< 20 July	22 July >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Mhhossein ^talk 12:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hamilton McWhorter III[edit]

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

~~Does~~Did not satisfy military notability guidelines, because not awarded Medal of Honor or promoted to flag rank. ~~Does not satisfy general notability guidelines.~~ Robert McClenon (talk) 23:02, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:02, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:02, 21 July 2020 (UTC)#[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:15, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep aces, especially multiple aces are notable. Mztourist (talk) 02:59, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First navy ace. First navy double-aces. A huge amount of sources on him, even an entire book. Vici Vidi (talk) 08:03, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A search shows plenty of independent sources that discuss the subject in depth. Aymatth2 (talk) 10:19, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Snow Speedy Keep. First navy ace. First navy double-aces. Meets WP:GNG. WP:HEY. Article has been improved since nomination. Proving WP:Before ignored. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:23, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep WP:SNOW WP:PILEON Ouch! WP:BEFORE yields a notable WWII Ace.

permanent citation for the Gold Star 1947 Long Beach Independent from the Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal he received a "permanent citation for a Gold Star in lieu of a third Air Medal." for meritorious achievement in arial flight against Japanese forces..."January 13, 1947
Given Command of the VF-12, calls him a "WWII Ace with 12 enemy planes to his credit" in the Jacksonville Jax Air News December 3, 1953
The Navy declared him a WWII Ace in 1945 published in the Tucson Daily Citizen February 24, 1945 Lightburst (talk) 15:21, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP The article was massively improved [1], and for the reasons others have mentioned. Clearly notable in his field. Dream Focus 15:24, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination - The current article and the article that was nominated for deletion are two entirely different articles. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:01, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep on the presumption that being an air ace is enough, but many of the sources used in this article are dubious. What, for example, makes acepilots.com, Honor365.org or ussessex.org reliable? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:51, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Whatever the basis for this observation, they are redundant sources. For example, they corroborate this magazine article Dorr, Robert F. (21 October 2019). "Sharp Shooting Hellcat "Mac" McWhorter Runs Up the Score" (PDF). Flight Journal. Retrieved 22 July 2020. and the books and multiple other sources.

Here are the cited books:

Cleaver, Thomas McKelvey (2017). Pacific Thunder: The US Navy's Central Pacific Campaign August 1943 – October 1944. Oxford UK: Osprey Publishing. p. 79. ISBN 9781472821843. Retrieved 23 July 2020.
Cleaver, Thomas McKelvey (2018). Tidal Wave: From Leyte Gulf to Tokyo Bay. Oxford UK: Osprey Publishing. p. 137. ISBN 9781472825476. Retrieved 22 July 2020.
Danilov, Victor (November 30, 1997). Hall of Fame Museums (1st ed.). Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press. p. 159. ISBN 978-0313300004.((cite book)): CS1 maint: date and year (link)
Toliver, Raymond F.; Constable, Trevor J (1979). Fighter Aces of the U.S.A. Fallbrook, California: Aero Publishers, Inc. p. 385. ISBN 0-8168-5792-X. Library of Congress card number 79-53300
Young, Edward M. (18 March 2014). F6F Hellcat Aces of VF-9 (Aircraft of the Aces (Book 119) ed.). Oxford, United Kingdom: Osprey Publishing. p. 43. ISBN 978-1782003359. Retrieved 22 July 2020.

Read them. The sourcing issue is illusory. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:14, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:19, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of All That musical guests[edit]

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

I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of All That characters as delete, and while I was unlinking it I noticed this equally unsourced list. There is coverage out there of the show's musical content (i.e. "the best 10 musical performances on All That"), but there doesn't appear to anything that could source this apart from fan wikis. Black Kite (talk) 22:42, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced and non-notable trivia/fancruft. Ajf773 (talk) 09:10, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is trivia and pure fancruft that is suitable for a Fandom Wikia article on All That. Pahiy (talk) 00:11, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 00:18, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails LISTN. ——Serial 10:49, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 00:10, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Penelope Pussycat[edit]

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

No references. Fails WP:GNG. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 22:21, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 22:21, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 22:21, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:27, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pepé Le Pew. Redirects are cheap. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:11, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Did you not see the 2 references at the bottom of the article? I added the "reflist" template so that they show up closer to the top. So, your "no references" rationale fails. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:33, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, I would withdraw my nomination if I could. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 00:27, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've heard you can comment I withdraw at the bottom of the AfD and someone will come around eventually to close it. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:03, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I added several references to the article. The character is discussed quite a bit in the 1998 book Reading the Rabbit: Explorations in Warner Bros. Animation, in the chapter "Ah Love! Zee Grand Illusion! Pepé Le Pew, Narcissism and Cats in the Casbah". — Toughpigs (talk) 23:50, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep given nominator's desire to withdraw, the presence of sources, and the new adds from Toughpigs. -2pou (talk) 02:58, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Agreed. Now it is clearly notable. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:08, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of X-Men enemies#Teams. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mutant Liberation Front[edit]

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

Poor refs, primary sources. Fails WP:GNG. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 22:16, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 22:16, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 22:16, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect to List of X-Men enemies which has an entry for the team, and maybe merge a very tiny bit. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:36, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of X-Men enemies#Teams, there is one secondary source in the article, which may give significant coverage, though there is only really a paragraph of actual coverage, the rest being in-universe information. All the other sources are primary, meaning this group fails GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 08:26, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of X-Men enemies#Teams if they are mentioned there. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:57, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Drop me a note if you are ready to start work on this and I will draftify it for you. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:00, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Knight (art dealer)[edit]

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

Not enough sources provided to demonstrate notability Dexxtrall (talk) 22:11, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:11, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:11, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:11, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per nom MaskedSinger (talk) 15:20, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Buxtehude Thank you for reminding me, I had been meaning to expand this article. The subject was for 40 years one of the handful of most infliuential people in the art market. This is of interest to people studying art history but I believe it is also of a wider popular interest for people who wish to learn more about how big prices are made for famous artists (Rembrandt, Rubens, etc.). Karl Buxtehude (talk) 16:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft to provide an opportunity for expansion. BD2412 T 22:48, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:17, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notizen .NET[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NSOFTWARE. No significant coverage in reliable sources, and very little information on archived versions of the now-defunct official website. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:56, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:56, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:56, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is non-notable note-taking software. The article was created by a WP:SPA in 2012 and then abandoned, as was the software's official website. I loved this detail: "Files can be directly stored on a ftp server", just like in the 20th century. Biogeographist (talk) 15:10, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability, so significant independant coverage. -Kj cheetham (talk) 15:00, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable software with no WP:RS ~ Amkgp 💬 11:28, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NSOFT (fails all the §4 criteria). ——Serial 10:53, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. While there is some contention, overall consensus is that the article has now been sourced with news articles providing significant coverage. Public schools are explicitly excluded from WP:NORG so WP:AUD does not apply. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:22, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Grainger High School[edit]

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

Article has no significant sources other than school code identification and main page. given except for infobox content, school is not notable enough to have own article. AppalachianCentrist (talk) 21:28, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. AppalachianCentrist (talk) 21:28, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:31, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:31, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AppalachianCentrist, what did you do for WP:BEFORE? Just a few clicks on the "find sources" tab above yields numerous sources, including some mentions in works of fiction. If writers of fiction are setting their stories in this school, then that's a pretty clear indication they've made note of it, ya? John from Idegon (talk) 21:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment *John from Idegon, the works of fiction you had mention regard a school of the same name but in a different state, for this circumstance, in North Carolina, not in relation to the school in Tennessee. Thanks, --AppalachianCentrist (talk) 23:10, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sourcing indicates actual notability. The fact that this name is used for a setting of some fiction in another state in no way makes this real high school notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:03, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have added content and citations. It now passes WP:GNG. Cheeers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 00:26, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a 12-year-old school and almost nothing has been published about it. No notable grads. No front-page scandals. What has been published in secondary sources has been added to the article, enabling it to squeak by WP:NSCHOOL. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:28, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the one thing which may be a claim of significance, the school's purchase of a large plot of land for an agricultural program, is sourced only to a local news site, which does not support passing WP:GNG. Otherwise it's a non-notable school doing non-notable school things. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:40, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Ivanvector, I agree that this article makes no particular claim of significance except that it is the largest school in Grainger County, Tennessee, but my understanding of WP:CCS includes this sentence from the essay you mentioned on speedy deletion: Significance is a lower standard than notability... the inclusion of reliable secondary sources may itself be an indication of significance... According to school notability criteria, Individual articles must usually meet either the Wikipedia general notability guideline or the organizations and companies subject-specific notability guideline... So if the criteria we use include significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject, at least three sources in the article, namely the Knoxville News Sentinel, WVLT-TV, and Citizen Tribune, specifically meet all GNG criteria. Cheers! – Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 23:22, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, largest school in the county and sufficient sources have been added now.--RZuo (talk) 19:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 06:44, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

COVID-19 pandemic death rates by country[edit]

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

This article was created a few days ago without any discussion that I am aware of, and it is essentially a fork of information already present on the many COVID-19 deaths pages that already exist. The deaths section of COVID-19 pandemic now has hatnotes for four pages (COVID-19 pandemic deaths, Mortality due to COVID-19, COVID-19 pandemic death rates by country, and List of deaths due to COVID-19), three of which are grouped in the ((Main page)) hatnote and none of which are all that easily distinguishable by their title alone. There's also country-specific death information at COVID-19 pandemic by country and territory. Put together, this is going to overwhelm any reader seeking clear information and fracture the work of editors trying to maintain pages in this area. I politely raised these issues at the talk page and received a somewhat hostile reply from the page's creator that makes it pretty clear they are not interested in integrating the page into the larger network of COVID-19 pages, so I think it needs to go. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 21:21, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 21:21, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Look at the page views banner at the top here: Talk:COVID-19 pandemic death rates by country. This page is already very popular in only a few days. It's obviously filling a need not provided by the other articles. Specifically, the number of deaths per population by country. The title of the article is very specific. Spin-off articles like this are common concerning COVID-19. Due to the extreme length of the main articles. See the many COVID-19 articles linked in the navbox: ((2019-nCoV)). I only see one other source for this info in one place, Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Per capita, and it died long ago. It is not in any articles since it is no longer updated. Probably because it looks like a nightmare to maintain. Updates on the article I created only take a few minutes. See how here: User:Timeshifter/Sandbox107. And we are not supposed to link to templates as separate articles. The info in that template needs to be in a separate article with normal size text in a table that expands to its full length without scrolling. I have done a lot of editing on Help:Table and Help:Sorting. So I know what people want. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:03, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Per capita is in COVID-19 pandemic by country and territory, although it was commented out recently because of some issues with Wikidata, where it automatically draws its data from (once Wikidata gets their act together and the table is restored, it'll require no maintenance at all). But AfD is not the place to debate the best method of updating tables, and as I mentioned to you at the talk page, I think your approach has promise and could potentially be implemented more widely. The question here is whether we need yet another new article for this, and I think we pretty clearly don't. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 22:18, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You write: "another new article for this". As far as I can tell right now there is no other article, nor subsection of an article, that has an up-to-date complete country list for the number of deaths per 100,000 population by country. Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Per capita hasn't been edited since June 17, 2020. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:15, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:52, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to another article where the table can be kept up to date and useful. I think at least during the pandemic that is going to be easiest to insure in a stand alone article. I think it would help if we could find reliable sources that discuss the differences from country to country in determining which deaths to count. We now know people died of this disease or at least with this disease before it was widely being diagnosed (some evidence suggests outside China deaths in 2019), there are in many cases complex multiple factors contributing to deaths, and so we would benefit from discussions of how the availability of testing, willingness to mass test and various determinations of cause of death may effect the overall death rate that is reported for different countries.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:19, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP The news media does cover this regularly. The news in any nation mention their updated death numbers. Dream Focus 14:32, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP A significant statistic being reported more frequently. It is not well presented on any other page and probably cannot be. Perhaps the list can also be expanded to explain any difference in reporting methods and anomalies in the data. Even my friend JPL voted keep and I think this is only the second time I have seen that word associated to his name. Congratulations, KEEP up the good work. Trackinfo (talk) 02:24, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19. Reason: Relevant WikiProject. Sdkb (talk) 21:55, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's no question that the content is valuable. The proposer is questioning where the content is presented and if it needs its own page. In general, agree that the number of breakout topics relating to COVID-19 data is getting confusing. Hopefully, we can find some consensus on the best approach to organize this content based on WP:PGL ...!votes aren't summed. Presenting the data in a scrollbox within COVID-19 pandemic by country and territory seems reasonable though there may be usability concerns. In my mind, the ideal would be to merge this calculation into the Template:COVID-19 pandemic data table. WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:POPULARPAGE are not the strongest arguments. - Wikmoz (talk) 05:23, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

COVID-19 pandemic by country and territory is part of these 2 massive categories:

Category:COVID-19 pandemic by country

Category:COVID-19 pandemic by continent

The regional and country info in COVID-19 pandemic should be moved to the articles in those categories. In order to shorten the length of COVID-19 pandemic.

This list article should remain separate because as with most country lists people want to go to one place to quickly get important specific stats without it being buried in other material they are not interested in.

What I see useful in Template:COVID-19 pandemic data is the historical record of all the data sources worldwide. I believe that history, and those many references, should be pulled out as a separate article titled something like "History of COVID-19 pandemic data collection worldwide". Much of that history is probably already in the many COVID-19 country articles.

I have created and worked on many tables. Successful, regularly updated country lists come from one source. Not many sources. That is why for this country list I am happy that John Hopkins University is doing that consolidation of data, and not me.

There would be no easy way to merge the data from this article into Template:COVID-19 pandemic data. As I said country lists with many sources are vastly more time-consuming. And they have constant referee problems as to which data to accept. And this table's data has everything the template has except the recovered numbers. Those are bogus numbers anyway since there is a vast pool of people who have already had COVID-19 but were never listed as confirmed cases, and therefore not as recovered cases.

And scrolling country lists are a terrible way to present data.

One easy way to make the template into an historical record would be to delete all the data columns, and just keep the country column and the references column. And expand the length of the template so there is less scrolling, or no scrolling. Eventually remove the table from the template altogether. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:42, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Timeshifter, I'm inclined to agree with you about centralizing sourcing from Johns Hopkins. (The one difference is that I think the data should be automatically imported to and centralized at Wikidata, which is actually designed as a data repository, unlike here. Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Per capita is set up to import it once Wikidata finishes setting that up.) But there has been substantial prior discussion about how to source COVID-19 data, so that's something to be brought up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19, since it's not your or my unilateral decision to make. Your table calculates the case fatality rate from the confirmed cases and confirmed deaths and presents each of those, so what you're essentially trying to do here is replicate Template:COVID-19 pandemic data and stick it in a new forked article. Again, we're not objecting to the way you're getting the data, which is not something to discuss at AfD, but rather to the need for a new separate article. With a topic as sprawling as the pandemic, it's essential to eliminate content forks, rather than creating a new version of a thing whenever we're unsatisfied with the current one. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 20:10, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to use Wikidata as an intermediary in this process of creating a table. Especially if you are using one source for the data. See: User:Timeshifter/Sandbox107. It lists 3 different methods of converting the Johns Hopkins table into table wikitext almost instantly. And as I said, a scrolling template is a terrible way to present a country list. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:26, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to use Wikidata if we're selfish enough to not care about the 85% of the world that doesn't speak English. Otherwise yes, there's a need to centralize there, after which it can be automatically imported here (there's a big difference between your almost automatic and actually automatic). But if you want to argue against Wikidata, fine, go do that at the appropriate forum, WT:19. But it's not relevant to the question at hand here, and as Wikmoz pointed out, a closer acting based on policy is unlikely to give any weight to the main keep rationales presented so far. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 07:01, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sdkb, no one is stopping you, or anybody else, from using other methods, whether using Wikidata or other tools, to create country list tables with the names of the countries in multiple languages. But right now it doesn't exist for country tables with the number of deaths per 100,000 population by country. I can't help because I know little about Wikidata. I know of no Wikipedia policy that says we should delete pages just because someone hopes a better page (or template) will eventually show up. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:01, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It does exist at Template: COVID-19 pandemic data/Per capita; the difference between deaths per 100,000 population and deaths per million population is trivial. And the WP:REDUNDANTFORK guideline is the one that says we don't respond to flawed pages by creating new ones, but rather by improving the existing ones. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 16:55, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sdkb, there is no redundant article, because there is no article using that template. And it has a zillion references. That makes it difficult to embed in articles. And Wikipedia does not want linking happening to templates. So it needs to be in a separate page. I just created that separate page. And it only has one reference for the table. As I said earlier, country lists that use a single source are much easier to maintain, and by fewer people. And they are more likely to stay updated. And I don't see multiple languages for that template. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:33, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep well documented by reliable sources. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 03:43, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The issues raised with this page have absolutely nothing to do with lack of documentation or sourcing. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 04:30, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Timeshifter and Trackinfo above. // Timothy :: talk 23:35, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or merge, if possible): I find the information quite helpful especially when it is required to compare the death rates of different countries and if that can be provided somewhere else then I'd support the merge proposal. But in the absence of such proposal, I wouldn't want such valuable information to go waste.--Deepak G Goswami (talk) 16:00, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Timeshifter. It does seem to be sourced information not available currently in other articles which has some practical use, and it does seem there would be practical difficulties in adding it into other pages. It would be useful to know what "nan" means in the table, though. Grutness...wha? 16:17, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:07, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Society of Corporate Compliance and Ethics[edit]

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

This organization does not meet general notability guidelines. All sources are self-published or press releases. Eóin (talk) 21:02, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Eóin (talk) 21:02, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Eóin (talk) 21:02, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since subject fails WP:NCORP. Almost all sources are related to the corporation itself and the blatant promotional prose is telling. There's nothing of substance here. -The Gnome (talk) 21:07, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mostly per Gnome: fails BASIC with its over-reliance on SPS. ——Serial 10:56, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:07, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Dillon[edit]

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

Non-notable NYC-based pastor. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:20, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:20, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:20, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:20, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being quoted in a news paper article is not a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:29, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater @ 13:46, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Expertwikiguy (talk) 21:55, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ANYBIO. Being quoted (even twice!) does not convey notability or SIGCOV. ——Serial 10:57, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to West African Dwarf sheep. Consensus is that there are too many articles about the same sheep. The naming issue needs to be resolved through discussion, not by creating more articles. Sandstein 06:52, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Djallonké sheep[edit]

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

This is a content fork of West African Dwarf sheep, which I failed to notice soon enough to tag it as A10. A merge discussion (Talk:West African Dwarf sheep#Proposed merge of Djallonké sheep into West African Dwarf sheep) has been open for more than a month with no sign that any consensus might be reached. Whatever else, we can't have two competing articles on the same topic. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:02, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:02, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:02, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's also Cameroon sheep. Which has a request to be merged into this article. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:00, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bit of a pile-up. Djallonké sheep is a clear recent content fork of West African Dwarf sheep (and waves its motivations around in the first line: The Djallonké sheep,[1][2] also known by the misnomers West African Dwarf Sheep (WADS) (North American name) and Cameroon sheep or Cameroon Dwarf Sheep (European name)...) Oh, and there's also Cameroon sheep, of course; three times the same critter. This is an obvious merge that, it appears, just hasn't happened due to lack of participation in the merge discussion. - Since Djallonké sheep was apparently created as fork to make an end-run about a move discussion of doubtful outcome (at least that's how I read it), I'd suggest to draftify Djallonké sheep to get the fork out of the way, sort out the predominant name for the breed, then merge all three articles under that name. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:01, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would second that. I don't think this can adequately be resolved unless there's agreement on the predominant name of the breed. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:05, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Delete, per my comments at Talk:West African Dwarf sheep#Proposed merge of Djallonké sheep into West African Dwarf sheep. I'd also point out the very similar discussion at Talk:West African Dwarf goats#Requested move 18 June 2020 which seems to show the same user attempting to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS on the issue of naming. —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:26, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Delete per the fact that the article was created as an attempt to get around the clear consensus that the original article shouldn't be titled "Djallonké sheep." --Adamant1 (talk) 17:34, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:08, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perpetual Notes[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NSOFTWARE. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:55, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:55, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 19:59, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are several software listed in "Comparison of notetaking software" which are not notable enough. So there should be a full revision of that list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:761E:DB00:B032:44C4:F5BE:3E92 (talk) 20:59, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Before updating the list, I have downloaded many notes software listed on the page and discovered many of them are either defunct or do not satisfy notable software list e.g. dead links, no external review other than software vendors' own websites etc.

If any software is removed, then it should not be the one which was added latest. This can put off many new editors from improving Wikipedia.

Big software vendors like Microsoft Onenote, Evernote or Google Keep have very big budgets to get their software reviewed in well known magazines etc. Many software listed here are from small developers who offer their products for free, without any commercial interest.

Software industry changes very fast. While reviewing the software in this list it became quite clear that this page has not been properly updated for a long time. However, the latest additions should not be removed by default. Even if any older software is defunct now, one can still track that something existed in the past. Since those old but defunct software are kept, the newer ones additions should be kept as well as rules should be same for every article listed under same category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Movilogo (talk • contribs) 07:48, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Software products gain 'Significant Coverage' through Beta tests and user downloads. So it may be argued this parameter might have not fully satisfied. However, considering 'Reliable', 'Secondary Sources', 'Independent of the subject', the reference of the Softpedia article, which is an independent, technical analysis of the product and recommendation. These need to be taken into consideration. On balance of probability I am of the opinion this article meets the 'Notability' test. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OwlOfTheEast (talk • contribs) 08:32, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 1 single review on a download site is not sufficient to meet WP:GNG or WP:NSOFT. With a release date of May 2020, notability is currently not established. A quick Google search showed this user review as the only significant hit. Also, Wikipedia is no PR platform to promote new products - flaws in current topics and lists do not justify the inclusion of yet more flawed content. @Movilogo:, please discuss questions about the comparison list on the list's talkpage. This AfD discussion is only meant to focus on the stand-alone article itself. GermanJoe (talk) 10:37, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is new non-notable software as GermanJoe explained above. Also note that after this article was nominated for deletion, its creator Movilogo (talk · contribs · logs) nominated the personal wiki/outliner software application WikidPad for deletion (deletion discussion). Ironically, WikidPad at least has the distinction of having been around for 15 years, which Perpetual Notes can't even claim. Biogeographist (talk) 14:55, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Not only has WikidPad been around for 15 years, so has it's deletion discussion. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 22:40, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahecht: I'm guessing that Movilogo is praying that this deletion discussion stays open for another 15 years... Biogeographist (talk) 14:57, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non notable as of now and too new. Maybe if it got some press, then it can be added later. Expertwikiguy (talk) 21:57, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A case of WP:TOOSOON at best I think. -Kj cheetham (talk)
Delete fails all four criteria of SOFTN's §2. ——Serial 10:58, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure)   Kadzi   (talk) 09:39, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Judith Pella[edit]

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

Fails WP:AUTHOR with weak sourcing. KidAd (💬💬) 19:11, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:13, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:13, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:13, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as meets WP:NAUTHOR. Sources listed in Contemporary Authors include:

Booklist, October 1, 2001, John Mort, review of Heaven's Road, p. 335; January 1, 2002, John Mort, review of Written on the Wind, p. 804; April 15, 2006, John Mort, review of Mark of the Cross, p. 28.
Library Journal, April 1, 1995, Henry Carrigan, review of The Dawning of Deliverance, p. 82; February 1, 1996, Henry Carrigan, review of Warrior's Song, p. 66; November 1, 1996, Melissa Hudak, review of Blind Faith, p. 54; February 1, 1997, Melissa Hudak, review of White Nights, Red Mornings, p. 68; April 1, 1997, Melissa Hudak, review of Distant Dreams, p. 80; April 1, 1998, Melissa Hudak, review of A Promise for Tomorrow, p. 78; November 1, 1998, Melissa Hudak, review of Passage into Light, p. 66; November 15, 1998, Kristin Ramsdell, review of Westward the Dream, p. 56; November 1, 1999, review of Separate Roads, p. 68; November 1, 1999, Melanie C. Duncan, review of Texas Angel, p. 68; April 1, 2000, Melanie C. Duncan, review of Ties That Bind, p. 84.
MBR Bookwatch, January 1, 2005, Harriet Klausner, review of Homeward My Heart.
Publishers Weekly, October 22, 2001, review of Written on the Wind, p. 42.
School Library Journal, September 1, 1997, Janice DeLong, review of Distant Dreams, p. 239.
Voice of Youth Advocates, December 1, 1994, review of Stoner's Crossing, p. 278.
Armchair Interviews, http://www.armchairinterviews.com/ (May 15, 2007), Marty Medley, review of Mark of the Cross.
Curled Up with a Good Book, http://www.curledup.com/ (May 15, 2007), Deanna Couras Goodson, review of Mark of the Cross.

I will add some of these to the article over the next few days. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 11:21, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:NAUTHOR. The sourcing may be bad, but I checked the books and many exist. Have added ASIN and ISBN number to some, which can be considered the source. Expertwikiguy (talk) 22:08, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per some of the sources presented herein, appears to meet WP:AUTHOR point #3. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:47, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:52, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vik Singh[edit]

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

Article seems self promoting and does not outline accomplishments that would be noteworthy to anyone other than the individual themselves Editormcgee89 (talk) 18:58, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per non, checked the References theres nothing to suggest notability. Devokewater @ 20:38, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a WP:PROMOTIONAL article that lacks notability ~ Amkgp 💬 11:34, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Some independant coverage, but not really significant... -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:09, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:18, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Newlove, California[edit]

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

Some sort of rail facility that has been mistakenly called a community. Durham calls it a locality on the Southern Pacific RR. Current map shows the railroad with some sort of industrial/commercial operation and not much else in the vicinity. A couple references to Newlove as a rail station and one statement that a rancher named Newlove owned land there. Not a community and doesn't appear to meet basic criteria for notability. Glendoremus (talk) 18:56, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:58, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:58, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence this was ever a community. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:01, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. // Timothy :: talk 23:21, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence it was a legally-recognised community=fails GEOLAND. ——Serial 11:01, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:53, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CKCP-FM[edit]

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

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

Two community radio stations, not verifiable as passing WP:BCAST criteria for the notability of radio stations: they have no entries in RecNet or Spectrum Management, no profiles on the Canadian Communications Foundation, and no indication that they've ever been licensed as there have been never been any CRTC decisions authorizing a community radio station in either community. Both call signs are also listed as available, i.e. unassigned, by Industry Canada. It is possible that these exist (or previously existed) as unlicensed stations under Canada's equivalent to USian Part 15 rules, but they have definitely never existed as licensed radio stations for the purposes of passing NMEDIA. Bearcat (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Raymie (t • c) 18:52, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Even I can't argue this. After doing a search on REC, it seems what would be a translator (for us here in the US) is located nearby on 96.3. There is this website, but as you can see "Mandated under the authority of Chief & Council", but not the CRTC. That eliminates CKCP-FM. There are no radio stations licensed to Repulse Bay, Nunavut. I can find previous mentions, via a Google search, and Wikipedia mirrors. The only thing that pops when I Google "CINJ-FM" is, oddly, The Cancer Institute of New Jersey, which uses the abbreviation CINJ. Thus, CINJ-FM is off the board. Not verifiable per V, no sources per RS (except for that First Nations site, I'll leave that to Bearcat), possible Part-15-ish broadcasts, no licenses, not even close to passing NMEDIA. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:46 on July 21, 2020 (UTC) • #WearAMask • #BlackLivesMatter

Neutralhomer, two things. It seems that message is on a number of things and has something to do with governance structure: per the website, some programs have boards of directors, but The majority of the Programs & Services are mandated under the authority of Chief & Council. I note that sometimes you...get that with First Nations radio. These articles were found as part of clearing the members of Category:Radio station articles without infoboxes, of which the vast majority were small Canadian outlets. As part of another radio cleanup, that of finding any uses of ((Infobox radio station)) without |name= (many having been introduced over the years because of a years-long bug with TemplateData and VisualEditor), I ran across CKNN-FM, where an IP had asked for the article title to be moved from the call sign in 2019, and which said at the time that the station was in "so-called Bella Coola, British Columbia" and Nuxalk Radio has licence to operate granted by Nuxalk Stataltmc (hereditary leadership). It is far from my place to adjudge that sovereignty issue (CKON-FM comes to mind too), but that's also not how this works. Raymie (t • c) 03:53, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That page does include an indicator that the station broadcasts programs from Missinipi Broadcasting Corporation which is backed up by the network's station list. I also found some posts on the Sturgeon Lake First Nation Facebook mentioning that the station broadcasts radio bingo, so it's operated—with evidence as recent as April! There is a potential WP:ATD there. Raymie (t • c) 04:01, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that the "The majority of the Programs & Services are mandated under the authority of Chief & Council" line has to do with the First Nations. But, unfortunately, that isn't enough to pass NMEDIA. A station (US or Canada) must be licensed with the FCC (US) or CRTC (Canada) for it to eek past the minimum of notability and verifiablity of NMEDIA. Now, if there was more information out there, it could be argued CKCP fell under the "notable Part 15" rule of NMEDIA, but it would need serious third-party coverage (ie: newspapers, television and radio coverage, etc.). I don't see that here. Bearcat knows I usually argue for inclusion of radio stations. Him and I have gotten into it before. So for me to not argue for inclusion, that says something. I wish I could, but I can't. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:14 on July 22, 2020 (UTC) • #WearAMask • #BlackLivesMatter

Delete non notable --Devokewater @ 20:05, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above discussion TheAnayalator (talk) 22:32, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:45, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abimbola Adebakin[edit]

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

Spam article. Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 17:36, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:40, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:40, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Good nom & UPE nab by scope_creep. A before search shows she indeed has no in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. A few hits here & there but not even remotely enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Celestina007 (talk) 17:50, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It looks like there is a concerted PR push to get people associated with the Tony Elumelu Foundation onto Wikipedia so that’s pretty much a red flag for me now. The subject has had a successful career but Wikipedia is not LinkedIn and there’s nothing here to demonstrate notability. Mccapra (talk) 05:22, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater @ 09:56, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businesswoman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:57, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 14:01, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:08, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Elumelu Entrepreneurship Programme[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. References are mix of press releases, duplicate refs and dead links. There is some coverage. scope_creep^Talk 17:40, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:52, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:52, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:52, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:52, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — like scope_creep already said, it falls short of WP:CORP & Yes this is definitely UPE. Celestina007 (talk) 19:21, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Devokewater @ 20:00, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, redirect to Tony Elumelu Foundation. Em-mustapha ^talk 05:26, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Em-Mustapha. Mccapra (talk) 05:31, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I plan to put up for Tony Elumelu Foundation for Afd. It has been G11'd by one editor, notability tag by another, and written like a press release, with the same kind of references this article has. scope_creep^Talk 08:14, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well this article is certainly promotional in tone and I don’t think that this single programme is notable, (just as I think that every one of its individual alumni isn’t notable) but the sources here include the BBC, CNN and The Economist so it think it would be hard to make a case that the entire foundation isn’t notable. Mccapra (talk) 12:03, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I never looked at the time. It could be it need a good copyedit, but I'll check it later. scope_creep^Talk 12:22, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

all of the related wikipages are just PR, they should all be deleted, including Tony Elumelu --Devokewater @ 21:59, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Elumelu has been award the equivalent of MBE and another national award, which is similar. I have depuffed it. scope_creep^Talk 12:47, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Elumelu should still be deleted even though he has an MBE, I noticed someone requesting speedy deletion. RegardsDevokewater @ 15:43, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Celestina007. ——Serial 11:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indication of notability. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 16:00, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:10, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kwame Antwi Agyei Opoku[edit]

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

Promotional bio of non-notable social entrepreneur and public speaker, sourced to various promotional pieces in outlets of doubtful independence and reliability. Does not pass WP:BLPRS. Mccapra (talk) 17:20, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 17:20, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 17:20, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Kwame Antwi Agyei Opoku article is not promotional and more so he is notable in the public speaking and entrepreneurship space in Ghana, please review his reference for your information,thanks.Jwale2 (talk) 18:28, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Devokewater @ 20:02, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable public speaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:16, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. // Timothy :: talk 23:23, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:11, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bedaag[edit]

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

An article about a Bollywood film. The first two citations are to the same copy of the film on YouTube; which is of questionable legality, a comment says that the second hour of sound is missing. Of course, the video wouldn't be WP:RS even if complete. The third is a listing site which links to IMDb (non-RS). The fourth and last is IMDb itself. The plot in the article is identical to the one in IMDb, and may be a WP:COPYVIO. A WP:BEFORE search turned up nothing WP:RS, not even another description of the plot. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 17:16, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable film with no citations found during online search. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:36, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - due to WP:GNG and WP:NFILM concerns Spiderone 09:18, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Spiderone. // Timothy :: talk 23:24, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice against a short mention at Richie Rich (rapper), but not nearly enough here for a standalone article. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:11, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

41Fivin[edit]

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

Nominated with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/415 (group). Non-notable album from a side project of rapper Richie Rich that has not achieved significant coverage in reliable sources. Article sourced only to bare database listings (Discogs, AllMusic) and WP:BEFORE only discloses similarly non-RS (e.g., sale and download sites, fandom.com, lyrics sites, YouTube, other WP:SPS etc.). No evidence passes WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. Although the article links to a “Allmusic Review” that is a link to a mere listing and there is no substantive review. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:11, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:11, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:11, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:00, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, just like the band's other album and the band itself. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:48, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article attempts to use an AllMusic review as a source, but that page is empty. Although the album is from the pre-Internet era, it still has no valid discussion in either offline or online sources. It could be listed briefly as a side project at Richie Rich (rapper). ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:04, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails SIGCOV. ——Serial 11:06, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:47, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ifedayo Durosinmi-Etti[edit]

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

Promotional bio of a non notable businesswoman that relies on sources of doubtful reliability and independence. Does not meet WP:BLPRS. Mccapra (talk) 17:09, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 17:09, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 17:09, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 17:09, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 17:09, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article itself looks like a social media bio.Brain7days (talk) 17:27, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Mccapra already said it all. Furthermore this looks like UPE. Celestina007 (talk) 19:19, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, the article subject is clearly not notable. Em-mustapha ^talk 05:16, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:12, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nu Niggaz on tha Blokkk[edit]

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

Nominated with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/415 (group). Non-notable album from a side project of rapper Richie Rich that has not achieved significant coverage in reliable sources. Article sourced only to bare database listings and non-RS (Discogs, Musicbrainz, AllMusic) and WP:BEFORE only discloses similarly non-RS (e.g., sale and download sites, fandom.com, YouTube, other WP:SPS etc.). No evidence passes WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. Although the article claims it was listed in two Billboard charts, the cite for that claim flatly fails verification and attempts to find it at Billboard’s own site also fail. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:08, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:08, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:08, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:36, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable album from a non-notable group. Sourcing is poor. Like I said at the group's AfD, Allmusic could be the only RS but the band's biography page is blank and so is the album review page. The fact that the tracks are listed there and users are allowed to comment does not make it notable as this is on the level of a database. Allmusic is NOT A RELIABLE SOURCE when the band biography and the album review pages are blank. (I am not shouting, I am just pointing this out.) Discogs and Musicbrainz aren't worth crap. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:33, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I would not be surprised if the album reached the lower reaches of the Billboard charts, given the rap marketplace in 1991, but the album came and went with little impact on history. It has not been covered in reliable sources covering the rap scene of that period. The album can be mentioned briefly as a side project at Richie Rich's article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:42, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:19, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CJBA-FM[edit]

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

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

Two smalltown community radio stations, which were initially granted CRTC licenses but cannot be verified as having ever actually launched -- they have no pages on Recnet, no entries in Industry Canada's Spectrum Management database, no profiles at the Canadian Communications Foundation, and no followup license renewals from the CRTC. One of the core conditions for the notability of a radio station is that it has an actual broadcast history, and radio stations are not notable if they are granted an initial construction permit but then fail to ever actually launch and have their initial licenses expire. And while both call signs do come up once each in a North American radio directory found on Google Books (either the Broadcasting and Cable Yearbook 1995 or the World Radio TV Handbook 2007), both come up solely as OCR errors for either CJBR-FM Rimouski or CKTF-FM Gatineau rather than entries for any radio stations in Aroland or Attawapiskat — and both of those sources are annual directories in which these stations would have been included at some point if they had ever actually been on the air for real. (And furthermore, both call signs are listed as available, i.e. unassigned, by Industry Canada.) So if we can't find any sources beyond their initial license approvals, then we can't properly verify that either of these stations ever actually broadcast at all — and that means we can't keep them. Bearcat (talk) 17:00, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:00, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:00, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. These stations never launched and thus are not notable. Raymie (t • c) 18:52, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: I am only "weak keeping" this because both stations were formerly licensed via CRTC. They could be marked as Defunct like US stations are. If they gets deleted, I won't fight it. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:20 on July 22, 2020 (UTC) • #WearAMask • #BlackLivesMatter

Obviously, if it were possible to verify that they were ever actually in operation and then went defunct at a later date, then the fact that they're not still active anymore wouldn't change their notability — but the problem is that there's no verifiable proof that either of these stations ever actually got on the air in the first place. Even in the US, it's not at all abnormal for a radio station to get an initial construction permit but then have its permit expire still unused a few years later, and a station in that boat wouldn't get to keep a Wikipedia article just because it was possible to source the initial construction permit itself. In order to keep these, we would need to see some proof that they ever actually got on the air. Bearcat (talk) 14:06, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Devokewater @ 15:14, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BROADCAST if there is no evidence that the stations actually broadcast.--Tdl1060 (talk) 21:45, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tdl1060. // Timothy :: talk 23:27, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails SIGCOV (notwithstanding that, per Bearcat, they may never have actually operated at all). ——Serial 11:07, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:13, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Haig Sutherland[edit]

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

Actress possibly fails WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. A search on Google found no significant third-party sources. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:34, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:34, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:34, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:34, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:34, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not enough Canadian actors on Wikipedia. -Mardus /talk 19:30, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mardus, so? There's not enough refs to keep ~~her~~ him. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:40, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

* Him. -Mardus /talk 20:03, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mardus, whoops but the point still stands. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:06, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete It is time to get rid of this unsourced junk linked only to IMDb. Also, considering Canada has less people than California, it is pretty clear we have a disproportionately high number of articles on Canadian actors and Canadian everything else. If there is a place under covered on Wikipedia it is Indonesia, not in any way, shape, means or form Canada. Canada has 0.05% of so of the world's population. If articles were distributed portionionately that would mean out of every 1000 biographies in Wikipedia, at least of living people, 2 would be on Canadians. I guarantee the Canadian percentage is more than that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:48, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable --Devokewater @ 21:06, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG. — BriefEdits (talk) 02:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails ANYBIO: insufficient strngth of sourcing for a BLP. ——Serial 11:09, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:47, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neroly, California[edit]

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

Another railroad facility mistakenly identified as a community. Durham calls it a locality on the Southern Pacific Railroad. There are a few references calling it a station or a siding ([2], [3]). Here's a 1954 photo of the station from the Contra Costa County Historical Society [4]. Note, they also call it a strain station near Oakley. No mention of a community named Neroly. Current maps show that the area has been engulfed by the suburbs of Oakley. I don't find anything that this passes basic test for notability. Glendoremus (talk) 15:40, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:41, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:41, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete I am finding the same results: the first book GHit I got called it "Neroly siding". Mangoe (talk) 18:54, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. // Timothy :: talk 23:29, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GEOLAND. ——Serial 11:11, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:48, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

World of Culture[edit]

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

NN organization, fails the GNG and WP:ORG. Significant coverage in reliable sources (or indeed, just about any coverage at all) not found. Article notability tagged for over a decade, and for most of it -- despite occasional attempts at cleanup/deletion by uninvolved editors -- it's been an unsourced coatrack for this outfit's "founder." COI issues (said founder's edited in various congratulatory bits) to boot. Enough is enough. Ravenswing 14:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 14:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:57, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 15:27, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The term vanispamcruftisement was created for articles like this. Reyk _YO! 16:18, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wow! This has had a worryingly long life. Fails WP:NCORP decisively. Mccapra (talk) 16:50, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this would largely overlap with Mark Hall Amitin, who does not appear to have received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources either. I did find some mentions that come down to something like "Theater artist Mark Hall Amitin has explored oral history-based theater productions involving collaborations between Israeli and Palestinian performers", but nothing more substantial than that. Vexations (talk) 14:16, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kris T Reeder[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Moved into mainspace after being declined as a draft. Author is a single purpose account and the article is likely autobiographical. The www.jazziz.com coverage is one paragraph. The nightshift review of the album provides more reasonable coverage, but is insufficient in totality. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:40, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:40, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, heavily promotional to the borderline of G11. References listed are blurbs or passing mentions, not the type of substantial coverage necessary to demonstrate notability. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:45, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, same as above.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Madbrad200 (talk • contribs) 20:28, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom: no evidence of notability. The page creator has been perma-banned for sockpuppetry, and the page appears to be autobiographical. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 17:00, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it seems to be a case of WP:PROMO together with sockpuppet play. Regarding the coverage the AllMusic piece is a one-line database entry with no bio or reviews,imv Atlantic306 (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. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:19, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FabMart[edit]

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

Non-notable and too early to be in Wikipedia. News is typical press, investments and marketing coverage of the company. The intention of this article is clearly driven by Digital marketing agendas. Light2021 (talk) 13:21, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 13:41, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 13:41, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 13:41, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Barely found anything about the venture. Search results show activities of its founders. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 07:12, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - zero evidence of notability Spiderone 09:18, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dearth of coverage; possibly TOOSOON, but certainly fails SIGCOV. ——Serial 11:12, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:15, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chingari (1989 film)[edit]

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

An article about a Bollywood film. The IMDb (non-WP:RS) link in the article is about Goonj (1989 film), which seems to be completely unrelated to any film called Chingari. The sole reference is to a listing site which identifies the year as 1989, but links to an IMDb article about Chingari (1971). The 1971 and 1989 films could well be the same; I found anecdotal evidence that the film was made in 1971 but released in 1989. However, that link looks like a blog; and I found no other source, RS or otherwise, which even included the plot. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 12:52, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 13:00, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 13:00, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. No credible sources found during online search. Donaldd23 (talk) 15:27, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - due to WP:GNG and WP:NFILM concerns Spiderone 09:18, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a BEFORE search indicates a dearth of independent, secondary sources to demonstrate consistency with WP:BASIC requirements. ——Serial 11:13, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure)   Kadzi   (talk) 09:42, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Wolf[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBOOK, I Could find no sources which show the book is notable enough for a separate article and I could find no information on author's article about why the book should be considered notable. Suonii180 (talk) 12:29, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. --Suonii180 (talk) 12:35, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment it got a starred review from Publishers Weekly. https://www.publishersweekly.com/978-0-312-14421-0 DiamondRemley39 (talk) 15:34, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewed by Kirkus https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/glenn-meade/snow-wolf/ DiamondRemley39 (talk) 15:35, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

keep as meets WP:BK with two reviews (one starred!). That's without going offline, to databases/archives, where there is likely to be more coverage. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 15:38, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:BK. - Funky Snack (Talk) 20:51, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found a citation for a review in Booklist and added it to a section in the article. I also added the above reviews to the article. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 11:29, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NBOOK, & WP:GNG with multiple reviews, this states it was a bestseller, and this publisher's site (yes i know its not useable) also lists some other reviews. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:10, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) - Flori4nK ^{t • c} 14:17, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ole Jensen (neuroscientist)[edit]

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

Article created and submitted for AfC by obvious throwaway account, and moved to mainspace by a suspicious autoconfirmed account without any deliberation or review. Subject of article notably does not meet GNG. Highly likely a product of undisclosed paid editing Trumanshow69 (talk) 11:40, 21 July 2020 (UTC)— Trumanshow69 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 12:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 12:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:14, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NPROF C1. His top-cited five publications have over 1000 citations each, and I don't see any other red flags (though the article could use some trimming). Comment that the nominator is themself an SPA. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:21, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that (your last sentence) was what I was going to say but got an edit conflict. Can't the nominator see the inconsistency between saying this was created by a suspicious account and, as a very first edit, proposing deletion? Phil Bridger (talk) 12:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Co-director of a centre and over 26k cites on Google Scholar, h-index of 72, etc. I've not looked more carefully, but seems to be notable. -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:13, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Having one's very first edit be a deletion proposal with language like moved to mainspace by a suspicious autoconfirmed account is itself a bit suspicious. Nobody says autoconfirmed unless Wikipedia has already gotten into their brain. XOR'easter (talk) 17:32, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article was created by a banned undisclosed paid editor. Normally I would CSD it, but given that it has some editing since then I don't feel that it is still G5. UPE is not cause to delete in an AFD, but given the questioning of the nominator (which may or may not be justified), it seemed worth clarifying this part of the issue. - Bilby (talk) 10:55, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bilby, while I think the subject is probably notable, I'll stipulate that my edits to the page were not significant for purposes of G5ing. XOR'easter, you're the other one that did some heavy editing. What do you think? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:20, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't so much G5 which is my concern - I'm just ok with the community deciding to keep a page even if it was a result of undisclosed paid editing. So I'm happy with whereever this ends up. - Bilby (talk) 11:24, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The only work I did was to remove some duplicated information (the list of publications had footnotes to the same publications). I don't think that's "significant", really, despite the character count of the change. XOR'easter (talk) 15:58, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article seem to have no criteria satisfying WP:NACADEMIC. Also, when someone is from the field of Neuroscience, it is ovious that he/she will have a number of academic journals. The journals are very much expected to be cited as well, but that does not make anyone qualify for being featured in our encyclopedia. There are many neuroscientists who may be equivalent to this person. Also the only contribution this person has is seemingly much commercialized. This person is conducting a project at University of Birmingham which has a potential of commercial outcome soon. Though, the activity of the nominator is very fishy, but his claim seem to be valid as this is clearly a paid post. I think, for violating the spirit of wikipedia WP:PE and not meeting WP:NACADEMIC, this page should be deleted. --ChayanSen (talk) 15:27, 26 July 2020 (UTC)— ChayanSen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I really don't think that a valid case can be made that the subject fails WP:NACADEMIC. Such a large number of citations is only to be expected of notable academics who pass WP:NACADEMIC#C1. The circumstances surrounding the creation of this article and this deletion discussion are a separate issue from notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:19, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very highly cited author. There are considerably not many neuroscientists with 200 papers and a high number of citations (and I would argue any of them with that many are probably notable!). As a general note there is some possibility for confusion with the very famous (in the field) Ole Norregard Jensen who is a highly notable proteomic scientist who on occasion works in the brain. This article isn't particularly promotional in any sense, nor was the original article. I am confused about the "only contribution" being commercial? Also I'm generally confused about the rationale of a scientist creating a page for promotion, though I could see a university PR department doing so. PainProf (talk) 20:58, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article could definitely be improved and made more neutral, but the subject clearly meets criteria 1 of WP:NPROF. ----Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 01:42, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Neuroscience is a high-citation field but even so this is an easy pass of WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:24, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: 6 articles with over 1000 citations each, and an H-index of 72. Earthianyogi (talk) 13:48, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:16, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peppersmith[edit]

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

SPA only promotional article. Minimal coverage - far less than expected to meet GNG's significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject Rayman60 (talk) 11:12, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 12:07, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 12:07, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Originally a WP:SPA article about a company, sourced to start-up coverage of their product. I don't see that start-up coverage as demonstrating notability of either the product or the company producing it, and searches are not finding better than routine listings which can verify existence but not demonstrate attained encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 11:38, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete coverage consists of WP:MILL-style passing and directory mentions; fails SIGCOV. ——Serial 11:15, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) - Flori4nK ^{t • c} 14:19, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Majuro Cooperative School[edit]

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

Possibly non-notable school. No third-party source exists in the article and none could be found. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tyw7: I went ahead and started looking through The Marshall Islands Journal (local newspaper of the country the school was in) and I found a newspaper article making a comment about the school's test scores being consistently high. I'll see what else I can find. I think the reason the "high schools should be always notable" rationale was to protect articles about schools in the Global South from being deleted. WhisperToMe (talk) 13:19, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WhisperToMe, I tried looking but found nothing relevant on the web. There might be offline articles though. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:03, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Tyw7: Since the school started in 1971 I could e-mail the newspaper to see if it has any archives of the school opening. I'm hoping the Marshall Islands newspaper has archives of that. I don't know if any US publications wrote about the school. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:47, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Followup: The newspaper stated that they didn't keep records on the school itself and suggested contacting the school directly. Prior to 2017 high school articles were generally "kept" as per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Schools but now there is a demand for sourcing on that front. Unfortunately information seems to be hard to come by in the Marshall Islands press, but I still would prefer to default to keep. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:42, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 04:14, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:19, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bhikkhu sangharatna[edit]

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

Promotional page for a subject that lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources hence doesn’t satisfy WP:GNG or any notability criteria. A before search shows no evidence of notability. Celestina007 (talk) 11:02, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 11:02, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 11:02, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 11:02, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 11:02, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 11:02, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 11:02, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional bio of a 19-year old monk who founded something a few weeks ago. Mccapra (talk) 16:54, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No RS. Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 23:54, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ANYBIO, lacks any reliable secondary sources. Dan arndt (talk) 04:44, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is one of the worst overly promotional articles with the one of the worst formatings I have ever seen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:19, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Promotional. --Spasemunki (talk) 23:24, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, now that's one atrocity on the mainspace. The subject also does not pass WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 16:47, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - absolutely no notability whatsoever Spiderone 17:57, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Factitious disorder imposed on self. Sandstein 06:49, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Munchausen by Internet[edit]

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

No secondary sources. Not notable. Never became a diagnosis. Most sources reference Marc Feldman, Munchausen's only or don't meet WP:MEDRS eg journalism. DSM-5 from 2013 did not include this or any reference to Factitious disorder involving online / internet behavior. Unlikely to become separate condition unless diagnostic criteria or prognosis / treatment differ. See DSM-5 p324-326. Amousey (they/them pronouns) (talk) 00:10, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Amousey (they/them pronouns) (talk) 00:10, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to factitious disorder imposed on self This is tricky, medically speaking this is Factitious disorder (why when you do it over the internet would it be a different disease), the observation is unsurprising and the original paper from a different time (with 20-20 hindsight!). So on medical motivations there are none for keeping it. However, it is something of a cultural phenomenon.The term itself is somewhat notable as a cultural phenomenon . There are some secondary medical sources, as is typical of the psychiatric literature there is a clear lack of systematic coverage (not a dig at psychiatry, more a dig at pitiful medical research funding).But should it have its own article? Essentially, the best argument seems to be it is a content fork. Therefore, it should be instead covered at factious disorder, with the appropriate weight (briefly). PainProf (talk) 01:09, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 03:42, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:55, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:01, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 13:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I realize that we do not care about hits on an article. however I looked and this one sinceJanuary 1, 2020 has 18,581 page views which is 92 per day day. This appears to be a well researched and referenced article. I looked to see if it was synth or OR, and it smacks of it in places. So the article needs ambitious editing, to pare, and reference and remove any synth, however notable topics are not deleted based on needing work. WP:IMPERFECT. WP:ATD-M is a possibility of the paring gets down to a reasonable length as to fit it into the merge target mentioned above: Factitious disorder imposed on self Lightburst (talk) 13:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hope nobody minds, I am paring large portions of the extraneous verbosity. The readability was not great.Lightburst (talk) 19:02, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We get this on Wikipedia too – see WP:ANI flu. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:12, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge as per notability. Also repeating lack of secondary sources. Given the popularity of most pages on WP the hits number is tiny plus doesn't count to notably. Amousey (they/them pronouns) (talk) 00:12, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lack of MEDRS is the key problem I see. I don't think we ever really have a good excuse, and if it gets kept, likely it will need to be paired down heavily. So for more culturally notable than medical diagnoses I think merging is the best way to preserve the content as it is described in the appropriate context. PainProf (talk) 02:21, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:55, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shemayel[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable singer. Earlier AfD resulted in Keep but with no reliable sources added to the article since then. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 12:38, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 12:38, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 12:38, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kuwait-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 12:38, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an unsourced BLP. Also there is nothing even remotely suggesting this article passes any of the musician notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Without doing a wider search it’s clear from the sources in the ar.wiki article that she’s notable and has had sustained coverage in the mainstream press. Mccapra (talk) 04:48, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Johnpacklambert. fails wp:gng.Dtt1^Talk 19:07, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:28, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not pass Wikipedia:Notability (people) nor WP:NMUSIC ("the article itself must document notability through the use of reliable sources"). This is a 2006 unsourced BLP that could have been BLP-prodded. WP:WHYN states: Editors apply notability standards to all subjects to determine whether the English language Wikipedia should have a separate, stand-alone article on that subject., which means that any notability standards of ar.wiki are not applicable. WP:NRVE states: The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability., added with WP:NEXIST: If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate. However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface. This article has existed in contempt of policies and guidelines. -- Otr500 (talk) 11:37, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Otr500 I agree with you, however this article is not eligible for PROD as it has previously been nominated for AFD. I have also had a number of PRODs declined in recent weeks for what I feel are bureaucratic technicalities, and I’m not prepared to go down that path with every article I try to cleanup or delete. Whether the PROD process is fit for purpose is a discussion for another time and place. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 15:42, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I got you, and the reason I stated "could have been BLP-prodded". A BLP-prod is somewhat different concerning articles with "zero" (in any form) sourcing. The process is not so easy as just removing a prod with no reasoning. If such an article does not have at least one source provided it can be deleted in 7 days. At a minimum it is a help with articles that exist in disregard of policies and guidelines--- AND -- other editors may not be aware of this. Have a nice day, -- Otr500 (talk) 16:18, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Devokewater (talk) 17:42, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I’m not “asserting that unspecified sources exist”. I’m directing you to the specific sources used in the ar.wiki article, which are from multiple RIS in several different countries over a period of years. I’m not making an argument that because there is an ar.wiki article we ought to have an en.wiki one. I’m pointing out that a very modest amount of WP:BEFORE would show show you that there are sources ready to hand that ought to be considered. I’d appreciate anyone taking the trouble to set out which of these sources is not sufficient to support this article. WP:BEFORE isn’t a ‘bureaucratic technicality’. If the sources I’ve pointed to aren’t good enough, say why not. Mccapra (talk) 20:41, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My comment about “bureaucratic technicalities” is more to do with the PROD process than this article. It was not aimed at you. However, I did complete WP:BEFORE, as with every AFD nomination of mine, and did not find sufficient sourcing. If you disagree, it is your responsibility to bring sources to this page so that other editors can assess their suitability. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:51, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment OK well I've found:
1. A 2001 feature on her (part interview) on Saudi newspaper Al-Jazirah [5]
2. A 2003 story about her retirement from Saudi newspaper Ash-Sharq al-Awsat [6]
3. A 2003 story from Dubai newspaper Al-Bayyan about her venture into acting [7]
4. A 2007 news story about her retirement from performing from Palestinian newspaper Dunia El Watan [8]
5. A 2016 news story about her return from retirement in the Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Anba’ [9]
6. A 2016 summary of her career on the Kuwaiti news site CanNews [10]

There are others but I'm not familiar with the publications so haven't included them. They look more gossipy and less reliable than these. Mccapra (talk) 18:54, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:00, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mccapra's sources are quite adequate for the gng criteria. It's a pity no one else was able to find them (or, it seems, look at them here). Thincat (talk) 21:34, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the significant coverage in multiple reliable sources identified above that show that deletion is unnecessary as the subjext passesWP:GNG and should be included, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:55, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per sources cited by Mccapra. ~Styyx ^{Hi! ^-^} 17:47, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the new sourcing which indicates BLP is passed. ——Serial 11:18, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:34, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Corey Erdman[edit]

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

He is a successful journalist but doesn't meet WP:JOURNALIST or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 14:03, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 14:19, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 14:24, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 14:24, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:16, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:25, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs at least some discussion of the sourcing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:55, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: And, in fact, I am happy to discuss the sourcing. It's crap. Of the eight sources cited in the article, the last is an article he wrote for the Springfield Republican (ironically enough, to which I was a subscriber) about the local hockey team (ironically enough, to which I was a season ticket holder) getting beaten; what that is is a byline, nothing more, and establishes nothing save that the subject was a sportswriter for the newspaper. The first source does not mention his name at all. Every other source in the article is a broken link, including the blog posts. There's nothing by way of substantial coverage in reliable sources about the subject. Ravenswing 09:14, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Devokewater @ 20:16, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:40, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dev Mohan[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. Probably meet WP:TOOSOON, fails WP:NACTOR, WP:GNG DMySon 04:37, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:02, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:02, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Significant media coverage and was previously a model. Number of films does not indicate notability when the person has media coverage.[11] [12] — Preceding unsigned comment added by TamilMirchi (talk • contribs) 00:50, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Apart from his interviews, there are substantial new coverage about the actor with his name as heading. However, this is his debt film. I think it can be kept, if substantial media coverage can be a criterion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashique2020 (talk • contribs) 05:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above two resources are the interviews of the subject that cover his film publicity. Still lack of secondary resources that are independent of the subject. The one film is not enough to justify subject's notability. Again fails WP:NACTOR. DMySon 05:55, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete- I complete agree with nominator, he clearly fails WP:NACTOR. 27.100.13.132 (talk) 19:07, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Review this also, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Dev_Mohan . 27.100.13.132 (talk) 19:10, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NACTOR, WP:NBIO, and WP:GNG. --Jack Frost (talk) 09:26, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet acting notability because that requires multiple significant roles, and only one is listed. Does not meet general notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:31, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not meeting WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG currently. May be notable in future. Hitro talk 06:42, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:54, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails NACTOR and GNG Spiderone 22:21, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Robert McClenon - the sources don't establish notability per GNG, and there is only one role there which doesn't establish notability per NACTOR. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:28, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:15, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of 100 best books[edit]

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

The list is full of loosely related topics. They may have similar subjects, yet they are unrelated in any way. It's like making a list called "list of top 10 videos". There are millions, yet the topic itself is not noteworthy. Therefore, the list fails the criteria for inclusion

Also, the "100 best book" topic appears to be original research, due to the fact that I couldn't find any article on the actual genre of "100 best books". This also proves my point, the list does not comply with our guidelines. Koridas 📣 06:30, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nominator. Setting criteria for such an article is necessary (per WP:LSC), but not attempted and probably impossible for an article with this title. An article on List of books considered the best (an article entitled List of books considered the worst already exists) may fare better as a premise. Domeditrix (talk) 11:53, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:24, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:24, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rename/develop further. We categorize these in Category:Top book lists, a subcategory of Category:Top lists (whether or not they have 100 entries). We do index articles, and if we can categorize a group then we are capable of listing that same group by the same criteria. postdlf (talk) 18:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Nika2020 (talk) 18:11, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Books-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:11, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Restricting to lists that contain 100 items each is oddly artificial. I'd be fine with a List of lists of top books (or something like that) which takes Category:Top book lists and provides some added value, like being able to see at a glance when the list was published. XOR'easter (talk) 21:25, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- List of top book lists would match the category the closest, and be more clear that the subjects to be listed are top book lists. postdlf (talk) 21:49, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, that sounds good. XOR'easter (talk) 22:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to List of top book lists (to reduce arbitrariness) and build out with Category:Top book lists. XOR'easter (talk) 22:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Because of the history behind lists of 100 great books, I think it is easier to define what belongs on a list of "lists of 100 best books" than it would be to define appropriate inclusion for a list of "lists of top books," especially since basically every publication makes constant lists of the X top books of Y category. I also think better sourcing exists for the "100 best books" framing. The idea of distilling literature down into "100 best" books that everyone should then have access to read is a specifically British Victorian effort which has continued to influence literary culture. This journal article could be a useful source for context, especially regarding Sir John Lubbock's 1897 "100 Best Books" that started the phenomenon. (Lubbock's list is fascinating btw) In other words, 100 is an arbitrary cutoff, but it's an arbitrary cutoff tied to a specific and meaningful historic tradition. The current article does not satisfactorily provide this context of course, but I think actual sourcing does exist for the concept of lists of 100 "best" or "great" books, independent of specific lists, whereas I think such sourcing is less likely to exist for the idea of "top" books. Other potential sources for this list could be Jay Satterfield's “The World's Best Books”: Taste, Culture, and the Modern Library, John Guillory's Cultural Capital, maybe Rubin's Making of Middlebrow Culture, maybe this article for contemporary details... looking over these sources briefly I would also support changing the article to "Lists of 'great' books" to capture this phenomenon. ~ oulfis 🌸(talk) 04:48, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For further sourcing, this article is a brief history of "100 best books" lists, and this article explores the impact of a particular "100 best" list. There may still be too many feasible entrants for this list of lists, so additional selection criteria may be needed (lists with secondary coverage, like Lubbock's?) but I think the core concept is sound. ~ oulfis 🌸(talk) 04:58, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rename / weak keep as top book lists. So far this looks to be discriminate. "100" seems arbitrary as an inclusion criteria, but hopefully this won't devolve into all kinds of random web links. Archrogue (talk) 19:17, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see any of the typical reasons that we have a list served by this article - e.g. I can find no evidence that this topic is covered as a set by RS. I would expect to see more of the kinds of sources Oulfis linked to if this were truly a notable topic. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:12, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The list is certainly WP:IMPERFECT. However it may fulfill the purposes outlined in WP:LISTN Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. a list of lists of "best" books is notable however I wonder how a book makes it on the individual lists - I did not check them individually. Lightburst (talk) 14:33, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename and expand- to my surprise I found that this list, though slightly fancrufty, does perform a useful navigational purpose. I'm not sure restricting it to lists of specifically 100 books is useful: there are doubtless similar lists containing 50, or 25, or some other number, that could usefully be part of this one. For example, Honkaku_Mystery_Best_10, and I'm sure there are others. Reyk _YO! 14:54, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I’ve realised that the great books article actually covers a lot of the material that I am familiar with for 100 books lists (though oddly it doesn’t mention Lubbock; I’ll fix that eventually) — so this list of lists needs to do something separate that can stand on its own. That might be the navigational task discussed above; I feel very lukewarm about this list overall... ~ oulfis 🌸(talk) 02:35, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename and expand per Reyk and XOR'easter. // Timothy :: talk 23:46, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per sugestion.★Trekker (talk) 17:31, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the subject of this discussion is whether this topic can demonstrate sufficient notability through coverage in RS as to warrant an article. That is clearly the case: the BBC (twice, in fact), Guardian, Telegraph, Amazon, Time Magazine, etc. The real discussion is what the page title shold be, and the inclusion parameters of the material: and the place for both of these discussions is on the talk page, not here. ——Serial 11:35, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I'm not seeing a consensus here but if this remains unfixed and is renominated later, its entirely possible that the next discussion could have a clearer outcome. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:57, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of adult animated films[edit]

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

Page is basically entirely original research, with no definitions given of what it actually means, some films on the list disagree with what's on the parent page. Ged UK 10:46, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Govvy (talk) 11:25, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commnet This seems a rather wide scope, there is no distinction between adult and young adult. @Ged UK: You haven't provided any policy arguments for this AfD other than WP:OR, are you able to expand further why you feel this should go? Govvy (talk) 11:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I mean, OR is a pretty hefty policy, no? It's virtually unsourced (8 sources for a list of 100+ films), so it pretty well fails WP:RS too. Ged UK 19:00, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Errr, WTH? WP:NOR is one of the core content policies of the encyclopedia. Violation of NOR is a prima facie deletion ground, full stop. He doesn't have to proffer another deletion ground. Ravenswing 07:33, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Can these issues be fixed through normal editing per WP:BEFORE?—TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:35, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Adult" in the context of "film" usually concerns sexual content, but the first entry on the list is Animal Farm. I think this should be WP:TNTd for WP:OR concerns. --Izno (talk) 14:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is there the collective will to bring this list into compliance with WP:LISTVERIFY by providing sources establishing the films as "adult" and deleting the entries for which sources can't (or won't) be provided...and maintain the list going forward? If so, then maybe this is salvageable; if not, then it probably should be deleted. In my experience, there are too many editors who are happy to create and add to list articles who then balk at having to provide citations. Alternately, they're ignorant of policy regarding such things. DonIago (talk) 17:00, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Izno is right that when "abult" is paired with film it means sexual, which at least some of these in no way are.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:30, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article for Adult animation clearly explains the meaning of it has nothing to do with the American use of the word "adult" for pornographic things. Dream Focus 12:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: "Adult animated film" is vague and subject to multiple interpretations. Trivialist (talk) 00:23, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is clearly defined in the article for it. Dream Focus 12:44, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think I agree, the scope of the article feels wrong, I know plenty of adult type of animated films not on the list, WP:TNT per Inzo. Govvy (talk) 08:51, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You wish to destroy the article because its incomplete? See WP:NOTBUILT Dream Focus 12:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I feel the scope is too vague, not about completion. Govvy (talk) 14:03, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:40, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Adult animation has its own article. Category:Adult animated films exist as well. "Adult" does not have anything to do with how the American's use the term to refer to pornography, that clear for any who took a moment to look at the article defining it. Note that things released in Japan are clearly labeled as adult or young adult, both included in the definition here. Other things require sourcing. Dream Focus 12:28, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The definition given in Adult animation is clear, the list should by saved through adding sources, not deletion. Nardog (talk) 12:32, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Those who wish to do so have had four years. Demonstrably there's no desire to bother. Ravenswing 07:36, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 12:39, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's a long article about adult animation on TIME and there seem to be other sources out there that recognise it as a genre. As cinema releases typically get age-ratings, there's plenty of objective evidence. The rest is then a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion per WP:IMPERFECT and WP:NOTCLEANUP. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:12, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and other delete !votes above, and per WP:NOTCATALOGUE. We should not have lists of films by genres. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:30, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We have quite a lot of list articles for film genres. Category:Lists of animated films and Category:Lists of films list a lot of them, as does the Category:Lists of films by genre. A lot of lists exist for other entertainment media by genre as well such as Category:Lists of musicians by genre. Having things listed by genre is quite common. Dream Focus 17:43, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We have quite a lot of articles we shouldn't have, in part thanks to your volunteer work. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:48, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, there's no "shouldn't" applicable here, unless you have a specific argument against this particular list rather than the broad and uncontroversial category it belongs to. There is absolutely no guideline or policy that would preclude indexing our articles on films by the genre of those films. And it is quite clearly something we do pervasively and systematically, because we should and do list articles by what their subjects are. postdlf (talk) 00:59, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
absolutely no guideline or policy except the one I linked to in all caps. It's the same policy that says we shouldn't have an article about every film that's ever been reviewed. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 03:18, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Except it does not say that at all.WP:NFILM suggests we should have an article for a film that has two national reviews, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:32, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the one that says “Wikipedia encompasses many lists of links to articles within Wikipedia that are used for internal organization or to describe a notable subject. In that sense, Wikipedia functions as an index or directory of its own content”? This is a list of films that have articles. postdlf (talk) 16:36, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the one that continues, "However, Wikipedia is not a directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed." Look, disagree with me if you want to, but saying my disagreement isn't rooted in policy is simply not true. The entries on that list are, by and large, unsourced/poorly-sourced OR fancruft crap. That we have a ton of articles about non-notable adult animated films doesn't make the list indexing those articles a keeper. The list should go. Most of the articles should go, too. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:53, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dream Focus. The deletion !votes above all seem confused as to the intended scope or definition. Here we have a parent article and corresponding category (which, again, none of the !deletion voters address or demonstrate awareness of). postdlf (talk) 00:59, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Well, how about we go with -- drum roll please -- the actual grounds of the nomination? That the article is poorly named given the plurality of readers who would absolutely expect this to be about pornography is a content issue that is outside the scope of AfD. That this list consist entirely of original research, would any keep proponents care to address that? That fewer than one film out of thirty on this list is sourced at all (never mind sources that are reliable, independent and support the characterization of the film as "adult"), would any keep proponents care to address that? Honestly, I don't see a single valid ground to keep this article having been proffered: that there is an article on adult animation is nice, but has nothing to do with that THIS article is almost entirely unsourced and entirely consists of original research. (That aside, no, we should not keep this pending sourcing. That might be -- barely -- a valid concern for a new article, but this list article is nearly four years old. If no one is willing to put the effort into sourcing it, it should not be a Wikipedia article until someone is.) Ravenswing 07:31, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I admit that I stared at this for a long time. For some reason I kept thinking adult animated film: gutter... Anyway the list passes WP:LISTN as it aides in navigation and information. One editor has stated that we have a hurdle of determining whether the items are adult/young adult. - is easily overcome with editing. I also do not believe we have original research here...we have a list. Lightburst (talk) 14:54, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a list. The only one legitimate concern if there are clear criteria to distinguish "adult" animated movies from ones directed at kids. However, this is generally not a problem because the target audience is usually officially announced during release of the movie and even before. My very best wishes (talk) 15:16, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Lightburst. Maybe thrash out the definitions/inclusion on the talkpage too? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:57, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 17:30, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paradigmatic keep and cleanup instance. Hyperbolick (talk) 22:18, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Here's the thing. Lists of films in a genre are absolutely and unambiguously acceptable stand-alone articles. In fact, I'd dare say that if there are enough sources to have an article about a genre, it's quite likely that we can sustain a list (even a navigational list) of films in that genre. But this isn't about a genre; it's about an audience. That's a much slipperier distinction to source. Is it about intention? With whom it was popular? Marketing? Subject matter? There's nothing consistent here except for "geared towards adults" and even then the main article adds "or adolescents" (?!). Sometimes a film is explicitly made for children or for adults, but most of the time (especially these days) it's blurry, and it also changes over time. I ultimately don't have faith that this can work per WP:SALAT. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:07, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its perfectly ok to have a list of something notable this way, animated films aimed only at adults are rare and thus the topic itself has become notable due to coverage of the phenomenon when it does happen.★Trekker (talk) 16:18, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'll tackle the deletion rationales point by point.
- 1) The OR claim in the nom isn't a reason to delete. The list may contain some OR, but the subject isn't.
- 2) The term in only vague to readers who don't know what it means. The first sentence of the list links to the main article, which clearly defines the term.
- 3) Declaring this to be a sexual term is regional and obtuse. Many less-popular mediums/genre/whatever get stuck with inappropriate names. Funny animals aren't always funny. Comic books aren't always comical. Animation got a reputation for being a children's medium, hence the "adult" qualifier for works like South Park. !Voter ignorance of this subject is not a reason to !vote delete.
- 4) I don't know which of the specific categories of WP:NOTCATALOGUE User:Levivich thinks this falls into, but I don't think it fits any of them. I guess an argument could be made for number six, but it's not a strong one.
- 5) A lack of sources for isn't grounds for deletion unless someone wants to show that sources don't exist for all these blue linked films, because AfD isn't clean up.
- 6) The fact it's been short on sources for four years isn't grounds a reason to delete either. There's no deadline, and AfD isn't clean up.
- 7) User:Rhododendrites is correct this isn't a genre, but it is a distinct type of film, just like List of short live-action films, List of stop motion films, or List of black-and-white films produced since 1970. There are sources on this type of film, there are fans of this type of film, and those fans could use a navigational list. I believe that's enough justification to keep it. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:18, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Edge Band. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:12, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jeewan Gurung[edit]

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

Subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources & doesn’t seem to satisfy any criterion from WP:MUSICBIO. A before search shows no evidence of notability. Celestina007 (talk) 22:16, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:16, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:16, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:16, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The article is borderline G11, so also per WP:TNT. Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:48, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 16:38, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep . This guy belongs to the Edge Band, a musical group with about 10 years history and considered fairly sucessful Rock band in Nepal (in radios and tvs). As with most of the topics related to Nepal, there is no sufficient media coverage for proving notability except in few entertainment magzines and blogs. nirmal (talk) 01:50, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

made a skeleton article for The Edge Band. nirmal (talk) 10:21, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Jeewan Gurung is a vocalist of one of the most popular Nepalese band “The Edge band". He is one of the most liked singer in Nepali music. (Himalayanwalkers| (talk) 00:23, 13 July 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:34, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The keep votes are going against Wikipedia policy here, no matter what content it is or where it's from, it must satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 08:40, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Its a Notability Guideline not a Notablity Law nirmal (talk) 08:57, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely wrong. If a subject fails those guidelines, then it warrants it being deleted. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 09:07, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Dane ^talk 19:57, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can somebody please discuss the actual sources in the article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:48, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-- I suspected it might come to this. In the current revision (permalink), [1] is an Apple Music tracklist, [2] and [13] are the same personal blog (non-RS, WP:ELNO), [3] is a puff-piece in non-RS. [4] is concert promotion in news format in a website that does list an editorial board, I don't consider the website qualifying for WP:N, though it may be good enough for WP:V sometimes. More importantly, the piece makes no mention of the subject, none. [5] (duplicate of [11]) is last.fm (open to editing by everyone; non-RS), coverage is about the band with passing mention of the subject. [6] is a link to lyrics in a lyrics repository (non-RS; no coverage on the subject; shouldn't even be linked per WP:COPYVIOEL). [7] is routine coverage of a concert in the website of local FM station, possibly RS but doesn't qualify for WP:N, no mention of the subject anyway. [8] is lyrics and chord (again WP:COPYVIOEL) in non-RS, no coverage on the subject. [9] is a clone of [3] in another WP:COPYVIOEL non-RS (song and chord). [10] is reverbnation, calls itself an expert in promoting artists and marketing, link is to a track, no coverage (another WP:ELNO). [14] is another clone of [3] embedded in an advertisement in non-RS. [15] is a youtube video clip of a concert (another WP:COPYVIOEL) with 52 views and 1 like in 2.5 years, no mention of the subject in the title, description, comments or suggested related videos. [16] is a routine coverage of a concert in non-reputable media which does list a skeletal editorial team, possibly acceptable for WP:V but not for WP:N, no coverage on the subject anyway. [12] is the only source that comes anywhere close to being acceptable and it says one thing and one thing only on the subject in an otherwise a promotion for an upcoming concert, ... Jeewan Gurung of Edge Band implored the audience not to miss [the concert].. So, finally, we have reliable confirmation that there is a band called "Edge" which has a member named "Jeewan Gurung". No indication otherwise even in the non-RS to suggest the subject might meet any of the notability criteria. I strongly reiterate my call for WP:TNT. I will note that there is some indication (though in non-RS) that the Edge Band might meet some WP:NMUSIC criterion. Note thought that notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Also note that the nom that the delete votes referred to does argue from policy while there have been no keep votes that have made any policy-based arguments (again, NOTINHERITED). Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A number of sources have mentioned only one thing – "lead vocalist of the Edge Jeewan Gurung". At present, it doesn't satisfy the general notability criteria. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 15:48, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Edge Band, the only pieces of coverage found in reliable sources are passing mentions, meaning that this person fails GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:11, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Love $ Greed[edit]

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

Non notable film, with no independent 3rd party reviews. Donaldd23 (talk) 16:23, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 16:23, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 16:23, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 16:23, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Potential sources [13], [14] , [15] [16], [17] , [18] † Encyclopædius 11:44, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All sources pointed to by Encyclopædius are trivial except for source 1 which appears to be a one paragraph summary of the film. Source 2 merely lists that the film exists and then gives Bashar Shbib over a dozen producing credits for his work on the film (also no indication that CFO is a reliable source and not a wiki-esque databse). Source 3 list the film and its cast but provides no commentary or context, website appears to be a sketchier version of iMDB. Source 4 is a one sentence reference to the film. Source 5 is a one sentence reference and source 6 just names the film in a list of Bashar's films. I cannot find evidence of reliable, non-trivial sources existing through a google search. Happy to change my vote if someone can point to such sources existing, but, as far as I can see, they don't. Samsmachado (talk) 16:28, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The french wiki article about the film says that the film in competition at the Montréal World Film Festival in 1991. It was considered, at the time, an A-list festival. I guess most of the sources and critiques of the film are in french. Eshko Timiou (talk) 17:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I looked for something substantial but there is nothing out there that could possibly satisfy WP:NFILM. All the sources proffered in the article or above by Encyclopædius or bumped upon online are scarce & trivial mentions in film listings, unworthy of consideration. Geeeting nominated for some award is nothing like winning it. But even so, there's nothing out there dedicated to this film specifically. And I speak French fluently. -The Gnome (talk) 07:56, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:34, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added a translation of the French version. The film was entered in an important festival, and was reviewed in depth by various magazines. Notable enough. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:35, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough sources and award nominations exist. Expertwikiguy (talk) 20:27, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Care to point out when and where was the film nominated for an award? Getting the film on a festival program is not the same as being nominated for an award. As to the French Wikipedia entry, it is equally bereft of sources indicating notability. The proffered sources are almost all typical listings such as this, peppered with irrelevancies (e.g.: Fourlanty, Eric, "Au bout du film", Voir, 1991; or this). We have a film hat has sunk without a trace. -The Gnome (talk) 20:42, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- According to Éric Fourlanty in the weekly Voir, the film was an official entry at the Montreal World Film Festival. It was reviewed in Voir, 24 images, Séquences, Variety, L'actualité and La Presse. It was notable in 1991. Once notable always notable. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:20, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again: A film participating in a film festival does not mean that the film is nominated for an award, as the Keep suggestions have claimed. Neither does such a participation per se confer notability. The free monthly alternative weekly Voir did not review the film, which was simply mentioned as an entry to a film festival. Nowhere do we have reviews by Variety, L'actualité, or Séquences. And the link attributed to La Presse takes us to an entirely different film (Trilogy). It was not notable then; it is not notable now. -The Gnome (talk) 19:14, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The quotes from Variety, L'actualité and La Presse are taken from this archive of Oneira Pictures International, an indie production company. Scroll down to the entry on Love $ Greed and you will find them. These reviews from almost 30 years ago are not online, but they certainly exist. Once notable always notable. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:54, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, all we have of the alleged "reviews" are one-sentence blurbs cited in the web page of some production company. Yet, you are certain the reviews "certainly exist" when they could be anything from a multi-page feature to a one-liner in the week's cinema listings. I'm sorry but, though the effort is admirable, we cannot establish notability like this, neither for the time it got released, nor for now. It may be a fine filmic work for all I know but Wikipedia is not a collection of random information and it's not a depository of record. -The Gnome (talk) 17:16, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Any news on those "award nominations"? -The Gnome (talk) 17:16, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This film has definitely never been an "award nominee" in the sense that's relevant to our notability criteria for films. To be fair, the confusion results from IMDb's structure; the way they do things, every film that screens in a competitive stream at a film festival is always automatically tagged as a "nominee" for that stream's final award, regardless of whether it was ever actually under any serious consideration by the award jury or not. (For instance, any feature film that screens at the Toronto International Film Festival can get tagged as a "nominee" for the People's Choice Award, completely without regard to whether it ever actually had a prayer of winning that.) So film festival awards don't work like Oscars or Canadian Screen Awards: for the industry awards, being shortlisted is enough and actually being the winner isn't necessary, but for film festival awards being tagged by IMDb as a "nominee" is not a notability criterion in and of itself, and the final winners (or honorable mentions) are the only films that get to claim "notable because award" out of it. As always, of course, films that don't win awards at film festivals can still claim notability on other bases — they just don't get to claim that they're notable because of an award nomination per se, because simply being eligible for consideration isn't the same thing as actually being a nominee. Bearcat (talk) 14:10, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This page has been the target of numerous attacks by sockpuppets, most probably operated by the same person, who are trying for a non-admin close of Keep. A cursory look at the History of this page will confirm it. -The Gnome (talk) 14:35, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:47, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:52, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DROsoft[edit]

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

Video game distributor. The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant English-language coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. No valid redirect target, since Electronic Arts doesn't mention it, and we don't have a list of companies acquired by EA. Also, a REDFLAG - no article on Spanish Wikipedia, if it was a significant company in Spain it would likely have a page there. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:54, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:54, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, for a Spanish company, you only looked for English-language sources? The Banner talk 09:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've found a substantial number of sources and added them to the article, and there seems to be an indication of notability. For what it's worth, by the way, there is a page on eswiki: es:Dro-Soft. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 09:33, 10 July 2020 (UTC) Merge and redirect into Golden age of Spanish software per below. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 14:29, 19 July 2020 (UTC) Keep again; see below. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 08:48, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:37, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:08, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:08, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I read the new sources, and none of them constitute significant coverage of the company. Brief, passing descriptions do not suffice for WP:GNG. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 23:39, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@FenixFeather: None of them constitute SIGCOV? Both this article and this one on ProQuest are dedicated in their entireties to the company. A significant percentage of the El País article is dedicated to DROsoft, too. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 09:12, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

re: PQ, Business Wire exclusively hosts press releases, so not a reliable source. The pcworld.es source is a press release as well. WP:CORPDEPTH (not watching, please ((ping))) czar 04:24, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nuh, I didn't see that the pcworld.es article was also a press release - I should have been more careful looking at that. In light of that, I think merging would probably be the best solution; there seems to be enough for a section in Golden age of Spanish software, and there's multiple sources talking about it as part of that that I've seen, but there's probably not enough for an independent article for now. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 14:29, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:42, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nom and FenixFeather. There are a few sources, but they are either press releases or rehashes of such, wherefore significant coverage in independent, reliable sources that is not run-of-the-mill coverage is missing. I don't think merging this to golden age of Spanish software is appropriate, as none of the sources connect DROsoft to that era, making inclusion original research. IceWelder [✉] 08:24, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@IceWelder: I've added sources to the article linking it to the edad de oro. Would you mind taking a look? Thanks! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 09:30, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to weak keep or alternatively merge to DRO Records; see below. IceWelder [✉] 14:55, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed my vote back to keep, on reflection. With the additional sources, even discounting listings of their games and the press release from above, we have an El País article mentioning them, we have a full Microhobby article on them, we have a number of mentions in the book Ocho quilates, we have Macedonia magazine talking about them, and then we have the Billboard coverage of their EA incorporation. I think that's enough to pass the notability threshold. IceWelder and FenixFeather, I'd appreciate it if you could take a look again yourselves and let me know your thoughts. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 08:48, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I'm still not convinced of this. Only source #7 can accurately be described as "significant coverage", but if I interpret the source correctly, it only regurgitates an announcement from DRO Soft. It is a passing mention in #1, #2, ~~#3,~~ #4, #8, #10, and #11, rarely mentioned twice by one source. #6, #9, and #12 are all primary sources, and #5 is an unauthored database entry. I still think that WP:SIGCOV is not met and that the article should be deleted. Yet, it might be worth merging relevant elements to the former parent company, DRO Records, which somehow does not make a mention of DRO Soft at the moment. Given the new sourcing, a mention at Golden era of Spanish software would also be justified. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 13:01, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@IceWelder: There are twenty different mentions of Dro-Soft in all in Ocho Quilates, including talking about its business model as a result of coming out of DRO Records, with a comparison to Topo, another contemporary software house; the history of Dro-Soft itself and its founding; and describing it as "one of the principal distributors" of the golden era. I have to disagree with you that that constitutes a passing mention.

I don't agree that the Microhobby article can be described as "churnalism", which is the standard at WP:NEWSORG for "regurgitating announcements" - it's talking about an announcement, but isn't repeating the contents verbatim, as far as I can see. That notwithstanding, I've added another source from Microhobby talking about the company and an agreement it had with Dinamic Software; it's a lot shorter than the previous one, but it certainly can't be described as regurgitating a press release, seeing as it was reporting on something before it was even formally announced. That's independent coverage, and it meets the bar of SIGCOV pretty clearly, I think - being given its own separate section on the page, even though it's a small one.

Macedonia Magazine talks about it as being the only credible competition to ERBE, describes it as an "important distribution house", and then separately covers one of the games that it published. Each of those individual sentences are quite small, that's true, but there's repeated mention of it, and the fact that it talks of it as being of such importance I think is noteworthy. WP:PASSING is an essay; WP:GNG requires that no original research is needed to extract the content, which it clearly isn't. A passing mention each individual may be, but collectively, I think there's a reasonable argument that they are not trivial coverage, which is the standard for GNG (trivial coverage would perhaps be "this exists", not "this exists, and it's the only significant opponent to a major company"). The same argument applies with the El País source - one of the largest newspapers in the country making mention of you as "one of the leading companies in the sector" is pretty significant, and I don't think ought to be written off.

You're right that a lot of the other mentions are smaller mentions or primary sources, but I think significant mentions in a book, two magazines, and a large newspaper stands up pretty well on its own. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 13:30, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to have been an error on my part. I had no access to Ocho Quilates and, instead of inquiring about its contents, I accidentally slipped it into my "passing mentions" list. This is obviously incorrect and I did not mean to discredit the source, apologies. As for the MicroHobby sources, the former source does not one-to-one repeat what the announcement said, but it appears to mostly just re-report what the company said during a press conference - in the editor's own words and with some commentary. The new one reports on a rumour (reporting by MicroHobby's "sources"). Nonetheless, given the amount of information that appears to be available in the Ocho Quilates source, there might be some potential for an article (albeit a very short one), so I am changking my !vote to weak keep. However, a merge to DRO Records, for which a subsection dedicated to DROsoft would be a healthy expansion, should still be considered. IceWelder [✉] 14:55, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@IceWelder: Thanks - I agree that a merge is definitely still in contention. I figured the Ocho Quilates thing might have just been a mistake - I ended up buying the book off Amazon on my Kindle for all of the £3 it cost to buy it, but obviously people just coming across an AfD can't be expected to do that.

The trouble is finding other editors to comment on it to ascertain whether consensus is in favour of a merge or a keep... we'll see if anyone else sees the AfD. Thanks for helping clean up the article too, by the way

Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 14:59, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep DROsoft was an active Spanish game publisher in the 1990s. There are sources talking about the company in old Spanish publications like Micro Hobby and Micromania. Roberth Martinez (talk) 16:21, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is general agreement that this article should be kept based on the school's status as an accredited tertiary institution, a longstanding precedent. While the article currently lacks independent references demonstrating that this meets WP:GNG, as noted on WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES#2, coverage may not be readily available online. (non-admin closure) gobonobo ⁺ ^c 18:10, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adventist University of Africa[edit]

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

There doesn't seem to be anything notable about this university. All three sources in the article are primary and nothing comes up in a search except for trivial coverage and some articles in an Adventist news source. So, I'm not finding anything that would pass WP:GNG. Adamant1 (talk) 07:26, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 09:39, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 09:39, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - Flori4nK ^{t • c} 14:10, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Plenty of small private universities in Africa come and go. I cannot find a single significant reference to this one on Google books. —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:36, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Accredited tertiary schools have been traditionally kept, this isn't a fly-by-night institution. [19], [20], [21], The Adventist Review is *the* major news source for Seventh-Day Adventists, a worldwide denomination of more than 20 million members, so while information from that source should be reviewed carefully for neutrality, it should not be summarily discounted. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 04:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Adventist Review is certainly a notable periodical, but it is clearly not an "independent of the subject" for the purposes of WP:GNG. The question still remains about why there is so little coverage in other newspapers (of which Kenya has plenty) and published studies. —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:15, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:36, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per 78.26, tertiary institutions are usually kept and the references provided verify it's status, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:04, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of the source (official magazine of the organization) states "AUA is the only world church–sponsored institution of higher education located on the African continent"[22]. I am convinced with [23], [24], and the subject is registered with the Commission for University Education. It is ranked 31 [25] in such a country which spread over 580,367 km2 with a population of 47,564,296. It looks notable to me. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 03:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TheBirdsShedTears, the first claim you mention is blatantly wrong - there are plenty of Catholic- and Protestant-funded universities across Africa. I assume by "world church-sponsored", it means Adventist. The "All-Africa" link is about the different "Adventist University of West Africa" based in Liberia (!) and the Rwandan link refers to a separate Rwandan-based "Adventist University of East-Central Africa" (see 1) which is based in Kigali. —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:12, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think in that passage "church-sponserd" refers to Sponosored by the "wolrd seventh-day Adventist" Church. Some of the wording there may also go down to how Pontifical Universities differ from other Catholic Universities. This is an intentional choice of wording.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:06, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the spinmeister. ——Serial 11:41, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While we are starting to look to be a little more discriminating in what secondary school articles we accept, for tertiary institutions if we can verrify they exist and actually provide course work, and thus are more than a scam or a diploma mill, we will keep the article. This applies to any tertiary institution ever, anywhere. The sourcing is way above that truly minimal standard.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:06, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the coverage falls fouls of WP:MILL and/or does not constitute WP:SIGCOV. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:10, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sophia De Muth[edit]

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

Lack of coverage from reliable and secondary sources. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 04:16, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:49, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:49, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:49, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article is entirely without sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:03, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lacking any sources, let alone sustained WP:SIGCOV of the subject in multiple independent reliable sources. Also fails WP:NOPAGE, as any meaningful info could fit on a list. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails GNG. Content copied from other Wikis including Gerontology Wikia (all subsequently deleted as failing RS). Article creator is a newbie editor apparently unaware that Supercentenarians are not inherently notable. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 05:57, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:04, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've added two articles and see a number of others in newspaper archives. If editors would refrain from voting and simply watch the page until I am finished improving the article, that would be cool. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 12:00, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as meets WP:GNG. Articles on her appeared across the country; her death was reported in the New York Times. Another user and I have added some of these articles to the Wikipedia article. There are more that could be added, but I am hoping this will suffice. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 00:31, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The New York Times has all of 3 sentences on her, and of those one is half about her husband. Nothing more than routine, bare bones obituary information. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:30, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Delete votes were made before sources were added. The statement above that more sources can still be added is credible, because her status as world's oldest person is clearly notable for the media. I think the current level of sourcing is sufficient, but in any case no article should be deleted when there is clear potential for further sourcing. Spicemix (talk) 19:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That simply having a pulse for longer than anyone else is inherently notable has long been disavowed. All of the sources besides the 3 sentences in the New York Times are local coverage, which is helpful for details but doesn't at all establish notability. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:36, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can list some of the articles from other cities, but please note that the Washington Court House Record is or was published in Ohio, which is not a neighbor of Nebraska, so interest in her life and its span did travel beyond Nebraska. Being the world's oldest person is no small thing. Alas, it seems that perhaps no one was aware at the time that she was the world's oldest; they only thought she was the oldest in the state. She may have seen even more coverage at the time had it been known. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 01:16, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abilene Reporter News June 30, 1976 Page 55

Sarasota Herald Tribune June 30, 1976 Page 9 DiamondRemley39 (talk) 01:40, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

San Antonio Express June 30, 1976 Page 2

Findlay Courier June 30, 1976 Page 19

Cumberland News July 2, 1976 Page 3

Lake Charles American Press July 11, 1976 Page 11

Chillicothe Constitution Tribune June 30, 1977 Page 1

Connellsville Daily Courier December 5, 1977 Page 4

New Castle News December 5, 1977 Page 19

Kittanning Leader Times December 5, 1977 Page 8

Arkansas City Traveler June 30, 1977 Page 4 DiamondRemley39 (talk) 01:47, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Give time to consider new sources added
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 14:28, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG with new sources. 172.58.110.250 (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources identified by DiamondRemley39. We don't judge based on why the person was notable or whether we respect the person's achievement. She received significant coverage nationwide; the New York Times obit demonstrates that there was interest outside of the local area. — Toughpigs (talk) 02:42, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:35, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At least all the sources I could readily check above are the same basic "She lived a long time, and then she died" formula repackaged over and over again, which is completely run of the mill for such people. None that I could check had any other meaningful coverage of her. In case it's not clear, I think this should be deleted. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:12, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pretty much per the northern-lit blade. The sources listed above are passing mentions of literally a sentence all saying effectively the same thing, and that sustained, persistant coverage in reliable sources is not. The topic fails the most WP:BASIC requirements we have. ——Serial 11:45, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Echoing Serial Number 54129 & The Blade of the Northern Lights. We indeed need in-depth significant coverage & not mere passing mentions. Celestina007 19:43, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure)   Kadzi   (talk) 19:34, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Smoking Kills (album)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM. It does not have any sources and is just a track listing. It could be merged into the band's article. Suonii180 (talk) 10:20, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Suonii180 (talk) 11:16, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Disciplines: Barely found anything about the album. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:14, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:BEFORE failure here. The album received plenty of coverage, e.g. [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35]. --Michig (talk) 14:47, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Changed my vote, per reliable sources indicated by Michig. With these, the article is good enough to pass WP:NALBUM. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was move to draft. (non-admin closure) ——Serial 11:48, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Darmi Khan[edit]

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

Not able to find enough information to verify information and notability in this article James Richards (talk) 10:22, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. James Richards (talk) 10:22, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. James Richards (talk) 10:22, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. James Richards (talk) 10:22, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify (giving it the benefit of the doubt; otherwise delete) This really needs to go back to the draft space, it's nowhere near ready to be published. The text is pretty much incomprehensible, and because of that, and the fact that there are only a couple of wikilinks (and they are to disambiguation pages), it's difficult to even understand quite what the topic is. That would also give a chance to address verifiability: I realise sources don't need to be online, but the way they are currently 'cited' leaves this IMO effectively unreferenced, hence (for now at least) it fails WP:V and consequently WP:GNG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:35, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article"Darmi khan"is very informative and contain correct information about swat and darmi khan.Please do not delete this article.thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.60.12.12 (talk) 13:18, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable --Devokewater @ 20:07, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify For necessary improvements per DoubleGrazing. desmay (talk) 18:44, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. I think it will just die a slow death in drafts. // Timothy :: talk 14:08, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
at best draftify the article has a link to Swat (a dab page), probably referring either to Swat (princely state) or Swat District, but neither seems to refer to this individual or show that he was significant. He does not seem to be a ruler of the state (who would be notable). We have a long genealogy (s/o is son of) involving ancestors who are apparently NN; and conflicts which I do not identify in the other articles referred to. I have to conclude for the moment that the article is WP:OR relating to a WP:NN person. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:12, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:15, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Keijsers[edit]

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

The article asserts descent and eligibility for nobility. This is not properly sourced (though there are two citations to non-reliable sources), and even if true eligibility for a noble title is not a shoe in for notability. Searching for sources brings up little on this individual, though a peoplepill.com profile lists a birth year of 2006 and relatives. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 10:11, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sign that he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Pichpich (talk) 21:24, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:BASIC or WP:GNG, zero sources found, appears to be a WP:AUTO. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:13, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails all notability guidelines for inclusion. Jmertel23 (talk) 21:28, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Unable to verify by any credible independent sources. Appears to be an autobiography. BostonMensa (talk) 02:49, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of independent sources is not a valid reason for speedy deletion, althogyh it is valid grounds for deletion after discussion. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:57, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn’t mean speedy as in the wiki option of speedy. I meant speedy the same way I’ve seen other comments in discussions like this. There is no reason to belabor this discussion and keep it going for two, three weeks. It appears to be an autobiography but even it isn’t, the information can’t be verified and it makes me wonder if it is made up by the original editor. Therefore, as long as other editors continue to agree it should be deleted, whatever their reasons, the deletion should not be delayed. BostonMensa (talk) 15:20, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: no credible assertion of notability. BLP unsourced too. PamD 07:16, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An A7 which you tagged this, requires not lack of assertion of notability, but lack of assertion of significance which is a rather lower standard. See WP:CCS. I declined the A7, because a reasonable percentage of those with such titles of nobility prove notable in the end, so that IMO nake them claims of significance. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:01, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is why I didn't A7 it to begin with. It also wasn't eligible for WP:BLPPROD (which I considered) as the initial version has two references, all be it malformed and bogus references, which technically precluded a BLPPROD. G11 would be a stretch, and a G3 as a blatant hoax is not obvious (heck, it might all be true! Just insignificant and not notable). --Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 04:16, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted those so called references. Comments that simply say “according to (fill in name here)” don’t even come close to being references. If the editor even said they spoke with John or Jane Doe on this day and time and in this context, I probably would have left it in but according to so and so can mean anything and yet nothing at the same time. BostonMensa (talk) 15:26, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although I declined the A7, I see nothing that establishes notability in the article at present, and a search of google, google books, news, and newspapers revealed nothing that even seemed to hint at notability. This view is subject to change if additional sources are presented. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:12, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This page was created by Joshua Keijsers (Joshuait). Other contributions from this editor should also be evaluated for COI and self-promotion. JoelleJay (talk) 22:18, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Guantanamo Bay detention camp. If further consensus decides that she is not worth mentioning in any existing article, then this page should be nominated at WP:RFD. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:08, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Cerveny[edit]

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

Attracted coverage, but I feel as part of WP:1E rather than the in-depth coverage and long-term significance of Cerveny herself. Boleyn (talk) 07:26, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:51, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:51, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:52, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move to 2006 allegations of detainee abuse at Guantanamo Bay or similar (or merge if there's an appropriate article) - this incident looks notable, but I have no idea why the article has been created as being about the person who reported it and this should have been cleaned up long ago. Nick-D (talk) 10:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- As to why this wasn't written as an article on the event, rather than an article on the individual - something recommended in the BLP policy - the article was started before we had a BLP policy.

I suggest the title 2006 allegations of detainee abuse at Guantanamo Bay is far too broad. It was January 2006 when captives being force-fed started to be strapped, immobile, into restraint chairs, for hours on end. That abuse has nothing to do with Cerveny's affadavit, but would also seem to fit into an article with that title. Geo Swan (talk) 15:49, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move as per Nick-D's logic or merge into Guantanamo Bay detention camp. This page is not about Cerveny, but an event in which she played a role. Mztourist (talk) 10:55, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not keep - I will note that there is another BLP that is built largely (although a bit less solely) around the same incident Colby Vokey - which raises the question of whether that should be used as the redirect target, or whether that article should be dealt with as well. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:59, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- NatGertler, Both Cerveny and Colby Vokey filed the affadavit in 2006. While the inquiry the affadavit triggered may have damaged Vokey's military career, it may have enhanced his legal career.
  These later developments are not reflected in the article on Colby Vokey article. I started the Colby Vokey article. But I am not responsible for it not being kept up to date. As per WP:OWN, contributors release our contributions to the community. We don't own the articles we start. Keeping articles up to date is the responsibility of the entire community.
  More recent cases Vokey defended include:
1. Frank Wuterich, accused of leading an attack that killed 18 civilians, in three houses, while pursuing 4 Iraqi fighters, who turned out to have been in the last house. [36]
2. Lieutenant Colonel Joshua Kissoon , in command at Parris Island, when a recruit died the case was under consideration by the SCOTUS [37]
3. Mario Madera-Rodriguez charged with killing Green Beret Logan Melgar [38]
4. John Nettleton, commander of GTMO, accused of a coverup following the suspicious death of his married lover's husband. [39]
5. Eddie Gallagher, the former Navy SEALs subordinates broke ranks and reported incidents when they alleged he committed war crimes. Gallagher says his legal expenses were being covered by a non-profit that included Vokey on its Board. Gallagher fired Vokey, claiming he was dragging the case out, and not defending him adequately - because keeping his case ongoing was good for the non-profit's fund-raising. Vokey then pursued Gallagher for unpaid fees, and Gallgher counter-sued. [40]
I suggest Vokey's later high profile roles in other cases argues against simply combining this article with the Colby Vokey article. Geo Swan (talk) 16:36, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

None of that should keep us from redirecting this page to the portion of his page that deals with the relevant matter. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is not enough sourcing to justify an article on her.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:34, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Options are split between delete, redirect, move or merge. Need more input to decide which.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:23, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kj cheetham (talk) 08:31, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Guantanamo Bay detention camp. Subject is clearly only notable for one event and there isn't enough significant coverage to prove she needs a standalone article. The event Ceverny is noted for has received significant coverage, however I still thinking merging the whole thing into the main Guantanamo Bay article is the best since there were a lot of large scale prison incidents that only ended up as a section on the prison article's page. GN-z11 ^☎ ^★ 09:57, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Others have made a solid argument that this was an event worth recording but that she should be merged into a broader topic Bgrus22 (talk) 10:10, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Obvious BLP1E is obvious. That being said, I oppose a merge into the main Guantanamo Bay article; this is already a vast article with hundreds of sources. (A simple redirect would be acceptable.) Ravenswing 08:51, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is narrow, but clearly and correctly argues the paucity of sources supporting encyclopedic notability. Deletion is without prejudice to restoration to draft, should additional sources supporting potential notability become available. BD2412 T 05:14, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Boothe[edit]

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

There are no reliable sources from which to build an article. There is one PolitiFact piece that fact-checks one of her claims about illegal immigration (finding it to be false).[41] We cannot build an entire article about that alone. I looked for coverage in the Washington Post, the NY Times, Politico and CNN, and could only find only find off-hand mentions of her in news coverage in those sources: her being a spokesperson for politicians and groups who are actually notable and in the news.[42][43][44][45] and her filling in as a host for someone who was abruptly fired[46]. In other words, she is not the notable person in this coverage. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:39, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable political commentator.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:49, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:44, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:44, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:44, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:25, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article needs more references. Mention in Nyt, wp, Politico, cnn not required for notability Patapsco913 (talk) 09:43, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:30, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This person is currently filling in for Tucker Carlson on Fox News, July 17, 2020 20:00EST. It seems relevant and informative to have an entry for her. I searched for it. References appear sufficient and credible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.203.238.232 (talk) 00:18, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

^ This person has never edited before today. When the editor says "I searched for it", the Search results on Google are near-universally either op-eds authored by her or mentions of her as a spokesperson for actual notable politicians and groups. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:12, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The commentator is a FOX News contributor, and while she may not have a plethora of sources, sources are reliable. Article could use more references over time. WikiFixer337 (talk) 14:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC) blocked sockpuppet. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:16, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kj cheetham (talk) 08:31, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As literally the first guideline of GNG states, the article needs significant coverage, which this one does not based on a few mentions in a couple sources. The extremely questionable "keep" votes, including an IP that never edited on Wikipedia before but somehow found this AfD and a user who was created two days ago and only ever contributed on AfDs, seal it for me. Won't be surprised if someone's socking. GN-z11 ^☎ ^★ 09:43, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and GN-z11 above. Mentions like said Lisa Boothe, a spokeswoman for the group don't add up to significant coverage. XOR'easter (talk) 18:27, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Surv1v4l1st ^{▌Talk|Contribs▌} 23:42, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:08, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Stone Balloon[edit]

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

NN and long defunct restaurant, fails the GNG and WP:CORP. No substantive coverage in reliable sources found. Stylistically reads like it was off the back of a brochure -- or, in the words of one attempting a prod some years back, like a Yelp review. Created by a SPA whose sole Wikipedia activity this is.

There've been a few attempts to delete this over the years, and seemingly a previous iteration was deleted. Nonetheless, notability tagged for over a decade, orphaned to boot, unsourced and the article's a mess. Enough is enough. Ravenswing 07:57, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 07:57, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islands-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 07:57, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. I cannot find anything at all online to show notablity. Looking at history, cannot find any edits of substance that are not by SPAs or IPs. I'm only surprised it has survived this long. asnac (talk) 09:10, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find any reliable sources to prove notability. Suonii180 (talk) 10:37, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable --Devokewater @ 20:22, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 08:08, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Malcolm Parks[edit]

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

NN academic, fails the GNG and WP:PROF. While searching for substantive coverage in reliable sources is not easy (there being many people out there by this name), none were found all the same. Notability tagged for over a decade. Article was deprodded in 2014 with the peculiar rationale that NN professors needed to be taken to AfD, instead of other processes. Fair enough, it's rather past time someone obliged in this case. Ravenswing 07:46, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Observation I found this mini-biography which says "He was editor‐in‐chief of the Journal of Communication from 2010 to 2014." Looking at WP:NACADEMIC, there is a possible claim for notability per "The person has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area." However I do not know how to be sure that the Journal of Communication is of sufficient stature. asnac (talk) 09:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:06, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the study of communication theory appears to be relatively recent ("The main landmark event that opened the way to the development of communication theory was the publication of an article by Claude Shannon (1916–2001) in the Bell System Technical Journal in July and October 1948"), so a journal extablished in 1951 that "is ranked fifth out of 88 journals in the category "Communication"." may be deemed "a major, well-established academic journal". Coolabahapple (talk) 02:42, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Regardless of whether the journal is significant, he also has heavily cited publications, enough for WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:31, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Splendid. I hope that those of you who believe the article should be kept will take the trouble to properly source the article. Eleven years without is quite enough. Ravenswing 05:34, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:PROF#C1 and WP:PROF#C8. Article now sourced to the typical level of a stub. XOR'easter (talk) 19:45, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've not looked carefully, but seems to have a high number of citations for WP:NPROF. -Kj cheetham (talk) 21:36, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Based on large number of citations and editor-in-chief of a journal between 2011–2015. Earthianyogi (talk) 11:26, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:07, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nelly Duff[edit]

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

NN business, fails the GNG and WP:ORG. No significant coverage in reliable sources of the subject, as the GNG requires, beyond routine namedrops. Notability tagged for over a decade. Article created by SPA whose sole Wikipedia activity this is. Was prodded in 2017, and removed by deprodder with neither comment nor attempts to improve the article. Ravenswing 07:34, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While there are mentions in passing in secondary sites, e.g. significant magazines such as Country Life, these merely accumulate "Examples of trivial coverage" listed in ORGDEPTH. I don't find anything to confer notability. asnac (talk) 09:39, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete they conceivably had a role in mainstreaming street art, and rep some artists on who we have articles, Ben Eine, Zevs_(artist), Zevs_(artist), Miss Van and Pablo Delgado, but I can't find anything that shows that their relationship was particularly meaningful. Vexations (talk) 20:57, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: And, in any event, WP:NOTINHERITED. Ravenswing 00:15, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:03, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:03, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:03, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Traditional Chinese medicine. Can be userfied for improvement via WP:REFUND. Sandstein 08:07, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional Chinese veterinary medicine[edit]

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

Seems to be promoting alternative TCM therapies for veterinary medicine without any sources (never mind reliable ones) to back up claims. Not the view of most veterinarians and seems like an example of soapboxing. Bangalamania (talk) 19:50, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit) This fringe practice may have a place on the main traditional Chinese medicine article, with this page as a redirect. --Bangalamania (talk) 19:58, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Bangalamania (talk) 19:50, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on availability of a fair number of high quality sources [47]. However, would suggest redirecting to traditional Chinese medicine as an interim measure until someone actually does the work and makes use of them. We should not have unsourced articles on medical topics sit in mainspace, even if it's traditional Chinese medicine. Alternatively, draftify until sourced. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:40, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I haven't accessed a lot of those sources, but a lot of them seem to be focused on Veterinary acupuncture, which already has its article. --Bangalamania (talk) 20:21, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:31, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:31, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. Reywas92^Talk 17:18, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. At first I thought it was a fringe concept, but upon further investigation I added a few reliable source links to the external link section. I still think much or even most of traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) is poor/bad medicine based on the scientific reviews of this type of medicine, nevertheless TCM and Traditional Chinese veterinary medicine both appear to have a significant followings in China.Knox490 (talk) 06:20, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 03:37, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 July 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:34, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:46, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep agree with Knox490. Cape Diamond MM (talk) 13:57, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete per nom. JoelleJay (talk) 19:00, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete this would need a thorough rewrite it's current incarnation is unsalvagable. It is better to nuke this and send it into the fires of Mount Doom. Then if someone wants to recreate they can go through AFC to ensure article is okay. PainProf (talk) 02:25, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:06, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Cain[edit]

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

Small school academic administrator, Doesn’t appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:PROF Grey Wanderer (talk) 05:14, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Grey Wanderer (talk) 05:14, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Grey Wanderer (talk) 05:14, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Grey Wanderer (talk) 05:14, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions.Grey Wanderer (talk) 09:36, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails wp:nacademic all 8 criteria. Judson may be called a university but it only has 1300 students. I was amused that the university page entitled 'the legacy of Dr Jerry Cain' has no information at all! asnac (talk) 12:08, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I strongly dispute that the student count at Judson University makes it "not an actual university." They are accredited by the Higher Learning Commission. However, I am not convinced that Crain meets wp:nacademic based on how little I can find about him in local newspapers.--Mpen320 (talk) 23:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence he passes NBIO. I don't think Presidents of University is auto-notable. We could argue this could be the case for some of the world's most famous institutions, but Judson University is not major, so there's that. Just someone doing their job. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:45, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The "keep" opinions appear unpersuasive, as they seem to conflate this locality with a nearby archeological site, the Karlo site, which may be notable, but would be a separate topic. The "keep" opinions do not address the issue of distinguishing between those two subjects. Sandstein 08:05, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Karlo, California[edit]

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

Another fairly isolated passing siding and water stop); at least this one has a road to it but I can find no indications of a town. The name is used as a locale, especially with reference to the Karlo Site, an archaeological site of some importance which I unfortunately couldn't readily find anything out about, and for some reason there is a persistent transcription error or something which produces the famous actor "Boris Karlo", so my searching might be imperfect, but I couldn't find anything specifically about this place. Mangoe (talk) 14:03, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 14:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 14:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:33, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The University of California published a 110 page report in 1960 about the Karlo Site. Speaking of Native American cultures of 4,000 years ago, the National Park Service has said that the Karlo site "provides the best known link between Central Californian and western Great Basin cultures." Though never an actual town, in the early 20th century Karlo had a post office, a small railroad station and a water tank, according to Railroads of Nevada and Eastern California: The Northern Roads, a book published in 1962. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:28, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to start a Karlo Site article, be my guest, but that would be a different article on a different subject. As for the present artic;e, you seem to agree that it's not notable in its own right. Mangoe (talk) 12:19, 14 July 2020 (UTC)\[reply]

Delete The archaeological site and the train stop are not the same place. The Karlo Site is probably so-named because it is found on the USGS Karlo quadrangle. The site is described to be in Section 7 of Township 31. That would place it about a mile of so from the train station. If the Karlo Site is notable, it should have its own article. I can't find anything that says Karlo the train station is notable. Glendoremus (talk) 00:30, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 04:52, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As explained by Cullen328, there's plenty of history here. The idea that we should delete this to start a separate page about the archaeological site is silly. You don't score points by deleting pages. Quite the contrary. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:35, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as shown above the region has been covered enough to deserve its own article. All it needs is a rewrite with that coverage to make it an actual article. GN-z11 ^☎ ^★ 09:46, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this place doesn't seem to meet the notability guidelines for geographical places. It might be notable for the archaeological site, but it doesn't sound like there are any sources about it anyway and there were it might be worth created a separate article for it instead. Since this one is a about an "unincorporated community." Although, I'd be willing to change my vote if enough non-trivial sources about the archaeological site are found and especially if a clear connection is established between it and the unincorporated community. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:53, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming sourcing can be found, a Karlo site article would be a good idea, but that's not this article. Mangoe (talk) 01:51, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It would not be prudent to turn an article about a non-notable formerly populated place into an article about an unconnected archaeological site in the vicinity, with neither the current title, content, or the incoming links being appropriate. Not that archaeological sites are necessarily individually notable either; the NPS book decribes numerous excavated complexes that may be better described with the relevant culture. Reywas92^Talk 03:29, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This minor location is not notable, and the potentially notable archaeological site is just a similarly named but unrelated topic. Needing to keep this page in order to create a potential page on the archaeological site is rather nonsensical, as there is absolutely nothing contained here that would be used in such an article. Rorshacma (talk) 20:00, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:02, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Luzon, California[edit]

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

Another railroad facility mistaken by GNIS as community. Gudde calls it a railroad station. Durham calls it a locality alongside the Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe railroad. Recent satellite photo shows a long siding and nothing else. Search yields no indication that it was ever anything but a rail facility. Glendoremus (talk) 01:25, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:33, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:33, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete Old topos also show this was never anything but a railroad location. Mangoe (talk) 03:28, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 04:51, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find anything helpful at all. The article says that it was formerly known as Lutzon but that spelling yields even less. asnac (talk) 12:37, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:48, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UFO-Norge[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The article has no in-line sources, and an internet search failed to find any independent, reliable, secondary sources. Even the unreliable sources that mention this organization do so in passing, and are dated. There is an extant website, but it is largely devoid of content. Although information is provided on that site for a (paid) subscription to its alleged journal ("Tidsskriftet"), there are no links to said journal's content, and no such references to it could be found in any secondary RS. Even the website's "media" tab is empty. Notability of this organization is thus suspect.

Note that this article was originally proposed for deletion in 2008. That AfD had few participants, a consensus of Keep, and included false claims that "reliable sources" exist and had been added to the article. The editor who made those claims, User: Kristen Eriksen, has been blocked indefinitely since 2009 and the closer of that AfD, User:John254, is not only the sockmaster of User:Kristen Eriksen, but was also banned from enWiki in 2009. The dubious original AfD and the complete lack of sources in the article, then and now, speak for itself. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 01:23, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:54, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:54, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is a pitiful blog. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 10:02, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 04:51, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not only because it fails the second criterion in WP:CLUB, but also because it doesn't exist any more, having merged with an even less prominent organisation called NETI to form the Norsk UFOSenter (which has no article). There is thus even less reason to retain this. asnac (talk) 12:48, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above points. Light2021 (talk) 22:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:10, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Muleskinner[edit]

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

Online-only student newspaper, fails WP:NNEWSPAPER and WP:GNG Grey Wanderer (talk) 04:39, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Grey Wanderer (talk) 04:39, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Grey Wanderer (talk) 04:39, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Grey Wanderer (talk) 04:39, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, lack of significance. Geschichte (talk) 11:10, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find anything to show it's had a significant impact in its field or major honour. asnac (talk) 12:56, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater @ 20:03, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No sign of notability. --Lockley (talk) 02:27, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A redirect can be separately created if deemed useful. Sandstein 08:02, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Meteorite (comics)[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant English-language coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. The PROD was removed with no useful rationale despite my explicit request to add one or comment on talk :( _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:18, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:18, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:18, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:18, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect to Redeemers (comics), which contains a minimum of information about the character.~~ Argento Surfer (talk) 12:45, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Seeing as how my proposed target is now up for deletion as well (and I support a redirect there), I'll throw my support in this discussion behind Killer Moff's suggestions below. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:39, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Karla Sofen - The incarnation described in this article is not notable, and the team she belonged to, the Redeemers (comics), is also not notable - they only appeared in a single storyline of a different team's book. The actual notable version of this character in Marvel is the original version - the alias used by Moonstone as part of the original Thunderbolts (comics) team. If someone wants to add a line in that article mentioning that a different character briefly used the mantle of "Meteorite", that might be appropriate, but chances are that someone doing a search will actually be looking for information regarding the original Thunderbolts character, not this obscure, short lived version. Rorshacma (talk) 15:59, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as currently titled. Meteorite is a generic term, and my first thought what this meant was the meteorite sought after by the Looter (followed by Why does that have an article). Meteorite (Karla Sofen) and Meteorite (Valerie Barnhardt) might both be suitable redirects to the principal Karla Sofen article as previously suggested. --Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 10:57, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to either Karla Sofen or List of Marvel Comics characters: M. BOZ (talk) 15:03, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 03:40, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as currently titled and create redirect Meteorite (Karla Sofen) to redirect to the Karla Sofen article per Killer Moff._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:42, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Legion of Super-Heroes enemies. The "keep" opinions assert the existence of coverage in reliable sources, but this view must be disregarded because these sources are neither cited in the article nor in this discussion. Sandstein 08:00, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Time Trapper[edit]

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

Prod that became a redirect, and after short while was restored to a full article. Comic book character. The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant English-language coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:11, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:11, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:11, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:11, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Recurring villain covered in numerous sources such as Comics through Time: A History of Icons, Idols, and Ideas. Should be kept for attribution, development, improvement and reference per policies including WP:ATD; WP:IMPERFECT; WP:NOTPAPER and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:08, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you name those other sources? The one you mention can be previewed on Google Books here and does not seem to discuss the subject in depth. He is mentioned on three pages, first in passing, and then twice, briefly, with pure PLOT summary and no analysis. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:58, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Legion of Super-Heroes enemies, which contains a minimum of information on him. I don't see any evidence this character is notable outside of the fiction. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:30, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - agreed, to List of Legion of Super-Heroes enemies - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:17, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 03:38, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Legion of Super-Heroes enemies per others._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:44, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Andrew is entirely correct. This character was the subject of extensive print commentary, particularly with regard to the subject of the mutable nature of DC Comics continuity. That this material is not available online is no reason to discount it, and a more carefully tailored GBooks search shows that the character is rather ubiquitous in discussions of both the underlying series and related matters. WP:FICTION states that "Articles on fiction elements are expected to cover more about 'real-world' aspects of the element, such as its development and reception", and that is precisely the sort of coverage that can be turned up. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 00:33, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you link to this "extensive print commentary"? So far all I see is WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:58, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Can I link to the (offline) print sources? Could you ask a coherent question? Could you, as a first step, provide us with the actual searches you ran to determine there were no Gbooks and Gscholar results? Because if you're going to refuse to accord good faith to editors who disagree with you, you don't deserve to have your unsupported assertions accepted on faith, either. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 03:50, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - I run numerous queries on Google Scholar/Book and News. And as you claim 'offline sources exist' but can't be even bothered to quote them, well... it seems quite clear who did BEFORE and who didn't. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:39, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:59, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rogerville, California[edit]

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

This is another I'm having trouble sorting. The topos apply the label to a group of five building dots a bit south of the old Feather Rjver RR line, but no aerial shows anything there, and at least one shows a clear cut area with no buildings. However, just to the west, there is a passing siding on the FR line, which goes unlabelled in the topos ("Camp One" just to the south is obviously a WPA camp), but the only text reference to the name I can find speaks of it as a railroad spot. My suspicion is that it is this siding which is the actual Rogerville. In any case none of the Butte County histories mentions the place, and other than the one mention I cannot find anything except, maybe, one person who might be "from" there. Mangoe (talk) 18:18, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 17:24, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 17:24, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:14, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If we can't show it exists then we shouldn't have an article on it. If nothing else the current article is rubbish because there's clearly nobody living there now. Hut 8.5 19:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 03:38, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any independent evidence of this place. Looked on a couple of old maps sites as well, nothing. asnac (talk) 13:11, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:55, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dey's Publishing[edit]

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

Non-notable book publisher. Does not satisfy WP:GNG or WP:CORP. Has no sources and has had a warning about sources since 2011. A WP:BEFORE Web search brings up no independent reliable sources. Lopifalko (talk) 10:12, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Lopifalko (talk) 10:12, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lopifalko (talk) 10:12, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. -Hatchens (talk) 04:46, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 03:37, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added one reference, which, while insufficient in itself to demonstrate notability, does describe this company as "a leading name in the world of bengali books". Another more recent source describes the firm as "One of the most prolific in the trade" (Livemint, 2015). AllyD (talk) 07:19, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Both are passing mentions, not the significant coverage that is required. -Lopifalko (talk) 08:44, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no significant coverage Spiderone 09:43, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) KidAd (💬💬) 17:53, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Brooks (political commentator)[edit]

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

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

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

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

Delete as nom. Fails WP:GNG. This page was previously deleted, and Brooks' recent death does not increase his notability. KidAd (💬💬) 03:36, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ditto. There just isn't enough information on Brooks to craft a satisfactory Wikipedia article. HandIsNotNookls (talk) 03:46, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Media-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As I explained on the proposer's talk page, there is now significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources per WP:GNG, which was determined not to be the case in the previous AfD. I have easily found three sources so far (Fox News, Jacobin Magazine, Heavy.com), with more likely to be published in the coming hours and days. I hope that the proposer reconsiders this. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:50, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I said on my talk page, coverage of his death is not enough to warrant an article per WP:BIO1E. KidAd (💬💬) 03:52, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And as I responded on your talk page, the articles describe him as notable for more than his death. Articles created shortly after death is not uncommon, see Ellie Soutter and its deletion discussion. Like that, this is a case of the published, independent and reliable sources discussing the subject (beyond one event) being published largely after death. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:57, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All three of those sources (Fox News, Jacobin Magazine, Heavy.com) are sources citing information about his death. There are no sources on the article to back up the other information, such as his academic background or his alma mater. HandIsNotNookls (talk) 04:03, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The three sources discuss his life as well as his death, and there are many more sources other there. If there aren't sources for his academic background then we can remove those details. That's no reason to delete the entire article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:04, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Brooks's political positions are well documented through his extensive commentaries, which provide more than adequate substance for the page. Note also that Sam Seder, for whom he was cohost, has a page. AskohlerOpus111 (talk) 04:09, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^WP:OTHERSTUFF. KidAd (💬💬) 03:59, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a fair rebuttal of HandIsNotNookIs' comment. There is independent coverage of Brooks' commentary, and there will be more published in the days to come, in addition to biographical information. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:04, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected re: WP:OTHERSTUFF, but I stand by the rest of my statement above about Brooks's commentaries. I would add that the Majority Report has a large number of subscribers, and that Brooks was the most prominent voice on the program after Sam Seder. While the coverage of his death may not itself warrant a Wikipedia page, the coverage and reaction from colleagues does evince the fact that he was a prominent figure. AskohlerOpus111 (talk) 04:10, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I actually am not so sure I stand correct on the WP:OTHERSTUFF count, since I cited a page that is directly related. AskohlerOpus111 (talk) 06:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep . Brooks is notable, not just for his death, but for his entire career as a political commentator and journalist as the articles cited above mention. Brooks also meets the criteria for WP:AUTHOR (1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.). Currently Michael Brooks is the top trending mention on twitter with over 45.8k unique mentions. His body of work is being cited by journalists, world leaders, politicians, and entertainers as having a significant and unique importance in his field of progressive journalism. Citationsaurus (talk) 04:36, 21 July 2020 (UTC) — Citationsaurus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Twitter popularity post-death is not a notability guideline. KidAd (💬💬) 05:08, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Citations and mentions of his work and his regard as an important figure in his field by his peers and successors is part of the notability guideline, regardless of the medium in which those citations are published. Citationsaurus (talk) 05:46, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:ENT specifies a large following or cult warrants inclusion. His book is #8 in Political Philosophy, for proper weight, #7 and #9 are Plato. I think the status is also substantiated by his large following on Twitter, YouTube, and Patreon. Evan Carroll (talk)

Sources don't indicate a particularly large or "cult" following. Follower/subscriber numbers are worthless here, but 98k followers on his personal account and 31k followers on his show's account is nothing to write home about. KidAd (💬💬) 05:10, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Michael Brook Show's Youtube account has 131k subscribers and 23,575,687 views, and the show he co-hosted, The Majority Report, has 894k subscribers and 357,519,210 views. These metrics put him ahead of the majority of his colleagues in his field and would indeed be something to write home about. Citationsaurus (talk) 06:00, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep . In addition to everything else being said here - he was mentioned by a former head of state as a journalist in a eulogy - he's not some random youtube host. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.49.105.175 (talk • contribs) — 136.49.105.175 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep, per arguments above. ImTheIP (talk) 05:18, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Many sources about him (that are not about his death) are more recent than the last AfD which was in 2018. I agree that a few of the statements currently being put into the article are not discussed in high quality sources but there is more than enough for WP:GNG. Connor Behan (talk) 05:52, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has since been developed more. But there needs to be more individual references for his various media appearances. Also perhaps include more on The Michael Brooks Show and the guests that have been featured, i.e. Noam Chomsky, Richard Wolff, Cornel West, Lula, Slavoj Žižek, ContraPoints, Matt Taibbi, Krystal Ball, Mark Blyth, Robert McChesney, Vijay Prashad, Vivek Chibber, Petra Costa etc. Οἶδα (talk) 05:55, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep. KidAd, the article was poor at the time you nominated it. Now the article has been improved significantly with 21 sources and several additional sections. It is no longer just a eulogy. The sources I added all pre-dated his death and I thank the other editors for developing them further. It is inappropriate for you to try to nibble down the content to try to make this individual look non-notable just to get a win. I suggest you admit your defeat and withdraw the nomination. Trackinfo (talk) 06:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I second the suggestion. AskohlerOpus111 (talk) 06:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a pointless AfD – Deletion discussions after a recent death establish nothing. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 07:00, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this isn't the best time for a deletion discussion, but I disagree if you are implying that whatever consensus comes from this discussion should be disregarded. The vast majority of the comments are policy-based and comment on whether or not the article's reliable sources satisfactorily meet the notability guidelines. Perhaps if the comments were mostly single purpose accounts, then this could be a pointless discussion which establishes nothing, but that is far from the case at the moment. Vanilla Wizard 💙 09:14, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His recent death has been reported on by various WP:RS sources. Also, I love how far Wikipedians go to discredit and defame independent political voices, even in death. CompactSpacez (talk) 07:51, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Independent has also published an article about Brooks and many readers are likely to find a Wikipedia article on him useful, as well as future readers researching progressive media in the US. His notability in US progressive politics is also clear given how many major figures have expressed their condolences, even Jane Sanders. eug (talk) 09:03, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep The article is not in the state that it was at the time of nomination, and I disagree with the rationale that someone's death necessarily does not impact their notability; this is simply untrue, numerous articles from many reliable secondary source outlets go into detail not just about his sudden death and the condolences given, but also the work that he did in his life. Sources can and do become available even after the subject has passed, and there's no reason to believe that they wouldn't. Vanilla Wizard 💙 09:14, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep The article is (completely predictably) being improved now that he has died. There's plenty of coverage about the work he did coming out, and as countless others have said, the article isn't in the same state as when it was nominated. To even have nominated an article of someone just as they die without expecting the article to rapidly change is, put simply, unwise. Dfsghjkgfhdg (talk) 10:39, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep my belief is that brooks notability has increased significantly since the article was previously deleted in 2018, and therefore the article should be kept. for example, he published his book Against the Web: A Cosmopolitan Answer to the New Right earlier this year (2020), he started a program on Jacobin (magazine) (a well-respected publication in the american left) along with other work according to one obit. and the reputation of his show TMBS continued to grow with highly notable individuals appearing, Lula da Silva and Marianne Williamson to name a few. Epluribusunumyall (talk) 10:45, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nothing to do with his death and good taste; the article has numerous sources. Any deletion of this page would be another attempt by Wikipedia's right-wing leadership to silence leftist commentators (see Hasan Piker, Kyle Kulinski, etc...). NDACFan (talk) 10:50, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A notable individual. Wjfox2005 (talk) 11:04, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An influential voice of American left, Bacus15 (talk) 11:21, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article has more sources than most on Wikipedia. --The Vital One (talk) 11:37, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 2018 is two years ago. This person has made himself a name in the political discourse in a really big way since then. Therefore he absolutely is encyclopediacly relevent. We can argue about some sources missing though. -- Martin Erhardt (talk) 14:55, 21 July 2020 (CEST)
Snow Keep Article has been significantly improved since nom and meets WP:GNG. snood1205^{(Say Hi! (talk))} 13:31, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per many of the arguments stated above, which I will not try to reiterate in alternative prose. Added to that, I've seen articles about virtual no-ones written atrociously which never get a Delete tag put on them. Ref ^(chew)(do) 14:07, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There appears to be sufficient RS coverage to build an article: Variety[48], Fox News[49], Jacobin[50], Independent[51], Metro[52]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:35, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article has plenty of sources, he has been discussed by and worked with numerous notable figures such as Lula da Silva, Cornell West, Ana Kasparian, and more, he had a large hand in freeing the aforementioned Lula from political prison, has written two books, and was a very notable political commentator on the left. He is more than notable enough to have a Wikipedia page for. If Jacob Wohl can have a Wikipedia page for committing fraud in the name of Donald Trump, then Michael Brooks can have a page for all of the accomplishments I just listed. The end. Windrays (talk) 14:44, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets GNG Spiderone 15:51, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has been greatly improved since yesterday and possibly meets GNG. HandIsNotNookls (talk) 15:53, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep — per GNG. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 17:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Adventist Health. Discussion on what can merge can be had from the talk page. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:03, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adventist Health Sonora[edit]

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

I'm not finding anything notable about this local hospital. The article only has a single primary source and nothing that passes WP:GNG or WP:NCORP comes up in a search on them. Adamant1 (talk) 06:04, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - Flori4nK ^{t • c} 14:07, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Adventist Health. Rathfelder (talk) 08:14, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the Adventist Health article seems to be the most logical move for the multiple entries for this. -- Dane ^talk 19:13, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Against merging with Adventist Health would water down that article. And looking for information for these hospitals you have to look under the former name.Catfurball (talk) 19:51, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 03:34, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to LOL#Variants. Sandstein 07:54, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LUL (symbol)[edit]

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

We have individual pages for emojis like Poop emoji et cetera, but thankfully we don't have individual pages for twitch emotes too.

Before asking for a Merge, check that TotalBiscuit#Internet popularity already has a line

In 2016, Twitch added a LUL emoji, sketched from a laughing Bain photo, which has since become one of the most popular emojis on that platform.

;which by all means is a generous summation of the nominated article. Nothing else really salvageable in the article. - Harsh (talk) 15:51, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. - Harsh (talk) 15:51, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. - Harsh (talk) 15:51, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Simply non-notable and fails GNG. There is not even an article about the widely-known "Kappa" emote so an article about this lesser-used emote seems even more minor. However, I would not be opposed to List of Twitch emotes as they have gotten not insignificant coverage as a whole._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:00, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Twitch (service)#Emotes. Not enough coverage about this very specific element. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 07:52, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and oppose merge, clearly exists as a standalone topic which has been the primary subject of numerous articles from reliable sources, such as [53] and [54]--Prisencolin (talk) 22:13, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You brought up two sources, Prisencolin. I know you know that's not enough for WP:SIGCOV and does not meet stand-alone notability. In the custom WP:VG/RS Google search engine, there are whopping total of 19 results. And starting from the fourth result ("Emotes Mocking Dr Disrespect Disappear From Twitch"), every usage of "omegalul" is in forum comments or listings of other articles. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 06:07, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The example you brought up about forum comments being used in articles doesn’t make the source unsuitable for usage. If Kotaku believes quoting these sources meets their journalistic standards, then I’d be inclined to agree. It’s an internet phenomenon, most of the rhetoric about it will be online. WP:RS discourages the use of forums to be used as a source directly in Wikipedia articles, but says nothing about forums being used as sources within the sources that Wikipedia uses. There is an additional degree of editorial discretion being applied here and that’s more than enough to use those sources in this article.—Prisencolin (talk) 20:14, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ~~TotalBiscuit#Internet popularity (or Twitch (service)#Emotes)~~ LOL#Variants: Best to briefly discuss the term in any of the target articles. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 11:59, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 03:32, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Changed redirect target, per Rhododendrites. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to LOL#Variants, where it is already mentioned. I see there are a few options for redirect. It's not mentioned on the Twitch article and a specific emote would probably be undue in that article. It's mentioned in the TotalBIscuit article, but for a redirect target let's go with the meaning of the concept. Not seeing sufficient coverage to justify a stand-alone article here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:35, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:54, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel A. Bean[edit]

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

No indication of notability per WP:GNG or WP:SOLDIER Lettler^hello 17:07, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^hello 17:07, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^hello 17:07, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettler^hello 17:07, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG, local hero only with no wider notability. Mztourist (talk) 03:04, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 03:32, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:45, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Austin Java[edit]

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

A design blog, the subject's linkedIn, the subject's own website, an annoucement of a new location in a very local newspaper and the same new location again in culturemap.com, which calls itself "your source for local lifestyle news". None of this meets our notability requirements for businesses WP:NORG or the WP:GNG. This is routine coverage in local sources, not significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Vexations (talk) 19:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input. I admit I was hasty in my creation of the page, and it does not meet notability guidelines. I will not make a fuss if it gets deleted. --Blellington (talk) 19:14, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No encyclopedic notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:39, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 03:31, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Wikipedia is not for promotion. --Jack Frost (talk) 04:55, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete local coffee and sandwich shop without encyclopedic notability ☆ Bri (talk) 15:10, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:54, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lightglove[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

NN product, fails the GNG. Despite the article's assertions, there are ZERO news or newspaper hits in reliable sources (never mind the "significant coverage" the GNG requires). Notability tagged for over a decade. Article created by a SPA who was, in fact, the creator of this product (see talk page); obvious COI is obvious. In previous AfD, the article was speedied for copyvio. Ravenswing 02:09, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 02:09, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't think it ever demonstrated notability and it's clear from a glance at the product's aged website that it doesn't exist any more. asnac (talk) 13:17, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of coverage suggests it doesn't pass WP:GNG. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:37, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:54, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Resident (company)[edit]

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

Despite extensive editing, this remains essentially advertising for borderline notable company most of the references are blatantly and obviously promotional DGG ( talk ) 01:56, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom agreement. Light2021 (talk) 23:11, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:59, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:59, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:54, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jami Lanz[edit]

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

NN college gymnast, fails the GNG and WP:PROMO, meets none of the criteria of WP:NCOLLATH or WP:NGYMNAST. No substantive coverage in reliable sources beyond routine sports coverage. Notability tagged for over a decade, article unimproved in that time. Definite COI issues, as the SPA whose sole Wikipedia edit this article is is listed as a coworker of hers. Ravenswing 01:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 01:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 01:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 01:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable gymnast.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:22, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:44, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Plumas, Lassen County, California[edit]

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

Another pain to deal with, partly because the GNIS coords are way off, but mostly because Plumas County creates mountains of false hits even if you try to stick to Lassen County. But Gudde identifies this as a WP station, and that's what I see in the topos: a station with no surrounding settlement except a nearby farm. Mangoe (talk) 16:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Former railroad stop, no evidence it's a notable community. "Has a small population" is unsourced OR. Reywas92^Talk 19:52, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:23, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - Keep or else merge with the township that it is incorporate in as a township article. Wikipedia ought to include all known place names, so that people can find them doing a search. I've heard of Plumas. The argument that it is a 'pain' holds no water because lots of articles are a 'pain' to write or research. The fact it has a small population makes me think it is the type to merge into the parent township. Goldenrowley (talk) 17:44, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

THERE IS NO TOWNSHIP. California doesn't have townships as a political structure and there is no source I can find that shows that there was a town here. Wikipedia ought not to be multiplying GNIS's interpretational issues by writing articles on towns and villages that did not exist. And that's what this article appears to be: it's an article on named spot on the railroad, and no, I don't agree that every railroad station is notable either. My expressions about the difficulty in searching are an invitation for you to do better, which from your testimony here you have not done at all.

Wikipedia should not include all known placenames. Even the WP:GNG-denying version of WP:GEOLAND we have now doesn't assert that. Mangoe (talk) 19:29, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a source that supports the "small population" claim? –dlthewave ☎ 19:41, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 00:33, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's been two weeks and no sources have been presented that describe a population, an unincorporated community or anything other than a non-notable former train station at this location. Appears to be another WP:GNIS error compounded by a failure to fact-check before creating an article. –dlthewave ☎ 01:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The fact it's been two weeks without any form of improvement and no sources other than the GNIS survey found makes it pretty hopeless to confirm with a true source it actually has a population. GN-z11 ^☎ ^★ 09:51, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources, just another stop on the railroad. --Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 13:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it might have been more then a stop on the railroad, but unfortunately there's no sources to back up that it was. Personally, all I could find is stuff on Plumas county. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:57, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 07:55, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hope Macaulay[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Some minor coverage but paid churnalism and x of y article. No coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 21:59, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Perhaps some significance in her industry, but not necessarily global notability. — Infogapp1 (talk) 22:06, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Searched Google news and added articles from Vogue India, Russian Vogue & Vogue Italia showing global notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkoala (talk • contribs) 22:21, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Also checked other references. Don't see any paid churnalism articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkoala (talk • contribs) 22:42, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is exact same article, 6 summer knitwear labels that Instagram is obsessed with right now� printed in different locations. There is no coverage. scope_creep^Talk 07:31, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a Vogue recommendation published in its various global editions (indicating the designer is literally 'en Vogue'). References include features in 3 major Irish newspapers and a recommendation in Elle Magazine (second only to Vogue in international fashion magazines). How is this no coverage? And where is the paid for churnalism?

It is an X of Y article listing six different companies with a small paragraph devoted to the subject. The Irish paper are hyper-local and don't indicate WP:SIGCOV. They are churnalism. scope_creep^Talk 20:00, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

'6 of..' is a Vogue house style for recommending 'on trend' designers in the world's leading fashion magazine. The Belfast Telegraph, Irish News and Irish Times are national newspapers in Ireland - not hyper local. The Belfast Telegraph and Irish News are editorial features based on interviews with the subject - not a reproduced press release - these articles are not churnalism. Did another Google search and found additional references including global coverage in Vanity Fair Italia and Harpar's Bazaar Singapore. Have added these references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkoala (talk • contribs) 22:13, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They are mostly pictures taken from Instagram, with small paragraphs attached or passing mentions. There is nothing in-depth that indicate the subject is notable. All of them are X of Y type articles, e.g. 50 people to watch. Not the in-depth secondary sources that are needed to prove notability on a BLP article. scope_creep^Talk 13:39, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:20, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:20, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:20, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems notable due to number of press. There are additional news coming up in Google news about her. Expertwikiguy (talk) 19:49, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:14, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral This article is a stub and is short, and there is not much information. This person did start a company, and that may be notable, but I do not know if this needs to be on Wikipedia or not. I am neutral at this time. I may change later. --Guitarist28 (talk) 12:24, 14 July 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:20, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 00:29, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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