayBolt (talk) 02:06, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- ...which means you’ll have found multiple secondary substantial sources? Care to share them with us? I did complete WP:BEFORE and found no evidence of notability. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 10:51, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Our article is very similar to Fitzpatrick's law school profile. It appears that one is copied from the other, but I can't tell which way the copying went. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:56, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Any possible copyright violation has been removed by edits during this discussion, so that is no longer an issue, if it ever was. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:53, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not yet notable as either an academic or a lawyer. Being a clerk to a US Supreme Court justice often leads to a notable career but is not in and of itself a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:31, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. He has a couple publications on class action with over 100 citations each (unusually high for law), and a new book on class action (too new to have attracted the full set of reviews but with a lot of heat about it on National Review). I think he's already borderline-passing for WP:PROF#C1 and on an upward trajectory. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:06, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my long-standing standards for notable lawyers. Well-known expert on class action lawsuits, law clerk for SCOTUS, etc. Bearian (talk) 16:53, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:26, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:14, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

W.I.T.[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No valid references (all are user created sites & playlists). Previous AfD, no signs of notability or improvement since then. No signs of meeting WP:GNG.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:44, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I haven't found a single mention in a reliable media - obviously fails both WP:GNG and WP:BAND Less Unless (talk) 20:21, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:25, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only mention I found of the band was in a non-reliable source and it fails Wikipedia:NMUSIC. Globg 20:26, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete. The group fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. I can't seem to find a coverage in reliable sources. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 01:06, 5 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. bibliomaniac 1 5 05:10, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lightray (character)[edit]

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

Article fails to establish notability. The sources added with the dePROD are trivial mentions at best. There is nothing particularly substantial that could be used to build the article. TTN (talk) 17:52, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:52, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:52, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:52, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NEXIST and WP:HEY. I've added real-world content to the article, using the following sources:
- "The Returns of the New Gods" by Brian Martin, Back Issue #104, Two Morrows Pubishing (June 2018), pg 5, 13 & 23
- "The Firestorm Interviews" by Cecil Disharoon, Back Issue #112, TwoMorrows Publishing (May 2019), pg 8
- Uncanny Bodies: Superhero Comics and Disability edited by José Alaniz and Scott T. Smith, Penn State University Press (2019)
- The DC Comics Encyclopedia: The Definitive Guide to the Characters of the DC Universe by Alan Cowsill et al, DK Publishing (2016) pg 180

The strongest source is the first one, which I used to create the beginning of a Characterization section, with quotes from Rachel Pollack, Tom Peyer and Walt Simonson about the choices that they made in developing Lightray's character after Kirby's work. This is significant real-world coverage. I didn't add anything related to the plot. I think that these are just the beginning of the sources that could be found; Jack Kirby's work has been discussed and analyzed for decades. — Toughpigs (talk) 22:07, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Toughpigs, it looks like Superheroes of the Round Table: Comics Connections to Medieval and Renaissance Literature has a paragraph on page 77 here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:18, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The book Kirby100: 100 Top Creators Celebrate Jack Kirby’s Greatest Work has on page 102 that Wendy Pini asked Kirby if Lightray was Balder, and Kirby confirmed this. Not a source to demonstrate notability, but a unique detail to add. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:26, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Erik! I appreciate your help. — Toughpigs (talk) 19:26, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources identified and improvements made to the article. Great job with those, Toughpigs. A WP:HEY example for sure. — Hunter Kahn 20:04, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:20, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The additions by Toughpigs demonstrate notability. Lightburst (talk) 19:43, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One or two passing mentions in Lightray_(character)#Influence are not sufficient for this to warrant a stand-alone article per WP:NFICTION/GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:59, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or at minimum, merge content to List of New Gods based on coverage from reliable sources since there is good coverage here. WP:PAGEDECIDE says, "There are other times when it is better to cover notable topics, that clearly should be included in Wikipedia, as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context. A decision to cover a notable topic only as part of a broader page does not in any way disparage the importance of the topic." Outright deletion is not suitable. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:04, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Let this page stay. He is a supporting character of Orion and the rest of the New Gods of New Genesis. Also, @Toughpigs:, @Hunter Kahn:, @Lightburst:, and @Erik: are right about their claims. --Rtkat3 (talk) 00:12, 13 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 redirect to Data drilling. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 23:36, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Drill down[edit]

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

The article contains no reliable sources and instead seems to be an expanded definition of a term. Doing a quick search reveals a definition exists on Wiktionary, and I feel having an article here does not contribute much if at all to Wikipedia. Thepenguin9 (talk) 15:30, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:37, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:38, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTDICT Lightburst (talk) 17:35, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for SOFTDELETE.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:16, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - valid stub, plenty of sources online exist. A redirect to data drilling would be cheap. Bearian (talk) 15:42, 9 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 redirect to Kathy Ireland. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 23:35, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kathy ireland Worldwide[edit]

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

I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content. Coverage is mainly about Kathy Ireland, the person, and almost nothing about the company. As such, topic fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:08, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:17, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:17, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The best coverage I found on the company; CNN Money, Fox Business, Triad Business Jounal.Harley.M.X (talk) 16:57, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Response Thanks for that. Unfortunately, none of those articles meet the criteria for establishing notability (which is a different standard than the one applied to references that support details and facts within an article). None of those articles contain "Independent Content". The CNN Money article doesn't even mention this company and is based entirely on a announcement and interview with Kathy Ireland. It has no Independent Content nor has it any details on the company. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. The Fox Business reference is essentially an interview with Kathy and a summary of that interview. It has no Independent Content and fails WP:ORGIND. Finally, the Triad Business Jounal article is churnalism and is practically word-for-word based on the PR Announcement of the partnership. For example, newKerala has the exact same article and attributes the story to PRN (being PR News) and Business Insider also carry the same story and mark it as a Press Release. Fails WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:55, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 13:17, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Kathy Ireland in lieu of deletion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:44, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A Merge and Redirect to Kathy Ireland is a good idea - not sure if there's anything to merge as there's a good section already in the article. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:54, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kathy Ireland. Coverage of this company in that article is already better than this one and the notability of the company cannot be extricated from the notability of its founder. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:27, 4 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:45, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Akbar Pasha Tirmizi[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. Fails WP:GNG Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 17:08, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 17:08, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 17:08, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 17:08, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 17:08, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject seems to have only made a few translations of books. There is no indication that he passes WP:NAUTHOR or any applicable criteria. My search did not bring up anything in English language sources. Cedix (talk) 20:02, 6 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. bibliomaniac 1 5 05:12, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dabenja[edit]

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. The sources in the article are primary sources and are not independent of the subject. The awards the subject won is not a notable award. The subject has been making music since 2011 and still has not made a name for himself in the Nigerian music industry. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 18:33, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 18:33, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 18:33, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 18:33, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Dabenja is a winner of African Entertainment Awards which is very notable. Aside from that, every information used to confirm notability is clearly listed in Google Search. Geezygee (talk) 19:16, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Geezygee: The African Entertainment Awards is not a notable award. Can you provide reliable sources that discuss this particular awards? How exactly does this subject pass WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO; which criterion does he meet? Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 01:44, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ Versace1608 here you are, it has news published in several countries across Africa:

@Geezygee: Majority of these sources are not reliable; they are either self-published blogs or websites with no editorial oversight. These sources cannot be used to establish the award's notability. Please tell me which criterion of WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO do you think the subject meets? I'm awaiting your response. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 00:49, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ Versace1608 , aside been a recipient of the African Entertainment Awards ( as published by well-known websites like Ameyaw Debrah, Yen.com.gh and Ghbase ), he was also captured as a music performer by Getty Images at the 2017 Felabration (refer to https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/nigerian-musician-dabenja-performs-at-the-afrika-shrine-news-photo/860757802 ). Geezygee (talk) 14:20, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Geezygee, At this point, there's probably been hundreds of thousands of people captured in photos by Getty Images. This would have zero bearing in denoting notability. Sulfurboy (talk) 03:51, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG & WP:MUSICBIO. Celestina007 (talk) 02:02, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:25, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:55, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I can see Vanguard news 📰 and Punch Newspapers, the biography is too early, but can be allowed per WP:NEXIST. An@ss_koko^{(speak up)}^©T® 13:58, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Anasskoko: The Vangudard and The Punch sources are not independent of the subject and cannot be used to establish notability. FYI, sources where the subject is talking about themselves are not considered independent coverage. You still haven't fully understood WP:GNG or WP:MUSCBIO. How can you #vote delete in this AFD discussion but vote keep here? Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 10:45, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I fully understand what Notability is all about, may be your are the one that does not understand what consensus is all about, not all the article that you tagged deserve to be deleted, that is why we are here in this AFD, had did been you was given an absolute right to deletion, you could have delete articles that stand a chance in Wikipedia, I said the article is weak but can be keep per WP:NEXIST, did I say 💭 per WP:MUSICBIO? you don't understand some voting clearly, I vote delete there, and I vote weak keep here according to reasons I provide, don't judge me base on my vote but base on my reasons, understand first before you make further questions. An@ss_koko^{(speak up)}^©T® 14:26, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Anasskoko: I am not judging you. If you're going to vote in AFDs, you need to stick to proving how the topic or the subject of the article actually meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. WP:NEXIST doesn't hold any weight here and isn't a valid keep criteria. WP:NEXIST states that "the absence of sources or citations in an article does not indicate that a subject is not notable". When did I indicate to you that I didn't review sources available outside of the article before nominating the article for deletion? By invoking WP:NEXIST, you are implying that reliable sources exist. Well, where are the reliable sources? List them here. FYI, before I nominate any article for deletion, I always do a Google search to make sure I'm not missing any sources. WP:BEFORE and WP:NEXIST actually complement each other. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 16:57, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you all the best in the next fortunate. An@ss_koko^{(speak up)}^©T® 18:01, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Anasskoko: Why are you backing away from having a discussion with me? I'm still waiting for your response and answer to my question. If you're conceding, then you need to change your vote. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 18:37, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No reliable, non-primary, non-passing mention sources. Koridas (Speak) 19:05, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:13, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reklyn[edit]

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. The sources in the article are primary sources and are not independent of the subject. The subject has not made a name for himself in the Nigerian music industry. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 18:39, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 18:39, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 18:39, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 18:39, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - All the sources provided are dependent on the article and confirms notability. Do check https://www.google.com/search?q=Reklyn&safe=active&rlz=1C1CHWL_enGH822GH822&sxsrf=ALeKk03rN3jCCLC4pr5H5O_jldJ3S9YljQ:1584647725945&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwju6LHmqKfoAhWrVt8KHd5qArMQ_AUoBHoECAoQBg&biw=1366&bih=663 Geezygee (talk) 19:55, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Falls short of the criteria listed in WP:MUSICBIO & invariably fails WP:GNG also. Celestina007 (talk) 01:47, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:25, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:55, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:11, 6 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 05:38, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Oram[edit]

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

Minor actor failing WP:NACTOR, sourced by local press, wikipedia and his agent's website. Author has, and conceals, COI. WP:BEFORE shows only UGC & listings. Cabayi (talk) 20:38, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 20:38, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 20:38, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:06, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Keep~~ Keep: I'm not so much concerned about WP:NACTOR as I am WP:GNG. There are a number of reliable Australian sources which review the animated film in which he starred, Ploey—but the subject himself only seems to get mere mentions. I hope someone can locate more substantial sourcing. Dflaw4 (talk) 12:33, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I am upgrading my vote to a "Keep", because I overlooked the Daily Gazette source (reference 1). It's not enough, on its own, to establish WP:GNG, but it certainly helps. And I don't see the point in deleting the article when the subject may very well meet the notability standards quite comfortably in the foreseeable future. Dflaw4 (talk) 10:27, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because he isn't notable now. WP:CRYSTAL. Cabayi (talk) 10:32, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:24, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:55, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per "mere mentions". That is evidence that notability is lacking. No problem with recreation with reliable sourcing. There is no inherent or inherited notability and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Otr500 (talk) 02:27, 8 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 redirect to Stroke 9 as a standard WP:ATD for albums. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:32, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Calafrio[edit]

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

This is an album that does not meet GNG or WP:NALBUMS due to a lack of significant coverage in RS; it also doesn't meet any other subject-specific criteria. I recommend it be merged or redirected to the band's article. Citrivescence (talk) 00:22, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:23, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:24, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Stroke 9. I had already redirected this a couple of months ago, but the article creator reverted it. I left a message on the editor's talk page stating that I would wait a while and see if any reviews appeared, as the album had only just been released. However, nothing in the way of reliable sources has turned up, so I think redirecting again is the only option. Richard3120 (talk) 14:13, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:18, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The album review from Top 40 Charts and album details from Antimusic are reliable sources and make the article good enough to pass WP:NALBUM. I rest my case. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 07:57, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Superastig: This is yet another AfD where you have voted without seemingly checking the sources or familiarising yourself with WP:NALBUM. Apart from top40-charts.com being listed as a website to avoid at WP:BADCHARTS, if you actually bothered looking at the source, you would see that it's not a review at all, it's a press release provided by the record company. Anti- Music is the band's record company. Medium is also considered unreliable, and in any case the source is simply the band posting a link to the video for their song. So there are no independent sources at all in the article. Richard3120 (talk) 14:33, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:50, 4 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. bibliomaniac 1 5 05:24, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EarthBrowser[edit]

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

No notability or significant coverage since 2010. Article also lacks sources and paragraphs. I tried looking for anything about EarthBrowser, but nothing showed besides download sites. Analog Horror, (Speak) 17:47, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:52, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:52, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:57, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:57, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are many results on Google scholar. It needs citations added but it is notable.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 18:43, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Asserting that sources exist is unconvincing. You need to link to those sources so we can assess them. That is, link to sources that actually discuss the subject in detail, not just to a search engine result list. SpinningSpark 10:46, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:25, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to have some significance in the history of virtual globes. It's covered in Virtual Globes: An Overview of Their History, Uses, and Future Challenges which gives some of the history (not in our article) of the development (Matt Giger, 1996). The NASA technical report The Role of Virtual Globes in Geoscience gives it a few sentences and confirms the pioneering nature of the development. Note that the original weblink at earthbrowser.com has been hijacked by malware so don't click on it – I'll remove it from the article. SpinningSpark 11:23, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:44, 4 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. Merely asserting that someone is notable amounts to nothing without sources to back up the claim. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:27, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nikhil Mahajan[edit]

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

Page Looks like made for the purpose of Advertisement. UserPankajM (talk) 09:33, 24 March 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 March 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:47, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:54, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:54, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He is well known person in Marathi film industry in my opinion. Thank you. -- Dr. Abhijeet Safai (talk) 16:19, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP :- Well known personality in marathi film industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4052:2115:C674:0:0:16D6:E0AD (talk) 15:11, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as he does not meet the Wikipedia criteria Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Entertainers. There is no evidence, neither in the article nor presented by the users above that this actor is a notable actor. From my searching I could only find that this actor has done minor roles in a few movies. Which confirms my hunch that this is not a popular actor (or director). If he was one, then he would have got leading roles in the movies. It is quite possible that this article was created for promoting the actor or by his fan. Cedix (talk) 11:14, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:42, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewed the article again. The issue of lack of independent coverage in reliable media still remains. This is strange since users above claim that he is well known. Cedix (talk) 15:29, 11 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. bibliomaniac 1 5 05:25, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vanessa Beeley[edit]

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

Delete as nom Non-notable conspiracy peddler who fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO KidAd (talk) 03:00, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is substantial RS coverage of this person (BBC, PBS, Guardian, France24, HuffPost, NY Review of Books, Snopes), including detailed coverage by the NY Review of Books[21] and coverage in the Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review which highlights her as the single most influential disinformation peddler in the Syrian Civil War.[22] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:12, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is adequately covered in reliable sources to a sufficient extent to establish wiki-notability. Moreover, it serves the public interest for our encyclopedia to document the spreaders of disinformation. XOR'easter (talk) 19:05, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your vote is certainly valid, but any notion that granting non-notable spreaders of disinformation any shred of legitimacy is detrimental to the project. And as the page exists now, it appears as a clear Wikipedia:Attack page. I am in no way endorsing or supporting this individual's views, but the fact that the page lacks basic biographic material (birthdate, birthplace, education, etc.) and only serves as a repository for falsehoods and misnomers, speaks volumes. KidAd (talk) 20:59, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This falls under the fringe guidelines. I do not think we have the level of indepth, reliable, and I emphasize that as key, secondary source coverage to pass that guideline.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:08, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:08, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:41, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the sourcing looks good to me, and she is notable enough that she is mentioned as some pushing misinformation. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 17:09, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She may be a conspiracy theorist but she passes notability guidelines. Frankly on an encyclopedia that has articles for neo-Nazis, it makes no sense to start worrying that "granting non-notable spreaders of disinformation any shred of legitimacy is detrimental to the project". Wikipedia weighs notability on the number of available sources, not on the coherency of a subjects views.IphisOfCrete (talk) 20:44, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:13, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cape Junction, Virginia[edit]

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

A rail junction, not a settlement. The ex-PRR line down the Delmarva Peninsula turns west to go to Cape Charles (the town), and another line was built which branched off from the junction and continued south towards Cape Charles (the cape), terminating at the former airfield east of Kiptopeke. This line is gone now, though amazingly there is still a carfloat at the dock in Cape Charles. Anyway, there are numerous GBook hits about the junction as such, and some more hits about it talking railroad history, but nothing else except the usual clickbait. Mangoe (talk) 16:32, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:34, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:08, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete GNIS does not alone show that somewhere is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:23, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable former rail junction. –dlthewave ☎ 04:26, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Topic doesn't look notable enough for a Wikipedia page. GiuliaZB (talk) 18:03, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:13, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Silver (artist)[edit]

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

Nonnotable, and found no presence on the web and there reference links attached look promotional. Tatupiplu'^talk 16:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Tatupiplu'^talk 16:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:02, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:03, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this undisclosed, paid-for spam. MER-C 18:45, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A fine example of WP:REFBOMBing: discard the gossip, the promo and the YouTube videos, and there's nothing at all left. (I read several times that he wows the ladies with his fashion sense, so it must be true.) Fails WP:GNG, WP:NBIO and WP:NMUSIC. One of a series of articles created by this now-blocked WP:UPE. Narky Blert (talk) 09:05, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear promotional spam. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:59, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete coverage is just promotional junk.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:56, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --MrClog (talk) 21:29, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 17:22, 11 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 speedy delete (G5, Çelebicihan). MER-C 16:13, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anka Tsitsishvili[edit]

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

Non-notable, and very little information about her on the internet. Tatupiplu'^talk 15:51, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tatupiplu'^talk 15:51, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:59, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:59, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:00, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:00, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:12, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What if all the Freshwater becomes Seawater?[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a web hosting service. Unfortunately not speedy deletable, so taking this to AfD. Java Hurricane 15:17, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete would have thought speedy deletable for being patent nonsense but whatever. Hughesdarren (talk) 15:21, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not patent nonsense because it's comprehensible, but it's an essay, and not a particularly high-quality one at that. Wikipedia is not a web host for your school papers. Hog Farm (talk) 15:26, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article seems to have been written by an elementary school student who didn't understand the topic they were writing about. The article says that if all freshwater became seawater, the advantages include "It will stop every water crisis at once" and the disadvantages include "more fish will appear". That's in addition to the issues of the article consisting of extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" and not being written in an encyclopedic style. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:54, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as WP:NOTESSAY. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:52, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:NOTESSAY. Catgirllover4ever (talk) 16:48, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Article author has been indeffed as WP:NOTHERE. -- Java Hurricane 06:55, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 18:49, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, and as WP:OR. Bearian (talk) 15:46, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete as Wikipedia is not for essays and as non-encyclopedic. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:07, 12 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 List of Marvel Comics characters: B. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 23:25, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Basilisk (comics)[edit]

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

Article fails to establish notability. Currently not a single source that shows anything in regards to notability for any of the three characters. TTN (talk) 14:37, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:37, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:37, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as it fails WP:GNG and WP:PLOT. The article is sourced entirely to primary sources, with the exception of a character encyclopedia that does nothing but affirm the date in which he first appeared in a comic, and therefore gives no indication of significant coverage. Even if it did provide significant coverage, one source is not enough to pass GNG. The character's name is too generic to be a redirect, and as the article consists entirely of in-universe material there is nothing to merge. A search brought up no good sources. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:32, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Restore merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: B. BOZ (talk) 00:13, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Boz. Merge back. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 16:46, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge what is referenced back to the list, seems reasoanble. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:57, 10 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) 23:25, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trumaker & Co.[edit]

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

I am not seeing coverage rising to the level of WP:ORGCRIT here. BD2412 T 17:42, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:01, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:01, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:SIGCOV in Fast Company, TechCrunch, and Bloomberg, all of which are WP:RS, means it passes GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:43, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:03, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further discussion of the mentioned sources is needed
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MrClog (talk) 14:36, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The provided references are a mix of start-up proposition descriptions, overviews of this and other start-ups in the sector, and funding announcements. This is a firm going about its business, but my searches are not finding the level of coverage required to demonstrate notability. AllyD (talk) 08:14, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion or yellow pages. References reflect the company's PR and Communications department. The Fast Company reference is based on information provided by the company and an interview with company execs, fails WP:ORGIND. The Muse reference is the same - journalist is invited to the "office" and writes an article pumping the company, fails WP:ORGIND. None of the TechCrunch reference are anything more than paid articles expounding the wonderfulness of the company, none are significant and none contain Independent Content, fail WP:ORGIND. Topic fails WP:NCORP/GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:56, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:12, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hafta[edit]

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

This article is nothing but a WP:DICDEF. Therefore, the content should be transwikied to Wiktionary. Soumyabrata ^{stay at home} _{wash your hands} ^{to protect from coronavirus} 13:56, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Soumyabrata ^{stay at home} _{wash your hands} ^{to protect from coronavirus} 13:56, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Classic DICDEF. Can't be expanded much. Bearian (talk) 15:47, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Since I was the one who PRODDED it before. Wikipedia is not Wiktionary. Gotitbro (talk) 03:18, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:12, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pascal Le Deunff[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, largely autobiographical, written like a resumé. Kleuske (talk) 13:14, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Kleuske (talk) 13:14, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Kleuske (talk) 13:14, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Kleuske (talk) 13:14, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ambassadors are not default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:59, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ambassadors are not deemed "inherently" notable just because they exist, but get articles only if they can be shown to clear WP:GNG on their sourceability. But of the six footnotes here, three are primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, two are glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage whose primary subject is something or someone other than him, and one is a Q&A interview in which he's talking about himself in the first person — which means that exactly zero of them are helping to get him over GNG. Bearcat (talk) 18:29, 6 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 redirect to The Goop Lab as an WP:ATD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:25, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elise Loehnen[edit]

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

Employee of Gwenyth Paltrow. Fails GNG. Not prodded due to ARSe. Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 12:39, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:42, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:47, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:47, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only coverage I could find are blogs and interviews. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 13:06, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - subject of article clearly meets WP:GNG and WP:BIO. She's avoided interview and coverage for years but a few months ago, she became the co host of the new Netflix show "Goop Lab". There is now significant coverage in verifiable reliable secondary sources feature her in articles, for example: Rolling Stone [23], Netflix [24], Wall Street Journal [25], Forbes [26] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lola01vip (talk • contribs) 22:13, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Rolling Stone article is about the TV show, rather than about Loehnen: the Netflix link is just the page for the show: the Wall Street Journal is paywalled so I can only view the first six lines, but it appears to be a "day in the life" interview so is not independent of the subject: and the Forbes article is also an interview, about her role in the TV show. I can't find any coverage about her as an individual, merely mentions of her in relation to her appearance in the Netflix documentary. Redirect to The Goop Lab. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 14:36, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businesswoman. The above analysis shows we do not have enough sourcing to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:38, 6 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) Atlantic306 (talk) 23:43, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sleeping Partner (2020 film)[edit]

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

The subject is about a non notable short film which do not comply with the notability criteria. Abishe (talk) 03:03, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 03:03, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 03:03, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sleeping Partner was produced by Oscar-winning producer Guneet Monga. It starred famous indian actors such as Divya Dutta and Anil Kapoor's brother Sanjay Kapoor. I believe the subject meets the notability requirements.-Siraj1989 (talk) 16:31, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:19, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The film stars and was directed by notable people and hence passes WP:NFOE. A Google search of the subject shows the subject being discussed in various third-party sources. It needs expanding rather than deleting. I'd say tag it to say it needs better sourcing.Vk38584 (talk) 16:15, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability. The subject lacks significant coverage in reliable sources and fails to meet WP:NFILM and WP:NFOE. GSS ^💬 09:28, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It's unclear if independent reliable sources exist. Vk38584 has asserted they do, but is requested to specify which sources they have found.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MrClog (talk) 11:43, 4 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:41, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Costello (actor)[edit]

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

Non notable actor, only using IMDB as an unreliable source. No evidence of independent secondary sources. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 10:51, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 10:51, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 10:51, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 10:51, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 10:51, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 10:51, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 10:51, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. I could not find evidence of significant coverage either. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:33, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete way too many one episode appearances in TV. It is time that Wikipedia stop being an IMDb mirror.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:52, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Many bit parts, but no substantive coverage to support a WP:BLP. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:40, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Weak Keep: I'm voting "Keep" on the basis of several newspaper.com hits which may well amount to WP:SIGCOV. I have applied at WP:RX to have them clipped and will provide them here as soon as possible. Dflaw4 (talk) 02:03, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here are the articles: here, here, here, here, here, and here. I think they meet WP:SIGCOV. Dflaw4 (talk) 13:28, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All of those hits are from the Austin American-Statesman; according to the coverage in the first article, Austin is the subject's hometown. This is a double failure of significant coverage: first, per the GNG, Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability, and second, it fails WP:AUD as all the publications are local to the subject and therefore do not indicate significant attention by the world at large, as required by WP:N. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:06, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, PMC, I didn't realise that. I will downgrade my vote to a "Weak Keep" accordingly. Dflaw4 (talk) 05:01, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Following PMC's comments, I am downgrading my vote. Dflaw4 (talk) 05:01, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per my comment above. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:06, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @PMC: WP:AUD only applies to companies and organisations, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:14, 13 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. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:31, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Long (actor)[edit]

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

Non notable actor, seems to have a list of minor roles. Only source is IMDB. Extensive online search shows nothing, even when cross checked with some of his credits. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 10:39, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 10:39, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 10:39, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 10:39, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 10:39, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 10:39, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Cardiffbear88. FYI: Not sure how extensive you looked but this and this, both non trivial, were very easy to find. There are also more, although a lot of mentions, eg, here (note: a lot of these are for Michael Long (footballer)). Not sure though that it is enough to demonstrate notability, but if I could find these on my first search then other editors might be able to do better. Regards. Aoziwe (talk) 13:13, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I did an extensive search using several search terms as per WP:BEFORE. As you know that doesn’t cover everything. But I’m glad you could find other sources. I’ll leave it up to other editors whether these are deemed notable. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 14:24, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The subject was a well-known Australian actor during the 1980s and '90s. WP:NACTOR is established, thanks to his long-running role in the extremely popular soap opera, Sons and Daughters (Australian TV series), as well as his numerous recurring roles in other notable TV series. The first source provided by Aoziwe is very in-depth. Here is another source, the subject's obituary: https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/120244758/. Since it may be difficult to view, I'll also reproduce the obituary text here:

"Michael Long 1947-1991 The actor Michael Long died in Sydney of lung cancer on Wednesday, aged 43. In recent years he specialised in voice work but during his career he played numerous stage roles ranging from light comedy to Shakespeare, for many of Australia's leading theatre companies. His most recent stage appearances were as the Duke of York in Crown Matrimonial at the Sydney Opera House and as Peter in David Williamson's The Departmental the Northside Theatre. Michael Merrick Long was born on October 11, 1947. He played guest roles in many TV series from Homicide and Boney in the 1960s to Mission Impossihlelast year. He also had roles in a number of soap operas including Sons and Daughters (he played Steven Morell). Film roles included parts in Squizzv Taylor, Chain Reaction, Now and Forever, Careful He Might Hear You and Dead Calm. Long s was the anonymous voice behind many TV and radio commercials, documentaries and corporate videos. His career as a voice-over specialist began with the ABC and eventually it became his main work. He continued to work in this field when his illness was diagnosed late last year and did so until a few weeks before his death. He is survived by his wife, Carolyn. His funeral will be at 11.50 am on Monday at Northern Suburbs Crematorium."

I'm sure there is more coverage out there, but I think there's enough here to merit a "Keep" vote, at any rate. Dflaw4 (talk) 13:24, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Based on what I found, and the above, I am now going for keep but still weak at this time. If any more is found I will probably drop the "weak". Aoziwe (talk) 15:28, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per above. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 17:46, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seems to be sufficient information found above. --Scott Davis ^Talk 06:54, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the references listed above, and an infobox, to the article.Considering there are articles in two other languages, it would seem odd to not have an English language article. --Scott Davis ^Talk 07:24, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I would like more but I think is just enough to keep. Aoziwe (talk) 07:29, 12 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) Atlantic306 (talk) 00:08, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Curtis Brown[edit]

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

Non notable actor. No evidence of sources that could improve this article. Article is a mirror of IMDB, and is also the article’s only (unreliable) source. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 10:12, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 10:12, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 10:12, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 10:12, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 10:12, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 10:12, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 10:12, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:20, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:21, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even close to enough sourcing to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:12, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While he's not a big name actor, he has had some notable roles, plus a prolific theater career as well, where he's received favorable notices, see source #1. Apparently, he won a Drama-Logue Award for The Heidi Chronicles also, but still trying to find a RS for that. There are also multiple instances of him getting significant coverage in newspapers, so meets the GNG in my view. 1, 2, 3 GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 00:10, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The subject's 56-episode stint in Search for Tomorrow, his recurring roles in various TV series and his film appearances are sufficient for the purposes of WP:NACTOR. The sources that GoldenAgeFan1 has located demonstrate that WP:GNG is met, too. There are also countless passing mentions in reliable news outlets like Variety and New York Times. With some work, this could be a very well-sourced article. Dflaw4 (talk) 12:32, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject passes WP:GNG with the multiple WP:SIGCOV sources which are mentioned by GoldenAgeFan1. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:01, 9 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) 10:08, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Terry O'Brien[edit]

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

Bio states he finished second in a local election, so fails WP:POL. I don't know if the other claim of "reviously the President of Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago" is enough to establish the notability of this person. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:47, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable politician with only local news coverage. Jmertel23 (talk) 15:53, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable local politician. The fact that this article has lasted 10 years is a sign we need better article creation control.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:30, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being president of a water conservation district could get him into Wikipedia if he could be shown to clear WP:GNG on the sources — but it isn't an "inherently" notable role that guarantees him an article just because he had a job, being an unsuccessful candidate for elected office isn't a notability freebie either, and this article is referenced nowhere close to well enough to get him over GNG. Bearcat (talk) 18:31, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Holds an non-notable post with routine coverage. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 10:26, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails all forms of notability WP:N, WP:POL, WP:ANYBIO and WP:POL.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:19, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above, and WP:TNT. Why was this stub created? Bearian (talk) 15:51, 9 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. bibliomaniac 1 5 05:27, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Gospel Music Association[edit]

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

The companies article has been around since 2004, seems to have lacked any sourcing since then, and nothing except routine coverage comes up in a search. Therefore, it fails WP:NCORP due to being a run of the mill, none notable organization. Adamant1 (talk) 09:05, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:06, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:06, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:06, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:06, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:09, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Isn't a company, but a non-profit organization promoting the Southern Gospel music genre. This is a pretty simple WP:RESCUE; nothing unusual about the size of this article, either. Nate • (chatter) 01:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At the end I said organization and the notability guidelines in WP:NCORP are the same for organizations and companies anyway. So whatever you want to call it, it doesn't really matter. I don't know what your talking about or how me miss typing something is relevant at all. Sure though, lets keep an article because the person doing the AfD typed in the wrong word, because that's how things work here. Right. Also, how exactly is this a "pretty simple WP:RESCUE? I said there are no none trivial, reliable, in depth sources out there. So, there's nothing to rescue it with. I'd love for you to find some though. If you can't, you should change your vote. You really should anyway since it was partly based on the totally trash reason that the article should be kept because I miss typed something. I didn't say anything about the size of the article in the AfD either. It's almost like you didn't even read it except to nitpick a word. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:15, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The notability for this one is unclear. Definitely needs sources to cite, however, I'm not sure what there is in the way of significant coverage. I'm only finding trivial mentions.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:26, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After additional searching, nearly all sources that actually discuss the association talk about its founding and how the earlier organization of the same name got absorbed by the GMA. Not really seeing anything standout here.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:36, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've mentioned the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christian music. Also, pinging Walter Görlitz.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:43, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I see it getting a lot of passing mentions in articles about others. The Southern Gospel Music Association Hall of Fame gets better coverage, but I'm not sure if this notability can be inherited. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:48, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep or Userfy - given the expansion that has happened at Gospel Music Association since its disastrous AFD, I see similar potential in expanding this article, particularly regarding its leadershipship. Notability isn't inherited; its also not based on the state of the article at the time of an AfD, but rather the topic itself. This one's not as obvious as with the GMA, but I do believe it is a notable topic per WP:GNG, if only just barely. (I'm not familiar with the topic at all, so have no desire to host a userfied form. Hopefully someone who is familiar with it will also see its potential.) BilCat (talk) 21:57, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the added reliable sources book sources that have significantly improved the article, such that deletion is no longer necessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:16, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the new content added by BilCat. The two references that are immediately accessible via Google Books — Close Harmony: A History of Southern Gospel and Continuum Encyclopedia of Popular Music of the World Volume 8 — have direct coverage of the SGMA. I don't have immediate access to the other encyclopedias cited, but AGF suggests that collectively these demonstrate notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 22:37, 11 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:37, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jamiatul Qasim Darul Uloom Al-Islamiah[edit]

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

Non notable Islamist seminary in India. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 11:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 11:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 11:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject is notable. Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 13:30, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep poor referencing. — Hammad (Talk!) 14:58, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Any educational institution (which includes seminaries) with 4500 students is clearly notable. -- llywrch (talk) 22:47, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is the complete list of AMU-recognized schools eligible to create or keep an article on English Wikipedia? ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 00:50, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG lacks independent sources and even lacks even a single indepth reference other than University propectus which merely state that this is one of the Madarassa recognised for admission to certain courses in AMU and Jamia Millia .Please note in India with over a Billion people there are hundreds of schools which have over 1000 students and operate in two shifts .Now a student out of the Millions studying in any school in India which is affliated to the Central Board of Secondary Education or any of Indian State Board and passing 12th standard is eligible for admission in any college and University not merely AMU and Jamia Millia .If this logic is extended then every school affilated is notable .Mere affilation and eligibility is not notable.Apart from this in a search could find a piece in the Swarajya which is not WP:RS and blacklisted here hence cannot add the link.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
http://twocircles.in/2008feb29/muslims_share_politics_not_possible_without_unity_mufti_usmani.html	activist site	Further it is about a different topic comments made by the Mufti Mahfoozur Rahman Usmani, secretary general of Imam Qasim Islamic Educational Trust :	Even the institution's name is not mentioned in the Ref fails WP:GNG	✘ No
http://jmicoe.in/pdf19/FINAL_JMI_PROSPECTUS_2020_NEW.pdf	Yes	Reliable,Jamia Milla Islamia University Prospectus for 2020-21 but it is mainly about a different subject a prospectus for the courses.	This is a Prospectus about courses in Jamia Millia Islamia Prospectus 2020 fails WP:GNG	✘ No
https://www.amu.ac.in/newtenders/8269.pdf	Yes	Reliable AMU Offcie Memo, but it is mainly about a different lists the Madarassa recognised for admission in AMU.	This is about a list of Madarassa recognised for admission to certain courses fails WP:GNG.	✘ No
http://results.amucontrollerexams.com/courses/faculties/guides/Guide-2020-21.pdf	Yes	Reliable ,Guide to Admissions 2020-21 in Aligarh Muslim University but it is mainly about a different subject just a a prospectus.	Prospectus for 2020-2021 in Aligarh Muslim University.Fails WP:GNG	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:07, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Urdu language sources

REF 1 in article جامعۃ القاسم دارالعلوم الاسلامیہ نئے تعلیمی سال کا آغاز

Translation of REF 1 Is about this Instition states when its academic year states

REF 5 in article بخشتے ہوئے جامعہ ملیہ اسلامیہ میں شعبہ اسلامیات کے صدر پروفیسر اقتدار احمد خان ،ودیگر (تصویر:پرویز صدیقی

Translation of REF 5 Very brief States Shams Tabriz Qasami, Editor of Millat Times honoured someone in a event organised by this institution note the source is Millat Times fails WP:GNG

REF 6 in article:نتیش نے کمار نے مسلم فوجی کی شہادت کو نظر انداز کردیا:تیجسوی یادو

Translation of REF 6 about a different topic Translation states Tejashwi Yadav is accusing Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar of ignoring the the martyrdom of a Muslim soldier. Fails WP:GNG

REF 7 in article:ایران و سعودی عرب دونوں اسلام کی مشترکہ قیادت کریں:پروفیسراختر الواسع Please see translation.

Translation of REF 7 Different Topic Article is about Prof Akhtar of Maulana Azad University Jodhpur and Jamia Millia Islamia saying Iran and Saudi Arabia should jointly lead Islam Only one line about the subject , Sheikh Haram Madni Syed Hamid bin Akram al-Bukhari about praying in the in Jamaat-ul-Qasim Dar-ul-Ulum-ul-Islamia fails WP:GNG

Out of all the references only one is about the subject the first one which merely states briefly when the academic year starts clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:13, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pharaoh of the Wizards There is a difference between a school and madrassa if we look at a broad ground. The almiyyah degree of some madrassas is not even valid to take admission in any graduation course of any University, leave the Jamia or Aligarh University. The madrassa's whose almiyyah degrees are anyway accepted in Universities are notable as compared to the madrassa's whose degree is not valid for admission to any University. Anyways, I have added a number of citations and references to the article, and make it somehow look notable. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 23:18, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:20, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am persuaded by the 'Keepers' arguments above. Ngrewal1 (talk) 22:33, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have added more references proving that the seminary is notable, and its founder is notable for his services, for this he was honorary awarded with the doctorate degree.(1 and 2) He has been in Aligarh Muslim University news, more than that, the seminary is regarded as one of the notable seminaries of Bihar as per one reference. Seminary acts as a center for National Council for Promotion of Urdu Language and I have referenced it from Urdu council official website. Notable scholars like Ahmad Bukhari, Muhammad Salim Qasmi etc have been connected as per few references I have added on the article. The seminary has published a number of publications including the one about notable hadith scholar Muhammad Younus Jaunpuri. The subject anyway passes WP:GNG.-- Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 14:43, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a book which was released in the Ansari Auditorium of Jamia Millia Islamia on the 30 year history of Jamiatul Qasim. Moreover, Monday, April 16, 2018, Inquilab, New Delhi, page no. 8 has a detailed data about Jamiatul Qasim, titled Jamiatul Qasim Mashaheer Ki Nazar Mai. It is enough for WP:GNG. Jamiatul Qasim was patronized by notable scholars like Muhammad Salim Qasmi --Finding more resources Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 00:56, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:32, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep enough sources for demonstrating the notability has been provided above and in the article. This looks to me as if the user starting the discussion did not do enough searching. This unnecessary discussion is a big waste of everyone's time. Cedix (talk) 11:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, having added the relevant references to the article, I stand clear at my point. Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 22:17, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep enough citations available--Irshadpp (talk) 06:50, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No policy based reason to keep this article.It is clear WP:PNSD.The article lacks even one reliable ,independent source.One needs to be Don Quixote to think otherwise.82.43.211.113 (talk) 14:37, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @AaqibAnjum: a gentle reminder that you !voted keep already, best to strike one of your !votes. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 19:44, 9 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 without prejudice to renomination (whether as a bundle or individually). Barkeep49 (talk) 02:35, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stade Léon Mahé[edit]

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

Four small "stadiums" (actually, three small football pitches and one local sports centre) with capacity from 150 to 500 people. Basically, the kind of pitch nearly every village in the world has for one or more sports, be it soccer, cricket, baseball, ... This nom does explicitly not include the Stade John Girardin, which, small as it is, is the "national" stadium for Saint-Pierre et Miquelon.

Also included in this nomination are:

. Fram (talk) 14:44, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:44, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:44, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for Stade Léonce Claireaux, Stade de l'Avenir, and Centre Culturel et Sportif-Sports Venue Notability is quite clear. The first two stadiums host a semi-professional/amateur team from the top division in a territory that does not have a fully professional league. The Centre Culture et Sportif is home to all teams in the territory's highest futsal league which also meets the requirement--Gri3720 (talk) 18:57, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep-Stade Léon Mahé because it only hosts the youth matches of A.S. Ilienne Amateur but has hosted top flight matches in the women's league.--Gri3720 (talk) 19:05, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Saint-Pierre, Saint Pierre and Miquelon. BD2412 T 22:29, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read Sports Venue Notability? Also, if we were going to just merge anything, it would make more sense to merge with the clubs, not the whole territory’s article.--Gri3720 (talk) 00:56, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is an essay, not an accepted notability guideline, and with good reason, since it claims notability for very minor stadiums like these ones just because they are in a small country (well, territory). A stadium with only room for a few hundred people does not support a "semi-professional" team, it is the location for amateur teams. Nothing wrong with that, but not something we should have on enwiki. Notability can be demonstrated by reliable, independent sources with non-routine coverage about the stadium, not by quoting some essay. Fram (talk) 07:56, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would not prefer to merge these to the clubs, since stadiums are buildings and can end up being used in ways distinct from specific organizations. BD2412 T 18:28, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:09, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:38, 4 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. Pretty clear from the source provided that it isn't a village, but a school, so is not granted presumptive notability per WP:GEOLAND, and fails WP:GNG. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:33, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Phugmoche[edit]

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

According to the article itself, the village lies in Solududhkunda municipality, which is the lowest legally recognised administrative division. Solududhkunda is composed/comprised of a number of Village Development Committees, the previously legally recognised lowest level of administration. Phugmoche isn't in that list either. That means it needs to meet WP:GNG which it doesn't. The only source provided is "About" of an eponymous school. Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:55, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:55, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:55, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: In the WP:NPP flow chart, does the article contain at least 2 independent reliable sources with significant coverage? No. Claim of significance? No. The following searches: news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR; do not come up with reliable sources. Meets notability criteria for geographic places? No. Not useful at all. Stub article that nobody would search up. It's also a walled garden article. I'll do cleanup on the article if this AfD is ruled keep/no delete. ((SUBST:replyto|Can I Log In))^{PLEASE copy and paste the code to reply}(Talk) 05:42, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:17, 4 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. There is not agreement about whether this was a landing or inhabited place and thus no consensus about notability. No prejudice to a re-nomination. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:34, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pushmataha Landing, Mississippi[edit]

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

It's a landing spot on the river topo but source provided and others [27] do not corroborate claim it's a community, less a notable one, just that it's a...landing. Reywas92^Talk 21:06, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 21:06, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 21:06, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a notable place per WP:GEOLAND. Lightburst (talk) 02:51, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The map is peppered with "landings", there's no sign that this one is a community. GNIS, for what it's worth, lists it under the infamous "populated place" catch-all. –dlthewave ☎ 03:42, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The Congressional Record from 1921 refers to Pushmataha Landing, Mississippi, and Pushmataha, Alabama, as "two thriving little towns of splendid progressive people". Pushmataha Landing was located directly on a bend in the Mississippi River until 1942, when the US Army Corps of Engineers cut a more direct route for the river and turned the bend into an oxbow lake called DeSoto Lake, thus removing all commercial traffic from the bend. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:29, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- This calls Pushmataha Landing a landing, though this calls just "Pushmataha" the name of a post office, though distinctly not the name of a "post-hamlet". This mentions a Pushmataha area.
Keep - Site of an 1882 levee break, according to the Boston Globe of 3/11/82, p. 5. The article mentions the estates of three plantation owners that were flooded in the incident. Inhabited place. Carrite (talk) 06:46, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the clipping. Here's one from later that year seeking worker on this landing and several others. Yes, lots of people did live in this area. See the dozens and dozens of plantations in this 1872 map and this 1904 map that marks the landing in the bottom left, but do not show this as the name of a notable community, but along with several other river landings. Reywas92^Talk 20:01, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 03:12, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:10, 4 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:59, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tafseer-e-Quadri[edit]

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

It exists, but I couldn't establish that it meets WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 07:18, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:30, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:31, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 03:15, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:09, 4 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. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:05, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

St. Emlyn's[edit]

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

Unable to locate any WP:RS in a Google News search. Warrants AFD consideration. Dorama285 (talk) 18:46, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Dorama285 (talk) 18:46, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Dorama285 (talk) 18:46, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Dorama285 (talk) 18:46, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Postgraduate Medical Journal is a perfectly respectable source. Rathfelder (talk) 13:48, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:57, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:03, 4 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) 03:57, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Lakshmi Ganapathi Temple and Hindu Cultural Center of Ohio[edit]

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

This Hindu temple may not meet WP:ORGCRITE or WP:GNG. Biscuit3413(talk) 16:25, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Biscuit3413(talk) 16:25, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Biscuit3413(talk) 16:25, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per sources on article as well as this one. Rzvas (talk) 07:12, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The sources used in the article are unreliable and the one you posted here is just a passing mention. --KartikeyaS (talk) 06:58, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ORGCRITE. --KartikeyaS (talk) 06:57, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:50, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article does not include any claims that would make this organisation notable. Cheers, 1292simon (talk)
Delete I agree with the users above that Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) #Primary criteria is not met by the subject. The article does not include any claims that would make this organisation notable. The link posted by a user above is covering Hinduism with a passing mention of the subject. Neither the criteria of "significant" nor the case of "multiple" sources is met here. --Cedix (talk) 09:00, 6 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. Consensus is that this musical duo meets Wikipedia's notability standards, and for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:37, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reyko[edit]

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

Run-of-the-mill musical duo who does not satisfy any of the list of criteria at musical notability and does not satisfy general notability. Draft:Reyko was submitted and declined four times. Submitter then created article in article space, which is their privilege but is usually a recognition that it won't get through review. Google search shows that they exist, and shows their advertising that describes them as "rising", which is the same as up-and-coming or too soon. Google search also shows an article in the Spanish Wikipedia, which has different standards than the English Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:33, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:33, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:33, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:33, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen your nomination to delete the article so I have checked the criteria for notability in music and the band Reyko meets the following:
Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart

Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country

Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc.

Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network

Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network Please, reconsider. But also, please, feel free to improve the article or give me any advice? Thank you!
--Bluevespa8 (talk) 18:26, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

This was copied from my talk page and should be treated as a Keep Robert McClenon (talk) 18:51, 24 March 2020 (UTC):[reply]

Also, you could note that the article was substantially rewritten, in terms of sourcing at least, before I posted outside of the draft area --Bluevespa8 (talk) 19:16, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, they have significant coverage in multiple major Spanish newspapers, and a charting single. (Have formatted some of the paragraphs above) – Thjarkur (talk) 20:04, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Thank you, User:Þjarkur. I didn't mean to cause confusion by copying the author's comment from my talk page. Maybe I was trying too hard to help a newbie. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:08, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is a well-written and well-sourced article; I don't understand what triggered the deletion. They've been around for five years, there's significant coverage, and one of their songs is being used as the theme song for a Netflix show. I think they've arrived. :) — Toughpigs (talk) 00:00, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:50, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep References support that it passes WP:NMUSICIAN. Cheers, 1292simon (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 10:08, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RED-C Institute of Engineering & Technology[edit]

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

Non-notable college. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 11:43, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:52, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:52, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:52, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:22, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:31, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent sources, currently reads like an advertisement. Cheers, 1292simon (talk)
Delete Nothing to write an article with, and nothing suggests an article is necessary. XOR'easter (talk) 23:36, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This appears to be a college offering short vocational training courses. I removed much of the text, which was copied from their website, so the article is no longer promotional in tone, but searches are not locating evidence of WP:NCORP / WP:GNG notability. AllyD (talk) 18:03, 6 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) 03:55, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Veena Nair[edit]

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

Non-notable person, fails WP:BASIC. Her acting works are all trivial background roles, and no coverage for the dancer, comedian, and TV presenter descriptions. Article is cited with interviews, which are WP:PRIMARY sources and the remaining are non-RS references. 137.97.89.139 (talk) 13:22, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination on behalf of IP. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:19, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:19, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:19, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:22, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:22, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:22, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per IP user. Additionally searching for sources only revealed interviews regarding her time as a contestant in Bigg Boss Malayalam. Same for non-English sources (used Google Translate). SerChevalerie (talk) 19:33, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:28, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. Cheers, 1292simon (talk)
Delete per nom. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 17:33, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For further research purposes: her name seems to be “വീണ നായർ" in Malayalam. She might meet WP:ENT for having a "large fan base or a significant "cult" following" in India (from her participation on Bigg Boss Malayalam), but I'm not sure what's considered "large" for that criteria. The Google News hits for her name in Malayalam seem considerable. Also, this source says that she's well-known on Tik Tok, and has 371,400 followers on the platform. Outside of Bigg Boss, she seems to have had a role in the movie Vellimoonga and a main character role in Akkamma Stalinum Pathrose Gandhiyum, and seems to be a recurring character in Thatteem Mutteem. But I'm not sure if that's enough to meet criteria #1 in WP:ENT either. - Whisperjanes (talk) 23:25, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Whisperjanes (talk) 23:25, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.78.154.74 (talk) 22:53, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep but needs to be majorly cleaned up. I wrote a comment above, but on further thought, I think she probably just barely passes notability with WP:ENT because of her roles and/or her fan-following, unless more reliable sources can be found that talk about her acting roles. - Whisperjanes (talk) 00:01, 11 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) 10:12, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mu-onna[edit]

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

Unsourced for almost a decade now Orange Mike | Talk 06:26, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:11, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:11, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only sources I can find are mentioning this as a demon character from Inuyasha, so I think the article is mistaken and assumed the character was an actual type of Japanese demon. Either way, there doesn't seem to be enough sources out there for this to be considered notable enough to have its own article or even be merged to List of Inuyasha characters. - Whisperjanes (talk) 20:48, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:34, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:34, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:34, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I tried researching Japanese articles about "mu-onna" and only found mentions of InuYasha. It doesn't seem like it's a demon in Japanese folklore. lullabying (talk) 06:08, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears more fancruft than actual mythology._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:07, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It appears to be based solely on a manga series and is unsourced.IphisOfCrete (talk) 20:33, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No ja interwiki is a bad sign (hoax?). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:56, 10 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. A redirect can be discussed separately. Sandstein 06:44, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Left Front (India)[edit]

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

This article is disputed for some time. I created the article back in 2004, believing at the time that there was such an entity. But at closer examination, effectively no such coalition exists or existed. Rather the Left Front (West Bengal) and Left Front (Tripura) are separate entities, with no organic bond between them, and there is no corresponding coalition at the national level. I cannot find any solid evidence at any nation-wide left coalition ever existed. The Communist Party of India (Marxist), the main left party in the country, itself states that "only in West Bengal, Kerala and Tripura was there any advance towards rallying the Left and democratic forces and this had already taken place at the time of the 10th Congress held in 1978." ([28])

That said, it is a common feature in Indian journalism to conflate the WB Left Front and whatever coordination efforts that would have existed at Delhi level (there have been temporary common postures). Especially in the 2004-2009 period there was a closer collaboration between the parliamentary left parties on policy issues, and the leftist parliamentary bloc was often referred to as 'Left Front'. I began working on an article, UPA-Left Coordination Committee‎, that deals with that experience specifically. For me, I feel Wikipedia should not reproduce factual errors and misconceptions. Soman (talk) 23:44, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's true that there is no "Left Front" entity on the national level. The name is more of an umbrella term for the various "Left Fronts" active in several of the states of India. It's simply a name for political phenomenon that I think could still be considered article-worthy and if not, at least worthy of a section in the "Socialism in India" article. Charles Essie (talk) 06:26, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:48, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:49, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:49, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Convert to disambiguation page? --Goldsztajn (talk) 09:06, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment; the CPM, CPI, AIFB and RSP have consistently contested national elections from 1980 to 2014 under a pre-poll coalition. That includes in states other than West Bengal, they just won seats in West Bengal consistently and had a state government there. The RSP joined the UPA coalition in the 2014 election and remained part of it in the 2019 election, the rest three along with others have kept on contesting as part of a single coalition. How is there lack of evidence of any Left Front on a national level? They have only associated with a government between 2004-2009 where it supported the UPA which led to the formation of a coordination committee, that isn't the scope of this article. It doesn't seem be a misconception by Indian journalists to refer to a national Left Front in national politics. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 06:52, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment', you write "CPM, CPI, AIFB and RSP have consistently contested national elections from 1980 to 2014 under a pre-poll coalition" - no, this is precisely what never happened. There was never a joint election campaign or seat-sharing arrangement of these 4 parties on national level. These parties have consistent contested elections jointly in West Bengal during these years, in the framework of the Left Front (West Bengal). In the rest of the country there have been different constellations, varying over time. --Soman (talk) 11:42, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Topic is covered by Left Front (West Bengal) and Left Front (Tripura) articles, and there is no evidence of a national level "Left Front" being notable. Cheers, 1292simon (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:22, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Left Front already disambiguates to Left Front (West Bengal) and Left Front (Tripura). --MarioGom (talk) 10:23, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Soman, that isn't entirely true. While the Left Front parties do tend to ally with other parties as well locally, what constitutes these other parties changes over time but the mentioned Left Front parties remain the same. The core parties themselves have consistently contested together in all states (that they do contest in) through a seat sharing agreement. There are also multiple reliable sources (and not just from journalists) which mention Left Front excluding just West Bengal and Tripura, which you are calling a misconception but I do not see how that is so and that might constitutes as original research(?) unless you have a source which does state that such a misconception exists. The citations provided in the article in its current state themselves should qualify it for WP:GNG, it needs improvement not deletion. There may be regional nuances with regards to their position which can be highlighted in the article. Regardlessly just to clarify on beginning point, in the 2019 election:

The Left Front (CPI and CPM) contested in an alliance with DMK-INC-Others in Tamil Nadu.^[1] AIFB did not contest seats in Tamil Nadu.^[2]
The Left Front (CPI and CPM) contested in an alliance together while supporting two independents in Kerala.^[3] AIFB did not contest seats in Kerala.^[2]
If you were to go through the candidates list of all the three parties. CPIM,^[4]^[5] CPI^[6]^[7] and AIFB.^[2] You will find that there is no overlap at all. All this is in support of the references that are already provided in the article. They do not always find sustained media coverage in states where the parties are more marginal but regardless we do have enough reliable sources which mention the Left Front with a national scope. I have presented some more here.^[8]^[9]^[10] As for notability of the alliance on the national scale. Any coalition that attains representation in the Parliament will pass notability by virtue of the fact that even lone members of Parliament are considered notable.

References

Comment, I think this is precisely why we need the AfD. There is, and I've mentioned it above as well, a persistent misconception to equate all left politics in India as 'Left Front', and I think Wikipedia shouldn't further that misconception. A few points;

https://www.rediff.com/election/2004/may/14espec1.htm says the Left Front consists of CPI(M), CPI, RSP and AIFB. I'd say the author is wrong. But it should also be noted that around this time, there was a pretty strong coordination of the 4 parties in Delhi politics, an experience best described in the article UPA-Left Coordination Committee‎ which describes the actual framework for left collaboration at Delhi level during UPA I govt.
https://www.sundayguardianlive.com/opinion/left-front-broaden-stir-centre-caa-npr merely uses the term 'Kerala Left Front' rather than 'Left Democratic Front'. That's just plain incorrect.
https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/election-results-2019-with-only-5-lok-sabha-seats-left-front-hits-historic-low-2042590 is problematic, in that it talks about the 'Left Front' hitting its lowest marks since 1952, considering that the concept of Left Front politics emerged only from the CPI(M) congress in 1977. It shows the conflation of the terms 'Left' in general and 'Left Front'.
Using 2019 as starting point for the comparison isn't very helpful, as the lack of contests between these 4 parties is also due to general reduction of Lok Sabha seats contested. I'll try to explain more in detail further on.
Tamil Nadu, which elected 4 out of 5 communist Lok Sabha MPs in 2019, is a good example on the non-existence of a national Left Front alliance. CPI and CPI(M) negotiate alliances with the 2 major parties, switching from time to time between DMK and AIADMK, and become minor (but not unimportant) members of regional coalitions. The Forward Bloc has a long history of animosity with the communists in Tamil Nadu. Notably Tamil Nadu has been the second-strongest state for Forward Bloc for decades. --Soman (talk) 20:19, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kerala has the LDF, which is an alliance of leftwing and non-leftwing parties. AIFB and RSP are not members of LDF. In fact AIFB opposes LDF because it isn't a Left Front. --Soman (talk) 20:19, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the 2019 Indian general election and these 4 parties (only counting candidates contesting on party symbol, not independents supported by the left) [29];

State	AIFB	CPI	CPI(M)	RSP	Summary on the seats contested	Commentary on alliances
Andhra Pradesh	2	2	2		No overlap	CPI, CPI(M), Jana Sena and Bahujan Samaj Party contested in seat-sharing alliance.^[1] AIFB not part of that alliance.
Arunachal Pradesh	1				Only 1 party contending
Assam	3	2	2		Competion: AIFB and CPI contesting against each other in Jorhat. CPI and CPI(M) contesting against each other in Lakhmipur
Bihar	4	2	1		No overlap	Both CPI and CPI(M) negotiated to have candidates in Mahagathbandhan, but didn't get any seat allocated. CPI(ML) Liberation, however, got one candidate as part of Mahagathbandhan seat-sharing.^[2] CPI(ML)L declared it would support CPI and CPI(M) candidates.^[3] No alliance with AIFB.
Chhattisgarh	1	1			No overlap
Gujarat		1			Only 1 party contending
Haryana	2	1	1		No overlap
Himachal Pradesh	3		1		Competion: AIFB and CPI(M) compete against each other in Mandi
Jammu and Kashmir	1				Only 1 party contending
Jharkhand	4	3	1		Competion: AIFB and CPI contest against each other in Hazaribagh. AIFB and CPI(M) contest against each other in Rajmahal.	This article [30] comments on plans for CPI, CPI(M) and CPI(ML)L (and possibly MCC) contesting in seat-sharing agreement. On one hand the article mentions 'Left Front', on the other hand it says "Bakshi termed the terminology 'gathbandhan' as wrong because "there is no common agenda among the parties and it is (just) a seat sharing formula.", so it isn't very consequent on the issue of the existence of a LF in the state. At 2018 Bakshi stated that forming a left-democratic front in Jharkhand was an objective (i.e. no such front existed at that time...)^[4]
Karnataka		1	1		No overlap
Kerala		4	14	1	Competion: CPI(M) and RSP contest against each other in Kollam.	CPI(M) and CPI in LDF, RSP in UDF. AIFB not part of LDF^[5]^[6] AIFB joined UDF in 2017^[7]
Lakshadweep		1	1		Competion: CPI(M) and CPI contest against each other
Madhya Pradesh	2	4	1		No overlap
Maharashtra		2	1		No overlap	CPI(M) discussed seat-sharing agreement with NCP (did not materialize).^[8]^[9]
Manipur		1			Only 1 party contending
NCT of Delhi	1				Only 1 party contending
Odisha	2	1	1		Competion: CPI and AIFB contest against each other in Aska	In February, CPI indicates that Congress, JMM, CPI, CPI(M) in talks over seat-sharing.^[10] "In Odisha, where assembly elections are likely to be held along with Lok Sabha polls, the CPI(M) will contest the Bhubaneswar Lok Sabha seat and a few assembly seats including, its sitting seat Bonnai. Calling upon the people of Odisha to defeat the BJP, Yechuri said, "The CPI(M), along with other Left forces, will be working out the details particularly in the background of various struggles it has launched against the state government."^[11]
Punjab		2	1	1	No overlap
Rajasthan		3	3		No overlap	For the 2018 assembly election: "Seven political parties, including the Communist Party of India (Marxist), have decided to come together to contest the upcoming assembly elections in Rajasthan under the banner of 'Rajasthan Loktantrik Morcha'. Besides the CPI(M), the other parties in the coalition are Communist Party of India, the Akhilesh Yadav-led Samajwadi Party, HD Deve Gowda's Janata Dal (Secular), the Ajit Singh-led Rashtriya Lok Dal, the Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) and the Marxist Communist Party of India."^[12]
Tamil Nadu		2	2		No overlap	CPI and CPI(M) contested in DMK-led Secular Progressive Alliance. Notably, CPI and CPI(M) negotiated their seat-sharing arrangements with DMK separately.^[13] No alliance with AIFB. In 2014 AIFB allied with AIADMK, CPI with DMK and CPI(M) contesting independently^[14]
Telangana	1	2	2		No overlap	2018 assembly elections, CPI joined alliance with Congress and TDP, CPI(M) didn't. CPI(M) launched Bahujan Left Front.^[15] For 2019 election, CPI and CPI(M) on same board^[16] No alliance with AIFB.
Tripura			2		No overlap	All 4 parties are in Left Front (Tripura)
Uttar Pradesh	5	11			No overlap
West Bengal	3	3	31	4	No overlap	All 4 parties are in Left Front (West Bengal)
Total	35	49	68	6	These four parties had a total of 158 candidates in 25 states/UTs. In 2 states there are state-wise Left Fronts (West Bengal, Tripura), in 12 more states/UTs were was no overlap, in 5 states/UTs only 1 of the 4 parties presented a candidate, in 6 states candidates from these parties contested against each other.

--Soman (talk) 20:59, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What I think can be read from the table above is

Nowadays, it is pretty common that CPI(M) and CPI are on the same board in elections. Out of 115 seats in the 2019 election contested by these two parties, only in 2 did they contest against each other.
That said, the collaboration between CPI(M) and CPI in other states than WB, Kerala and Tripura seems more ad hoc and/or informal.
In Bihar and Jharkhand, there are 3 key parties, CPI, CPI(M) and CPI(ML)L that discuss collaboration
Is there any location outside Tripura and West Bengal where Forward Bloc and/or RSP are in alliance with CPI and/or CPI(M)? In a quick search I couldn't find any such indication for 2019 election at least. --Soman (talk) 22:11, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If we look at the 2014 Indian general election;

AIFB had 39 candidates, CPI 61, CPI(M) 91 and RSP 6. (Only counting candidates on party symbol, not independents)
AIFB and CPI(M) contested against each other in Andaman and Nicobar, Ludhiana, Nashik and Tezpur
AIFB and CPI contested against each other in Hazaribagh, Jaipur, Jorhat and Karnal
AIFB and RSP contested against each other in Secunderabad
CPI(M) and CPI contested against each other in Lakshadweep and Sangrur
RSP and CPI(M) contested against each other in Kollam
So out of 39 seats contested by AIFB, in 9 the party competed with CPI(M), CPI or RSP. All 2 seats outside West Bengal contested by RSP, the party competed with other parties discussed here. Even CPI(M) and CPI confronted each other in 2 seats. Clearly there was no nation-wide pre-poll alliance of these 4 parties. --Soman (talk) 11:43, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

Fair enough, it does seem that you are correct on this. There seems to be an overall misconception on the collaboration between the left parties as if it were a consolidated front. Though, I would mention that the national coalitions that do exist (NDA and UPA) do at times compete within each other on select seats (in terms of a "friendly contest") but the Left collaboration is evidently much more ad-hoc. I would recommend a Redirect to Communism in India for this page which to me seems the most appropriate considering the scope of the percieved article instead of a disamb to the specific coalitions in West Bengal and Tripura. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 15:09, 10 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. Sandstein 06:45, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yameen[edit]

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

lot of coatracking here to the point I can't really tell what if any claim of notability there is. It's an impressive resume considering the dearth of independent reliable sources featuring coverage of Yameen. Praxidicae (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:27, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:27, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have update the citations to be from reliable sources. Thank you. Rumblepack (talk) 18:39, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I originally nominated for PROD but Rumblepack has found some sources which would indicate notability - thank you. However, lots of work to do to remove unsourced content and find additional sources to indicate notability. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 20:52, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I added a few more surfaced sources. Everything looks to be cited? Rumblepack (talk) 23:17, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Coverage is just too minor to demonstrate notability. This coverage about his websites in a reliable magazine is something, but far from sufficient. His albums don't have any independant reviews, he's not mentioned in any recent sources. – Thjarkur (talk) 10:56, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- He's a related artist of the Hieroglyphics_(group) music group; I fail to see how he is not of notability, especially in regards to the history of that group referenced from the sources in the article). Additionally he continues to make popular music, there's a recent video with Kool Keith, for example^[1]. Rumblepack (talk) 17:23, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't inherit notability from having worked with another group (he isn't even mentioned on that article). Secondary sources have not given attention to the song you linked to. – Thjarkur (talk) 19:49, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He probably should be listed on that Hieroglyphics article. Here's a TechTV interview where the members of the group say the website saved their livelihood. And Yameen is in the video as well.^[2]. Regarding secondary sources and the song I linked to, that was just the latest example I found on his website^[3]. His body of work based on Discogs^[4] and his personal website are not at all currently reflected on his Wikipedia page. Which is to say he is very active but his Wikipedia page is not as current. In fact there's a new song with a member of Hieroglyphics on his website. Here's a review I found on Okayplayer^[5], to reference another reliable source. Just because some of these sources are old doesn't mean he's not a notable addition, correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rumblepack (talk • contribs) 21:39, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, notability is not temporary, but I was referring to how no sources seemed to exist about his music career. We now have two sources (and seemingly one offline source), a short mention in Vibe and a short review, but that is not sufficient to demonstrate notability in my view. Even the most minor of artists have coverage in multiple reliable (usually local) publications. – Thjarkur (talk) 11:19, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a few more sources that I could find. It seems hard to separate Yameen the musician from Yameen the web developer. His entire career is based in music, essentially. His publicity trail does seem to fade after his first album but he remains very active musically from what I can tell. In the least, I think his history with Hieroglyphics is very notable. I have added additional references that illustrate this point. Rumblepack (talk) 17:21, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect with history - Keep, or redirect with history to Abdulla Yameen. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:05, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Kool Keith music video". Youtube. Retrieved 16 March 2020.
^ "Tech TV - Audiofile - Souls of Mischief Interview". Youtube. Retrieved 16 March 2020.
^ YameenMusic.com https://yameenmusic.com/. Retrieved 16 March 2020. ((cite web)): Missing or empty |title= (help)
^ "Yameen - Discogs". Discogs. Retrieved 16 March 2020.
^ "Yameen". Okayplayer. Retrieved 16 March 2020.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Newslinger talk 05:30, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. The WP:RS coverage is largely not about Yameen as a musician in his own right, but just mentions him as a web developer connected to notable musicians. [31] and [32] are exceptions to this; however, the former is an interview (which I do not consider a valid, independent source) and I do not believe the latter alone (in conjunction with the numerous trivial mentions among other sources) is enough to qualify for WP:SINGER or WP:GNG. userdude 06:14, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Switched to Weak keep per WP:Heymann and additional sources from Rumblepack. userdude 05:37, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coverage is now sufficient to establish notability, thanks to Rumblepack's improvements. Cheers, 1292simon (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:21, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. His albums and songs have not been critically reviewed. Majority of the references cited in the article are unreliable and cannot be used to establish notability. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 16:25, 12 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:24, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of nicknamed tropical cyclones[edit]

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

This fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:GNG, as no sources report on the subject of a "list of nicknamed tropical cyclones". The inclusion criteria are inherently ill-defined since arguably all tropical cyclones with land impacts receive nicknames of some sort (also, what exactly is a nickname?). Jasper Deng (talk) 22:19, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Jasper Deng (talk) 22:19, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

REDIRECT Why is it called "nicknamed"? These are the names it was called in the media, they naming it after the region it happened in. Atlantic_hurricane_season#1494–1850_(pre-HURDAT_era) shows where to find the information already. Dream Focus 03:24, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I am the account created by the IP address 2601:18e:c400:a020:a461:77f5:5848:7712, who first created List of nicknamed tropical cyclones. And I say: Do whatever you want with it. I put a userspace draft at User:Chicdat/List of nicknamed tropical cyclones so I can (finally) finish it in peace. 🐔Chicdat (talk) 10:20, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Chicdat: Chicdat, I appreciate your enthusiasm for this subject, but not everything can be included on Wikipedia. See the links in my initial comment above for why this particular case does not need an article– why not work on something else, like List of extremely severe cyclonic storms?--Jasper Deng (talk) 10:34, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:07, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. non-duplicating coverage:The Atlantic hurricane season article does not include3 the nickname information--it links to places that do for any particular storm, but using that as a criterion for removing conten from WP would remove essentially all conten from our articles, because they all must link to the information. DGG ( talk ) 18:14, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Fails GNG and a lot of these aren't "nicknames", they're just locations heavily impacted by an unnamed storm. For hurricanes that don't have widely used "nicknames", articles are just given a generic title highlighting the most impacted region. That amounts to self-citing Wikipedia which is a policy violation. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:06, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per @Cyclonebiskit:.Jason Rees (talk) 19:09, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the reasons given above. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 19:11, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – there may be some value in cataloging noteworthy names for tropical cyclones, but "nicknames" is a very ambiguous standard for a list to cover. In addition to the policies mentioned by Jasper, I would also point to point #7 of WP:DIRECTORY, specifically the need for context information. Essentially every impactful storm prior to the advent of official naming will have some moniker assigned by gov't/press to more easily discuss it. Well-defined lists exist at List of historical tropical cyclone names. —TheAustinMan^{(Talk ⬩ Edits)} 19:57, 10 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) 10:13, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Verónica Alcanda[edit]

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

Fundamentally promotional , and the references amount to disguised press releases at best. DGG ( talk ) 06:02, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:09, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:09, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:10, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTLINKEDIN. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 11:43, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:05, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not linkedin.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:40, 6 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) 03:50, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Afghan Television Voice of Christ[edit]

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

Strange prod removal linked to a search for "Hussain Andaryas", an article about whom has been deleted rather than the subject of this article which lacks secondary coverage Reywas92^Talk 05:55, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 05:55, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:14, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:15, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another tele-preacher who clearly going by the nation's religious makeup, has paid to get their imported shows on TV in the region but probably has little to no viewership; WP:N definitely unfound here. Nate • (chatter) 02:09, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per Nate. Dronebogus (talk) 21:04, 11 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) 10:13, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First Franchise[edit]

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

Old advert for a long forgotten company. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:29, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, delete Woerich (talk) 06:00, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 11:44, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:38, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:38, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:42, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, what a brilliant concept - bringing retailers into garden centres, why didnt i think of this? but the name - "First Franchise" - whats that got to do with gardening? and how come another company hadnt already registered it? anyway, Delete as not meeting WP:COMPANY, gsearch brings up nothing useable for wikinotability, and WP:NOTPROMOTION, article creator Benbarter also appears to have involvement with this company - "Ben Barter I.T Developer at First Franchise". Coolabahapple (talk) 22:22, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A longstanding probable WP:COI article about a company. A company going about its business, but searches are not locating the coverage needed to demonstrate attained notability. AllyD (talk) 06:27, 11 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) 10:13, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Alain[edit]

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

Article subject founded a magazine, which has a tiny bit of coverage. He also co-produced or collaborated on a mural project, but it's another artist (Lewis Lavoie) who is usually described in the coverage. Notability is not inherited. Finally, while not a deletion criteria, this article also appears to be a promotional effort or autobiography, which may be the reason it is still here. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:07, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:07, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:07, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:07, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A near-Orphan with nothing to demonstrate notability. I share the nominator's concerns about a possible CoI regarding one of its editors. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 11:58, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not appear to meet WP notability requirements for an artist. The lede states that he is "known partly for his work on..." a mural by another artist; and that he founded a (non-notable vanity) magazine, Night of Artists, that features work by artists who, it seems, may have to pay to be in the Night of Artists show. It's unclear to me exactly what it is. He painted a couple murals which seem to be collaborations. I just don't see enough to indicate passing GNG or NARTIST. Netherzone (talk) 15:50, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG and ARTIST. --Theredproject (talk) 14:09, 5 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 speedy delete per WP:G7. The article has been blanked twice by the user who has been the only substantial content contributor to the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:17, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Irizar i3[edit]

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

What makes this bus model notable (WP:GNG)? I can't find any reviews of it or other in-depth, reliable coverage, the best I see are few mentions in passing and press release from the manufacturer. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:18, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:18, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:26, 4 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) — J947 ^{(user | cont | ess)}, at 06:08, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joy Silverman[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Yet another recreation a few months later of an article that was deemed a 'REDIRECT' per deletion discussion. No significant coverage about Silverman, only in the context of her relationship with Wachtler. 217.150.87.242 (talk) 22:52, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:03, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:03, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:03, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Silverman was a top Republican bundler, one of the early ambassadors appointed because of their fund-raising efforts, was a victim in one of the largest scandals in the US involving the sitting Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of New York, and later was national spokesperson for the National Center for Victims of Crime talking about her experiences.Patapsco913 (talk) 18:30, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a well sourced article about a notable politician/fundraiser. Could use some trimming. Lightburst (talk) 23:05, 3 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 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:17, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is not true the article is dedicated to relationship to Wachtler. It covers her fundraising and embassadorial nomination by Bush. Quite a notable person. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 16:12, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Patapsco913: passes WP:ANYBIO. ——SN 54129 18:32, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:ANYBIO.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:48, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, WP:THREE are already cited in the article: [33] [34] [35]. Significant role in a significant event takes it out of WP:BLP1E, and I agree that there is also notability from the ambassadorial nomination and her philanthropy. This might be a WP:SNOW candidate. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:53, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Previous Afd was not a perfect close since besides for keep, some supported merge/redirect when all that happened was redirect. StonyBrook (talk) 20:32, 5 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:50, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Naniloa Hotel[edit]

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

A hotel with no special claim to notability. Despite tagging for better references, none have been forthcoming with the SPA author persistently removing the maintenance templates without providing the requested sources. The two sources that do exist are highly promotional. Searches find all the usual advertisements and booking sites but nothing independent and reliable. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 08:56, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised, and a bit embarrassed, to have to spend time in Wikipedia to discuss one of the State of Hawaii's second largest city's premier sights/sites (Banyan Drive, Grand Naniloa Hotel, Coconut Island (Hawaii Island) and Queen Liliuokalani Park and Gardens that are all close to each other). By Yoshi Canopus (talk) 21:19, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As far as I can see, only one of those articles (this one) is at AfD and that because of very poor sourcing, promotional tone and the difficulty of finding RSs to establish notability. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:36, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 08:56, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article is not promotional in tone; article asserts/establishes significance/importance. Maintenance tagging might be appropriate to retain; seems like there is possibly a behaviorial issue going on between deletion nominator and another editor who might better be coached rather than fought by edit war and opening AFD, which is by its nature a very negative arcane process seemingly designed to drive away relatively inexperienced editors from Wikipedia. I have not reviewed the editors' interactions at all though. Topic seems Wikipedia-notable. --Doncram (talk) 05:12, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:12, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 03:20, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I added a bit, including another source, an infobox with coordinates and map (though for some reason the dot location doesn't show on the map, help?). Contrary to deletion nomination claim, there is plenty of "special claim of notability": "It is the largest hotel in this State of Hawaii's second largest city, and has the longest history as a hotel on Hawaii Island." Built at least in part by 1939, there will exist plenty about this in off-line and on-line sources such as travel and architectural magazines, island histories, and travel guidebooks (which can be very reliable, substantial sources, please spare us any complaint that Wikipedia is not a travel guidebook itself... yes of course the article should not be too promotional and it should not include directory-type info such as the hours of its notable native Hawaiian style restaurant, and the Crown Room nightclub, etc.). wp:ITSAPUBLICATTRACTION is an extremely excellent related essay. --Doncram (talk) 02:00, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Click on the Google books search link above to reach:

Fodor's Essential Hawaiibooks.google.com › books
Fodor's Travel Guides - 2018
FOUND INSIDE
Grand Naniloa Hotel–A Doubletree by Hilton. $ HOTEL FAMILY Hilo isn't known for its fancy resort hotels, but 
the recently renovated Grand Naniloa Hotel attempts to remedy that situation in grand fashion. Pros: within 
walking distance of ...

Lonely Planet Hawaii the Big Islandbooks.google.com › books
Lonely Planet, ‎Adam Karlin, ‎Luci Yamamoto - 2017
FOUND INSIDE
Willie K's Gig at the Crown Room LIVE MUSIC ( MAP GOOGLE MAP ; %808-969-3333; 
www.grandnaniloahilo.com/crownroom; 93 Banyan Dr, Grand Naniloa Hotel) A go-to music venue in the '80s, the 
Crown Room at the Grand Naniloa Hotel ...

Insight Guides Explore Hawaii (Travel Guide eBook)books.google.com › books
Insight Guides - 2019
FOUND INSIDE
... Waikoloa; tel: 808-886 1234; www.hiltonwaikoloavillage.com; $$$ Yes, there actually are dolphins in the 
lagoon at this 62-acre (25-hectare) mega-resort, and you can pay to swim with them. Grand Naniloa Hotel Hilo 
93 Banyan Drive, Hilo; ...

etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc. --Doncram (talk) 02:04, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Travel guides and similar publications such as those linked and mentioned above, are not reliable sources. They are often paid to publish content and even when they are not, their opinions are slanted to helping travellers find accommodation. Thus such reviews simply attest to the fact that the Hotel exists and is within a certain prive range but not that they are notable Velella ^{Velella Talk} 03:22, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, and so have numerous others who have commented about Fodors, Lonely Planet, other reliable travel guide sources, for reason that they tend to discuss what is important/substantial about sites of potential interest to travelers, why they should go see them, etc., and they tend to be very reliable because they are very well-scrutinized and checked and corrected, especially after the first edition...and these are in their 100th or so editions. I believe this will have been covered at wp:RSN many times, too. You apparently have a different view, which is okay, we can have different views, and I probably won't reply further about this point. --Doncram (talk) 04:11, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:39, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Travel guides are considered tertiary and therefore primary sources due to being original research. Per WP:TERTIARYUSE. --Adamant1 (signature was omitted, was added by me. --Doncram (talk) 18:31, 4 April 2020 (UTC))[reply]

What a bizarre statement. "tertiary therefore primary"?!?! Offhand, I can see that travel guides can contain "original research" such as "on the day I visited, the cheesecake was excellent", but in general in their coverage of basic history and importance of places, it is the farthest from original research as can be. I see that wp:TERTIARYUSE is an essay, and I tried to read it but it does not make any sense at all, IMHO. --Doncram (talk) 18:31, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just telling you what the essay said, I'm not really concerned with how bizarre it is or not, but it makes sense to me. If that's what you think though, maybe Wikipedia:No original research which is a policy would be better. It says "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event." In other words, exactly the same thing. with travel guides, no where in that I saw in this AfD was anyone saying travel guides should be used only for just obtaining basic factual information. There's more reliable sources to get that information anyway, but looking at the discussion you said "for reason that they tend to discuss what is important/substantial about sites of potential interest to traveler." What is "important/substantial" about a location is relative to the travel guide. That's why they are called "guides." Travel writing is not a science, where each location is put through rigorous testing to make sure it meets some universal standard of what constitutes a substantial or important place. Even the best travel are just glorified opinion columnists and no two travel guides have the exact same opinion of a place. There's zero wrong with that, it just doesn't work here. Especially since they often (or always) receive perks for writing about a place. Which destroys their neutrality. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:43, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"no two travel guides have the exact same opinion of a place", or put another way "(often,) no two scientists/historians/journalists/writers etc have the exact same opinion of a ...", "Especially since they often (or always) receive perks for writing about a place." or "Especially since they often (or always) receive perks (or salaries/payments/quedos) for writing about ...". Coolabahapple (talk) 22:51, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Totally true. I don't the user cares though. They hardly ever seem to. Sadly, most of the time sound arguments like ours fall on deaf ears. People usually want what they want, logic and reason be damned. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:15, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:27, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:27, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:27, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Well, this is a major hotel which has been a fixture of the Hilo community since the 1940s, and has business history and events there. Due to its location on prime land on Hilo Bay, actually Hawaii-owned land, and near the airport, it has been tied in more than others i suppose. Much news coverage around its opening in 1940 and its major buildings in 1966 and major renovation in 2014 or so, much of this off-line I suppose. Searching for news coverage requires wading through lots and lots. But here are various bits:
this Hawaii Magazine article.
This Oyster.com article goes on in detail.
U.S. News & World Reports ranks it #7 among Big Island hotels
Hula Hulas restaurant is apparently the social hub of Hilo.
K.T. Summer says it's great, and shows photo of Lyndon B. Johnson there, and news clippings from 1940 when it was built by the Island Hotels Company, when 2200 travel agencies were involved in a promotion. George Applegate, with the hotel since 1956 (before Hawaii became a U.S. state in 1959), speaks of lobbying to get the the Hilo airport built (I think he means its expansion from being a small World War II airfield), and Pan Am being the first commercial airline in, then 7 airlines, etc. At about 2:45 in 7 minute video is 8 page newspaper clipping about the Naniloa Hotel. Ed Bushor is the new owner, led renovation, gives detail which can be used in developing article. *Hawaii.Com is another that mentions the $4 million of Kim Taylor Reece art installed. About "the hotel’s exclusive concert hall – the historic Willie K’s Crown Room. Once revered as the premier music venue of the ’80s in Hilo, Willie K’s Crown Room has been restored and fully revamped" and seats 400. (Willie K is great by the way.) The Hula Halau Ke ‘Olu Makani ‘O Mauna Loa dancers practice on the hotel grounds. It is listed on the National Registry of the Historic Hotels of America (i'm not sure what that is, but it's a good thing i think).
Bushor goes on about the hula theme of the revamped hotel, and about the goal being to give the property back to the community, and for it does seem that hula is highly associated with Hilo, what with the Merrie Monarch Festival and more.
This mentions the hula dancers regular practicing there, too, and calls it the "Grand Naniloa Resort, a Doubletree by Hilton", another term to search on.
here is 2016 article at Pacific Business News covers a possible further expansion/purchase of adjacent hotel property. The land underneath both hotels is not owned by the hotels, but rather is leased by Hawai'i Department of Land and Natural Resources. The Naniloa hotel is owned by "WHR, the holding group formed by the Edmund C. Olson Trust and Hawaii developer Ed Bushor’s Tower Development, own the former Hilo Naniloa Hotel, recently re-opened the hotel as a DoubleTree by Hilton after a $30 million renovation. Aqua-Aston Hospitality is managing the hotel, whose land under it is owned by DLNR."
Oh, it was the Hilo Naniloa until recently, need to search on that.
Historic postcards of it from the 1960s refer to it as Naniloa Hotel Hilo Bay, or just as Naniloa Hotel
In 2018, it seems like that other hotel is to be demolished, per this very long DNLR report, which documents the buildings in the area (obviously especially the ones to be demolished), but also the history of Banyan Drive built in the 1930s, the flora and fauna, local archeology of heiaus, etc. It notes the Naniloa Hotel is on two parcels, and that its 9-hole golf course is on 3 or 4 or 5 more parcels.
There was a $21,000 theft by employee(s), and a related manager lawsuit, reported in 2018 by the Hawaii Tribune Herald.
Check out the streaming webcam view of the hotel's waterfront, from the top of one of the buildings.
It is one of only 5 hotels remaining open in face of virus, March 28, 2020, per Hawaii Tribune Herald.
Koi Nobori were to fly at the hotel and other Banyan Drive locations in a huge festival of Koi Nobori in 2019.
There was news coverage of the 1940 opening of course, including Opening of Naniloa Hotel in Honolulu Star-Bulletin, Honolulu, Hawaii, 06 Feb 1940.
There were numerous congratulatory ads, upon 1940 opening of the hotel. And this blog reproduces opening day announcement, too.
The original 1940s hotel was replaced by modern structures in 1966.
Camp Tarawa Then and Now – Historic Hawaii Foundation reports that, during World War II, "The old Naniloa Hotel along Banyan Drive was where USO entertainers stayed when they came to entertain the Marines on the island."
December 1944 edition of Paradise of the Pacific (oldest magazine in Hawaii), shows hotel, describes it as a jewel, and gives full text of "Naniloa Hotel Lanai", a 1944 poem, as accompaniment to "A Pretty Girl is Like a Melody" about USO girls.
The property was hit by the 1946 tsunami (which killed 173 in Hilo) and the 1964 tsunami and was water-damaged, but was not hit severely as other places in Hilo.

I'll stop with those. There exists plenty of news coverage over the years, this is not a minor family small hotel, it is important in business/social history. --Doncram (talk) 23:52, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

listings of post cards on Ebay that feature it and the hotels website aren't news sources. At this point your just ref bombing and campaigning. Both of which you shouldn't be doing and won't lead to you getting your way either. So, hopefully you do actually stop with it. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:12, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I original had an opened mind and wanted to give this a chance, but all the subsequent barnstorming and ref bomb of things like Ebay listings of postcards to try to prove notability makes me less inclined to think this notable. If no reliable in-depth coverage has materialized in the month since this AfD was created and postcards on Ebay is mostly what we have instead, I strongly believe this isn't a notable subject and the article for it should be deleted. The lack of notability isn't surprising. As most hotels aren't notable. If this one was it would probably be on the national register of historic places or something, but it isn't. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:20, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Well that seems peevish, to vote delete because there exist historic postcards about it. Right, you are closed in your mind to actually reading in the sources. I mention them in a kind of flip way above, but those are in fact distilled from hundreds of google hits, and do include some legit sources.

And actually, it is indeed "on the national register of historic places or something"!!!! The National Registry of the Historic Hotels of America is a legitimate thing, which i didn't know much about, but am now developing a list-article about it. It is an official program of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, and members must be listed or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. And this Naniloa Hotel is one of those 266, listed on it in 2016. I don't know how/why it was deemed eligible for listing on the NRHP but was not in fact listed on the NRHP, but that does happen frequently for churches and hotels and other places which just choose not to be listed, perhaps to avoid scrutiny/review upon future renovations. And about hula, not only is the hotel involved in the Merrie Monarch Festival which began in 1963, it actually "hosts this remarkable festival each year earning its nickname as the Home of Hula."(per history of the hotel at HistoricHotels.org). --Doncram (talk) 01:02, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That and the sources being trivial/unreliable, but mostly the trivial/unreliable thing. There is a proper way to go about this though, without the barnstorming/ref bombing, that usually leads to a better outcome. It's just the nature of the thing. At least that's what I've seen. Is it on the NRHP? It's not listed in National Register of Historic Places listings on the island of Hawaii. Nor the actual NRHP site, or any other site that I can find. So, I'm pretty sure your wrong about that. Otherwise, I'd like to see a citation for it (the historichotels.org site has zero connection to the NRHP). --Adamant1 (talk) 02:00, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to take a deep breath and actually spend some time reviewing and researching what your looking through, and compare it to the guidelines in WP:N to be it fits before you post it here. Otherwise, it's just throwing mud at the wall to see what sticks, and none of it will because your actually throwing sand, dry sand. Lots and lots of dry sand. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:03, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not wrong. Um, I said it is eligible for, but not listed on the NRHP, while it was listed in 2016 on something like it, the NRHHA, which I said is a program of the National Trust for Historic Preservation. Every listing of which I am pretty sure is going to be Wikipedia-notable, as they are all historic and recognized for being historically authentic. As I develop about the NRHHA i think i am going to find an existing article for most, but in some cases I have to start one, such as for Strater Hotel in Durango, Colorado where I divided it out of a historic district article just now. The Naniloa is in pretty awesome company: The Broadmoor, Moana Hotel, The Fairmont Copley Plaza Hotel, etc. --Doncram (talk) 02:14, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic Wikipedia notability based on the National Trust for Historic Preservation's opinion of what is historically significant is a hard nope. Their a private organization and them recognizing something as "historic" would be on the same level as a mid/lower tier, hardly deserving of notability, award. Which by no means do those guarantee anything notability wise. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:21, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

Cooper, Jeanne (2017-02-09). "Suite Spot: Grand Naniloa Hotel Hilo". San Francisco Chronicle. Archived from the original on 2020-04-06. Retrieved 2020-04-06.
"Editorial: Hotel sale holds promise for Hilo". Honolulu Star-Advertiser. Archived from the original on 2020-04-06. Retrieved 2020-04-06 – via Gale.
Cooper, Jeanne. "Grand Naniloa Hotel Hilo—A DoubleTree by Hilton". Frommer's. Archived from the original on 2020-04-06. Retrieved 2020-04-06.
Gomes, Andrew (2015-08-18). "Brand-new start for an iconic inn". Honolulu Star-Advertiser. Archived from the original on 2020-04-06. Retrieved 2020-04-06 – via Gale.
Wenzel, Marty (2017-06-19). "Back in the spotlight: the renovated, rebranded Grand Naniloa Hotel Hilo keeps culture alive on Hawaii Island's east side". TravelAge West. 52 (13). Northstar Travel Group. Archived from the original on 2020-04-06. Retrieved 2020-04-06 – via Gale.
"Hawai'i: Hawai'i Island: beyond coffee, black sand and orchids". Travel Weekly. Northstar Travel Group. 2014-12-08. Archived from the original on 2020-04-06. Retrieved 2020-04-06 – via Gale.
Gomes, Andrew (2013-12-19). "Naniloa Volcanoes Hotel purchased for $7 million". Honolulu Star-Advertiser. Archived from the original on 2020-04-06. Retrieved 2020-04-06 – via Gale.
Schaefers, Allison (2013-11-13). "Bankrupt Naniloa Volcanoes Hotel being sold to developer-artist duo". Honolulu Star-Advertiser. Archived from the original on 2020-04-06. Retrieved 2020-04-06 – via Gale.
Bair, Diane; Wright, Pamela (2017-03-09). "Turning up the heat in Hawaii". The Boston Globe. Archived from the original on 2020-04-06. Retrieved 2020-04-06.
Williams, Sue (2019-11-15). "Hilo, Hawaii: How the hula became a grass-skirted hip swaying dance". Traveller. Archived from the original on 2020-04-06. Retrieved 2020-04-06.
Inefuku, Terri (2016-11-11). "The Grand Naniloa Hotel Hilo completes $30 million renovation". KHON-TV. Archived from the original on 2020-04-06. Retrieved 2020-04-06.

Sources with quotes
Cooper, Jeanne (2017-02-09). "Suite Spot: Grand Naniloa Hotel Hilo". San Francisco Chronicle. Archived from the original on 2020-04-06. Retrieved 2020-04-06. The article notes: Anywhere else, the rebranding of an iconic hotel might elicit yawns. But in Hawaii’s second-largest city, the addition of “A DoubleTree by Hilton” to the official name of the Grand Naniloa Hotel Hilo has sparked excitement. Finally, the heart of East Hawaii has contemporary, clean lodgings that meet national standards, yet with a style that celebrates Hawaiian culture, thanks to $20 million in renovations to the 388 rooms and public areas, including two restaurants, a lobby bar and nightclub. Lead investor Ed Bushor is equally proud of the hotel’s other new moniker, “The Home of Hula,” reflected in the hotel’s weekly free hula shows and classes, videos of Hilo’s renowned Merrie Monarch hula competition playing in the lobby, and Kim Taylor Reece’s black-and-white images of hula dancers nearly everywhere you huli (turn). The setting: At the northern apex of wooded, hotel-lined Banyan Drive, overlooking Hilo Bay, the ocean and Reeds Bay, where cruise and cargo ships dock at one end and locals paddleboard at the other. "Editorial: Hotel sale holds promise for Hilo". Honolulu Star-Advertiser. Archived from the original on 2020-04-06. Retrieved 2020-04-06 – via Gale. The editorial notes: A jewel that's been diminished in recent years, the troubled Hilo Naniloa Hotel now has a new lease on life, quite literally, with much potential for the property and for the economic vitality of nearby communities in East Hawaii. After years of decline, the bayfront hotel was bought this month in bankruptcy auction for $7 million by real estate developer Ed Bushor and partners, including marine artist Wyland and major Hawaii island landowner Ed Olson. To be rebranded the Naniloa Volcanoes Resort, its new owners have the deep pockets to spend $20 million on renovations and transform the property into a museum-like visitor attraction by New Year's 2015. What's good for the Naniloa, and the other hospitality purveyors along Hilo's scenic Banyan and Bayfront drives, is good for the economic well-being of East Hawaii. The 383-room hotel had been in Chapter 11 bankruptcy since November 2012, operating just 180 rooms in one tower after previous owner, Hawaii Outdoor Tours Inc., ran into money trouble after renovations during the economic downturn several years ago. That company, led by Ken Fujiyama, had bought the Naniloa and its golf course on state land in a land-lease auction in 2006. Where the current hotel has hobbled along with a mere 20-30 percent occupancy rate employing just 35 workers, the revitalized property envisions employing 115 to 200 people. Having the Naniloa sale resolved -- especially involving such prominent names -- gives much-needed stability heading into mixed times for Hawaii's tourism industry. Cooper, Jeanne. "Grand Naniloa Hotel Hilo—A DoubleTree by Hilton". Frommer's. Archived from the original on 2020-04-06. Retrieved 2020-04-06. The article notes: This 12-story, thoroughly renovated oceanfront hotel with wonderful views of Hilo Bay has declared itself “the home of hula.” Renowned photographer Kim Taylor Reese’s images of hula dancers hang on virtually every wall, high-definition video of the “Merrie Monarch” hula competition plays in the new, open-air lobby, with a central bar. Gomes, Andrew (2015-08-18). "Brand-new start for an iconic inn". Honolulu Star-Advertiser. Archived from the original on 2020-04-06. Retrieved 2020-04-06 – via Gale. The article notes: A $20 million renovation and re-branding is set to begin for the Hilo Naniloa Hotel and Golf Club more than a year after a group of investors bought the struggling property on state land. ... The Naniloa, which was built in 1966 on land leased from the state along Banyan Drive and includes a nine-hole golf course, fell on hard times after the Great Recession as former owner Hawaii Outdoor Tours Inc. filed bankruptcy. It had acquired the property in 2006 and got caught in the economic downturn partway through a renovation plan. Hotel operations at one point under Hawaii Outdoor lacked a functioning restaurant, had one of two pools closed and only 179 rooms in use. Occupancy fell to as low as 20 percent to 30 percent. Hawaii Outdoor, led by Hilo businessman Ken Fujiyama, lost the property in a bankruptcy auction to a company led by real estate developer Ed Bushor that paid $7 million in December 2013. Wenzel, Marty (2017-06-19). "Back in the spotlight: the renovated, rebranded Grand Naniloa Hotel Hilo keeps culture alive on Hawaii Island's east side". TravelAge West. 52 (13). Northstar Travel Group. Archived from the original on 2020-04-06. Retrieved 2020-04-06 – via Gale. The article notes: Like the company's DoubleTree properties around the world, Grand Naniloa Hotel Hilo--a DoubleTree by Hilton welcomes guests with warm chocolate chip cookies. But as soon as clients enter the new, open-air lobby with its views straight out to Hilo Bay, they know exactly where they stand. Fresh from a $30 million renovation, the 320-room Grand Naniloa makes a strong statement about its singularity and its setting on the east coast of Hawaii Island. Formerly known as Hilo Naniloa Hotel, the 70-acre seaside landmark first opened in 1939, and by the 1950s and '60s, it had evolved into Hilo's most popular accommodation. Seasoned travelers were smitten with its location on Banyan Drive, a boulevard lined by banyan trees planted by baseball star Babe Ruth, former President Franklin D. Roosevelt and other celebrities. In subsequent decades, the hotel fell into disrepair and financial hardship until its purchase by Tower Development, which launched a three-year-long renovation. The restored property, managed by Aqua-Aston Hospitality, debuted in November 2016 as Hawaii Island's first DoubleTree by Hilton. ... Since Grand Naniloa's accommodations were gutted and rebuilt, rooms now feature either floor-to-ceiling windows or lanais, and 90 percent boast ocean views. Guests enjoy complimentary Wi-Fi access, in-room microwaves and refrigerators, a 24-hour fitness center, free self-parking and free daily rounds on Hilo's nine-hole golf course. Soon, clients will be able to sip and sup at Grand Naniloa's bay-view bar and poolside restaurant, opening in August. "Hawai'i: Hawai'i Island: beyond coffee, black sand and orchids". Travel Weekly. Northstar Travel Group. 2014-12-08. Archived from the original on 2020-04-06. Retrieved 2020-04-06 – via Gale. The article notes: The Hilo Naniloa Hotel is the new name for Naniloa Volcanoes Resort, which was sold in a bankruptcy. Aqua Hospitality, based in Honolulu, will manage the 383-room resort and oversee its complete renovation, estimated to wrap by summer 2015. In the interim, 140 rooms will be available and services limited, but prices have been adjusted. Gomes, Andrew (2013-12-19). "Naniloa Volcanoes Hotel purchased for $7 million". Honolulu Star-Advertiser. Archived from the original on 2020-04-06. Retrieved 2020-04-06 – via Gale. The article notes: The Naniloa Volcanoes Hotel has a new owner and a new future as a marine art-themed vacation resort in Hilo. A company led by real estate developer Ed Bushor completed the purchase of the oceanfront hotel Tuesday. Work to revitalize the struggling property began quickly, with new landscaping planted in front of the hotel Tuesday and a 20-foot Christmas tree set up Wednesday. "It's looking like an operating hotel actually, instead of a desert like it used to be," Bushor said. Bushor, who bought the hotel for $7 million through a bankruptcy auction with partners, including marine artist Wyland and major Hawaii island landowner Ed Olson, plans to spend $20 million on renovations and make the property a museumlike visitor attraction. Schaefers, Allison (2013-11-13). "Bankrupt Naniloa Volcanoes Hotel being sold to developer-artist duo". Honolulu Star-Advertiser. Archived from the original on 2020-04-06. Retrieved 2020-04-06 – via Gale. The article notes: Developer Ed Bushor and his longtime friend, marine artist Wyland, are buying the bankrupt Naniloa Volcanoes Hotel for $5.2 million, a U.S. Bankruptcy Court judge confirmed Tuesday. The $5.2 million offer beat out an earlier unconfirmed bid for $3.7 million by Ramco Properties, owner of the Hilo Hawaiian, which is next door to the Naniloa. It also shut out other last-minute offers from two other developers, including Peter Savio, who owns Pagoda Hotels. ... The Naniloa went into foreclosure last year after Hawaii Outdoor Tours Inc. defaulted on a $10 million loan it used to buy the hotel, which sits on 71 acres of state leasehold land. Only 269 of the hotel's 333 rooms are in active service. Bair, Diane; Wright, Pamela (2017-03-09). "Turning up the heat in Hawaii". The Boston Globe. Archived from the original on 2020-04-06. Retrieved 2020-04-06. The article notes: The Grand Naniloa Hotel — A Doubletree by Hilton is the place to stay in Hilo (855-610-8733, www.grandnaniloahilo.com; rooms starting at $149). The historic, 388-room property, with in-your-face views of Hilo Bay and the Mauna Kea Volcano, has been totally renovated. Contemporary rooms, in various shapes and sizes, are slightly minimalistic, with white and neutral hues; the best have water views or private balconies. The ocean-side lobby bar, with an exposed lava rock wall and comfy seating, is a great place to hang out. Williams, Sue (2019-11-15). "Hilo, Hawaii: How the hula became a grass-skirted hip swaying dance". Traveller. Archived from the original on 2020-04-06. Retrieved 2020-04-06. The article notes: Fittingly, the hotel on that exact site, the Grand Naniloa Hotel Hilo has rebranded itself as the home of hula following a renovation in 2018. It's decorated throughout with beautiful monochrome photographs of hula dancers, has a huge mural in the restaurant – called Hula Hulas – and a life-size bronze statue of a hula dancer looking out over the bay from the lobby. And there are hula dancers performing every Monday evening and soon to be more days. Inefuku, Terri (2016-11-11). "The Grand Naniloa Hotel Hilo completes $30 million renovation". KHON-TV. Archived from the original on 2020-04-06. Retrieved 2020-04-06. The article notes: After a $30 million renovation, The Grand Naniloa Hotel Hilo – a DoubleTree by Hilton officially made its debut Thursday. ... Located along Hilo Bay, the historic 70-acre property features 320 refurbished guest rooms and suites, two restaurants, an entertainment venue, and curated, rotating exhibits that highlight aspects of the town’s history and Hawaiian culture. In honor of Hilo’s famed Merrie Monarch Festival, hula photographer Kim Taylor Reece, the hotel’s artistic curator, provided $4 million worth of art for display in the guest rooms and common areas.

Sources with quotes

Cooper, Jeanne (2017-02-09). "Suite Spot: Grand Naniloa Hotel Hilo". San Francisco Chronicle. Archived from the original on 2020-04-06. Retrieved 2020-04-06.
The article notes:
Anywhere else, the rebranding of an iconic hotel might elicit yawns. But in Hawaii’s second-largest city, the addition of “A DoubleTree by Hilton” to the official name of the Grand Naniloa Hotel Hilo has sparked excitement. Finally, the heart of East Hawaii has contemporary, clean lodgings that meet national standards, yet with a style that celebrates Hawaiian culture, thanks to $20 million in renovations to the 388 rooms and public areas, including two restaurants, a lobby bar and nightclub.
Lead investor Ed Bushor is equally proud of the hotel’s other new moniker, “The Home of Hula,” reflected in the hotel’s weekly free hula shows and classes, videos of Hilo’s renowned Merrie Monarch hula competition playing in the lobby, and Kim Taylor Reece’s black-and-white images of hula dancers nearly everywhere you huli (turn).
The setting: At the northern apex of wooded, hotel-lined Banyan Drive, overlooking Hilo Bay, the ocean and Reeds Bay, where cruise and cargo ships dock at one end and locals paddleboard at the other.
"Editorial: Hotel sale holds promise for Hilo". Honolulu Star-Advertiser. Archived from the original on 2020-04-06. Retrieved 2020-04-06 – via Gale.
The editorial notes:
A jewel that's been diminished in recent years, the troubled Hilo Naniloa Hotel now has a new lease on life, quite literally, with much potential for the property and for the economic vitality of nearby communities in East Hawaii. After years of decline, the bayfront hotel was bought this month in bankruptcy auction for $7 million by real estate developer Ed Bushor and partners, including marine artist Wyland and major Hawaii island landowner Ed Olson. To be rebranded the Naniloa Volcanoes Resort, its new owners have the deep pockets to spend $20 million on renovations and transform the property into a museum-like visitor attraction by New Year's 2015. What's good for the Naniloa, and the other hospitality purveyors along Hilo's scenic Banyan and Bayfront drives, is good for the economic well-being of East Hawaii. The 383-room hotel had been in Chapter 11 bankruptcy since November 2012, operating just 180 rooms in one tower after previous owner, Hawaii Outdoor Tours Inc., ran into money trouble after renovations during the economic downturn several years ago. That company, led by Ken Fujiyama, had bought the Naniloa and its golf course on state land in a land-lease auction in 2006. Where the current hotel has hobbled along with a mere 20-30 percent occupancy rate employing just 35 workers, the revitalized property envisions employing 115 to 200 people. Having the Naniloa sale resolved -- especially involving such prominent names -- gives much-needed stability heading into mixed times for Hawaii's tourism industry.
Cooper, Jeanne. "Grand Naniloa Hotel Hilo—A DoubleTree by Hilton". Frommer's. Archived from the original on 2020-04-06. Retrieved 2020-04-06.
The article notes:
This 12-story, thoroughly renovated oceanfront hotel with wonderful views of Hilo Bay has declared itself “the home of hula.” Renowned photographer Kim Taylor Reese’s images of hula dancers hang on virtually every wall, high-definition video of the “Merrie Monarch” hula competition plays in the new, open-air lobby, with a central bar.
Gomes, Andrew (2015-08-18). "Brand-new start for an iconic inn". Honolulu Star-Advertiser. Archived from the original on 2020-04-06. Retrieved 2020-04-06 – via Gale.
The article notes:
A $20 million renovation and re-branding is set to begin for the Hilo Naniloa Hotel and Golf Club more than a year after a group of investors bought the struggling property on state land.
...
The Naniloa, which was built in 1966 on land leased from the state along Banyan Drive and includes a nine-hole golf course, fell on hard times after the Great Recession as former owner Hawaii Outdoor Tours Inc. filed bankruptcy. It had acquired the property in 2006 and got caught in the economic downturn partway through a renovation plan.
Hotel operations at one point under Hawaii Outdoor lacked a functioning restaurant, had one of two pools closed and only 179 rooms in use. Occupancy fell to as low as 20 percent to 30 percent.
Hawaii Outdoor, led by Hilo businessman Ken Fujiyama, lost the property in a bankruptcy auction to a company led by real estate developer Ed Bushor that paid $7 million in December 2013.
Wenzel, Marty (2017-06-19). "Back in the spotlight: the renovated, rebranded Grand Naniloa Hotel Hilo keeps culture alive on Hawaii Island's east side". TravelAge West. 52 (13). Northstar Travel Group. Archived from the original on 2020-04-06. Retrieved 2020-04-06 – via Gale.
The article notes:
Like the company's DoubleTree properties around the world, Grand Naniloa Hotel Hilo--a DoubleTree by Hilton welcomes guests with warm chocolate chip cookies. But as soon as clients enter the new, open-air lobby with its views straight out to Hilo Bay, they know exactly where they stand. Fresh from a $30 million renovation, the 320-room Grand Naniloa makes a strong statement about its singularity and its setting on the east coast of Hawaii Island.
Formerly known as Hilo Naniloa Hotel, the 70-acre seaside landmark first opened in 1939, and by the 1950s and '60s, it had evolved into Hilo's most popular accommodation. Seasoned travelers were smitten with its location on Banyan Drive, a boulevard lined by banyan trees planted by baseball star Babe Ruth, former President Franklin D. Roosevelt and other celebrities. In subsequent decades, the hotel fell into disrepair and financial hardship until its purchase by Tower Development, which launched a three-year-long renovation. The restored property, managed by Aqua-Aston Hospitality, debuted in November 2016 as Hawaii Island's first DoubleTree by Hilton.
...
Since Grand Naniloa's accommodations were gutted and rebuilt, rooms now feature either floor-to-ceiling windows or lanais, and 90 percent boast ocean views. Guests enjoy complimentary Wi-Fi access, in-room microwaves and refrigerators, a 24-hour fitness center, free self-parking and free daily rounds on Hilo's nine-hole golf course. Soon, clients will be able to sip and sup at Grand Naniloa's bay-view bar and poolside restaurant, opening in August.
"Hawai'i: Hawai'i Island: beyond coffee, black sand and orchids". Travel Weekly. Northstar Travel Group. 2014-12-08. Archived from the original on 2020-04-06. Retrieved 2020-04-06 – via Gale.
The article notes:
The Hilo Naniloa Hotel is the new name for Naniloa Volcanoes Resort, which was sold in a bankruptcy. Aqua Hospitality, based in Honolulu, will manage the 383-room resort and oversee its complete renovation, estimated to wrap by summer 2015. In the interim, 140 rooms will be available and services limited, but prices have been adjusted.
Gomes, Andrew (2013-12-19). "Naniloa Volcanoes Hotel purchased for $7 million". Honolulu Star-Advertiser. Archived from the original on 2020-04-06. Retrieved 2020-04-06 – via Gale.
The article notes:
The Naniloa Volcanoes Hotel has a new owner and a new future as a marine art-themed vacation resort in Hilo. A company led by real estate developer Ed Bushor completed the purchase of the oceanfront hotel Tuesday. Work to revitalize the struggling property began quickly, with new landscaping planted in front of the hotel Tuesday and a 20-foot Christmas tree set up Wednesday. "It's looking like an operating hotel actually, instead of a desert like it used to be," Bushor said. Bushor, who bought the hotel for $7 million through a bankruptcy auction with partners, including marine artist Wyland and major Hawaii island landowner Ed Olson, plans to spend $20 million on renovations and make the property a museumlike visitor attraction.
Schaefers, Allison (2013-11-13). "Bankrupt Naniloa Volcanoes Hotel being sold to developer-artist duo". Honolulu Star-Advertiser. Archived from the original on 2020-04-06. Retrieved 2020-04-06 – via Gale.
The article notes:
Developer Ed Bushor and his longtime friend, marine artist Wyland, are buying the bankrupt Naniloa Volcanoes Hotel for $5.2 million, a U.S. Bankruptcy Court judge confirmed Tuesday.
The $5.2 million offer beat out an earlier unconfirmed bid for $3.7 million by Ramco Properties, owner of the Hilo Hawaiian, which is next door to the Naniloa. It also shut out other last-minute offers from two other developers, including Peter Savio, who owns Pagoda Hotels.
...
The Naniloa went into foreclosure last year after Hawaii Outdoor Tours Inc. defaulted on a $10 million loan it used to buy the hotel, which sits on 71 acres of state leasehold land. Only 269 of the hotel's 333 rooms are in active service.
Bair, Diane; Wright, Pamela (2017-03-09). "Turning up the heat in Hawaii". The Boston Globe. Archived from the original on 2020-04-06. Retrieved 2020-04-06.
The article notes:
The Grand Naniloa Hotel — A Doubletree by Hilton is the place to stay in Hilo (855-610-8733, www.grandnaniloahilo.com; rooms starting at $149). The historic, 388-room property, with in-your-face views of Hilo Bay and the Mauna Kea Volcano, has been totally renovated. Contemporary rooms, in various shapes and sizes, are slightly minimalistic, with white and neutral hues; the best have water views or private balconies. The ocean-side lobby bar, with an exposed lava rock wall and comfy seating, is a great place to hang out.
Williams, Sue (2019-11-15). "Hilo, Hawaii: How the hula became a grass-skirted hip swaying dance". Traveller. Archived from the original on 2020-04-06. Retrieved 2020-04-06.
The article notes:
Fittingly, the hotel on that exact site, the Grand Naniloa Hotel Hilo has rebranded itself as the home of hula following a renovation in 2018. It's decorated throughout with beautiful monochrome photographs of hula dancers, has a huge mural in the restaurant – called Hula Hulas – and a life-size bronze statue of a hula dancer looking out over the bay from the lobby. And there are hula dancers performing every Monday evening and soon to be more days.
Inefuku, Terri (2016-11-11). "The Grand Naniloa Hotel Hilo completes $30 million renovation". KHON-TV. Archived from the original on 2020-04-06. Retrieved 2020-04-06.
The article notes:
After a $30 million renovation, The Grand Naniloa Hotel Hilo – a DoubleTree by Hilton officially made its debut Thursday.
...
Located along Hilo Bay, the historic 70-acre property features 320 refurbished guest rooms and suites, two restaurants, an entertainment venue, and curated, rotating exhibits that highlight aspects of the town’s history and Hawaiian culture.
In honor of Hilo’s famed Merrie Monarch Festival, hula photographer Kim Taylor Reece, the hotel’s artistic curator, provided $4 million worth of art for display in the guest rooms and common areas.

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Grand Naniloa Hotel to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

Cunard (talk) 06:36, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Historic major hotel. Clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:26, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question Which guideline applies here? Is it NCORP for corporations/organizations? If so, none of the references listed above (including those listed by Cunard) meet the criteria for establishing notability. The references are either tertiary sources (such as guidebooks or inclusion in hotel-listings) or sources based on various announcements such as refurbishment or takeover. Initiall I was rather surprised but digging a bit deeper it seems that this hotel was primarily used for business meetings or for tourists visiting the volcano and catered for these needs. I've tried to look at other hotel articles to understand what criteria might apply (e.g. Hudson Hotel, Hotel Edison, Mayagüez Resort & Casino, etc) and the standard of referencing doesn't appear particularly high nor am I able to figure out which guidelines apply. If NCORP is the correct guideline, then a lot of hotel articles (including some/all of the ones I've linked) might struggle to survive an AfD. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:59, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Given they're buildings, WP:GEOFEAT is also appropriate. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:37, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on WP:GEOFEAT and the inclusion of this hotel on the National Registry of the Historic Hotels of America which is also associated with the National Trust for Historic Preservation, it appears to meet the criteria for inclusion. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:57, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. WP:GEOFEAT and the inclusion of this hotel on the National Registry of the Historic Hotels of America. This exercise is a waste of valuable editor time. No compliance with WP:Before. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:45, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GEOFEAT and WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 10:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per a source review, meets WP:GNG, and also meets WP:GEOFEAT per its historical significance. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:38, 11 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) 10:13, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kazakh playing cards[edit]

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

1. This is blatant advertising. The article's creator asserts to have produced the images for this article. They are identical to the ones found on Amazon and yurtcards.com. It is clear that the creator of these cards is using Wikipedia as a marketing platform which is against Wikipedia's policy.
2. One of the requirements of an article is notability. This article fails to demonstrate that. According to yurtcards.com this deck was created in 2018 and a quick reverse image search shows there are no mentions outside of non-retail sites. It is not "used in Kazakhstan and other countries" as purported because the packaging is found only in English. It is no different from the countless copyrighted novelty decks churned out each year.

This article as well as the accompanying images should be deleted as spam. Countakeshi (talk) 02:29, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is clearly product placement. There is no evidence that these cards or cards like them represent true Khazak heritage. I can't find any reliable, independent references that assert anything notable about these cards. It's an advertising gimmick and, I suspect, a case of WP:COI. Glendoremus (talk) 03:24, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and probably salt. Either the images are a copyvio or the article was created by a CoI editor. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 12:14, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete To clarify what I take to be Glendoremus's point: The symbols invoked may well reflect Kazakh heritage, but that is beside the point. The question is: "Is playing games with this deck of cards a notable feature of Kazakh culture?" It is impossible that this is so. Phil wink (talk) 14:24, 4 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:21, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MComix[edit]

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

Piece of free software to read images and comics. Fails the software specific and the more general notability tests. There's just no significant coverage in reliable sources. Pichpich (talk) 21:59, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Pichpich (talk) 21:59, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Pichpich (talk) 21:59, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why ask for delete instead of redirect? If the rules call for MComix to be deleted then Comix (software) should also be deleted. -- 109.79.79.220 (talk) 22:39, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a good option for a redirect target? I see none. As for Comix (software), it's currently a redirect to MComix so it's going to get deleted too. Pichpich (talk) 22:59, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Before my recent edits: MComix pointed to Comix (software); Comix (software) pointed to Comic book archive. I don't see the problem with having a page for a small software project, it isn't like Wikipedia is short of space. I don't like it but I'd understand if the articles redirected instead to Comparison of image viewers -- 109.79.79.220 (talk) 23:52, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We've come a long way since the early days of "oh sure, make a page for everything". If it hasn't been written about in secondary sources, it fails WP:V and we can't retain the content. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:32, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I could have closed this WP:SOFTDELETE but given the view expressed by the IP a firmer consensus seems appropriate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:27, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A search yields a few sites offering free downloads of the software and a couple of perfunctory product reviews. Doesn't seem to pass basic notability threshold. Glendoremus (talk) 03:38, 4 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 23:23, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cyber Security Awareness[edit]

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

I could be wayyyy off base but this seems to be more of an Essay then an encyclopedia article. I'm not sure how this could be salvaged. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:17, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Maybe try reading it? It's reasonably well sourced (it's lacking content more than sourcing) and while it's no more than a stub at present (that's why it's labelled "stub"), the topic is good. As cyber security gets better by engineering, the attacks focus more on the human targets: so educating those targets and increasing their awareness is the next step for improvement, hence this article and the idea of awareness as being distinct from and supplemental to inbuilt security itself. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:20, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did and that's why I said it read more like an essay. I'm open to being wrong here too I'm just saying what I got when I read it. If it ends up being a WP:SNOW keep you'll get a full apology from me. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:24, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When did you read it? In the two whole minutes between it going live and you Afding it? Was that with the supporting references or without? I couldn't even read WP:BEFORE in that time. Crying "AGF" afterwards is no excuse. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:32, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dude I read 300 plus words per minute...chill. I'm sorry that I made a decision you didn't like, please accept it was done in good faith. We can let others decide too, I am ok with that. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:36, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this article is suitable for Wikipedia, the subject is notable and it's pretty well sourced, but it does need expanding. I don't really feel like it reads like an essay, except maybe in the lead a little, but nothing which can't be fixed. Golem08 (talk) 12:25, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:11, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:11, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:37, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:25, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. fixable (and I don't quite see why it needed yo be relisted. Nom+ 2k = K. DGG ( talk ) 18:00, 4 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. Sandstein 06:47, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ACE Centre[edit]

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

A worthy cause but no evidence of notability. Article only contains primary sources and I could not find anything to add online. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 15:48, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 15:48, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 15:48, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 15:48, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 15:48, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 15:48, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 15:48, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. the Evaluation of the Communication Aids Project is a very respectable independent source. Rathfelder (talk) 09:47, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I’m not sure it is independent, and even if it was, it would indicate notability of the CAP project, not the ACE centre. Notability is not inherited. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 18:13, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:28, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 06:08, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:40, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems substantial, contributing at a larger level by development of widely usable software, not merely a two-location charity. Sure, article needs editing, is written non-encyclopedically with too much "inside" tone/info. It's not promotional in a bad way, this is a charitable non-profit not a commercial enterprise article by a paid editor. Coverage about its research publications and "how-to" publications should be expanded. Commenters not finding those publications apparently don't have good access to coverage that is known to exist. Off-line or non-major-database sources are fine, and we have evidence (assertions in article for which there's no reason to dismiss) that such exists. --Doncram (talk) 23:45, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- All the sources in the article are primary sources and the article does not point to any substantial secondary sources that I can see. And non-profits are not exempt from criteria on notability or promotional content. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:56, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant is that the article has a section on publications and a section on research and projects. It doesn't link to (point to) online articles, right, but I believe that the publications exist, and they may well be substantial sources and documentation of accomplishments. I, you, no one has accessed these. --Doncram (talk) 11:02, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You’re right, I’ve not looked at them, but we know that they’re primary sources! So even if we did find them, they would not add anything to notability. Is there any evidence of any substantial secondary sources existing? If not, fails WP:GNG, simple. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:33, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I located several articles about the Centre and its programs: [36] [37] [38] [39]. A couple of them are only incidental mentions, but there are at least a couple pieces that are primarily about the Centre and its funding issues in 2012. They also provides independent verification of basic facts about the Centre. --Spasemunki (talk) 03:44, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Response The purpose of AfD is not "independent verification of basic facts" and indeed the standard for references for such verification is of a *lower* standard that those references that may be used to establish notability. The *higher* standards for sources to establish notability can be found in WP:NCORP. For the purposes of establishing notability, multiple (at least two) sources must contain significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Based on that, I've looked at the references you've linked to:
  - This from the Isle of Wight County Express is a forward-looking piece about a scheme which was due to be launched in the Isle of Wight. It is not significant coverage and contains no in-depth information on the company, fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:CORPDEPTH
  - This from Oxford Mail talks about funding required to keep the Ace Centre open in Oxford and how an MP asked the PM to keep the centre open and mentions a petition. It has no information on the company (other than one of the centre's needs money to stay open). Fails WP:CORPDEPTH
  - This from ITV is related to the piece in the Oxford Mail but from the point of view of a young woman with cerebral palsy who attends the ACE Centre in Oxford and the impact it has on her life. From the point of view of the company, this is not a significant piece and contains no information on the company, fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:CORPDEPTH
  - This from AT Today is based (word for word) on this announcement from the IoW Council which is a related entity by virtue of their participation (along with the NHS, IoW College and other schools and ACE) in the pilot project. Fails WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:18, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HighKing obviously disagrees, but these are significant coverage in my view. The itv one, from 2016, is touching, about software that detects where the handicapped woman's gaze lingered, enabling her thereby to write mathematical equations. Yes, a huge impact on a woman's life, and it would have been a shame if it were closed. The Oxford Mail one is significant, about it being announced to be closed but then a rally of fundraising came in because it was so important and significant. Haven't looked at the rest. No good purpose served by being negative about this charitable center and its innovative software. -Doncram (talk) 04:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Touching" is not one of the criteria for notability. We also appear to look at the criteria for inclusion significant differently than you - for example being a charitable center with innovative software is not part of the criteria for notability. Being (in your opinion) a "good" company doesn't mean the company is entitled to a "reward" of a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is not the Yellow pages. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:44, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks significant coverage, as per HighKing. (by the way, the woodenspoon.com reference is a deadlink) Cheers, 1292simon (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Opinion seems evenly divided on whether sources present establish notability or not. Hoping a third relist allows for a firmer consensus (more editors) to prevail.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:11, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failed to find the necessary coverage to show it would pass WP:CORPDEPTH. 67.243.20.177 (talk) 19:42, 11 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. Sandstein 06:48, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Westfield State Owls football[edit]

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

A non notable college sports team. No evidence of notability through independent secondary sources, plus it’s a WP:COATRACK for non-notable coaches, plus it houses far too much data about individual games. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 13:56, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 13:56, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 13:56, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 13:56, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 13:56, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: to Westfield State University. No merge required; this is a completely NN Division III program, and it's darkly amusing (if not at all surprising) that the level of detail in this article swamps the word count of the college. Ravenswing 01:36, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we typically keep main pages of college-level sports teams for sports such as American Football. The article does itself need (much) better sourcing and could do with some good editing, but those are editing issues and not deletion issues. That this article has more content than the article about the college itself is in no way a deletion argument either, because Wikipedia is not being built in any orderly fashion. US college football programs normally generate enough press to surpass WP:GNG and a simple web search supports that for this college program. AFD is not cleanup.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:22, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: We certainly typically keep main pages of college-level sports teams for Division I programs (heck, I've created a couple myself), but we're talking a Division III program here, about which reliable media sources are significantly less forthcoming, beyond the routine sports coverage debarred from supporting a subject's notability. That being said, this article has been carrying tags about needing secondary sources for nearly a decade now, without anyone stirring themselves to improve the article, and if you believe that there are non-local sources providing substantive coverage to the subject ... what prevents you from adding them? Ravenswing 17:03, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- My lack of enthusiasm for rapidly editing an article is no reason to delete, and there is no time limit. Personally, I kind of have something else going on in my life right now and don't have the time to edit articles.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:00, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - One would think that you wouldn't have time either at AfD, but you're the best judge of that, I suppose. In any event, it doesn't seem that anyone else is doing anything, "rapidly" or otherwise. But that's not even the point. The point is that the article's gone nearly a decade without any reliable sourcing. I maintain that there is none beyond ones debarred by WP:ROUTINE. It is up to anyone who wishes to save the article to demonstrate that such sources exist, as a prerequisite to keeping it; otherwise, it must be deleted. Ravenswing 10:30, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - first off, WP:ROUTINE applies to events and not organizations. See WP:NOTROUTINE (or read the "routine" page and realize that it is part of Wikipedia:Notability (events). Second, the organization has been in operation for [22 seasons. ESPN maintains their win-loss record since 2005. And this search reveals a good number of potential candidates. Keeping an article like this is a typical outcome.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:19, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A search of Newspapers.com turns up 13,756 articles on the Westfield State football team. See here. This level of coverage warrants an overall article on the football program. As a caveat, I note that I do not support the creation of season articles for Division III schools such as Westfield. An overall article about the program is sufficient IMO to cover such a program. Cbl62 (talk) 17:25, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cbl62 and Paulmcdonald's reasoning and arguments. Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:34, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect Lacks WP:RS to establish notability. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 13:13, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems there is plenty of coverage for this football program. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:21, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still in heavy discussion. Giving it a bit more time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 23:47, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep plenty of coverage and per Cbl62 and Paulmcdonald above. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:17, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking through the Newspapers.com sources, much of this doesn’t seem to be more than just simple results listings and the routine local coverage you’d expect for a non notable sports team. Are there any more substantial sources? Cardiffbear88 (talk) 21:37, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional discussion has not made clear that there is notability establishing coverage only coverage. Number of Newspaper.com results is an argument to avoid (newspapers.com is just a search engine for newspapers whose articles may or may not help establish notability).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:09, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of sources available to establish GNG. To expect us to individually list 13,000+ sources in this discussion to "prove" GNG is absurd - they're clearly out there. Smartyllama (talk) 19:54, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Smartyllama Almost all of the hits are merely brief mentions of match results, something most non-notable teams will have without becoming notable. Otherwise, we’d be creating articles on every amateur sports team in the world, no matter what their actual notability. What we need is evidence of more substantial articles outside of short mentions in local newspapers. WP:GNG isn’t about indiscriminately listing sources, it’s picking those that best highlight your case. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 08:16, 6 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) 10:03, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Busfaloba Creek[edit]

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

Fails WP:NGEO as an anemic stub for a non-notable location KidAd (talk) 00:48, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:15, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:39, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Knowing the word "Busfaloba" is of unknown Chickasaw origin is not information about the creek itself establishing notability. Reywas92^Talk 06:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Eminently non-notable save perhaps for a real estate agent promoting sales. Activist (talk) 06:34, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough coverage to justify a standalone article. I couldn't find any real estate-related coverage, however sites such as Zillow and Hometown Locator create automated entries for just about any location that shows up in the GNIS database. –dlthewave ☎ 16:38, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think this should be deleted because it is very unsignificant and non-notable. There are almost no sources or mentions at all. Koridas (Speak) 00:22, 9 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.