< 23 July	25 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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:09, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptians in Germany[edit]

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

Small community, no refs, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 23:57, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:55, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:55, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:55, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article fails WP:GNG and WP:LISTN. // Timothy :: talk 03:31, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater 16:12, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above Spiderone 14:22, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Immigration and crime in Germany#Female Genital Mutilation. Because of the merge, this must be redirected not deleted, in order to preserve attribution. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:11, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ethiopians in Germany[edit]

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

Small community, no refs, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 23:57, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:56, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:56, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:56, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I merged the content from the FGM section into Immigration and crime in Germany#Female Genital Mutilation. // Timothy :: talk 03:40, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater 16:13, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Afro-Germans. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 19:42, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above Spiderone 14:23, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Afro-Germans per WP:CHEAP and WP:ATD. Article title is a viable search term. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:06, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eritreans in Germany[edit]

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

No sources, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 23:54, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:55, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:55, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I merged the content from the FGM section into Immigration and crime in Germany#Female Genital Mutilation. // Timothy :: talk 03:54, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Demographics of Germany, where it ought to be mentioned at least in the table. (t · c) buidhe 04:05, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater 18:14, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Afro-Germans. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 19:43, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - since the relevant content has already been merged as per above, I can't see any reason to keep this article as it fails GNG on its own Spiderone 19:48, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Deor (talk) 19:32, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Algerians in Germany[edit]

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

No sources, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 23:54, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:54, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:54, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. // Timothy :: talk 03:56, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater 16:14, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above Spiderone 14:23, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:22, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

La Honda Park, California[edit]

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

A low-key resort that is still in business with a variety of changes over the years. This local history photo book has several pages on it but in the large it's not famous. Mangoe (talk) 23:52, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:51, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:51, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Devokewater @ 16:09, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. According to my standards, resorts are not normally notable. Bearian (talk) 19:42, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete found a lot of possible mentions, but they're all trivial/directory-type stuff, not what meets GNG. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:04, 31 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 Jockeys' Guild. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:44, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

L. Wayne Gertmenian[edit]

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

It is verifiable that the subject is a professor at Pepperdine [1] but with neither a title of distinction nor heavy citations (his highest citation count on Google scholar is 42) he does not appear to pass WP:PROF. It is also verifiable that he was sued for fraud [2], but with neither sourcing for an actual conviction for criminal wrongdoing nor any evidence of long-term and ongoing interest in the case he doesn't pass WP:CRIMINAL. As it is, the article seems aimed more at sensationalizing the lawsuit than at providing encyclopedic information about the subject. I think we're better off without it. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:37, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:40, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Devokewater @ 13:27, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything useful about the mismanagement lawsuit, etc, into Jockeys' Guild (I don't think a redirect is called for). But I don't see the lawsuit coverage as rising to GNG for the subject here, and certainly no signs of WP:NPROF. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:44, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Jockeys' Guild. A professor being sued doesn't seem to be sufficiently notable for a standalone article. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:50, 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) 22:13, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HaKohen family (Geonim)[edit]

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

Even though I originally created this page, I agree with the points made by @DavidFixit: on this articles talk page. This article was based on an extremely faulty Geni.com tree and a blog which presumably based it's self on said tree and thus it needs to be deleted. Ibn Daud (talk) 21:13, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:36, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:36, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Geni.com and Wikipedia are both used as sources, as well as Loeb Tree, which are all not RS. Since author is requesting, and there are no RS or anything, I think we can do a CSD, rather than wait for a full seven days for a AFD, or at least let it be a snow close. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:10, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DavidFixit (talk) 18:59, 26 July 2020 (UTC) @Ibn Daud - I am pleased that you understand the issue. It will be as well to point out that the erroneous patronymic designation has now been corrected in Geni, but there is still a need for someone who has enough knowledge to analyse the original sources for these genealogies to confirm the family tree as it exists now, and if necessary make further corrections on Geni platform, quoting the sources in the appropriate places there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidFixit (talk • contribs) 05:46, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - extremely dubious sourcing, unlikely to be verifiable using WP:RS only. Agricolae (talk) 19:34, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources. Oddly, if this were sourced from the Bible, I'd accept it. Bearian (talk) 19:49, 30 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 Luis Dubuc. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:07, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Antarctica (The Secret Handshake album)[edit]

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

This album doesn't even appear on the band's AllMusic discography [3]. [4] is RS according to WP:MUSICRS but only mentions this album in one sentence (I guess it's verification that this really exists). I'm not finding any in-depth reliable coverage, which isn't surprising given that the article states (with no source) that the only copies of the album apparently in existence are held by a former member of the band. Hog Farm _Bacon 19:51, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete what coverage of this album I can find are little more than track listings, not significant coverage. Danski454 (talk) 21:07, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Luis Dubuc: Barely found anything about the album aside from an AllMusic review. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 09:45, 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:45, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Richard M. Dolan[edit]

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

This WP:FRINGEBLP seems to be about a publisher who is a talking head for various WP:SENSATIONAList outlets including brain-dead cable TV programs and his own vanity press. Does not seem to have generated the independent notice we would need for a standalone biography. jps (talk) 19:40, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 19:40, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 19:40, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 19:40, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination; the notice is coming from inside the bubble. XOR'easter (talk) 19:44, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: I've found these references; the higher-quality (= more in-depth, more reputable) refs are listed first. Not a whole lot of in-depth coverage, but he has received attention in mainstream outlets like The New Yorker and CBC News.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]

References

^ "UFO sleuth Richard Dolan visits Thunder Bay". CBC News. 2014-07-09.
^ Kolbert, Elizabeth (2019-04-15). "What's New About Conspiracy Theories?". The New Yorker.
^ Bookman, Todd (2017-09-02). "Roswell of the East? UFO Festival Draws In Believers, Skeptics". New Hampshire Public Radio.
^ Knapp, George (2020-02-06). "UFO intrigue, and the 'leak of the century' — an interview with Richard Dolan". KRON-TV. Retrieved 2020-07-24.
^ Banias, MJ (2019-11-04). "The Army Told Us Why It Partnered With Tom DeLonge's UFO Group". Vice. Retrieved 2020-07-24. Author and popular UFO historian Richard Dolan told Motherboard that it is irresponsible to 'throw cold water' on this before any results come in. 'True skepticism doesn't equate into reflexive debunking, but an honest inquiry into the data,' Dolan stated. 'What is obvious is that this announcement would have been considered astonishing as little as two years ago. The fact that the U.S. military is interested in this should cause us to become more attentive to what exactly is going on. Therefore, I'd say "close attention" rather than caution is the order of the day.'
^ Bender, Jim (2016-06-19). "UFO researchers seek gov't 'truths'". Winnipeg Sun.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by AleatoryPonderings (talk • contribs) 22:08, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For readers coming via Wikipedia:WikiProject University of Oxford/Article alerts I have deleted the claim to be an Oxford alumnus as (1) the course described seems to be the History, Politics & Society Summer School rather than a degree course of the University of Oxford, and (2) there's no source for the claim that he attended even this course. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:40, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Self-published author and crankosphere talking head, but there is no substantive reality-based coverage form which we can write a neutral biography (i.e. one that puts his claims into the context of their objective merit). Guy (help!) 22:12, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – he's a pretty prolific writer in the UFOlogy space. One would not expect to find sources putting his claims into the context of objective merit. Dicklyon (talk) 23:16, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – As article creator and per the refs Mr. Jones posts above. Whatever one thinks of Dolan's views and contentions, he is clearly notable, and worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Jusdafax (talk) 12:06, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Those references were provided by AleatoryPonderings not by me, though it wasn't obvious as they didn't sign (I have now added a signature). Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:14, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:BASIC. Coverage in reliable sources is scant, and is almost entirely non-biographical. As prolific as he is, one would think that WP:AUTHOR might come into play. As far as I can tell, mainstream sources have not really taken much notice of his books. - MrX 🖋 12:13, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No in-depth coverage of either his biography or his published works. No indication of impact either. Dimadick (talk) 11:49, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The biographical details are sourced to Godlike Productions interview and the subject’s LinkedIn page. The rest of the article just lists taking head and UFO festival appearances. No reliable sources are actually writing about him or his work, or analyzing or commenting on the extraordinary claims contained in it. From this, we cannot a BLP make. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:27, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of significant independant coverage to be notable at this time. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV; sourced entirely to blogs, various social media, and a single interview in local media. Borderline spam. Bearian (talk) 19:48, 30 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:55, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Van Nueten[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. He worked on a couple notable projects but he was one among many. Once you strip down self-published sources and sources like NYT where he's a mere mention, you're left with only a couple citations like De Standaard and I don't think GNG reaches that low. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:28, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:28, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:28, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:49, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on balance, I agree with Chris that the threshold for significance isn't met with sources. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:30, 31 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:45, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alexa Score[edit]

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

Alexa Rochelle Score is a former professional wakeboarder and current Minnesota TV host. Apart from Ms. Score's website, the article cites just one single source. This source is a half-hour TV documentary^[1] about Ms. Score produced by a PBS affiliate in Appleton, Minnesota. I haven't watched any of the documentary.

I wonder:

A) Does the TV documentary qualify as "non-local" per WP:AUD?

B) WP:GNG says: "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected." I did a Google search, but don't think I found any additional sources. Do any more sources exist?

If we're unable to find at least two or three independent sources which pass WP:AUD, I think deletion would probably be appropriate.

P.S. Our article was contributed either by Ms. Score or by her manager, according to this edit summary. If we decide to keep it, it could definitely use some cleanup.

Kind regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 19:23, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

^ "Adventure Unknown". TV special. Pioneer PBS (Granite Falls, Minnesota). Alexa Score grew up on Green Lake, in Spicer, Minnesota, and won the national women's amateur wakeboard title in 2010. This new documentary traces Score's journey from an athletic and daring young girl to her emergence as a national competitor on the wakeboard circuit. It is an inspirational story of perseverance through pain and impossible odds that captures how Score faces an uncertain future. (Closed-captioned.)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Unforgettableid (talk) 19:23, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. —Unforgettableid (talk) 19:23, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:47, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sourcing is not enough to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:29, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:56, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anant Raut[edit]

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

The article does not meet notability test. I found trivial mentions of work beyond work cited in Wikipedia. There is no independent source cited for his two 2007 awards or available online, although this information has been parroted on many websites that crib from Wikipedia throughout the web. Many other attorneys could have won the same awards in 2007; they surely do not merit Wikipedia articles.

Working on high-profile litigation is not itself notable, especially when hundreds of attorneys can work on a case and perform very minor suporting roles. For instance, just one nonprofit worked with at least 600 attorneys on Gitmo litigation as of 2008, but merely appearing on a legal team for a notable case does not meet notability guidelines. Almost every big law firm lawyer works on high-profile cases; Wikipedia does not list hundreds of thousands of lawyers merely because of that.

Additionally, fails WP:NOSALESMEN parts 4 and 5. His contributions are not significant and are primarily a personal resume: the article consists solely of his former and current jobs, his schools, the names of his former clients, two awards, and his work producing a Powerpoint. The article focuses on what his clients have done or been accused of, or what other government actors (like John Yoo) did -- not what he has done. Signing on to be part of a legal team is itself not notable. The sole exception in the article is a link to a blog from 2007 that cites a four-slide Powerpoint presentation that Mr. Raut created. Creating four Powerpoint slides does not merit a Wikipedia entry, since there is no indication in the article the slides had any effect whatsoever on anyone or any entity.

The article's other claim about his actions, that "Mr. Raut and fellow habeas attorney Candace Gorman were two of the first people to dispute the administration's charge that approximately 30 former Guantanamo detainees had returned to the battlefield," is unsourced; the cited source (number 5) does not mention Mr. Raut's and Ms. Gorman's supposed stance. Nor is it clear why disputing a Bush Administration stance (something half of Americans, if not more, did) is notable.

"Ambassadors are not considered inherently notable". Currently, Mr. Raut is a functionary on a congressional committee and thus far less notable than ambassador to a foreign nation.

Note: the article was created by a WP:SPA Yipee8f93k (talk) 13:28, 27 July 2020 (UTC)Yipee8f93k (talk) 18:55, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 19:26, 24 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📧) 19:27, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly a non-notable lawyer. This article is a relic of the 2000s when we allowed the abuse of Wikipedia to be used as a POV-pushing database for absurdly directory like coverage of everyone on death row in the US and everyone in any way connected to Guantanamo Bay.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:33, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per all. This is a straightaway WP:PROMO article. -Hatchens (talk) 15:26, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW and WP:NOTINHERITED. I note that he fails my standards for notable lawyers; he's done laudable work as a defense attorney, but so have many others. His current job as is a nameless, faceless Congressional staffer; again, good for him but it fails WP:NPOL. Bearian (talk) 20:00, 30 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. Some of the "keep" opinions are unpersuasive. Per WP:CRYSTAL, we do not rely on the "historians of the future", but on those of the past or present. The "keep" side's references to GNG are a much stronger argument - like everything related to Donald Trump, this has plenty of media coverage. To this, the "delete" side replies that not every single thing Donald Trump does deserves an article, and that the lasting significance of this particular presidential pronouncement remains to be seen. That's also a valid argument, but perhaps no less speculative. Clearly, for now, there's no consensus here about whether to cover this piece of information in a separate article or in the context of one of the many other articles about Trump. Sandstein 09:46, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Person, woman, man, camera, TV[edit]

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

This is WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTTRIVIA. Sure, a lot of sources are talking about it right now, because its in the news cycle. But does this phrase have lasting notability? At the moment, it doesn't appear as such. If we imagine it to be a WP:NEOLOGISM, then it definitely doesn't meet our standards. While deletion is not cleanup, I also note that this article is little more than "he said it. Oh and you can buy t-shirts that say it". Wikipedia:Not every single thing Donald Trump does deserves an article. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:27, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:27, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:27, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:27, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RECENT, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTTRIVIA. Sundayclose (talk) 18:53, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG; historians of the future will thank us for documenting odd things like this - cf. Cheese-eating surrender monkeys. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:25, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We follow what the historians say, not the other way around. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:46, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for same reasons as Sundayclose. Trivialist (talk) 20:37, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for same reasons as Tagishsimon. -- Gohnarch^░ 20:48, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Their vote has had a reply to it now. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:47, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for same reasons as Tagishsimon and Gohnarch. This phrase may very well be the next Covfefe moment in this administration, and that typo received just as much as attention as this. The phrase has already gained its own Know Your Meme page --AppalachianCentrist (talk) 21:10, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Both those votes have now had a reply. If something may become something else we can wait until then or save in the draft space. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:47, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is a nothing thing. At most, either move it to draft to see if longer-standing notability develops (which is unlikely, given the fickleness of the modern news cycle), or find somewhere to merge in a line about it. BD2412 T 21:12, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per extensive coverage in relevant media. - DVdm (talk) 22:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It's received extensive coverage, and coverage about the coverage. It will probably remain relevant (at least comedically) through Election Day. — Toughpigs (talk) 22:25, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because this is going to be relevant for years to come. It's a part of history even if some people find it unflattering. -- Shawn K. Quinn (talk) 03:11, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or rename - The words themselves are not a unique phrase (and is not equvilant to Covfefe). Its not even a campaign slogan ("lock her up"). It's just a list of words that may or may not be the actual words used by his doctor. Nevertheless, the core topic of DJTs mental fitness (which has far more references) does relate to existing pages and itself may meet WP standards. Option 1) merge into existing page (either Donald Trump or Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution). Option 2) rename to something like "Donald Trump and the 25th Ammendment". I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 09:49, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and WP:ROUTINE - you know the drill, Trump says something bizarre, media covers it... Wikipedia is not a tabloid. See also the lack of depth in the coverage itself Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 14:25, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've been out of the loop for a few days and did not understand several memes I was seeing—until I googled the phrase and found this article (which satisfactorily explains it). ―cobaltcigs 15:02, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a (phrase) dictionary, especially for terms of novel conception (i.e. neologisms). Being the quotable of the day (or two) does not make it notable. Coverage generated in such a fashion is routine, just like for any top news item on any given day. I doubt anyone will remember this in 10 years, although the general trend of Trump's mental capacities being questioned, and him bragging about his faculties, will be. The people who have found this article "useful" have only found it so because they are looking for the wrong things (news and dictionary) in Wikipedia. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:31, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The reasons given in several of the "delete" contributions above are unpersuasive. WP:RECENT, and in particular its section WP:10YT, does not speak in favour of deleting articles. It's mostly not about creating or deleting articles but about avoiding undue focus on recent events in existing articles. Where it does mention deletion, it makes several points against it: "Still, these articles are valuable for future historical research."; "Just wait and see. Remember there is no deadline, and consensus can change later on. Editors writing today do not have a historical perspective on today's events, and should not pretend to have a crystal ball."; " Proper perspective requires [...] the passage of time." Claiming that we already know that this currently highly notable phrase will not be notable in the future is not in line with these guidelines. Joriki (talk) 18:45, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Massive coverage in sources, relates to many important issues, and relevant to history. Arguments that this is a neologism or news story are a stretch and unpersuasive to me. To the extent that Donald Trump's presidency will be notable in the future, this is notable in the future. Croctotheface (talk) 19:08, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Yeah, embarrassing and telling. But, not in an encyclopedia. WP:RECENTISM O3000 (talk) 20:45, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily passes article creation criteria with massive coverage in RS. Trump always makes sure of that. -- Valjean (talk) 20:47, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to this quote's status as a reference point for the President's mental fitness and job performance during the election year. Beyond this substantive discourse, the phrase has become iconic and has been weaponized by all sides of the political aisle. Covfefe should be informative here - none of the "Delete" votes have thus far explained why this would be less notable - if anything, it broaches on more relevant questions about qualifications over social media use. 1Matt20 (talk) 22:31, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. A total embarrassment. Note: possible canvassing. KidAd (💬💬) 01:11, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You'll need more evidence that is evidenced in your link to suggest canvasing. O3000 (talk) 01:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I said possible canvasing. That particular user doesn't appear to have much of a following, but the tweet includes both a plea to save the page and a direct link to the deletion discussion. KidAd (💬💬) 01:31, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG; this incident is a part of history. It feeds into Trump's insecurity and his violence and vindictiveness, in the same way that being called 'bunker boy' provoked the Battle of Lafayette Square. The Lafayette Square fence signs have been assembled by the Smithsonian because they are a part of a running physical, media, and political battle space. 03:03, 26 July 2020 (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:CD40:3DB0:24F8:B68D:FA77:65E3 (talk) — 2600:1700:CD40:3DB0:24F8:B68D:FA77:65E3 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete per nom's stated reasons, and a little whiff of WP:FART. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Ernie (talk • contribs)

@Mr Ernie: So you agree that WP:FART applies to Trump? --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:38, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete More dreck in our pages, per Fart, Not the News, and Trivia. Can't people tell trivia from whats encyclopedic anymore? Just because some nonsense is covered in news cycles does not mean it's encyclopedic. Not notable and passing, too. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 12:38, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just as with "Covfefe", this (through current public coverage and possibly future information on the actual cognitive and mental state of the current POTUS) is something that's historically relevant, even if (or because) it might be considered self-disgracing by him. GarryG (talk) 16:51, 26 July 2020 (UTC) — GarryG (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
GarryG, we don't judge whether to keep an article based on possibly future information. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:53, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for closer: Please consider the number of WP:SPA !votes. Sundayclose (talk) 17:00, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think that many of the Delete arguments are based on WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. WP:FART talks about tabloid-esque magazines like People and Us Weekly; it is not meant to negate coverage from CBS News, The New York Times, The Baltimore Sun and Rolling Stone. Stepping back from the "I find it funny/I think it's dreck" feelings, I think a key area of dispute is whether this will have lasting significance in the campaign over the next several months. I don't believe that that question is answerable right now; people are making predictions about news cycles that are yet to come. Given that, I think that the most sensible answer is to keep the article, and revisit the conversation in a few months. If it's deleted and turns out to be notable, then it would be hard to come back and recreate it with a Delete consensus on the books. — Toughpigs (talk) 17:13, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If it does not have significance yet then it can be saved in the draftspace. We should not base our decision based on unproven guesses. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:26, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Emir of Wikipedia, it's not a good idea to respond to every comment that you disagree with. See WP:BLUDGEON. Your points have been made; you don't need to repeat yourself as much as you have. You can step back and let other editors look at the sources and arguments, and make their own decision. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:25, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Priceless — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hydnjo (talk • contribs)
Keep Per WP:RAPID, this nomination could have easily been left for a few weeks, there is coverage in reliable sources across multiple countries, and analysis of the reports and significance of the moment. WP:RECENT is an ~~essay~~ explainer and not a guideline or policy of Wikipedia. Whilst maybe there should have been a WP:DELAY, let's see how it develops for a few months as suggested by others. . PainProf (talk) 19:21, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RECENT is not an essay. It's an explanatory supplement to WP:NPOV, WP:N, and WP:NO, meaning that it's an extension of those policies. Sundayclose (talk) 19:30, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, "This page is intended to provide additional information about concepts in the page(s) it supplements. This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community." PainProf (talk) 19:41, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you agree that your statement that it is an essay is incorrect. Sundayclose (talk) 19:52, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've reworded, though your comment was also incorrect... since it isn't a policy or guideline. PainProf (talk) 19:58, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. ALoopingIcon (talk) 10:58, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per arguments from Sundayclose. --Mpen320 (talk) 22:54, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:21, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ICan Benefit Group[edit]

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

It is clearly non-notable company or too early to be here. this has just being covered in media as promotions of the brand. it is typical corporate/startup practice. intend of this article itself is marketing and building some digital marketing presence. Light2021 (talk) 18:20, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 18:37, 24 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📧) 18:37, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2009-05 ✗ A7, 2008-06 ✗ G11

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:36, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lion Md Gani Miah Babul[edit]

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

Poorly written and sourced. Unencyclopedic. HᴇʀᴘᴇᴛᴏGᴇɴᴇꜱɪꜱ (talk) 18:10, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. HᴇʀᴘᴇᴛᴏGᴇɴᴇꜱɪꜱ (talk) 18:10, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:13, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:13, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GOOD WRITTEN WITH STRONG SOURCES. THIS article SHOULD PUBLISH. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Md Mahfuzur Rahman Bsl (talk • contribs) 00:20, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-unreliable source Owais Al Qarni (talk) 02:09, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All the rules are followed of Wikipedia in this Article and Good and enough sources are given. So this article should publish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by এম এস মিজানুররহমান (talk • contribs) 04:07, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article creator and এম এস মিজানুররহমান have just been blocked as socks of each other. HᴇʀᴘᴇᴛᴏGᴇɴᴇꜱɪꜱ (talk) 15:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Devokewater @ 18:48, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article is WP:PROMO. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 19:46, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:20, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very notable journalist in bd ^[1] ^[2] ^[3] ^[4]

References

Delete per WP:RS, WP:OR, and WP:TNT. Every source is controlled by him, including social media, community groups he belongs to, and his own work. Arguments are WP:ILIKEIT, but SCREAMING, "FRIEND?!" This sort of page could have been excused in 2008, but in 2020, everybody knows this is not a Wikipedia article, and those are not real arguments. If he were such a good journalist, he'd fix this mess. Bearian (talk) 20:08, 30 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) 18:07, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aayaam[edit]

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

Non-notable film, no clear evidence the film was ever released or finished, and did not have a particularly notable production, per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 18:04, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:08, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:08, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete upcoming since 2014. Couldnt find anything. Not sure if it was even released. Fails all the notable criteria. I would have mentioned the criteria, and why the subject fails, but I am too lazy to type right now; and doing so will do nothing to help the article. Reads more like it was created for production folks/company. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:24, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - due to WP:GNG and WP:NFILM concerns Spiderone 09:22, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater @ 18:56, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON, WP:MILL, and WP:HAMMER. Many films get into development hell and never come out. Bearian (talk) 20:10, 30 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:39, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rupali Chakankar[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 hence doesn’t satisfy WP:GNG. Subject also doesn’t seem to satisfy WP:NPOL either. I should also add that subject of article is the “President of the non notable women wing of a political party” A before search shows 0 evidence of notability Celestina007 (talk) 17:58, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:58, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:58, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:58, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:58, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:58, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted the content which don't have relivent reference.so please keep this article.i am trying to add more references, i need some time.thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saurabh2040 (talk • contribs) 01:23, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify or Keep, the article needs quite a bit of cleanup but Chakankar should otherwise pass WP:GNG. She has pretty frequent coverage at least in Marathi press. A WP:BEFORE search for me produces these references among others which should be enough to demonstrate so.^[1]^[2]^[3] Tayi Arajakate _Talk 02:35, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "विधान परिषदेसाठी राष्ट्रवादी कॉंग्रेसकडून रुपाली चाकणकर यांचही नाव चर्चेत" [Rupali Chakankar from NCP is also in the running for the Legislative Council]. Maharashtra Desha (in Marathi). 5 May 2020.
^ "'राष्ट्रवादी'च्या रुपाली चाकणकर खाजगी हॉस्पिटलमध्ये दाखल; चिंतेचे कारण नाही! | eSakal" [NCP's Rupali Chakankar admitted to private hospital; No worries!]. Sakal (in Marathi). 19 July 2020.
^ Sawant, Danyanesh (25 December 2019). "रुपाली चाकणकर- स्वाती पोकळे वाद मिटला!" [Rupali Chakankar - Swati Pokale dispute settled!]. Sarkarnama (in Marathi).

Rupali Chakankar article is clean up and added more specific references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saurabh2040 (talk • contribs) 08:17, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The subjects fails WP:NPOL as of now. Because, she has not won any election yet or held any state office till date. -Hatchens (talk) 15:11, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable party functionary.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:56, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly fails WP:NPOL as per above and no evidence of WP:GNG being met Spiderone 14:16, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:08, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moz (marketing software)[edit]

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

Non notable SEO company. Sources used include Forbes Contributers blog (see listing below WP:FORBES), founder's book, companies website, and other SEO blogs and products. Only reliable source used is NYT, which barely mentions the founder and the company and in an unrelated context. Similar rationale to WP:Articles for deletion/Ahrefs and WP:Articles for deletion/Yoast. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:42, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A marketing company which knows how to make wiki article. :) No surprise this made into wikipedia. definite purpose is promotional only, written by some professionals who knows how to trick wiki policies and make an article. similar to other non-notable tech startups. Light2021 (talk) 21:35, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Devokewater @ 18:51, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Non notable software. Accesscrawl (talk) 11:50, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL, WP:NCORP, and WP:SNOW. Literally any Internet rando can go on LinkedIn and take an assessment to "prove" they know SEO buzzwords. Bearian (talk) 20:13, 30 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:34, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ElectrifAi[edit]

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

I did some Google searching but don't think I found proof of notability.

Article was originally created by a blocked sockpuppet of User:Leaftwisted. Sockpuppeteers often don't bother thinking much about notability; they just go ahead and create articles anyway.

Thank you for reading this! —Unforgettableid (talk) 17:28, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. —Unforgettableid (talk) 17:28, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. —Unforgettableid (talk) 17:28, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:33, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Henderson (pilot)[edit]

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

Nothing but passing mentions. Written by a relative of the subject. Article appears to overstate the subject's importance by quite a bit. Much of it seems to be just WP:SYNTH of ship logs. – Thjarkur (talk) 14:52, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 14:52, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Þjarkur: please be careful not to add biographies to the "bibliographies" delsort. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:38, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 14:52, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:58, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nomination seems to misrepresent the content of the article. The sources provided are not just passing mentions but include articles in respectable publications such as the New York Herald. These directly address the subject with titles like "Half a Century of Piloting - The late Joseph Henderson's extraordinary record of distress, accidents and lucky escapes." The subject is therefore notable per WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:23, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- While it's written by the paper, it is an obituary. – Thjarkur (talk) 15:44, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Such an obituary is an excellent source for our purposes as it is prima facie evidence of notability and provides a compact biography of the person's complete life – exactly the sort of summary that we want. The fact that this is not understood, further demonstrates the invalidity of the nomination. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:28, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Run of the mill individual doing a routine job. Most of the sources though in reputable publications are about ships which which Henderson just happened to be the pilot used. The obituary in the Brooklyn Eagle billed as a front page article, well have a look and see how many articles are on that page and what they deal with. This article is a vanity piece created by an editor intent on having a wikipedia page for every one of their ancestors Lyndaship (talk) 15:36, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article is on one of thousands of pilots, a handful of whom are notable. This ones importance has been inflated by a COI editor is a family member who has been plastering Joseph Henderson's name all over other articles, including the Brooklyn Bridge and Statue of Liberty, and making exaggerated claims about him. Aside from the editors who have been trying to clean this up, the article's sole editor is the COI editor. WP:RUNOFTHEMILL WP:SYNTH Netherzone (talk) 15:58, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as is to be expected for a memorial page created by one of his descendants, the article is rife with good old stories about his experiences, rather than encyclopedic notable achievements. Example:
On October 28, 1872, Henderson, Captain of the New York pilot boat "Pet, No. 9", sighted the brig Emily during a heavy gale. The crew of the Emily came on board the pilot boat Pet, which lay by the brig until 7 p.m., at witch time the Emily capsized. It was not until the next day that the crew members were transferred from the Pet to the steamship Italy, from Liverpool, and brought to the New York port.
Assuming we can take these and all the notinherited synth (Brooklyn Bridge, Statue of Liberty etc) out, I don't see much here other than the fact that he was a ship's pilot who piloted big boats into and out of the NY harbour. A few of the claims, for example that he owned several pilot boats shortly after getting his license, seem very dubious.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:47, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Henderson served as Maritime pilot for the Sandy Hook Pilot Association for 45 years. His notability comes from primary and secondary sources, which should be sufficient for WP:GNG and WP:BASIC guidelines. Secondary sources include: Charles Edward Russell, who wrote about Joseph Henderson when he worked for the Federal Government during the Civil War. He was also involved in an important U.S. Supreme Court cases - THE MARTELLO v. THE WILLEY, 153 U.S. 64 (1894). He was notable for being the oldest and wealthiest of New York Pilots. He was selected to tow the French steamship which transported the statue of Liberty. --Greg Henderson (talk) 22:12, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greghenderson2006 once again fails to disclose their COI, per WP:COI "If you become involved in an article where you have any COI, you should always let other editors know about it, whenever and wherever you discuss the topic."ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:06, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep According to the delete votes he is just another harbor pilot, and we can't have an article for every harbor pilot. But is he just another harbor pilot as claimed? The way to tell is comparison with his peers. The essence of notability is someone who is set apart from his peers. There is no Pulitzer Prize or Nobel for harbor captains, so we have to look at what we know:

The Federal government gave him an "unusual reward" for his work during the Civil War. It was "unusual" presumably because other harbor pilots did not receive it.
He was chosen by the Brooklyn Bridge commission to investigate the viability to pass harbor traffic. Given the BB history, this would have been a significant honor, it demonstrates he was considered an out of the ordinary harbor captain - they chose him and not others for this honor. The Bridge was the biggest thing in the world (or at least America) for a time, such a position would have been competitive and not given out lightly by the commission. I know about the history of the BB how they operated, everything they did was under the microscope of the public and press.
He was involved in many accidents that were written about in the press, apparently the most of any harbor pilot, another thing setting him apart.

AFAIK we have 1 article about a 19th century harbor pilot from anywhere in the world - potentially soon zero. There appears to be no Wikipedia understanding of what makes a notable harbor captain. I am sympathetic to COI concerns, but there is a feeling COI is being overweighted for reasons beyond what is best in this case. -- GreenC 22:41, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The unusual reward is an exceptional claim and therefore should be supported by exceptional sources, it would appear to be sourced to Russel's book and I can find no supporting evidence in any other source. It would also be unusual for a state not to pay people who did work for it. The Brooklyn Bridge claim is partially unsourced and relates to appearing as an expert witness before a sub committee (not the commission) probably on behalf of those opposed to the bridge construction, how notable is that? Most committees hear hundreds of peoples opinions. Finally given the period he worked in there is nothing notable about being involved (peripherally) in many nautical incidents. Lyndaship (talk) 13:29, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Brooklyn Eagle and NY Post obits alone establish notability. Interesting sourced article about interesting person no more obscure than thousands of other bios on WP. The article could definitely use some work, but I don't see how deleting could benefit anyone. Station1 (talk) 23:16, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP GreenC makes some convincing arguments. Dream Focus 11:21, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Multiple WP:RS. Exceeds WP:GNG. WP:Not paper WP:Preserve. And there is an obvious and obdurate refusal to read the sources and the article and references, so that WP:Before is being flaunted. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:31, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obvious vanity project. No judgement really displayed as to why it should be here. Example:
Pilot Henderson, not speaking French, was somewhat embarrassed when the officers, who did not speak English, took off their caps to him, and he looked wistfully back to the Atlantic, but Capt. De Saune slapped him on the back, and then the old pilot went aft to find a sailor who could speak French.
This is one of those cases, where the guidelines demand, that articles be educational is largely ignored, in favour of notability proven by sources that impress us; when clearly he is peripheral at best. This is a puffed up piece. There are many lives more interesting than this without the sources that impress us, it is not encyclopedic by any measure. This piece is not educational, in that it adds nothing to the actual articles referred to, be they ships, people, things or places. I almost fell asleep reading it. Good example of how imperfect the projects's policies can be, if we ignore the the prime directive of notability which is educational value. Even the newspaper's obit was a filler, a bread and butter piece from a parochial paper. I suppose that there are many lives included here of similar import of people known nationally or even at big city level, justifying a statue, but this man is at village level really. Broichmore (talk) 16:51, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Below are reasons he is notable for WP:BASIC:

One of the original members of the New York and Sandy Hook pilots’ association (45 years)
One of the best known of the Sandy Hook pilots
Guided the Baltimore outside Sandy Hook with the body of the Inventor John Ericsson to Sweden
Worked for the Federal Government during the Civil War with the southern blockade
Owned the 1/3 pilot boat William Bell, No. 24, which was sunk and burned by the CSS Tallahassee
At different times owned 6 of the Sandy Hook pilot boats
Determined the height and span of the Brooklyn Bridge
Expressly selected to tow the French steamship which transported the Statue of Liberty

Let's WP:AGF and improve the article to make it more encyclopedic. --Greg Henderson (talk) 23:45, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Very thin. Your stretching WP:BASIC to its very limits and beyond. This article does not comply with WP:AIM and WP:PURPOSE.

See paragraph Any biography in WP:BASIC points 1 to 3.

1. The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times. Answer: No.
2. The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field. Answer: debatable. Snippets of trivia from some newspapers.
3. The person has an entry in the Dictionary of National Biography or similar publication. Answer: No.

This article is a C.V. with anecdotes. Even the articles's summary gives the game away Captain Joseph Henderson ... was a 19th century American harbor pilot who guided large vessels into and out of New York Harbor as a Sandy Hook pilot.. Yes, thats it in a nutshell: so what! The leading paragraph itself fails to explain the subject's notability.

Are people here seriously saying this man is "worthy of notice" or "note" — that (he) is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" here in a so called repository of knowledge? Yes, they are. Astounding.

This is an Encyclopedia, it's not Find a grave or a repository for vanity monuments on the web written by relatives, or somesuch. -Broichmore (talk) 13:15, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is a great article and it is the reason we are building this encyclopedia. We follow the RS, and the RS shows that the subject is notable. Lightburst (talk) 14:26, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Both sides make compelling arguments. Let's have some more input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 17:17, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are heaps of sources for someone from the 1800s, front page billing is significant and to my knowledge there have been significant changes in the format of newspapers since this time which explains why the articles are shorter. This makes it difficult to make an argument against notability regardless of COI, I find the arguments by GreenC compelling. PainProf (talk) 23:40, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per sources.Djflem (talk) 16:53, 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. Sandstein 18:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2015 India Under-19 Tri-Nation tournament[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Not notable, it's a Under 19 tri-series that does not pass WP:CRIN. This tournament doesn't meet WP:GNG as it only has one source cricinfo, and the other sources do not mention the tournament in detail. CreativeNorth (talk) 16:44, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:16, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. StickyWicket (talk) 18:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator. HawkAussie (talk) 03:38, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:37, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KwonHo[edit]

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

NN game, fails the GNG. Unsourced vaporware that never made it out of beta, from NN and defunct company. ZERO coverage in reliable sources, significant or otherwise. Notability tagged for over a decade. Ravenswing 16:24, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 16:24, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 16:24, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article looks good to me
This post was signed by Know 1 Can C Me (talk)
16:37, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Comment Struck the sock puppet's (now blocked) vote. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I see forum posts and a press release via Google, but no RS establishing notability. There is an 'article' on gamezone.com which reads almost exactly like an advertisement. This game existed for less than a year before being removed - unless there are sources I'm missing, this seems like nothing worth noting. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 17:51, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:22, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:GNG Dede2008 (talk) 09:40, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:GNG. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 17:52, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The game fails WP:GNG for the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Not surprising that it never got covered, as it got shut down very quickly (in both English and Korean versions). KwonHo was an attempt to counter the mass production (and their localization to English at the same time) of Asian MMORPGs at the time, and it failed. Nothing noteworthy. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:52, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 04:04, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater @ 18:25, 30 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 WP:SNOW delete. There is no point in dragging this out. BD2412 T 00:39, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brize[edit]

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

I fail to see hwo this company is notable - almost all of the sources are unreliable, small niche blogs or business listings. Also worth noting about 6 months ago, an attempt to hijack another article to write about Brize was done under Jesse Van Doren. Praxidicae (talk) 16:10, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:17, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:17, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:17, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:17, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:12, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. Searches show nothing approaching reliable.Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 17:19, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete typical non-notable firm DGG ( talk ) 04:07, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - likely paid-for spam. MER-C 16:53, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON. gidonb (talk) 23:05, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Insufficient coverage to meet WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. Wikipedia is not for promotion. --Jack Frost (talk) 11:14, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable --Devokewater @ 18:54, 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 redirect to Cary Brothers. Redirect album to artist as WP:ATD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:12, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All the Rage (EP)[edit]

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

Not a notable EP, which isn't surprising since it was only available on iTunes, apparently. The AllMusic entry is just a track listing [5]. Everything else I'm finding is either published by the band, in unreliable blogs (like the review in the external links appears to be), in unreliable lyrics sites, or on SoundCloud/sales sites/stuff like that. Hog Farm _Bacon 16:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 16:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it's a bad album with a bad review and bad coverage.
This post was signed by Know 1 Can C Me (talk)
16:35, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

This is a discussion on whether the album is notable. It will not be deleted based on how good or bad the music is. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:05, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Know 1 Can C Me, your comment is a form of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The album will be judged based on its notability, not on how you like or hate it. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 09:45, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The album is only ever listed briefly as an item in the singer's career. On its own terms, it is only present in the usual streaming, retail, and lyrics sites, so it does not have the independent coverage needed for notability for an album. The title could possibly be redirected to the singer's article, but I would advise against that because there are many other things called All the Rage, including albums and songs by other musicians. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:09, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cary Brothers: Barely found anything about the EP. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 09:45, 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 redirect to Li-Ron Choir. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:21, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2010 (Li-Ron Choir album)[edit]

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

I'm not finding significant coverage for this album. [6] does not mention the album, and appears to be mirroring Wikipedia. I have no idea what [7] is, but it doesn't seem to mention this album. I'm finding other coverage, but it's all about the choir, not this album. It's possible there's sources in Hebrew I'm not able to find, so I'm taking this here instead of boldly redirecting. Hog Farm _Bacon 15:56, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 15:56, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 15:56, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Li-Ron Choir: Barely found anything about the album. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 09:45, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:17, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fawn (musician)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

complete and total promotional nonsense and cruft, that it's impossibel to parse for whether she is actually notable or not, or what she is even notable for. A google search reveals nothing in the way of actual meaningful coverage and digging through newspaper archives also reveals nothing better. Praxidicae (talk) 15:51, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:05, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:06, 24 July 2020 (UTC) t[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:12, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~. I've tried to remove some of the peacock terms, name dropping, IMDB refs, and promotional tone, but a lot more work needs to be done. Half the article looks like a CV at this point. If her songs did indeed chart on the Billboard charts, the subject would pass WP:SINGER criteria #2. Though this article is a mess and needs an overhaul, charting makes singers notable. --Kbabej (talk) 17:28, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're right if they did chart, she might be notable but they didn't and I can't find any sources to verify it, even through Billboard itself. The fact that there are no reliable sources is highly problematic, they're all interviews and self published stuff alongside press releases. I'm also not sure that "charting" anywhere at 149 is really anything of note...Praxidicae (talk) 17:39, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm that's problematic if it can't be verified. The longer I look at this article the more needs to be gutted. The two obit sources on the article don't even mention the subject, and so much is non-verifiable. --Kbabej (talk) 17:42, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In fact the only sources that say she is a "Billboard hit artist" are this press release from two weeks ago (and she definitely hasn't appeared in the last month let alone year) and her spotify, taken from iMDb which doesn't even identify what song supposedly charted. I have serious doubts about the veracity of her statements...and while we don't judge notability by followers/likes, her social media accounts give me the impression that she really isn't notable for an EDM artist... Praxidicae (talk) 17:43, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to investigate that. Given there aren't any RS to support the claims, I will be striking my !vote above. --Kbabej (talk) 18:24, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — no sufficient coverage in reliable sources to indicate notability. Celestina007 (talk) 18:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The awards all are minor, mostly from minor publications and organizations. The chart claims are not supported by any reliable source and even so mainly are of dubious notability; the one thing that might convince me otherwise is the claim of reaching #6 on the Billboard Dance chart (although I cannot find independent verification of that).

If kept, this would need to really be cleaned up. The lengthy table of unnotable awards and catalog of unnotable compositions, for example. It really does not deserve anywhere near the level of promotional content that it has. (I'm mindful that AFD is not for cleanup; just noting post-AFD activity in the event it is kept.) TJRC (talk) 18:26, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unverifiable claims and dubious /minor awards do not add toward notability. If RS can't be found, this article should be deleted. Some of the sources don't even mention the subject (see the two obits). --Kbabej (talk) 18:30, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater @ 10:59, 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) 14:57, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Elisabeth Maria of Bavaria[edit]

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

This article exists solely as a genealogical entry, yet Wikipedia is not a genealogy website. The woman married, had children, remarried, and had more children. She was deprived of her status as a minor royal in childhood and lived a very ordinary, private life. Neither media nor academics have had any interest in it. An encyclopedia does not need to cover her. Surtsicna (talk) 14:56, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 14:56, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 14:56, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 14:56, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. Balle010 (talk) 15:42, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater @ 15:57, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another example of deposed monarchy cruft, although this one really was a princess for the first 5 years of her life, she was only the great-granddaughter of the King of Bavaria, which makes her claim to notability tenuous. PatGallacher (talk) 20:05, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and the other comments above. Smeat75 (talk) 14:05, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Her only reference is a deprecated source. JoelleJay (talk) 18:45, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a genealogical database to be filled with members of deposed royal and notable families.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:03, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. I give wide latitude to notability, but she's not remotely notable; finding significant coverage at this time would be remote. Bearian (talk) 20:42, 30 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 Source mods#Multiplayer mods. Sandstein 17:35, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eternal Silence (video game)[edit]

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

I don't think this mod squeaks past WP:GNG. There's only one secondary WP:RS I found at Eurogamer. There's an interview at Gamasutra of the game's developers here, but that doesn't count as a secondary source. Besides that, references are slim at best and the current state of the article is original research. The game was apparently featured in a couple of magazines going by this post, but there is no way to access or translate them as they are in a different language. So while it is potentially notable, in this state there is little chance it will be expanded unless a concerted effort is made to track those down. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:28, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:28, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless those sources can be utilized. Balle010 (talk) 15:43, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Source mods as a WP:ATD. That Eurogamer reference is mostly poor, with little to zero info about the game itself. The interview is WP:PRIMARY, as the nominator said. I found PC Zone coverage (and twice) [8] [9], which still counts as 1 source only per WP:GNG. Given the fact I'm unable to find anything more, this can be perfectly preserved and then expanded accordingly at the mods list. Not enough for it's own article. Nothing to merge either, as the article is completely unsourced, and the list has already info about the subject. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:20, 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 no consensus defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Discussion regarding the article title and moves can continue on the article talk page. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:08, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Miss World 2021[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON. Article is also poorly sourced aka fan websites or facebook. Also recommend this article be salted till 2021. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:07, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:07, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:07, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:07, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:07, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the same way WP keeps articles of future sporting events. Balle010 (talk) 15:44, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:23, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Universally, (event) 2021 articles need to have a scheduled date at this point for articles to go forward. Seventeen months is a definite WP:CRYSTAL, and going by this being the former article for Miss World 2020 and being unable to find anything about that event...I don't know what to make about this article, except that we need clear, reliable and neutral sources, and I don't think we'll be able to meet that threshold. Nate • (chatter) 23:01, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional comment A ping to @Chickpea 112:>User_talk:Chickpea 112; why exactly did you move this article to 2021 with zero indication the event would be delayed? Nate • (chatter) 02:39, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and revert move to Miss World 2020 – there is no official announcement yet and wait for the Miss World president Julia Morley to further announce the dates would be made in public. That 2021 year is too early on the consistency with crystal ball. ApprenticeFan work 06:29, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Revert move back to Miss World 2020 with this article being redirected to the Miss World article. As ApprenticeFan said, this no official announcement made by the Miss World Organization nor it's president/chairperson Julia Morley. If there was an announcement then this would've been moved to 2021 with this being the next edition. Also the nominator uses WP:TOOSOON as one of his reasons for nominating this article; however there is no mention of Upcoming Events on the Too Soon Wikipedia guideline page, thus the Too Soon reasoning is not valid. As for the sources, some are facebook and fan site sources but others are sources from news outlets so the reasoning of "poorly sourced" is only partially valid due to some sources being reliable. - IZ041 (talk) 02:49, 26 July 2020
Delete and Revert move to Miss World 2020 – there is no official announcement yet and any legitimate references supporting that Miss World 2020 was postponed to 2021. Block this wikipedia user >>> User_talk:Chickpea 112 who's spreading HOAX by changing the information on Miss World edition, contestants and disruptive edits (also vandalism) on the mentioned Miss World pages without supporting any references. I Nyoman Gede Anila (talk) 07:15, 31 July 2020
Delete and revert move per above. Comment - Previous poster I Nyoman Gede Anila you can take your concerns about an editor to WP:AIV or WP:ANI if necessary JW 1961 Talk 13:38, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Move - this page back to Miss World 2020 and revert the page into Miss World for now. That way we keep this information ahead of a certain date for Miss World 2021.BabbaQ (talk) 22:40, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would also suggest that Miss International 2021 be moved/reverted into Miss International as there are no confirmation at this point that the pageant will even take place.BabbaQ (talk) 11:11, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WP:SNOW keep. BD2412 T 00:40, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Synagogue of Deal[edit]

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

The only source provided mentions the congregation in passing in a single sentence ("They also established several synagogues, the first ones being the Synagogue of Deal and Magen David Synagogue, as well as a Hebrew day school.") A Google search did not turn up any in-depth sources about the synagogue in reliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn (talk) 14:01, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Alansohn (talk) 14:01, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Alansohn (talk) 14:01, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep added sources, notable. Balle010 (talk) 15:48, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of reliable sources. Yoninah (talk) 15:57, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY by @Yoninah. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:16, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has reliable sources-Thank you-RFD (talk) 16:18, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Many reliable sources added in to establish notability of this synagogue. Tinton5 (talk) 23:23, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article looks nothing like it did when the deletion notice was added. It is now a fully fledged article about a synagogue with excellent references. Whiteguru (talk) 06:08, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:42, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has reliable sources --Devokewater @ 13:25, 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) 14:48, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Elisabeth, Duchess in Bavaria[edit]

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

There is no indication of notability. The article is nothing more than a genealogical entry because the subject is a private individual who gets no coverage in the media, thus failing WP:GNG. Surtsicna (talk) 13:59, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 13:59, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 13:59, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 13:59, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 13:59, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree, no coverage. Balle010 (talk) 15:56, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater @ 16:00, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Deposed monarchy cruft, not even sure about the notability of her husband, I'm having difficulty getting my head round the deposed Bavarian royal family. PatGallacher (talk) 19:50, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and the other comments above.Smeat75 (talk) 14:09, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I just removed 4 of the 5 sources (2 geneall.com, 1 genealogy.com, 1 luxarazzi.com), which leaves as sole source a Vogue piece on royal weddings in which (purportedly) her NN daughter's marriage to a NN banker is mentioned. JoelleJay (talk) 18:53, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete it reads more like a genealogy entry than an encyclopedia to me. Also, a WP:BLP so I'd err on removing it.Fred (talk) 23:03, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the royalty is out, it is not coming back, being a pretender to a dead throne is not a sign of notability, even less for spouses of pretenders.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:04, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. IMHO, nobility and their consorts need to be considered on a case by case basis. In this case, she is extremely unlikely to become either Queen of Scotland or of Bavaria, since neither country exists. However, it's not impossible that devolution and return of their respective monarchies could occur. Bearian (talk) 20:39, 30 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 09:33, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Mosley (attorney)[edit]

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

Per GNG, specifically, a lack of in-depth discussion on him as an individual. Articles cited discuss him as 'so-and-so's' attorney. Then there are just sources that clearly do not establish notability like an attorney license search. Most of the article is a recitation of his resume. I just don't see Mosley as being notable just because he was on a team of lawyers representing Blac Chyna and somebody from the Bachelor. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 13:55, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 13:55, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 13:55, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom MaskedSinger (talk) 15:00, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the subject is a licenced attorney practicing in two US States and he is a member of the states bar. Check source number 4[[ http://members.calbar.ca.gov/fal/Licensee/Detail/244169]][[10]]. There are sources from Havard University that discuss the subject [[11]]. And here are other sources that gives the subject significant coverage.[[12]]. He is notable for his work as an entertainment attorney. Some of the popular celebrities he has represented shows that he is notable in entertainment law practice. A lawyer is only notable based on the high profile cases he handles and that makes the subject of this article notable. As for the other issues raised, I will clean up the article. Veteran Fellow. (talk) 6:33, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Comment: How is a piece on the GP Academy website signifcant coverage? You haven't done enough to rebut the comments as per the nom. Either the notability is there or it isn't. He's either notable in his OWN right or he's sort of notable because of the notable clients he's represented. He may well be notable in the future but don't think he is now. MaskedSinger (talk) 18:09, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: hello MaskedSinger, I have now done some cleanup of the article and has shown that the subject is a registered lawyer in California with a link to his profile as this was one of the reasons it was nominated for deletion. You said that the subject is only notable for the personalities he has represented but an attorney is only always notable for high profile cases or personalities represented or defended. This makes Walter Mosley notable. Considering my efforts in cleaning up the article and showed the link to his license, I plead that you kindly change your vote to keep. Veteran Fellow (talk) 3:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Delete, above-average but non-remarkable lawyer. BD2412 T 00:42, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: hello BD2412, thanks for your vote but I think you should have kindly voted to Keep since you said the subject's notability is above average. Kindly change your vote to help this article survive. Veteran Fellow (talk) 3:24, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- Above average does not equal notable. Nearly fifty percent of the human population is above average, and we're not about to have articles on three and a half billion people on that account. This article should be deleted. BD2412 T 14:38, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. He just doesn't have more than a few factors of my standards for notable attorneys; other than clerking, he hasn't done anything particularly notable for the bench and bar. He is not especially well known by the public; for example, he has 900 fewer followers on Twitter than I do. There are hundreds of thousands of lawyers in California and New York. His only claim to fame is representing famous entertainers and he's gotten some coverage for that. Searching for news articles about him is difficult because there's a member of New York State Assembly and a prominent Capitol staffer who have similar names. FWIW, it's a small (legal) world - we're two degrees of separation, and we might be members of the same NYSBA Section. Bearian (talk) 20:35, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are notability guidelines for attorneys, and he does not meet them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:52, 31 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 WP:SNOW delete. BD2412 T 00:53, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adebayo Temitope Adeleke[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not seeing any real notability, and I am sure this has been deleted once already. Slatersteven (talk) 13:53, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 14:19, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 14:26, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 14:26, 24 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📧) 14:26, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. Mccapra (talk) 19:40, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subject fails short of criteria MILPERSON. Em-mustapha ^talk 05:51, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 07:35, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater @ 16:06, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails SOLDIER and what sources there are, are too close to the subject. Might need to salt this given it has been resurrected. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:28, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As said above, Wikipedia is not supposed to be LinkedIn. I am less sure we have avoided this, with nearly 1 million articles on living people it seems we have failed to exercise much control over creation of articles on clearly non-notable people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:21, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this CV. Vici Vidi (talk) 08:21, 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 redirect to News broadcasting. Consensus that notability was not met due to a dearth of suitable sourcing Nosebagbear (talk) 13:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

News Break[edit]

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

run of the mill AI "news" site with no meaningful coverage anywhere. Praxidicae (talk) 13:36, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 14:20, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 14:20, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sources don't show how this site is particularly notable. Balle010 (talk) 15:55, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable site. --Kbabej (talk) 19:33, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the (admittedly biased) page creator. The involvement of Jerry Yang, Vincent Wu, and Harry Shum, is what caught my interest. OTOH if it's deleted, which is understandable, at least I can refund myself if it ever becomes more notable, so I completely understand. tedder (talk) 01:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't explain or refute why or how it is notable. What sources exist that discuss News Break itself in depth? Being affiliated or the project of notable people, does not make a subject notable. Praxidicae (talk) 18:14, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tedder, since you're the creator of the page and you vote to keep it, then show us some reliable articles which have in-depth discussion about the news portal. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 03:15, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to News broadcasting: Barely found anything about the news portal aside from an article from TechCrunch. Since the name is common, redirecting it to the target article is the way to go as an WP:ATD. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 05:20, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep based on sources here, if not kept a redirect to News broadcasting per ASTIG.★Trekker (talk) 18:08, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources would those be? A single tech crunch article isn't exactly a beacon of notability. Praxidicae (talk) 18:14, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Treker, the link I indicated isn't close to satisfying WP:3REFS, hence not good enough for the article to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 03:15, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment & Question Firstly, allow me to apologize in advance for potentially speaking out of turn. But given the topic, I felt it was important I quickly speak up. I run marketing for News Break, which is a new function at the company, hence the reason you don't see a lot of news about us. That said, if you take a look at our public rankings, we are currently the #1 ranked News app on Google Play and the #3 ranked News app on App Store, just behind Reddit and Twitter - positions we've held (give or take a position or two) for months. This is part of the reason why Harry Shum joined our company as Chairman of the Board: https://medium.com/syncedreview/former-microsoft-ai-head-harry-shum-joins-intelligent-local-news-startup-news-break-as-chairman-32076d35c1f9. Does this added information make us notable enough to retain our page? If not, is there other information I can help provide? Thanks! TheVede (talk) 02:18, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect the subject fails to qualify general notability guideline, as this post purposely discuss Jerry Yang. The TechCrunch article is not enough to determine notability per WP:NSOFT. Since the sources significantly discuss its founder, therefore, it be redirected to Jerry Yang. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 03:57, 30 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. As original research Nosebagbear (talk) 13:53, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Garrett relation[edit]

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

Original research, no evidence of research citing the relationship, no scientific credibility.

There is not a single entry for "Garrett relation" in Google Scholar that corresponds to the subject of this article: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22garrett+relation%22&btnG=

Most results on Google are either:

This Wikipedia page
This PDF, which *specifically claims* to be the author of this article and the person who coined the term "Garrett relation": http://www.cabrillo.edu/~rnolthenius/Apowers/A7-K43-Garrett.pdf
People reporting this Wikipedia page or the PDF itself.

Page 15: “I’ve written a Wikipedia article introducing the term and the concepts, with some later wording refinements from Tim Garrett.”

All in all it seems that only two persons were involved in the making of this article: Tim Garrett (the person after which the concept is coined) and Richard Nolthenius. They are respectively a researcher in atmospheric clouds, and a researcher in astrophysics. They therefore lack domain-specific scientific credibility to make claims on economics.

We should thus delete this page for the following reasons: WP:NOR and WP:UNDUE.

Seirl (talk) 13:29, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did a tally of the references cited in the article:

7 references are from articles from Garrett himself (refs 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 16)
2 references are from Nolthenius, the first contributor of this WP page (7, 10)
AFAICT, none of the other references talk about the Garrett relationship, they are just used to cite claims made by the article itself

I'd argue that it's clearly self promotion at that point, and should also be removed for WP:PROMOTION.

Seirl (talk) 14:15, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Balle010 (talk) 15:54, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:10, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:10, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as OR, admittedly self-promotional, and not independently verifiable per nominator's good research. We could poke plenty of holes in the validity of the measurements and assertions, starting with correlation does not imply causation, and that might be great fun in a dorm-room-conversation way, but no need to go that far. --Lockley (talk) 20:49, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, it's cleary just wacky crankery, as is common for scientists publishing stuff way outside their field. I could have debunked the actual content but as you said, the lack of scientific credibility is manifest here. Seirl (talk) 22:57, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It looks very interesting, but Wikipedia has never published original research. That's what academic journals and ArXiv are for; we're a tertiary source. Bearian (talk) 20:45, 30 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. Michig (talk) 13:36, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Gillespie (music manager)[edit]

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

The subject, a music manager and businessman, does not appear to be independently notable. The article is supported mainly by sources which contain passing mentions of the subject, but are really about either the musical acts that he manages, or the business that he founded. It's possible that the business is notable, but I can't find the independent, secondary and reliable sources which would indicate that this subject is notable per WP:GNG. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:21, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:21, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:21, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:21, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom MaskedSinger (talk) 15:01, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with no independent notability. Balle010 (talk) 15:53, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question: It's more than likely this article will be deleted, but for my learning purposes, does this one article count as a proper cited source? It will help me in creating future articles about subjects in the music industry. Thanks Wiki World! Bouncecouncil (talk) 17:37, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bouncecouncil, just to keep this discussion focussed, I'm going to put some thoughts on that source, and that type of source, on your talk page. Give me a minute... GirthSummit _(blether) 18:20, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article is essentially the same as Draft:Mark Gillespie (music manager), which has been repeatedly declined at AFC as not satisfying either musical notability or general notability. The submitter chose to enter this article directly into article space because it was not being approved in draft space. The subject still does not satisfy musical notability or general notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:24, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is a content forum, so that the disruptive nature of the submissions is not relevant to deletion but is noted. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:24, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Gillespie (entertainment manager). I have not seen that deleted article, but it is almost certainly the same person, indicating that the sockpuppetry has been going on for two years. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:01, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Three Six Zero. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:03, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable person in the music business. People need to keep in mind the key to Wikipedia is verrifiability. There are lots of people who have a lot of actual impact, but it is very hard to verrify this. Articles only follow verrifiability. What this means is that certain actions and positions only result in notability long after a person has done them and their impact cane be easily assessed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:30, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OUTCOMES, WP:NOTINHERITED[, WP:GNG, WP:CREATIVE, and WP:MILL. We almost always delete articles about music producers, ebgineers, and managers. Even if verifiable, unless he's of the magnitude of Brian Epstein or Colonel Tom Parker, he's just not worthy of his own article. I would not oppose a redirect and "hard move protection" to Calvin Harris. Bearian (talk) 20:51, 30 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 Withdrawn (non-admin closure) Mysticair667537 (talk) 17:18, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Robert Fuller[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NOTNEWS. Because his death was confirmed to be a suicide and not a murder, he also fails WP:GNG. Mysticair667537 (talk) 12:58, 24 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 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:19, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 14:21, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:34, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is significant coverage and investigation as to the nature of the death. Balle010 (talk) 15:52, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per coverage. Per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 15:53, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep OP states no reasons for deletion. Nothing fails WP:GNG by being labeled so. Kire1975 (talk) 15:39, 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 09:47, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Severed Head of State[edit]

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

Non-notable band. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 13:13, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Crust punk band. I don't think they are notable enough to be included here, despite being signed to notable labels and their members playing in other bands. The reason I think they are not notable is because of the sources. Not just in the article, but in general. I did a Google search and I did not find much reliable sources. Sputnikmusic may be reliable, but the band biography is way too short and it says "(from Wikipedia)" so they copy the biography from WP. Vice is a reliable source, but there's just a short blurb about the band's return and some pictures from their concert. I don't think that indicates any notability. But these are the best sources of the bunch, as the rest of the results are the standard, worthless stuff like databases, social media pages, streaming service entries, youtube videos, download sites, trivial mentions/name checks, blogs and stuff where the words are separated. There is also a notability tag since 2018. So I think this is another non-notable band. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 13:09, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 13:13, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk)

Delete fails notablity. Balle010 (talk) 15:51, 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. Consensus that the sourcing present, once filtered for reliability, is insufficient Nosebagbear (talk) 13:55, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mann Robinson[edit]

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

paid for vanity spam sourced entirely to fake news black hat SEO sources without a single RS. What little other sources exist, which aren't really included here, do not establish notability. Praxidicae (talk) 12:06, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 14:21, 24 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📧) 14:22, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep page could be rewritten but doesn't seem entirely like spam to me. Balle010 (talk) 15:50, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're not taking into account that literally every single source is paid for spam from black hat SEO sites. If I removed them all, and all the press releases, there would be 0 sources because event pages and listings from local papers that publish anything sent to it also aren't reliable or coverage. It's vanity spam. Praxidicae (talk) 13:40, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — no coverage in reliable sources to substantiate notability. Celestina007 18:49, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we require reliable sources for articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:24, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless better sources are available. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 08:57, 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 delete. Consensus that there are insufficient reliable sources that cover the subject in depth to prove notability Nosebagbear (talk) 13:56, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Badr Berrada[edit]

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

paid for spam sourced to unreliable sources and blackhat SEO. No meaningful coverage in other languages (french, etc...) Praxidicae (talk) 12:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 14:22, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 14:22, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete routine PR coverage only — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
Delete What DGG said. Furthermore no coverage in reliable sources to substantiate notability could be observed by me following a before search. Celestina007 18:52, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Coverage fails to meet the hurdle of WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. Has the whiff of UPE about it, and Wikipedia is not for promotion. --Jack Frost (talk) 11:18, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessman. We really, really, really need to start making all new articles go through the articles for creation process.John Pack Lambert (talk)
Delete per WP:SIGCOV and WP:MILL. For a BLP, there's so little coverage that many alleged facts about him are just not verifiable at all. This local news article is a passing mention of the subject. The rest of the sources are not reliable. For a supposed "international best selling author", he has fewer Twitter followers than me. Bearian (talk) 21:00, 30 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) 11:53, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

270towin.com[edit]

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

Subject has no significant coverage in the news, articles cited in the article have mere mentions of the website and Google has no results showing newspapers writing about this in detail. Proposed by 45.251.33.42 (talk), added by Danski454 (talk) 11:39, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 11:42, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:54, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:54, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:54, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:54, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom MaskedSinger (talk) 15:02, 24 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) 11:54, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep their user generated maps have been a part of popular culture for several election cycles. 163.170.130.6 (talk) 10:06, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Then can you please link us to the popular culture where this website is used, IP editor (I am the same person who proposed deletion)? 45.251.33.0 (talk) 12:49, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As used by schools to teach about the electoral college process (text and ref added about this). David notMD (talk) 18:13, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- But there is only one teacher's review about the website discussing it being used as such, which is definitely not representative of all of USA (same IP editor again). Besides, is Common Sense Media an independent significant source? 45.251.33.233 (talk) 03:56, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NWEB "Wikipedia bases its decision about whether web content is notable enough to justify a separate article on the verifiable evidence that the web content has attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the web content, its authors, or its owners." There are hundreds of sources that Wikipedia considers reliable that cite this website as an authority (eg: [13], [14], [15], [16], [17],[18], [19], [20]) -- TimothyBlue (talk) 14:14, 30 July 2020
Keep, for the reasons TimothyBlue provides in a well-considered comment, despite his oversight to add his signature. -- llywrch (talk) 17:49, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Usually the better my comment is, the less likely I am to remember to actually sign it. :)

Keep per WP:SNOW, WP:NWEB, WP:BEFORE, and WP:SIGCOV. The only supporters of deletion are the nom, which is an IP's WP:IDONTLIKEIT because its arguments have been contradicted by TimothyBlue, and a bare !vote. FWIW, there are over 2,000 articles on Google news and it has been cited over 200 times in scholarly works. Bearian (talk) 21:08, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- For your information, Bearian, I am not supporting deletion as per WP:IDONTLIKEIT but as per the fact that a Google search (on Google Search's Indian page right before I nominated this) yielded only one or two passing mentions by some not-so-well-known-newspapers. The last time I saw this discussion was when I asked whether Common Sense Media was an appropriate source for proving notability. But now looking at all the sources mentioned by TimothyBlue, I agree that the subject is notable enough. 45.251.33.118 (talk) 05:02, 31 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 DrugScience. Content can be merged from history. Sandstein 09:20, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Drug Science, Policy and Law[edit]

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

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no sources. Does meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." The article claims that the journal is indexed in PubMed. This is for selected references only (likely OA articles on NIH-funded research), but not for the selective database MEDLINE (see here). The databases listed in the article and mentioned in the edit summary when the article creator dePRODded the article are not selective in the sense of WP:NJournals. Most of the current article is irrelevant fluff. PROD reason stands, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 11:40, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 11:40, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All right I checked the other Academic papers proposed for deletion, and I see they are never cited, referenced absolutely nowghere, have no publisher, have not even a website...? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Academic_journals Compared to that, I believe there are several sources that explain the reach of the article. Checking its publications will show you they are indeed read, maybe it's not the BMJ, but it is certainly significative. Checking the list of authors will show you these are actual scholars that do publish in other journals, not a scam. SAGE is publisher since the inception. I really wonder why is this article proposed for deletion, and as I know there are heavy bias against anything that related to substance use and the problematics that go with it, within the Wikipedia moderators community, I would like to raise the issue here. Should this article be deleted, I would assume that many other academic journals, with much less information, should also be deleted – which might bot be the best way forwards for content on wikipedia. Do academic journal need a publication on the first page of New York Times to be eligible? Do only ultra-high ranking journals are entitled to be present on wikipedia? So Imight have misread this sentence "High quality research can be published in low-circulation journals, just as poor research may be published in widely read journals." on the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academic_journals) – and other content of the kind that does allow for DSPL to be listed on wikipedia. Opposition is likely just the usual moralist bias moderators have used us to. You can publish any shit about anything on wikipedia, nobody checked it. But you publish a highly relevant information piece, does it mention "drugs" at some point? It'll be flagged for deletion. Only the most prevalent, impossible to delete pages stay (like "cannabis" but not the most useful, most informative, less mainstream pages that, however, do bring valuable balancing knowledge to the encyclopedia. Please consider bypassing the bias and allowing all valuable research to be equally treated under wikipedia rules. --Teluobir (talk) 12:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Most of the current article is irrelevant fluff" If we're on the diplomatic side of addressing others' work, let's say in return that most of the analysis by Randykitty is irrelevant moralist bias. What do we prefer? irrelevant fluff or moralist bias? Respectfully, --Teluobir (talk) 12:04, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "moralist bias"? Please comment on the issues not on the person. As for other deletions requests for academic journals, you might want to browse through our archive and/or our journal article writing guide to get an idea of what is needed here. --Randykitty (talk) 12:11, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I comment on the issue, which is a flagging of the article for deletion although this article has 50 times more information and criteria fulfilled that the other articles simultaneously proposed for deletion... I did check the archive and saw indeed that all the article that have beed deleted were by far way less accurate, fulfilling the criteria, and providing complete external references, than Drug Science Policy and Law. I have added references accordingly and have also noted that WP:NJournals "provides guidance, not rules; exceptions may well exist", "Most journals nowadays have home pages which may be used as sources for uncontroversial information. If the journal can be considered a reliable source, this will be often be sufficient to create a stub on a particular journal. However, this does not exempt the journal from meeting notability requirements", "While the notability of a journal is often correlated to the quality or importance of its scholarship, they are not synonymous. High quality research can be published in low-circulation journals, just as poor research may be published in widely read journals" and "Wikipedia editors have been known to reject nominations for deletion that have been inadequately researched". Where is the research justifying deletion?

Fulfils Criterion 1: The journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area. Fulfils Criterion 2: The journal is frequently cited by other reliable sources. Fulfils Criterion 3: The journal is historically important in its subject area. What do we need more? Should a journal created in 2013 reach the same level of coverage than an academic journal with a century of existence? Please advise as what are the actual reasons for proposing deletion, if there are actual reasons other than morals.

Being listed in selective databases is "the most typical way of satisfying C1". It is never mentioned that it is a mandatory requirement whatsoever. Similarly, "having an impact factor assigned by Journal Citation Reports usually qualifies". Nowhere it is mentioned that the citation index is a mandatory element to be listed. Or else I would fear that wikipedia soon becomes slightly less useful, or in a conflict of interest with Clarivate Analytics if it only lists the journals present in the "Journal Citation Reports" and no others. The "Journal Citation Reports" is a journal citation report, not an encyclopedia. I thought Wikipedia was an encyclopedia, not a journal citation report. --Teluobir (talk) 12:59, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have been commenting the issue all along, nothing personal, don't worry! :-) I would just really be happy if you could quote me the parts of the article that you consider "irrelevant fluff" so we could assess their relevance together. Not sure the use of "irrelevant fluff" to qualify an academic journal helps strengthen your argument that there was no moralist bias involved... Best, Teluobir (talk) 13:22, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to DrugScience as an alternative to deletion. It may one day become notable, as it has a perfectly acceptable editorial board and an okay publisher. It probably isn't just yet notable enough as a stand alone journal but it is part of the parent organisation which is notable. We aren't asking it to be the BMJ, but full indexing would be the norm. I don't think anyone is accusing it of being a scam and I fully agree on the poor coverage of certain drug related topics. It is likely to be a reliable source independently of notability. PainProf (talk) 00:20, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merging seems a fair enough option to me. Makes total sense in regard of PainProf's insights. --Teluobir (talk) 09:10, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Randykitty: This is not a bureaucracy, I'm sure we can speedily merge this and avoid wasting the time of other editors as non-controversial as a publication of a notable organisation with your agreement. PainProf (talk) 15:28, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An encyclopedia is not a list of journals. . Not only is the journal almost unindexed, but its list of "Most cited articles published in this journal in the last 3 years." contains 1 article with 2 cites and 2 articles with 1 cite each. I'm very inclusive about journals, more so than Randykitty but this is below the level of an encyclopedia, and the many indexing services in the world seem to have concluded it's below their level also.) DGG ( talk ) 17:07, 25 July 2020 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 17:08, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to DrugScience, where it is already mentioned. I don't think we need to save any of the content here by merging, but the journal title is a plausible search term. XOR'easter (talk) 00:43, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested. There are cites to add to the main article. Bearian (talk) 21:10, 30 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. Michig (talk) 13:42, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of musicians from the Southern United States[edit]

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

Impractical list; normally I would say that this a category & list should go together but this is one of the cases where a category would make more sense. DGG ( talk ) 09:16, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:50, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:50, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:50, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t see that we’d want to have a category either, unless it’s just a higher level parent for the state-specific categories. This just seems too overbroad (musicians of any type or genre from an entire US region) to be useful in either form. postdlf (talk) 17:35, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as indiscriminate as heck, y'all. That's a sizable percentage of all the musicians in the US. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:03, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I will go with WP:INDISCRIMINATE for this list article, but others can argue about whether equivalent categories are valid. I will point out a logical error too: for solo artists there is going to be a problem with the difference between their birthplaces and the locations where they actually launched their careers. That's already a problem in this list for Kanye West, who was born in Atlanta, but was raised in Chicago and launched his career from that city's music scene. So the guy is "from" the Southern United States, but he's a Chicago-based musician. Would he then also qualify for whatever "List of Musicians from the _____ United States" that includes Illinois? That's the kind of gray area that will make this type of list article less and less informative as it grows. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 02:34, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kanye would also qualify for a Midwest list. GamerKiller2347 (talk) 19:01, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most certainly indiscriminate. Ajf773 (talk) 11:31, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unhelpful, even if it were somehow made reasonably comprehensive. -- Hoary (talk) 01:18, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even the scope of what states should be in this category is debatable, so there is no clear definition.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:06, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per LIST. It would be so large and indiscriminate as to be unwieldy. Categories would work much better. Bearian (talk) 21:11, 30 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) 14:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of number-one Billboard On-Demand Songs of 2016[edit]

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

List of number ones on non-notable chart. Boleyn (talk) 09:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:50, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:50, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:50, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination.MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 23:34, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Concur, fails NLIST. Ravenswing 09:24, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a streaming chart Billboard is a reliable source which covers our policies DanTheMusicMan2 (talk) 11:11, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The list is from a Billboard chart making Billboard a primary source. We don't need a list of number ones for every chart Billboard publishes. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:07, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (see also similar lists for 2012-2020). Nothing important about reaching number one on this chart that we need such lists. While it was used as the first streaming component to the Billboard Hot 100, it was shortly replaced by the more-broadly defined Streaming Songs. Since basically On-Demand Songs now only serves as a component to the Streaming Songs chart, the On-Demand chart article should be merged into the Streaming Songs article. I can take such action pending the outcome of this discussion. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:05, 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 withdrawn by nom. (non-admin closure) — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 12:50, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vivo V9[edit]

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

This is the only article of a phone from the Vivo V Series. Deosn't seem notable and lacks significant coverage. I see no reason for this to have an article, but not Vivo V19 or other smartphones in the series. Delete unless a justification is provided. the ultra Usurper 08:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 08:47, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 08:47, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've decided to withdraw my nomination, as now that i have done some research, the topic seems notable enough for its own article. ^{the ultraUsurper} 12:07, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: above comment was made when self-closing the nomination. I am fixing the closure/syntax and so pasting this here. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 12:49, 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 speedy delete. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:50, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Most Liked Movie Trailers on YouTube[edit]

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

Trivia that totally fails WP:GNG. It's also WP:OR with no source at all for the list as a whole - how will we know there aren't trailers that have been missed off without a source for the entire list? --Pontificalibus 07:25, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:42, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:42, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and salt per WP:G4 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most-viewed and most-liked YouTube trailers and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Most-Liked Movie Trailers on YouTube (which closed only three days ago). Ajf773 (talk) 09:32, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per Ajf773's comment. Without being able to see the text or edit history of the other similar pages which were recently deleted, it's impossible to know if there's any agenda-pushing going on here, but I assume from others' comments in those AfD discussions that the pages are related: if so, the whole thing is starting to look like a game of whack-a-mole, and needs to be shut down. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 12:11, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per nom MaskedSinger (talk) 15:04, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Recreation of something deleted only days ago. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:17, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt. I remember what it looked like the last time around. If it's not verbatim, it's close enough. XOR'easter (talk) 21:03, 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) 14:54, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of number-one dance albums of 2011 (Australia)[edit]

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

List of albums on a non-notable chart. Doesn't meet WP:LISTN or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 07:06, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:18, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:18, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:18, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:18, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Concur, fails LISTN. Ravenswing 09:25, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable chart so reaching number one on it is not a significant encyclopedic event. Can we add the 2012-2019 lists to this as well? Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:54, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how to do that, but bundling would be ideal. Boleyn (talk) 19:53, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Agree with Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars on 2012-2019, but not sure this can be changed. Maybe they can be WP:PROD if this turns out to be non-controversial. // Timothy :: talk 23:26, 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. Michig (talk) 13:28, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of firsts in India[edit]

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

This is a strange one. I can't see how it meets WP:LISTN or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 07:04, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:17, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:17, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not pass GNG and, as per WP:SAL, stand alone lists are subject to the same verifiability requirements as any other article - huge chunks of this article are unreferenced JW 1961 Talk 23:27, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, article has a scope so wide it could and does encompass practically anything, article is also a clear LISTN fail. Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:33, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above Spiderone 09:21, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. // Timothy :: talk 23:28, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per LIST and WP:SNOW. Every active editor would likely agree this list is too broad and indiscriminate. It's also entirely unsourced, and could implicate WP:BLP. Bearian (talk) 21:14, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete There was a similarly named article a few months ago. I tried to find it, but couldnt. Does anybody remember? —usernamekiran (talk) 10:06, 31 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:01, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

James M. Russell[edit]

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

Article subject does not meet WP:ACADEMIC any criterion for notability. -- Missionedit (talk • contribs) 04:40, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:44, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as I believe that attending all those universities makes him notable. Know 1 Can C Me (talk) 04:46, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think that aligns with any of the wikipedia policies...? -Kj cheetham (talk) 15:17, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (but discount the previous inane opinion). Despite having a named professorship, I'm a little skeptical of his pass of WP:PROF#C5, because "professor of teaching excellence" sounds more like a title given to someone doing an unwanted but important teaching task than for scholarly excellence, and because his cv shows he was given it at the same time as promotion to full professor while #C5 is really looking for something that's a step above full. However, doing a Google Scholar search of his name and looking only at the earth science publications among the results (because he has a common name and there is at least one other well-cited James M. Russell) shows a pass of #C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:16, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was assuming https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ziNY0WIAAAAJ would be his own profile (with verified email at Brown), and hence include the majority of this work. -Kj cheetham (talk) 15:20, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that looks accurate. I just searched for publications by name and somehow didn't see the profile page. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:33, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an item about what the "Royce Family Professor of Teaching Excellence" is. XOR'easter (talk) 22:28, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Citation count seems to pass requirements for WP:NPROF. -Kj cheetham (talk) 15:20, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF based on the citation rates. TJMSmith (talk) 19:10, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Teaching excellence award as a full-professor and citation counts. Earthianyogi (talk) 10:48, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because of his citations meeting our policy. I note that where he graduated from almost doesn't matter at all; I received a doctorate from a prestigious private university, but that does not make me notable because of it. It had to stop myself from using Latin in my argument. Bearian (talk) 21:23, 30 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:02, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of nationality transfers in association football[edit]

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

Article makes no sense. Most of the players listed conflict with the eligibility requirements listed at the top of the page. Discussion at WP:FOOTY Talk. New article based on more relevant criteria has been developed by several authorshere to be transferred to mainspace soon. RedPatchBoy (talk) 03:54, 24 July 2020 (UTC)|RedPatchBoy]] (talk) 03:51, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.RedPatchBoy (talk) 03:57, 24 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 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:18, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:19, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:19, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per discussion at WT:FOOTY. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:24, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per discussion at WT:FOOTBALL and AFD for a near-similar article 10 years ago, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of association football players with dual nationality. Giant Snowman 14:10, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - you'd have to go a long way to prove notability here - that people are actually talking about this concept, not just that people change nationality. You could make the list more defining by having it just for players that contested professional games for national teams, but even then - you'd have to prove it was notable. This article at the very best is a WP:TNT situation. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:14, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Giant Snowman Spiderone 18:32, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a bit of a bizarre article and doesn't seem to make sense outside of the normal transfer articles. Agree with nom. Govvy (talk) 14:12, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater @ 18:13, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Completely overhaul This is a mass unsourced list, with many being incidental and tenuous: childhood migrants, Wales internationals who were nowhere near being close to an England cap to "transfer". One that sticks out to me is Youri Djorkaeff who merely had foreign ancestry (his dad also played for France). This page can be overhauled as something in concrete terms such as those who had youth caps for one country and senior for another, or the very few players who played senior football for more than one country, something with a degree of mainstream coverage. [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] That last option would be concise enough to mention the reasons for each one, which come in widely distinct groups: "Oriundo" South Americans (Luis Monti, José Altafini, Thiago Motta...), Eastern bloc players who found themselves in new countries, and more contemporary players who earned friendly caps and changed their minds (Diego Costa, Wilfried Zaha, Declan Rice etc). I'm pretty sure that regarding the lists of footballers already on this website, this one would also have similar encyclopedic merit. 2A00:23C5:E187:5F00:E147:4BF7:78A4:E259 (talk) 20:49, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- a couple of users and myself made a new article here: List of association footballers who have been capped for two senior national teams. I believe that's what you were suggesting. We felt starting from scratch from better than attempting to fix this disaster of an article. RedPatchBoy (talk) 00:11, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CCC and WP:OUTCOMES. I am loath to challenge those who know more about sports than me, or to upend what is clear consensus. Bearian (talk) 21:25, 30 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:57, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merle Terlesky[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Renominating, believing standards of Wikipedia (and me) have improved since 2007. This is a fairly typical example of a political candidate who has never held office and activist who has not attained any position or status of note. I understand there's a clear consensus to delete (or merge) political candidates who's only substantial coverage is of their unsuccessful campaign (even if they technically meet WP:GNG). Outside such campaign coverage, the best story is sourced to BC Catholic via BC Christian News, which is not an independent reliable source, but is promoting one of their own. I don't think we should give an article to everybody who's church wrote about their "coming to Jesus" moment in great detail. I do understand the GNG argument for keeping this, but that sets a very broad precedent for unsuccessful political candidates, as most candidates get some decent coverage. Rob (talk) 03:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Rob (talk) 03:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:41, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I !voted keep at the last AFD (under my previous username of Sarcasticidealist), but my views have evolved. This is, at best, a marginally notable individual, and is exactly the sort of abuse-magnet BLP we need less of around here. Steve Smith (talk) 16:35, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point about abuse-magnet. The creator of the article had a clear bias against the subject, as you can see in the early edits, on the talk page, and the first afd comments by them. The creator's version of the article actually had a large amount biographical detail (more than current version) that was almost entirely unsourced. That's a reason I support outright deletion, not a merge/redirect in this case (unlike other candidate articles, where we merge to the last election for office). Once you get rid of the attacks and the self-promotion, there's actually little left. --Rob (talk) 21:35, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass WP:NPOL as an unsuccessful candidate and does not pass WP:BASIC, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:39, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Our notability standards for politicians have evolved significantly since 2007, so the rationale under which an article may have been kept in 2007 has no bearing on whether it's still appropriate in 2020 or not. As it stands, this article is referenced 60 per cent to primary sources (raw tables of election results, the self-published websites of directly affiliated organizations, etc.) that aren't support for notability at all, and 40 per cent to routine local campaign coverage of the type that every candidate in every election can always show — so nothing here establishes that he has any claim to being appreciably more notable than the norm for unsuccessful candidates for office, which is the bar that unsuccessful candidates have to clear to merit Wikipedia articles. And he's not nearly high-profile enough to adequately control the very legitimate "abuse magnet" problems noted above, either: just because we may not like a person's actions or statements is not a legitimate reason to malign them in Wikipedia's editorial voice as some past editors of this article have attempted to do. Bearcat (talk) 16:55, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~she~~he may have met our anemic and almost non-existent standards back in 2007. Since then we have come to realize that we need a little tighter standards, and ~~she~~he clearly does not meet any of our present inclusion standards.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:34, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Pack Lambert: While I agree with you in the result, your choice of pronouns makes me wonder whether you actually read the article. Steve Smith (talk) 19:22, 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:56, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ankush Raja[edit]

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

Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources and current sources are announcements of their music release or passing mentions. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. The article was proposed for deletion, but it was contested by the article creator on the last day. GSS ^💬 02:56, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 02:56, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 02:56, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:36, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per all. -Hatchens (talk) 15:25, 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 Draftify at article creator's request. (non-admin closure) Vulcan's Forge (talk) 03:14, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Vulcan's Forge: The article was created by Susenaes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and not by the user who requested draftification. GSS ^💬 03:37, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lock Up (2020 film)[edit]

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

An unreleased film by a non-notable film production company fails WP:NFF "Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines." Wikipedia should not be used as a billboard for marketing or promotion. GSS ^💬 02:49, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 02:49, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:13, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Satisfies WP:GNG, and the film is scheduled to release on 14 August. I encourage TamilMirchi to find more sources. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:32, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kailash29792: WP:GNG doesn't apply here especially when there are separate guidelines for the subject type and the policy for unreleased films at WP:NFF is very clear that "if the production company isn't notable unreleased film should not have their own articles". Wikipedia is not a billboard. GSS ^💬 04:41, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable film with plenty of sources and is to be released soon. This film is releasing in August, so it shouldn't be considered as unreleased. WP:NFF does not apply here because there are sources in the article that indicate that the film is in post-production. TamilMirchi (talk) 17:32, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is literally a copy and paste comment of the above !vote and you must be kidding that NFF doesn't apply when it does because the film is not yet released. Also, what you mean by "This film is releasing in August, so it shouldn't be considered as unreleased." are you out of your mind? GSS ^💬 17:40, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no substantial coverage. The argument that it will be notable is absurd. If it's notable once it's released, then we can have an article, until then, SEE YA! Praxidicae (talk) 17:55, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think we need to wait for a theatrical release or on any OTT platform, WP:BALL. - FitIndia ^{Talk Admin on Commons} 11:52, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fitindia, GSS and Praxidicae, how about draftifying it? Kailash29792 (talk) 12:06, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kailash29792: Why it was even moved out of draftspace at first place when it wasn't ready? GSS ^💬 12:11, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GSS, because TamilMirchi felt it was ready. I think you're only wanting this article deleted because the film hasn't yet released and the production company isn't notable (well, why are there so many MCU drafts like Thor: Love and Thunder?) Please assess the article after my latest edit and tell me. If you feel it's not good enough, I'll move it back to the draftspace. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:19, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We have polices to deal with such feelings. I looked at the edits you made recently and they do not satisfy NFF. GSS ^💬 14:26, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Redirect ~~The article is fine and meets WP:GNG. The last update regarding the release of the film was in June 2020 and I agree that we don't find more updates from other sources.~~ Or at least redirect this article until any development rather than deleting it. Abishe (talk) 14:11, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Abishe: I can understand the reason for redirect, but can you explain "keep"? according to which policy? As you already know that the film is yet to release and GNG doesn't apply in such cases. GSS ^💬 14:17, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GSS: I am aware of the fact that the article has some issues with meeting notability guidelines and it is unable to cite more sources to verify the release and production of the film. I saw some sources like Newsminute and The Hansindia which included that LockUp is confirmed to be released via the Zee5 platform alongside few upcoming films like Danny. So it implies that the production and post production of the film have been fully completed (which can be evident with the poster released by ZEE5). So in case if it still looks weird then I prefer to keep as a redirect target to Zee5. Abishe (talk) 14:34, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Abishe: As I said above, the last paragraph of NFF state "Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines." so since the production company for this film isn't notable we can't have the article at this point. Do you mind reconsidering your !vote? GSS ^💬 14:48, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note it's the production of the film that should be notable not the production company, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:26, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I go with redirect for now as now changed my mind to neither delete or keep the article in mainspace. Abishe (talk) 15:00, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is my mistake for creating the article. Kindly move it back to a draft. TamilMirchi (talk) 16:12, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TamilMirchi, done as suggested. GSS, please close the AfD. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:15, 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 per WP:SNOW. See my comment below for more explanation. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mulan (2020 film)[edit]

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

This film has been postponed indefinitely and Wikipedia is not supposed to promote it with an article. Georgia guy (talk) 01:53, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Easily meets WP:NFILM. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:59, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above. – FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 02:08, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, film should be kept per WP:NFP. This film has received plenty of reliable and significant coverage and it had already premiered in Hollywood. It would be quite ridiculous to simply delete it. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 02:09, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even if the film is never released, the marketing controversies render it permanently notable. BD2412 T 02:10, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The nationwide release was postponed, but obviously Disney didn't go to all the trouble and expense of making the movie and then never release it. With this level of significant coverage, even if the studio went insane somehow and never released the film, it would still be notable. — Toughpigs (talk) 02:12, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:N, WP:NFILM Dede2008 (talk) 03:05, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:13, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep - Easily passes GNG, and WP:NFF is passed because of the controversies with the production/marketing. For some inexplicable reason, this article has been draftified, it needs to be moved back to the mainspace. Hog Farm _Bacon 03:59, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is this a joke? This easily passes WP:FILM Donaldd23 (talk) 04:10, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep On top of reaching notability as many have above have said, the idea that the film does not currently have a release date is completely irrelevant to it having an article or not. Once it's safe for theaters to open again, movies like Mulan are going to have much firmer release strategies. HunterAlexBrown (talk) 04:14, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily passes WP:NFF. I, also, do not understand why this page was nominated for deletion in the first place. Cardei012597 (talk) 05:08, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Unreleased films can be notable as long as there's sufficient coverage to pass WP:NFF, particularly if they have completed or started filming. The odds of this not releasing in some format is slim, given the amount of money and publicity sunk into the movie. As others have said, Disney is likely just waiting for theaters to reopen. If they were to never re-open, they'd probably just release it in some other format, probably as a VOD rental or to their streaming service. I'm going to go ahead and snow close this one. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:44, 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:56, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Nakrosis[edit]

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

The source here is weak. A Google search turns up articles that mention Nakrosis, but no in-depth sources. Nakrosis is trivially mentioned in other Wikipedia article. Alansohn (talk) 01:51, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Alansohn (talk) 01:51, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:52, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I do not see any SIGCOV in a search. DC Comics has a two word entry for him on their site: "Inker, colorist". Another loss to COVID, sadly.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:19, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater @ 16:01, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Article as it stands makes no claim of notability. Deb (talk) 11:29, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, expand, flesh out. You don't delete an article just because it isn't filled in, you finish it. That's how Wikis work. His "notability" isn't pigeonholed by random editors' lack of understanding of his field, otherwise we wouldn't have 99 percent of people on this site. The S (talk) 05:10, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Because neither the creator of this stub nor the writer of the "Keep" opinion immediately above has bothered to demonstrate notability, and various people have credibly said that searches for it were fruitless. You don't create a stub just because you assume that people more energetic than yourself will transform it into something worth reading, you make a real effort yourself before you launch the thing. That's how Wikis work. I shall of course strike out this "delete" !vote if The S applies their enviable understanding of the field to swiftly augmenting the article in such a way that it credibly demonstrates notability. -- Hoary (talk) 01:26, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable cartoonist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:33, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV. I found a few sources online, but not enough to create a decent stub. Sorry. Bearian (talk) 21:31, 30 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 by the nominator, Mccapra. (non-admin closure) Dps04 (talk) 11:51, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

China Rehabilitation Research Center[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

~~Recreation of article already deleted in 2017 with no indication of notability. Does not pass WP:NORG. Mccapra (talk) 01:41, 24 July 2020 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 01:41, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 01:41, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 01:41, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 01:41, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the only coverage I could find that was not a passing mention is already in the article, and that coverage is the centre's website. Fails WP:GNG and NORG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:30, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. 李万祥; 曹悦欣 (2018-08-24). "为残疾人提供生命支撑" [Provide life support to the disabled]. zh:经济日报 (中国大陆) (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2020-07-25. Retrieved 2020-07-25 – via Sina Corp.
  From Google Translate: "The China Rehabilitation Research Center was established in 1988, and both rehabilitation methods and medical technology are at the forefront of rehabilitation. As a large modern comprehensive rehabilitation medical institution, China Rehabilitation Research Center has 6 institutions including Beijing Boai Hospital and Rehabilitation Medical College. Among them, Beijing Boai Hospital is a tertiary-level A general hospital featuring rehabilitation. It has more than 600 professional large-scale equipment and treats patients from all over the country and more than 20 countries or regions, and has been well received by experts and patients at home and abroad. In 1991, the China Rehabilitation Research Center also jointly established the Seventh Department of Clinical Medicine with the Capital Medical University to carry out education in rehabilitation medicine. In 2000, the Medical College of Rehabilitation was formally established, and my country’s first set of undergraduate textbooks for rehabilitation treatment were compiled. In 2014, the China Rehabilitation Research Center became the first batch of national standardized training bases for resident physicians, and it was the only professional training base and the only assessment base for Beijing resident rehabilitation medicine professional training base."
2. 钱琪莹, ed. (2018-05-16). "中国康复研究中心开展第二十八次全国助残日系列活动" [China Rehabilitation Research Center launches the 28th National Day for the Disabled] (in Chinese). Xinhua News Agency. Archived from the original on 2018-09-20. Retrieved 2020-07-25.
  From Google Translate: "As the earliest rehabilitation institution in China, 中康 has become a national rehabilitation technology resource center, rehabilitation talent training center and rehabilitation service demonstration window under the leadership of the successive China Disabled Persons’ Federation Party Committees and after nearly 30 years of development." The article further notes that the rehabilitation center "takes the initiative to promote the progress of the rehabilitation business, and drives the scientific and standardized development of the national rehabilitation industry".
3. 许晓华; 刘婧婷, eds. (2013-10-17). "中国康复研究中心项目验收暨神经康复中心揭牌仪式"在京举行". People's Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2020-07-25. Retrieved 2020-07-25.
  From Google Translate: Founded in 1988, Beijing Bo’ai Hospital of China Rehabilitation Research Center is the only tertiary-A general hospital in China featuring rehabilitation. The hospital is dominated by modern rehabilitation medicine and adopts advanced methods that closely integrate clinical medicine and rehabilitation engineering. Patients with limb dysfunctions such as cerebral palsy, hemiplegia, paraplegia, amputation and other limb dysfunctions are provided with comprehensive rehabilitation treatment, which enables many disabled patients to regain their ability to take care of themselves, return to their families and society, and participate in social life on an equal footing with healthy people, starting their new life.
4. 宣佳, ed. (2018-08-14). "中国康复研究中心成立30周年——铁肩担道义，热血献扶伤" [30th Anniversary of the Establishment of China Rehabilitation Research Center-Iron shoulders bear morality and blood donation to help the wounded]. zh:澎湃新闻 (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2020-07-25. Retrieved 2020-07-25.
5. 陈建, ed. (2020-07-16). "中国康复研究中心及时报告新发地疫情第2例病例" (in Chinese). China News Service. Archived from the original on 2020-07-25. Retrieved 2020-07-25.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow China Rehabilitation Research Center to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:54, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination with thanks to @Cunard:. As I don’t read Chinese could you please add these sources to the article? Mccapra (talk) 04:22, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for withdrawing the nomination, Mccapra (talk · contribs)! I've expanded and added these sources to the article. Cunard (talk) 07:23, 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:53, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Boowa & Kwala[edit]

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

This page appears to have created by the musician behind the project. I can find no evidence of notability per WP:NALBUMS or WP:GNG. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 11:21, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:50, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 13:52, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing his this meets NFICTION/GNG. References are weak - primarily short press-release like announcements and mentions in passing. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:14, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hello to all

I did indeed create the page. The TV series was produced by major terrestrial TV companies (TVO Canada, Tiji, PMMP, ITV Studios) and aired worldwide on terrestrial TV would suggest that it is notable, and merits an article. I'd like to suggest that the important thing at that point is 'can we make the article is balanced, fair and unbiased' rather than who created it. I feel that User:Viewmont Viking made the article balanced, fair and unbiased.

Here is what I wrote to User:Dom Kaos... "Whatever the rights and wrongs of the creation of the page, the fact (is) that there are literally millions of (now grown up) kids who saw this in the noughties who are potentially interested. Please do take the time to have a look on YouTube for the hundreds of videos of kids watching Boowa and Kwala."

I would love to make a playlist to illustrate, but because this is content for kids, that is not possible on YouTube.

Commercial links are not allowed (understandably, I am 100% in agreement). But that physical DVD being on sale on major platforms is supporting evidence https://www.amazon.com/Boowa-Kwala-Xavier-Picard/dp/B01GWC1T4U

US DVD release : https://www.worldcat.org/title/boowa-kwala/oclc/260088578

Italian selection of best cartoons 2008 https://www.italialifestyle.it/images/db/italialifestyle/articoli/doc/salerno-cartoons-on-the-bay-7234.pdf

Available in public libraries https://sppl.bibliocommons.com/item/show/1811674138

And here's the page on ITV studios (who are undeniably a major terrestrial TV producer) https://www.itvstudios.com/catalogue/617

Hoping this makes a difference. If not, then I'll just count this as a sad day :)

Jasonbarnard (talk) 21:08, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:35, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom --Devokewater @ 16:04, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just to pop in as a Canadian with kids who watched the show and drove the theme song into my head, I'd consider it notable. It certainly was in my house, but I remember chatting about it with other parents at the school.

Not sure if that's the notable enough in this scenario, but thought I'd add my 2-bits.

--Ddavies73 (talk) 17:58, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is not evidence of notability. Can you find reliable sources about the TV series? Note that the links provided by the page creator are all links to YouTube, Amazon, or other non-viable sources. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:12, 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:53, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

News Vanguard[edit]

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

Fails to pass WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. No credible citations are available. Hatchens (talk) 15:56, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 15:56, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 15:56, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N and WP:TNT. I have no hope that the article will improve anytime soon. Shashank5988 (talk) 16:37, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above Spiderone 09:44, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets BROADCAST "Because of the public interest served, most television stations that produce original content should be presumed notable for Wikipedia purposes" and the GNG, registered cable TV station in state of Tripura,^[1] mentioned in multiple sources, national media coverage of its reports, one of its journalist murdered.^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7] AfD is not clean up; how much BEFORE was carried out here?

References

^ "List of Cable Channel, Department of Information & Cultural Affairs". ica.tripura.gov.in.
^ "News Vanguard and Tripura Times to jointly organize a Conclave". tripurachronicle.in.
^ "Tripura University Vice Chancellor Caught In "Bribe" Sting, Resigns". NDTV.com.
^ "Tripura University VC resigns after TV channel shows him accepting bribe". Hindustan Times. 8 September 2019.
^ "Editorial: For Democracy to Survive, Attacks on Journalists Must End". The Wire.
^ Desk, The Hindu Net (24 November 2017). "Tripura newspapers publish blank editorials to protest killing of journalist". The Hindu.
^ "'National media neglect murder of northeast journalists'". Outlook India.

--Goldsztajn (talk) 07:23, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Doesn't meet WP:GNG, but meets WP:BROADCAST (there is enough for presumption of notability in what Goldsztajn has listed). Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:42, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:28, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per User:Usedtobecool. DMySon 08:03, 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)   Kadzi   (talk) 11:50, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cobb Education Television[edit]

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

This local cable TV education channel does not meet WP:GNG. PRODded but was deprodded by article creator Radiojon. Raymie (t • c) 16:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 16:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 16:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 16:34, 9 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) 18:33, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's an organized channel shared between several different notable public organizations. There is no reason to destroy this after 16 years when the channel is still going strong continuously since then. –radiojon (talk) 05:07, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article has no references and that has been the case since it was created. My own search for independent reliable sources covering this turns up nothing. This doe not meet the inclusion criteria for an article on Wikipedia. The above keep argument makes no policy grounded arguments for keeping. -- Whpq (talk) 13:39, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cobb County School District. It seems to fail WP:AUD as the only source[26] I can find, other than incidental mentions of board meeting airings, is local. -- Netoholic @ 07:39, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:27, 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. (non-admin closure)   Kadzi   (talk) 11:50, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2001 EA Sports 500[edit]

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTSEVENT. Single reference is to a score page. WP:BEFORE only turned up short mentions within larger articles. // Timothy :: talk 23:14, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 23:14, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 23:36, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Probably most sources for a race from 2001 would be offline. Also I would question the relevance of applying WP:SPORTSEVENT to motor races since although the link is "event", the description refers to "games". I was able to find a couple of sources writing about this race, one written just this year, [27], [28]. I unfortunately don't have time to add much to this article myself however. A7V2 (talk) 23:59, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/merge Per nom. Also this article has existed for a 1/2 year, and the race was 19 years ago and the text is just a statement that it existed. No sources to make a real article out of it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:00, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the additional sources found by A7V2. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 02:02, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:16, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep book sources should be plentiful during NASCAR's heyday yet before online was popular. It needs improvement not deletion. One excellent online RS is Racing Reference. Royal broil 02:51, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Results and reports can be added. Books, newspaper articles and the sources A7V2 has provided should suffice for notablity purposes. FozzieHey (talk) 22:56, 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arsalan Chalabi[edit]

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

This article is currently dependent on four different dead links. A search for active sources on this poet reveals only his own social media and other self-promotions, plus some basic retail or publication listings. He has appeared briefly in robust sources a few times but is only listed as being present at events (e.g. [29]) or listed as one member among many of his literary scene (e.g. [30]). He has no significant and reliable coverage as a poet in his own right, and this article may be an attempted promotion. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 00:47, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 00:47, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 00:47, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Devokewater @ 16:05, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable poet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:38, 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:51, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sparkle, California[edit]

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

Another spot on a railroad mistaken as a community in GNIS. Durham calls it a locality on the Sacramento Northern Railroad. It was a rail spur built primarily to load pears from the surrounding orchards[[31]]. No evidence that it has ever been a community and is obscure even for rail facility standards. Does not meet basic notability criteria. Glendoremus (talk) 00:33, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the only coverage I can find of the place is computer generated and non-significant. Danski454 (talk) 12:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article does not meet WP:N. // Timothy :: talk 01:00, 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 William Collins, Sons. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:51, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Collins Education[edit]

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

Imprint of HarperCollins Publishers that seems to lack sufficient notability on it's own. The only source in the article is about it acquiring another company which is extremely trivial. Nothing else in the article is sourced and I was unable to find anything about it that would pass WP:NCORP in a search. As an alternative to deletion it might be worth merging it to HarperCollins Publishers. Since it has a section on imprints that doesn't currently mention it. As it is though, I don't see a reason to have a separate article for this. Adamant1 (talk) 00:03, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:34, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:34, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no credible assertion of notability. Know 1 Can C Me (talk) 04:14, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's remarkably false as the article starts "Collins Education is the third-largest educational publishing house in..." which is a clear assertion of notability. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:33, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to William Collins, Sons, which is the historical basis of the imprint. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:33, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to William Collins, Sons --Devokewater @ 16:06, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to William Collins, Sons. Once did something similar, qualifies me as an expert on the sort of thing. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:13, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to William Collins, Sons. Light2021 (talk) 01:03, 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.