The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:01, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

VIAcode[edit]

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

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

No indication of notability outside of marketing copy. Note that the Washington Post link doesn't even mention VIAcode itself. Vahurzpu (talk) 23:53, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Vahurzpu (talk) 23:53, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Vahurzpu (talk) 23:53, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Badly formatted WP:CORPSPAM. WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:55, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Definite CORPSPAM, and poorly done at that. The company should get its money back from the SPA they had to have paid to write it. Ravenswing 17:52, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WesSirius (talk) 19:50, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 04:13, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per all of the above Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 07:49, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is spamming. - The9Man ^(Talk) 12:02, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I am not persuaded that a biography on AllMusic isn't a reliable source for the purpose of GNG, but no other substantive coverage has been found, and as such there is consensus that the threshold for notability has not been cleared. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:47, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tally Koren[edit]

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

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

Not finding independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources, either those in the article or elsewhere online - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSICIAN. Promotional article. Edwardx (talk) 10:41, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - the only articles I see confirming the supposed awards are press releases. — Infogapp1 (talk) 19:37, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - the article in the Sutton And Croydon Guardian (local newspaper) (https://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/leisure/music/8890501.tally-koren-music-profile/ here) makes reference to the Fringe Award that she was awarded in 2011 and is commented on by the interviewer themselves. This would indicate reliability in this sense

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:FD8E:8500:B466:B3D8:8ED:E6D8 (talk) 17:34, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as has significant coverage in reliable sources such as this AllMusic staff written bio here and the Times of Israel article and others already in the article. The Times of Israel piece confirms that Koren has had singles on rotation on BBC Radio 2 which means she passes criteria 11 of WP:NMUSIC (only one criteria needed, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:23, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a staff written bio from allmusic means very little in the absence of actual in depth coverage in media sources. I would expect to find far more sources when searching in Hebrew or English than the 4 press releases in gnews and no hits in books (aside from the circular reference to WP.) Praxidicae (talk) 10:26, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 20:52, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 20:52, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• This piece in Times of Israel here is a bylined article with prose and an interview so doesn't look like a press release. The prose confirms wide radio play worldwide which would indicate a pass of WP:NMUSIC, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:15, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: As, of course, any AfD participant would already understand, interviews are debarred by C#1 of MUSICBIO from supporting notability, so the Times of Israel piece is out. Just not seeing any genuine depth to the coverage. Ravenswing 17:57, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The prose in a long piece counts towards notability as per WP:GNG (which overrides music bio ) even in WP:CORPDEPTH Atlantic306 (talk) 00:02, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this text about a subject devoid of any notability attribute. Once notable, always notable, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, but she was never notable enough for a Wikipedia article, with the best claim to fame being some 2014 interview. WP:SUSTAINED is clear enough on this: Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability [while] sustained coverage is an indicator of notability. Emphasis added. Wikipedia is not a directory of artists nor some collection of random information. -The Gnome (talk) 08:07, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. While redirects have been proposed, those terms are not currently covered in the target, weakening that argument. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:49, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Snowshoe Springs, California[edit]

Snowshoe Springs, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

In hunting down subdivisions input to GNIS from "Welcome to Calaveras County and Western Alpine County", I missed a few. It's the same story: they are all neighborhoods of no special distinction. Mangoe (talk) 23:16, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also in this nominationa re:

Big Valley, Calaveras County, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Rocky Hill, Calaveras County, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Mangoe (talk) 23:20, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect: into Calaveras County, California. Ravenswing 17:59, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Nonsense sponsored by chamber of commerce or some other commercial interest. GNIS sinks to a new low. Certainly isn't notable. Glendoremus (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 keep. Haukur (talk) 11:38, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lebanese people in Belgium[edit]

Lebanese people in Belgium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Small community, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 23:12, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. It is small, but still meets the WP:GNG criteria. A cursory search reveals various sources on the subject. See 1 in La Libre Belgique for one example. There is also reference to reverse migration of Lebanese Belgians. That said, I'd firmly support merging List of Lebanese people in Belgium into this article or deleting it entirely. —Brigade Piron (talk) 14:20, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: per Brigade Piron. The sources are sound, and indeed, the size of the community's irrelevant; notability is not transient. Ravenswing 18:02, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: I have re-written the article into a more respectable stub with enough WP:RS to settle the discussion. Can the nomination be closed? —Brigade Piron (talk) 19:48, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:22, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:22, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:22, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per above.★Trekker (talk) 19:55, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is consensus here that GNG is met. Editors interested in keeping this are encouraged to add the sources they have found to the article. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:55, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Global Federation of Animal Sanctuaries[edit]

Global Federation of Animal Sanctuaries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable; doesn't pass GNG or NORG. GFAS is mostly "mentioned in passing" in articles that cover some organization GFAS "accredits", followed by the same repeated press release blurb about GFAS. There is never any actual coverage of GFAS itself (that I can tell from a 30-60 minute search on the subject). GFAS may well exist in real life, and they might indeed do the work "they say" they do, but I'm not finding the secondary source notability factor. Normal Op (talk) 23:09, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Normal Op (talk) 23:09, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Normal Op (talk) 23:09, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Trivial to find secondary sources, for instance: The International Encyclopedia of Primatology, 3 Volume Set, Ethical Debates in Orangutan Conservation, and Infrastructure Development and Ape Conservation all have extensive coverage.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:29, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Meets notability requirements contrary to what's being claimed. Suppafly (talk) 14:51, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Really, Suppafly? You created this article five years ago and still haven't given it a single citation. That little "1" you see is not a citation; it's really an external link. And it's a broken link, too. The Wayback Machine shows it's a two-page color brochure. If GFAS is notable, you need to SHOW it; not just state your opinion on some AfD. Normal Op (talk) 08:41, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Agree with User:Eostrix.Knox490 (talk) 13:55, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Meets WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 04:24, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I am underwhelmed by all of your contributions. At least Eostrix has tried. And it's depressing that you all have an opinion but no one has been willing to edit the article to SHOW the subject is notable. Normal Op (talk) 08:41, 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 delete. Deor (talk) 17:52, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robert G. Lowery[edit]

Robert G. Lowery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Local politician that fails to meet notability guidelines both as a politician and as a figure. His tenure in Florissant, Missouri (population 52,158) had no unusual events to warrant significantly different coverage than any other local politician. Nor does his law enforcement career arise to such a level. This discussion will be added to the Missouri-related and the politicians-related deletion discussions Mpen320 (talk) 23:07, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Small town mayor without extensive coverage or exceptional achievements.Knox490 (talk) 13:28, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:17, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:17, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete another non-notable mayor of a St. Louis suburb.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete in acknowledgement of our subject's evident lack of notability per WP:NPOLITICIAN or even WP:GNG. -The Gnome (talk) 08:49, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Devokewater @ 11:36, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:15, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Sunshine Coast Rugby Union season[edit]

2020 Sunshine Coast Rugby Union season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The article fails the WP:GNG test. HawkAussie (talk) 03:43, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 03:43, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 03:43, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 03:43, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell the article does pass the GFG test. It contains significant coverage from multiple sources that are independent of the topic. The only source that would not be independent of the topic would be the Sunshine Coast Rugby Union.

The article being discussed currently lists five independent sources – Win News, Sunshine Coast Daily, The Chronicle And North Coast Advertiser, PattmanSport, and the Sunshine Coast Rugby Union. Admittedly the two SCRU sources look like they’re direct uploads to the PattmanSport site.

I have further sources from 7News Sunshine Coast and the Sunshine Valley Gazette that I’ll endeavour to work in to the article as appropriate. ––RockerballAustralia (talk) 07:19, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Mulitple local competitions sourced to local media. The article combines fixtures and results from at least 4 different competititions (Womans, Colts,reserves and A-Grade. The competitions are not notable either individually or collectively. noq (talk) 10:33, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These multiple are considered in all media to be within one organisation. To my understanding of WP:GNG, the only requriement for sources is that they need to be reliable, independent of the source, and they provide significant coverage.

Is there something I missed? --RockerballAustralia (talk) 00:52, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this article contains more than just a fixtures and results listing. It contains an explaination of what impact the Covid virus had on the season. And mentions Eumundi joining the competition. --RockerballAustralia (talk) 00:59, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just because they are administered by the same organisation does not make them notable, or mean all competitions by that organisation should be lumped together. The sources and coverage are all WP:ROUTINE. Pattman sport seems to be a hobby/student site covering local sport. The other local media reports are WP:ROUTINE coverage of local teams noq (talk) 10:40, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:Routine says "[R]outine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, speculative coverage, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article." I take this to mean that routine coverage on its own is not sufficient for an article. Further, the discussion at Wikipedia:What is and is not routine coverage say that 1. "routine coverage" is not a disqualification for notability., and 2. "routine coverage" may indeed be significant enough to surpass Wikipedia's general notability guideline. The coverage referenced in this article is clearly beyond routine. --RockerballAustralia (talk) 23:47, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Errr ... that discussion is an essay. Ravenswing 18:13, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

• first reference is to the Sunshine Coast Rugby Union which has it's own article. It does not mention this season at all.

• All Pattman sport references appear to be a one-man project by a student and cannot be regarded as a WP:reliable source.

• reference 4 is a facebook post about a single local team starting training.

• references 5 and 6 refer to a new local team and are not significantly about the whole season.

There is no WP:significant coverage about the competitions here. They are still multiple competitions lumped together, non of which are notable in themselves or collectively.

All you have is a student website, and local media talking about local teams. If we accept that as sufficient to establish notability, we must accept that almost all amateur sports teams in the world are notable as most of them receive that level of coverage. noq (talk) 13:09, 5 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 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a sports almanac. The Sunshine Coast Rugby Union article is all that's needed. Stifle (talk) 11:02, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is closer to a general almanac. If we knock this off as being too sports almanacic per the comment above then we knock off all season articles. --RockerballAustralia (talk) 09:37, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is a bit of a stretch. We do not currently routinely have season articles for local amateur leagues, so why should for this one. Especially as the article mixes several local competitions together. noq (talk) 10:57, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The argument "Wikipedia is not a sports almanac. The [article about the org] article is all that's needed" taken to its logical conclusion suggests to me that season articles shouldn't exist. I don't think anyone would necessarily argue that that needs to happen. The particular argument needs to be better put perhaps.

It sounds like you're touch on a discussion that would be better suited elsewhere. That we don't currently do something and should or should not is probably not a discussion for an AfD.

For the purposes of this AfD, WP:WAX essentially says that just because other articles don't exist doesn't mean this one shouldn't.--RockerballAustralia (talk) 01:02, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It does not say that because something does not exist it should be created. You have not shown that the article meets WP:GNG You have failed to show any wP:reliable sources giving WP:significant coverage that address the subject as a whole. You just have a collection of local news reports about individual teams and a student website.

Ok so here is the itemised WP:GFG response with reference to this version

WP:GNG says that "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.

Reference 5 talks about the season shutting down earlier in the year and what is being done to get the season back up and running. It provides verification for one of the round 1 matches. Obviously 7News spoke to one club but it has more than a trivial reference to the season.

Reference 3 also talks about the shut down of the season.

Reference 1 provides a reference to what number seaon the comp is up to and which year was the first. The author, per the last paragraph of the article, played 357 games for Maroochydore from 1993-2016 and is a life member and former president of that club. There is no other verified connection between them and the competition.

There is nothing in WP:GNG or WP:RS that mentions anything about "local news". The only mention — at WP:NEWSORG – is that "[n]ews reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact" granted that "even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors."

WP:GNG says that"Reliable" means that sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.

References 1, 3, 7, and 15 are from local newspapers. References 5, 6, 8, and 12 are television stations posting stories to their respective Facebook pages. Per Talk:2020 Sunshine Coast Rugby Union season#WinNews citations accessibility to a source is preferable and checking TV Facebook pages should probably done manually to check that it is an otherwise reliable source posting.

WP:GNG says that "Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability, and that "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it.

All references except Refs 9 and 14 are secondary sources that are independent of the subject. 9 and 14 appear to be direct uploads of Sunshine Coast Rugby Union supplied draws – therefore not independent of the subject.

I think it would be generally accepted that sources not "independent of the subject" in this case would be the Sunshine Coast Rugby Union, the clubs, the referees, and the staff of those orgs. Per WP:SECONDARY a "secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources."

If you want to talk about what should and should not be included in the article the talk page is the place, note here. --RockerballAustralia (talk) 05:33, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - why not a Selective merge to Sunshine Coast Rugby Union (for the content that doesn't violate Wikipedia policies)? There are only 3 season pages (1919, 1982 and 2020) and the other two are far less sourced than this one. Deus et lex (talk) 05:04, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think there is a lot worth merging. I was not aware of any other season articles for this collection of competitions. noq (talk) 10:25, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails WP:NSEASONS and the GNG as well. Per NSEASONS, it is standard practice at the Sports WikiProject to only consider season articles for top-flight professional leagues, while this "Sunshine Coast Rugby Union" is an amateur senior loop subordinate even to its provincial league. NSEASONS also holds that, "Season articles should consist mainly of well-sourced prose, not just statistics and lists of players. Wikipedia is not a stats directory. It is strongly recommended that such articles be redirected ... if no sourced prose can be created." (emphasis in the original). Finally, while routine sports coverage can be held to verify facts, it cannot be used to substantiate notability. Ravenswing 18:11, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - @Ravenswing: - the article is clearly not notable enough for its own page, but why can't at least some of the sourced content be merged into the league page? That is at least a good alternative to deletion which it seems you are required to consider. Deus et lex (talk) 12:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: Simple; there's nothing to merge. Only three sourced, pertinent elements are here: the founding date of the league, the addition of a new team and the impact of COVID on the season. All are in the main article already. Ravenswing 18:19, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:05, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Lowery[edit]

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

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

Local politician that fails to meet notability guidelines both as a politician and as a figure. His tenure in Florissant, Missouri (population 52,158) had no unusual events to warrant significantly different coverage than any other local politician. Nor does his law enforcement career arise to such a level. This discussion will be added to the Missouri-related and the politicians-related deletion discussions Mpen320 (talk) 22:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 July 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:02, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:17, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:17, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Florissant MO is not large enough to confer an automatic presumption of notability on its mayors just for existing as mayors, but the article is neither substantive enough nor well sourced enough to get him over the bar that he would actually have to clear. The notability test for a mayor is not just the ability to source a bit of biographical background to two or three hits of purely local media coverage — it requires the ability to write and source some genuine substance about his political significance, such as specific city-building projects he championed, significant successes and failures in the mayor's chair, specific effects he had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. But there's no such content here. Bearcat (talk) 11:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete is not a level of office that confers notability and the sourcing does not overcome the lack of automatic notability in the office.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:53, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Small town politician doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN. There are a few independent reliable sources about him, but they're really short, 3-4 sentences. They'd help meet WP:GNG if we had a long indepth source, but we don't. --GRuban (talk) 12:44, 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 no consensus. This one is very much on the edge, and, in my opinion, leans more heavily towards delete than keep because the available sources to establish notability are tenuous. But, I don't think that consensus in this discussion is quite strong enough to delete at this point. ‑Scottywong| [spill the beans] || 14:54, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Carmel Art Association[edit]

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

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

Run of the mill local non-profit organization. Association with artists that have their pages don't inherit the organization notability. WP:NONPROFIT, WP:NORG are relevant policies. Graywalls (talk) 16:38, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 16:38, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 16:38, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:22, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:22, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 16:19, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep The Carmel Art Association has significant coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources and supports WP:BASIC and WP:GNG requirments.

1. Organizations like the Carmel Art Association, California Art Club and the Los Angeles Museum of History, Art and Science played a key role in popularizing the work of California Impressionism and the Plein-Air Painters of California.
2. Notable members and artists including: Jo Mora, Charles Chapel Judson , William Adam (artist), Frank Harmon Myers and Anna Althea Hills.
3. Founding members were notable artists including: Jennie V. Cannon and Arthur Hill Gilbert.
4. More than a gallery, it is a cooperative design “to advance knowledge and interest in art, and to create a spirit of fellowship between local artists and the community.” American art colonies
5. The Carmel Art Association can be see in hundreds of newspaper primary and secondary sources. For example, in 1927, the Oakland Tribune talks about the Carmel Art Association forming as an organization of Carmel artists who are interested in the arts. The purpose of stimulating and developing art interests in Carmel and exhibiting paintings by local artists. Carmel Art Body Forms.
6. Dick Crispo and Lisa crawford Watson wrote a book about the history of the Carmel Art Association. Carmel Art Association releases historic book. --Greg Henderson (talk) 15:46, 12 July 2020 (UTC) —This user has declared a connection to the subject [1][reply]

• Delete - After searching, I have to say "delete" on this article. There isn't anything that distinguishes it from the tens of thousands of of non-profit art spaces around the country (or around the world for that matter.) WP:RUNOFTHEMILL It is local in scope and coverage. That a few "notable" artists showed there is irrelevant because notability is not inherited WP:INHERITORG. It seems to be a pay-to-play membership-type gallery, and that always makes my skin crawl. These types of galleries are oriented towards tourism, and this one is no different judging by the fact that most of what I saw online were promoting tourism or travel to Carmel, not serious art collecting of museum quality work of art historical significance. The fact that it is the oldest gallery in Carmel isn't relevant; doesn't every town everywhere that has art galleries have an oldest one? The book that was published on it was written by one of it's artist members, so I doubt it is an independent, art historical/art critical publication. Does not meet both requirements of WP:NONPROFIT as the scope of their activities is local not national or international in scale. I'm not sure about the second requirement but for sure it doesn't pass the first criteria. Does not meet WP:CORP either. Netherzone (talk) 18:47, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete There a hundreds of regional organizations that organize pay-to-exhibit shows, all conveniently run by onlinejuriedshows.com. Almost none of those are notable. I don't see that this one is all that different, but if sources exist that are not routine announcements in the local press, let's see them. Vexations (talk) 19:36, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vexations Yes, there are several such sources: Special services theme of Art Association program and Monterey welcomes home Dali artwork. Both show significant coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources. --Greg Henderson (talk) 22:11, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment A paragraph in a routine announcement in the local paper is not considered significant. Please familiarize with WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:AUD. Graywalls (talk) 03:42, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete NCORP fail. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:20, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NCORP means is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. From above citations and/or any external search will find it obviously does. --Greg Henderson (talk) 15:13, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment @Greghenderson2006:, see my response to your other comment WP:AUD needs to be taken into an account and here hoping you can avoid the same argument in the future. Sources that meets all the other requirements you brought up so far and are perfectly fine for supporting contents aren't guaranteed to have any weight in supporting notability. For example, detailed history about the most notable company in the township in a local township publication. If other sources reliably establish the notability of the organization/company as suitable for global scale encyclopedia; then those local sources are good for providing details. Graywalls (talk) 15:47, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Greghenderson2006: you are a connected contributor on this article.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:52, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I was not aware of WP:AUD. Here are some citations regarding national and international sources: Internationally famous artists; and New York visitor came to CAA; and German born artist: National Academician Amin Hansen served on board of CAA. --Greg Henderson (talk) 16:45, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. Netherzone (talk) 17:05, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're not quite getting what WP:AUD is saying. A source like Carmel Pine Cone, high school newsletter, neighborhood news, and like have very limited narrow audience from the point of view of a global scale project like Wikipedia. For your other sources, you don't appear to have read no inherited notability guidelines which was already said by Netherzone above. Take some time to thoroughly read those to avoid future misunderstandings. These sources you named, therefore don't raise the notability of the organization under English Wikipedia standard. Graywalls (talk) 17:07, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete--not notable by our standards. A bit of local coverage doesn't add up to notability. Drmies (talk) 18:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly feel that this one is worth keeping. This is a Wikipedia article about an important art gallery that has a lot of history and has been written up extensively in secondary sources. Any "encyclopedia" should have a reference to this gallery and community of artists. I Just don't get your rationale. Is it possible that someone else can review it?--Greg Henderson (talk) 21:08, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Greghenderson2006: yes, "someone else can review it". Several already have, above. Anyone is free to weigh in. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:37, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greghenderson2006, I'll post a request at the Wikiproject Visual arts, worded neutrally to avoid WP:canvassing and WP:Forumshopping. Vexations (talk) 21:46, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment-- An art gallery and association that has been continuously active since the 1920s certainly isn't run-of-the-mill. And I wouldn't describe news coverage in major California cities as "local". Despite the fact other editors seem determined to delete the article at all costs, I'd suggest the original author adds sourced mentions to other Wikipedia articles, for example the fact that Salvador Dali was a member whilst living in the US. Though the gallery/association may not be notable enough to support a standalone Wikipedia article, it seems notable enough to be mentioned in relation to other subjects. Sionk (talk) 00:11, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sionk:, it is untrue that Salvador Dali was ever a member. The org's website posts a listing of both historical and present members, and he is not listed. If he in fact was a member, they certainly would list him. Netherzone (talk) 00:18, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sionk for your comment. Netherzone Please check out: In August 2012, the CAA displayed an “historic portraits” wall featuring forty of our earliest Artist Members—mostly at work in nature or their studios. It talks about Salvador Dali who was indeed an early CAA Artist Member. --Greg Henderson (talk) 00:31, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

However, that is a primary source, published by the CAA itself, and therefore is not a RS. Netherzone (talk) 00:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Greghenderson2006, please read WP:RS again. An organization is typically not a reliable source on itself. We strive for independent sources in depth. If you can remember to look for independent, in-depth overage in good publications, then that will serve you well in assessing sources.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:47, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ThatMontrealIP The following is a reliable source dealing with Dali and CAA: Monterey welcomes home Dali artwork. Here is another secondary source: about Dali and CAA. --Greg Henderson (talk) 00:54, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can;t read those as they are behind a paywall.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:23, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ThatMontrealIP It is at newspapers.com. Here is an OCR version: "On July 7, a ribbon cutting took place for the first permanent West Coast Salvaidor Dali museum. Dali made the Monterey area his home for periods of time from 1941to 1948 and was deeply involved in the social art scene. Monterey was the only place outs ide of Spain where Salvador Dali lived and painted in the early 1940s. As an early Carmel Art Association Artist Member, Dali exhibited vintage-sourced photographs and gave generously of his time each May to help jury the then-annual CAA competitive art exhibition for high school students from throughout California.” --Greg Henderson (talk) 01:48, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That might be enough for your Dali claim, depending on the publication it is in. However also have a look at WP:NOTINHERITED. Dali might have also liked a certain kind of car or chocolate, but that does not make the car or chocolate notable. A golf club that is newly opened and hosts the Queen as a visitor does not become notable by her visit; It would be notable by long-term coverage in reliable sources, in depth. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:57, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please Note There are some request edits on Carmel Art Association talk page. --Greg Henderson (talk) 21:55, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep as per Greg Henderson. This organisation has been in existence since the 1920s, far outlasting our grandiose project. No Swan So Fine (talk) 11:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep safe to say anytime there is a suspected WP:COI editors get their feathers ruffled. "oldest gallery in Carmel and one of the oldest artists’ associations in the country" seems like our encyclopedia will be much better with the inclusion than the exclusion. Greg Henderson has produced a compelling article for keep.Lightburst (talk) 16:19, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lightburst, It is a factual error that it is one of the oldest artists associations in the country. This one was founded more than a half a century later than the earliest ones, and there are many. For starters: The Wadsworth Atheneum is the oldest 1842; Portland Art Museum 1892; Copley Society of Art 1869, MacDowell Art Colony 1907, Yaddo 1900, Taos Society of Artists 1915 which morphed into the Taos Art Colony in 1898, Laguna Beach Art Association 1918, the Painter's Club of Los Angeles (1906) which morphed into the California Art League. And there are dozens of others that are older. Netherzone (talk) 18:31, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Netherzone:

• Carmel Art Association

I have a newspaper account, apologies if you do not - I am not going to research the claim of "oldest" so I yield on the claim. Regarding the news articles: I could find more but it is tiring. The CAA easily meets our guidelines - but I defer to the diligent AfD !voters. Here are a few articles that I easily found over the last hour. If I find time I will add some of these to the article.

1. Here is a news article which claims that the Carmel Art Association is one of the most successful galleries of its kind published in the Bakersfield Californian 1970
2. Here is an article about the Stanford Museum curator being elected president of the Carmel Art Association published in the Stanford Daily 1927
3. Here is an article about an Arabian Nights Ball that was held as a fundraiser for the CAA published in the San Mateo Times 1952
4. Here is an article about a Frederic Taubes lecture at CAA published in the Oakland Tribune 1950
5. Here is an article about the CAA holding its first exhibition in the Seven Arts Building published in the Berkeley Daily Gazette 1927
6. This one is just a short article/notice about a guest speaker and a $500 donation that the CAA received published in the Berkeley Daily Gazette 1927 Lightburst (talk) 19:31, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
7. This one is an article about William Ritschel and how he got his start with exhibitions at the CAA published in the Ukiah Daily Journal 1995 Lightburst (talk) 19:31, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is the perfect example of where "local sources prove notability" becomes an issue IMO. No one can credibly claim that an article about someone donating $500 to the organization makes them notable, but somehow it's perfectly fine to cite an utterly trash source like that. No one that cites local newspapers ever actually reviews what they are citing or considers if it's trivial or not, because "Hey man, local newspapers are acceptable!" It's always purely about number of "hits" and quality doesn't matter at all. I doubt they even read the articles they cite or even their titles. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:45, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hold your horses lol. It is difficult work slogging through newspapers, and you should not cherry pick the weakest ref (in fact I should not have listed it) It may have been One Bad Apple to make your point. I did summaries - so perhaps read them again. I could clip them but it would not likely satisfy you: there are 6,124,877 articles on Wikipedia and there are many more AfDs for me to visit. I will not WP:BLUDGEON this AfD. Have a great Sunday! Lightburst (talk) 19:56, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that people just see the sources and vote keep due to their meer existence without checking them. So, it should really be on the person who posts them to make sure they are usable. It's not on us that you don't have the time to review them. Per WP:THREE, pick the best three and don't waste everyone's time, including yours, on the other ones. It does't take 15 sources to establish notability anyway, it only takes a few good ones. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:06, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adamant1, if I found (hypothetically speaking), six sources of debatably equal quality, how I am I supposed to know which of the three are the strongest? Isn't it possible that different editors have different standards for what they consider to be strong sources? If I posted only the three articles that I thought were the strongest, isn't it possible that other editors may have thought the other three were better? Altamel (talk) 02:28, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Altamel:, Although I'm not the person you directed the question to, you could check WP:SIRS for the general idea, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources about specific sources, and for things not on that list, check archived discussions at WP:RSN. Local papers are often reliable for simple facts but often don't contribute to establishing subject notability. Opinion statements like "notable", "prominent", "respected" in local papers may not be relevant on a global scale. Graywalls (talk) 13:44, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nothing about it from a guideline perspective is solid enough to justify keeping it and the whole "it's been around a long time" argument is a none starter IMO. Otherwise, there would be articles about any number of random trivial things "because age." --Adamant1 (talk) 18:19, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP The New York Times [2] states: In 1924, 70 resident artists formed the Carmel Art Association, and the town's reputation as a center of locally produced fine art and crafts took hold. The names of articles who are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles, have already been mentioned. So its been around for 96 years, notable people have been members of it, and the New York Times thought them notable of mention and claimed they created the towns reputation for fine arts and crafts. Seems notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Dream Focus 20:44, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, that single sentence is all that they say about the CAA in that article.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:51, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Its the content not the length. Dream Focus 21:00, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Focus, Actually it is the depth. See WP:CORPDEPTH Vexations (talk) 21:56, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notable for achievements, not for coverage of achievements. This is why the notability guidelines are just "guidelines", not policy. You have to think for yourself. Dream Focus 22:34, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Focus, that's not what the policy says, but out of curiosity; just what has the CAA achieved then? They have won three awards, which are not remotely notable: "Best Art Gallery in Monterey County" was given as part of the same award ceremony that als awarded Best Auto Repair and Best Car Dealership-Used. The Carmel Pine Cone awarded the CAA Best Art Gallery along with awards for Best Place for a Beer and Best Yoga Studio. I don't think those count as achievements. Vexations (talk) 22:48, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Vexations:

• Question: Does it help to know that:

1. There were world renown artists like Salvador Dalí who joined the Carmel Art Association?
2. Carmel Magazine has more to say about to say about Salvador Dali's time in Caramel.
3. Here is a blurb about how long Salvador Dali was a member. It was published in the Monterey Herald in 2018. At various times from 1941 to 1948, the artist was very involved in the social art scene, even exhibiting vintage-sourced photographs as an early Carmel Art Association Artist member.

There were quite a few notable members. WP:NOTINHERITED however we have many reliable sources throughout the century to WP:V and show that this passes WP:N Lightburst (talk) 23:36, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lightburst, 1. did you notice who made the edit that added that source?Yes, I know about Dalí. Probably more than you think, or care to give me credit for.

2. It has half a sentence : "He was a member of the Carmel Art Association at one time, "

3. That's not exactly a significant coverage, but it reinforces a point the first source makes as well: "very involved in the social art scene" and "On the social scene, he joined the Carmel Art Association". He didn't exhibit there. The connection was social, not professional.

Let's not make a mountain out of a molehill. Vexations (talk) 10:28, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then you may enjoy this video from 1941. Salvador seemed like a quirky guy. While living here Dali became a member of the Carmel Art Association, collaborated with local artists and threw a legendary party. The celebrity filled, surrealist dinner was captured in a 1941 newsreel that can be found on YouTube. Ref, KAZU. Lightburst (talk) 15:45, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely none of these satisfies the notability requirements expected in WP:CORPDEPTH. Sources dropped here only reaffirms my position of strong delete. This source is a Wikipedia guidelines poster board example of "trivial mention" and the proper application of WP:NOTINHERITED. "But he would come back to the area often until 1948. He even became a member of the Carmel Art Association." It doesn't work like the advertisement industry where name dropping rules the scene. Graywalls (talk) 01:51, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

storng disagree Graywalls, if you cannot read the newspapers I can clip them - i did give a one sentence summary of each. Cherry picking the weakest ref or blurb does not destroy the notability. Lightburst (talk) 02:03, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I agree that there's nothing here that satisfies WP:CORPDEPTH, and fifty trivial mentions or namedrops still don't add up to a single bit of "significant coverage."I am also utterly indifferent to protests about "cherry picking the weakest ref." IMHO, in a deletion discussion, I want to be assured that people are arguing in good faith. If keep proponents are just tossing up a blizzard of Google hits without bothering to check if they provide substantial coverage to the subject in question, then they are at best not paying attention, and this is particularly ironic in a discussion where Delete proponents have been accused of wanting to delete this article "at all costs." Ravenswing 18:23, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Creating Carmel: the enduring vision by Harold Gilliam and Ann Gilliam has a chapter that discusses the beginnings of the organisation in sufficient depth to sustain an article (p. 148–155). My remaining objections stand; the awards section, for example, ought to just be removed.Vexations (talk) 18:42, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment I generally agree with your assessment, but this source would not get past WP:AUD for justifying a stand-alone article, because it's a book that is very specific history of this township. It would be a great source for adding within the Carmel-by-Sea article. You can also find a great deal of history behind particular businesses in a neighborhood if you were to look for a book written about a neighborhood, but such business would nonetheless fail to meet notability, because the book is of limited audience, such as people researching about the township or neighborhood. Graywalls (talk) 19:21, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Graywalls, good, point, and I did consider that the publisher is Peregrine Smith Books, which is now Gibbs Smith, and is not local (they're in Utah). Not exactly a well-respected publisher of scholarly material, but also not a vanity press. The trivia from press clippings is really a stain on the article, but my guess is that we could use the book as the core an article and supplement it with factual info from some of the newspaper clippings that don't establish notability by themselves. Note that I think much of that ought to be culled. Vexations (talk) 21:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can often find books from very reputable publishers that talk in great depth about obscure things if you look in subject specific books. Those things are great resources once the article subject has established notability, but field specific books would be questionable usability for establishing NOTABILITY of subject, because of the very narrow WP:AUD. Graywalls (talk) 06:26, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vexations, I looked at a scanned copy of the book online, which allowed me to see the mentions of the CAA, and it seems that the focus is on the people who were affiliated with the organization, and not about the organization itself. Wouldn't WP:NOTINHERITED apply? Netherzone (talk) 13:02, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Netherzone, again, that's a good point. I think that it's fine that coverage of an organization consists mostly of descriptions of what members of the organization did when they were acting in their capacity as members. What they did otherwise has no bearing on the notability of the organization. I'm not a huge fan of NOTINEHERITED (I think it's too simplistic), and while it's often referenced in AfD, it's an essay, not a guideline or policy. WP:V rules, the GNG is (just) a guideline. The crux of what we're trying to do here, I think is to establish if there is sufficient material to create an article that is verifiable, NPOV and based on reliable, secondary sources. I think we've passed to point where we could have decided to keep the article on the presumption of notability. We now either have enough sources or not. I (barely) fall on the side that says we do, despite my reluctance over the CoI editing and other issues that afflict this article. Vexations (talk) 14:20, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Vexations:, see WP:INHERITORG, which is a subset under the NORG guidelines. It's not like making a particle board. A pile of saw dust would not be accepted in place of solid boards. Satisfying the SIRS, ORGDEPTH together with AUD requires at least large, high quality solid board so to say. Graywalls (talk) 17:52, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Graywalls, I think that's what I was referring to "acting in their capacity as members". When an organization does something, there's usually a person involved who performs the act. They do so in their capacity as members. Say the organization erects a building. If we have a source that says the members took on the construction of that building, then we ought to see that as "the organization doing something". But, (and this is how I read INHERITORG) If those same members then joined another organization like the National Academy, the CAA does NOT all of a sudden become affiliated with the NA. Vexations (talk) 18:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Vexations:, I'm not exactly following. Notability isn't inferred or imagined. "In 1927 the Carmel Art Association was formed, and the somewhat exclusive membership paid dues of one dollar per month to the association which would provide exhibition space, hire a curator, and make sales. " from https://ci.carmel.ca.us/sites/main/files/file-attachments/final_updated_carmel_historic_context_statement_091208-b.pdf so this place is a vanity gallery in a way. If Zuckerberg starts a non-profit but the non-profit does not get significant coverage, notable Zuckerberg acting as the officer couldn't be used to presume notability despite him being notable and acting on behalf of it. A sentence or two that briefly mentions "Zuckerberg started a non-profit" in numerous papers would be those breadcrumb sources. Collecting a bag full of them hoping to make the article stick is not the right idea. If the organization receives significant in-depth, wide readership, mainstream coverage because of who started it, that would be an exception. For example, a featured story in Washignton Post. Graywalls (talk) 18:39, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Graywalls, maybe I should just try to rewrite the article? Vexations (talk) 19:02, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How it's written is the least of the problem. It's the article subject failing to meet NORG and NONPROFIT. Rewriting it does not change this. Graywalls (talk) 19:37, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NONPROFIT. -Hatchens (talk) 14:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Gilliam, Ann; Gilliam, Harold (1992). Creating Carmel: The Enduring Vision. Salt Lake City: Peregrine Smith Books (Gibbs Smith). pp. 152–154. ISBN 0-87905-397-6. Retrieved 2020-08-03.
  2. Edwards, Robert W. (2012). "Chapter Seven – Carmel's New Identity: the Peninsula's Art Colony (1915-1933)" (PDF). Jennie V. Cannon: The Untold History of the Carmel and Berkeley Art Colonies, vol. one, East Bay Heritage Project, Oakland, 2012. Oakland: East Bay Heritage Project. ISBN 978-1-4675-4567-9. Retrieved 2020-08-03.
  3. Watson, Lisa Crawford (2004-03-04). "Sculpting connections". The Monterey County Herald. Archived from the original on 2020-08-03. Retrieved 2020-08-03.
  4. Robinson, Jill (2016-11-23). "Touring art havens, old and new". San Francisco Chronicle. Archived from the original on 2017-06-19. Retrieved 2020-08-03.
  5. Owens, Tom; Hall, Julia M. (2000). The Insiders' Guide to the Monterey Peninsula: Including Carmel, Monterey, Pacific Grove, & Pebble Beach. Guilford, Connecticut: Falcon Publishing (Globe Pequot Press). p. 177. ISBN 1-57380-117-8. Retrieved 2020-08-03.
  6. Hill, Kathleen Thompson; Hill, Gerald N. (2001). Monterey and Carmel: Eden by the Sea. Guilford, Connecticut: Globe Pequot Press. p. 120. ISBN 978-0-7627-0914-4. Retrieved 2020-08-03.

  Sources with quotes

  Gilliam, Ann; Gilliam, Harold (1992). Creating Carmel: The Enduring Vision. Salt Lake City: Peregrine Smith Books (Gibbs Smith). pp. 152–154. ISBN 0-87905-397-6. Retrieved 2020-08-03. The book notes: With Spunk And Pep Again, as in 1905, artists felt the need to organize. In August of 1927 nineteen of them, including the omnipresent DeNeale Morgan, created the Carmel Art Association. Like its predecessor, the Arts and Crafts Club, the new association was a cooperative. The association's founders had "plenty of spunk and pep," as the Pine Cone noted, and within a few months had rented and refurbished a room on the top floor of Bert Heron's Seven Arts Building, engaged a curator, and held a show of works by forty participating artists. Following the arts-and-crafts tradition, they enlivened the Carmel scene with teas and other fund raisers, including Bohemian balls to which—as historian Betty Hoag McGlynn writes—members were asked to bring their own beer steins. Despite these efforts, money was scarce, particularly after the onset of the Depression in 1929, and the association was soon forced to give up its gallery in the Seven Arts Building. For several years exhibits were held at the Denny-Watrous Gallery while the artists struggled to raise money to buy a gallery of their own. In 1931 came an event that turned the tide, a show by the four National Academicians who were members of the Carmel Art Association: marine artist William Ritschel; Paul Dougherty, Ritschel's neighbor in the Highlands who also painted the ocean and shoreline; Armin Hansen, who portrayed the Spanish and Portuguese fishermen of Monterey Bay; and Arthur Hill Gilbert, whose favorite subject was the California landscape, particularly its oaks and grasslands. Entrance to the National Academy of Design has always been one of the highest honors to which American artists can aspire. Even though the show made a profit of only $9.95, Carmelites were impressed that their art association included such nationally honored members, and community support began to increase rapidly. Within two years, the organized artists felt secure enough to make a daring move. They went into debt to buy the Dolores Street studio that had belonged to playwright-artist Ira Remsen and then converted it into a gallery. With its customary élan, the association proceeded to pay off its mortgage by means of a series of imaginative fund-raising events. ... Edwards, Robert W. (2012). "Chapter Seven – Carmel's New Identity: the Peninsula's Art Colony (1915-1933)" (PDF). Jennie V. Cannon: The Untold History of the Carmel and Berkeley Art Colonies, vol. one, East Bay Heritage Project, Oakland, 2012. Oakland: East Bay Heritage Project. ISBN 978-1-4675-4567-9. Retrieved 2020-08-03. The book notes: There are two frequently repeated assumptions about the CAA: first, that it was casually born in early August of 1927 as a result of the “optimistic” description of the Laguna Beach Art Association given by Ada B. Champlin to a group of local artists at Grey Gables; and second, that the CAA, despite various financial vicissitudes, simply blossomed into the thriving organization that we have today.262 However, the facts offer a picture of a sharply divided organization which in its early years nearly collapsed on several occasions. It should be remembered that the CAA did not incorporate for six and half years, while the Carmel Arts and Crafts Club incorporated as a non- profit within fifteen months after its founding and the Laguna Beach Art Association was incorporated twenty-one months after it was established. The antecedents of the CAA can be traced back to events that occurred several years earlier. ... Decisive measures taken at the October 3rd CAA meeting dramatically reversed the fortunes of the fledgling organization. Following Cannon’s lead the membership committee “agreed to go to every artist on the Peninsula and ask for support.”300 They extended “charter membership” until November 1st and opened it for the first time to “all of the Peninsula artists.” After it was decided to launch the CAA’s Inaugural Exhibition on October 15th the applications for membership dramatically increased. Ralph D. Miller, Homer Emens and Charles C. Judson were appointed to hang the paintings.301 Beyond the twenty-five percent commission for the curator, it was decided to subtract an additional five percent from the sale of all art for the maintenance and rent of the gallery.302 When the Kingsley Art Club of Sacramento asked to stage an exhibition of CAA artists, the request was sent to Corrigan and Lemos. On the official notice for the opening of the CAA art gallery was the list of elected officers with the name of the president, Pedro Lemos, prominently at the top.303 The only problem was that Lemos had not been seen in Carmel since August 15th and many outside the CAA were beginning to wonder why. Watson, Lisa Crawford (2004-03-04). "Sculpting connections". The Monterey County Herald. Archived from the original on 2020-08-03. Retrieved 2020-08-03. The article notes: On the afternoon of Aug. 8, 1927, 19 Carmel artists met at "Gray Gables," the home of artists Josephine Culbertson and Ida Johnson, to establish an association for "the advancement of art and cooperation among artists. "The new Carmel Art Association has plenty of spunk and pep," wrote the editor of the Carmel Pine Cone newspaper at the time. "And, if its vivacity can be directed properly, it ought to be a good thing for Carmel." More than 75 years later, it's all good. The association, whose juried membership numbers close to 180, continues to celebrate the heritage and the future of an organization whose vision has been and continues to be to maintain a permanent gallery within Carmel-by-the-Sea; to advance the knowledge of and interest in art, and to create a spirit of cooperation and fellowship between local artists and the public at large. That spirit is alive and well among the association artists, particularly the sculptors, who continue to meet in private homes to foster and maintain their relationship to art, to Carmel, to one another and to plan exhibits through which to share this connection with the community. Robinson, Jill (2016-11-23). "Touring art havens, old and new". San Francisco Chronicle. Archived from the original on 2017-06-19. Retrieved 2020-08-03. The article notes: I pass my hands over stacks of illustrations and paintings, searching for the right item to bring home from the Carmel Art Association Gallery. The oldest gallery in Carmel, it holds the work of more than 100 artists living on the Monterey Peninsula, and I must be touching at least half of that. Brightly colored paintings are displayed on the wall distract me. The Carmel Art Association, a nonprofit organization owned and operated by artists, was founded in 1927. Many of its early members were among great early California artists, including Armin Hansen, William Ritschel, Paul Dougherty, Mary DeNeale Morgan, Percy Gray, Francis McComas, E. Charlton Fortune, John O’Shea and even Salvador Dalí. Owens, Tom; Hall, Julia M. (2000). The Insiders' Guide to the Monterey Peninsula: Including Carmel, Monterey, Pacific Grove, & Pebble Beach. Guilford, Connecticut: Falcon Publishing (Globe Pequot Press). p. 177. ISBN 1-57380-117-8. Retrieved 2020-08-03. The book notes: Carmel Art Association Dolores St. and 5th Ave., Carmel (831) 624-6176 Started in 1927 by a group of local artists, the Carmel Art Association is still an active and vibrant force in the community. Members have included such dignitaries as Armin Hansen, William Ritschel, Arthur Hill Gilbert, Paul Dougherty, Francis McComas, and John O'Shea. Made up of several gallery rooms exhibiting the works of some of the more than 120 artist members, the Carmel Art Association deserves a spot on your gallery tours. Exhibits change monthly, and lectures, demonstrations and openings are often open to the public. Call for details about special programs. Hill, Kathleen Thompson; Hill, Gerald N. (2001). Monterey and Carmel: Eden by the Sea. Guilford, Connecticut: Globe Pequot Press. p. 120. ISBN 978-0-7627-0914-4. Retrieved 2020-08-03. The book notes: As you leave Highland, turn right (south) and you immediately come to the beautiful sculpture garden introducing you to the highly respected Carmel Art Association Galleries. The eighty-year-old institution serves as unifier and artistic home to Carmel's artists. The association is owned and run by more than 120 local artists who exhibit their fine work in all media here at Carmeľs oldest gallery. Manager Janet Howell and friends are extremely hospitable and informative. This is where you find the work of true, actively practicing local artists.

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Carmel Art Association to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 08:42, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Audience says:

  The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary.

  I consider the coverage in the Salt Lake City-based publisher Peregrine Smith Books (Gibbs Smith) to satisfy the "at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary" requirement. I do not consider a book published by Gibbs Smith to be "local media, or media of limited interest and circulation". Had the book been for a limited audience, it would have been published by a local publisher, not a publisher in a different American state.

  The Robert W. Edwards book published by East Bay Heritage Project covers Carmel Art Association in substantial detail and proves through its numerous citations that Carmel Art Association has been covered substantially by local media.

  There is enough coverage to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.

  Cunard (talk) 08:42, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cunard:, I am not going to take the time to review each and every source you have listed, however having looked at #5, I strongly disagree that this source having any meaningful weight in reliable, independent source in the context of establishing notability and I am unsure why you continue to list out sources like this in arguments in opposition of deletion that is being nominated on notability ground. Looking in the source, it's a mere entry in a travel guide that lists numerous businesses, and a paragraph or so of description to each location, so just like an eater's guide. I would say that it's accurate for verifying the address and phone number, at the time of its publication, absolutely nothing for establishing global notability. Graywalls (talk) 09:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Globe Pequot Press book published in 2000 says of Carmel Art Association: "Started in 1927 by a group of local artists, the Carmel Art Association is still an active and vibrant force in the community Members have included such dignitaries as [list of dignitaries]." This can be used to verify that even 73 years after its founding, the association is still a strong part of the Carmel-by-the-Sea, California, art community. I listed it as the fifth source because:

1. it does not provide as much coverage as the earlier sources in the list and
2. its content contributes to notability even though, because it is short, it does not establish notability.

Cunard (talk) 10:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As per the resources availability, the non-profit organization seems notable.DMySon 18:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:16, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AmIAnnoying.com[edit]

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

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

No evidence of sustained coverage outside a CNN article from 2003 I can find barely any references to it online.Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:15, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:15, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I didn't realise that this already had deletion discussions. The reference to The Chicago Tribune story from the 2012 revision was removed, and I can't find any reference to the eNews Channels story on the internet, is 2 profiles in CNN and the Chicago Tribune enought to pass the GNG? Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:21, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've found the Enewschannels.com story Does this count for SIGCOV? Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:28, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

an article in The Guardian, this is definitely enough for SIGCOV, my apologies. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:40, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this illustrates an interesting point about historical notability for websites, all of the SIGCOV I can find dates between 2003 and 2007, which is in line with the Google Trends data. I can't find any reference to the CNN, Chicago Tribune or enewschannel articles outside of a direct search for the text contained within the articles, and so I would never have found them if they were not cited within the article to begin with. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A search for "AmIAnnoying.com -site:AmIAnnoying.com" in google seems to have done the trick, More coverage in Poynter, Village Voice and the Irish Examiner with passing references in the Orlando Sentinel and the Tampa Bay Times Entertainment Weekly The Sidney Morning Herald, the Bermuda Sun, Boston.com and BBC NEWS. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:07, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: You appear to have answered your own question. — Toughpigs (talk) 00:56, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Not sure if nominator is aiming to withdraw? But sources/coverage pass WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 04:16, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Kept at two previous AFDs; no change in standards, keep again. Stifle (talk) 14:04, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There is wide agreement that the article should be deleted but anyone can create a redirect as part of the normal editing process if desired. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Maria Cristina of Savoy-Aosta[edit]

Princess Maria Cristina of Savoy-Aosta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The article is nothing more than a genealogical entry, yet Wikipedia is not a genealogy database. The subject is not encyclopedically notable just like her husband is not. Having had a royal title is not a notability criterion; coverage in sources is, and she does not seem to have any. Surtsicna (talk) 20:14, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 20:14, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 20:14, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is nothing here beyond pro forma genealogical information. This person was only a child when the monarchy of Italy was overthrown, even her royal connection is rather tenuous, the nearest seems to be that her great-grandfather was briefly king of Spain. PatGallacher (talk) 01:03, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per above. Could also redirect to her father's article. Ravenswing 18:32, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and the other comments above. Smeat75 (talk) 15:39, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We are going to drag Wikipedia kicking and screaming into the 21st-century, and stop creating articles on people who only were vague relatives of people who long ago held a crown.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:06, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A deprecated website and a (should-be-deprecated) SPS are the only references for this page. JoelleJay (talk) 21:29, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A non-notable Italian princess. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 01:26, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and the other comment above. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 11:02, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Prince Amedeo, Duke of Aosta#Family, as also suggested by an editor above. A ((R from relative)) seems appropriate here: while there is consensus a standalone article on the subject is not needed, a redirect to her father's article, and more specifically the Family section of that article where she is mentioned seems preferrable over deletion per WP:ATD-R. --Dps04 (talk) 18:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:18, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regan Russell[edit]

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

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

The subject fails GNG. Fails NBIO because there is no depth of coverage in the citations about the subject (the person); all of the citations are about an accidental death and Wikipedia is not a memorial site. Fails NEVENT because of RECENTISM and has no lasting coverage, all the citations are dated from a 13-day period, and Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Normal Op (talk) 19:23, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Normal Op (talk) 19:23, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Normal Op (talk) 19:23, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Normal Op (talk) 19:23, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but rename to Death of Regan Russell. The incident is notable as it has been covered on the national and international stage. While it may be early to assess continued significance, events across the globe (Time of India reporting on event in Mumbai, India) have been named after Russel.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:21, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: That was a "brief mention" at the tail end of a press release, NOT news coverage, and not coverage about the subject person. It's churnalism, not journalism. If there was any news to be had in that article, it was about a food distribution drive. It wasn't even about animal rights, or activists, or Regan Russell. It's still WP:RECENTISM and it's no different than any of the other citations in the wiki article. Normal Op (talk) 08:43, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Her death and life are notable due to ongoing coverage. See CBC News from 15 hours ago [3].BrikDuk (talk) 10:58, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: You are mistaken that that is coverage "about Russell" or even "about Russell's death". That is a story about protesters, a slaughterhouse, and pigs. You need to clear up what is "significant coverage" per Wikipedia:Notability. Normal Op (talk) 16:33, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment:The short article mentions Russell five times, including in the first paragraph.BrikDuk (talk) 17:06, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Another article about the clash of protestors at the facility in response to Russell's death posted today. Article mentions Russell numerous times. This is one more example that shows ongoing, sustained coverage by multiple, reputable news sources.[4] BrikDuk (talk) 22:05, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: More passing mentions. You really should clear up what is meant by "significant coverage" and "passing mention" as it relates to Wikipedia notability guidelines. Normal Op (talk) 22:43, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I suspect (not that this is a particular good argument for AfD purposes) that Russell will be talked about for a while yet. Her death attracted significant international attention (and, as noted above, that content is still being generated). I think it makes sense to have a biographical article about her rather than just an article about her death because she was a significant figure in the Save movement already. RCI called her "prominent" and "one of the pioneers in Canada’s animal-rights movement", for example. Josh Milburn (talk) 06:11, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Her life and her death were widely discussed for an extended period of time, but how widely that discussion was published in 3rd party 'disinterested' media would need to be explored and documented. MaynardClark (talk) 17:39, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above discussion. The article seems well sourced. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:04, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The event is notable not the person, rename it to Death of Regan Russell. - The9Man ^(Talk) 12:07, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Randykitty (talk) 22:10, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of What Would You Do? episodes[edit]

List of What Would You Do? episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:ALS WP:LISTCRUFT article showing by-episode television viewership for a hidden camera show. Article does not contain information that meets guidelines in WP:EPISODE (specifically, "Such pages must still be notable, and contain out-of-universe context, and not merely be a list of episode titles or cast and crew: Wikipedia is not a directory.")

This is not a television series with fictional plot synopses that is appropriate to be chronicled in an article, and the television viewership from hidden camera show episodes do not meet WP:GNG. AldezD (talk) 19:20, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AldezD (talk) 19:20, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. AldezD (talk) 19:20, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. AldezD (talk) 19:20, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, however selectively, to What Would You Do? (2008 TV program). The viewership stats and airdates have relevance to the TV series topic, whether we need all this detail for each individual episode so as to merit a WP:SPLIT is another question. I think it can probably be condensed by season, but I'm wary of dictating the details of that in an AFD. postdlf (talk) 19:27, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the article in question has viewership stats, and airdates relevant (and notable) to the show it's based on. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:10, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment—None of this addresses the WP guidelines above. This is nothing more than listcruft that fails WP:NOTTVGUIDE. AldezD (talk) 20:26, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep yet another deletionist idontlikeit attempt using wikilawyering. 2A01:4C8:54:47B6:31F2:7871:7527:B20C (talk) 11:34, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP A valid spinoff article. The main article wouldn't hold all of the relevant information about the ratings of each episode, so best to have a side article for that. Dream Focus 14:29, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep, the article is notable for its own article, and has enough information to stay. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 15:29, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There is nothing notable about each individual episode of this programme, or the list of episodes as a whole. This article only serves as a collection of TV ratings. WP:NOTSTATS and WP:RAWDATA apply here. Ajf773 (talk) 20:07, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Valid article with what can classified as "important" information about a show. I don't see why we shouldn't keep it. (45.37.82.84) 18:52, 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) 19:42, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Da'unda'dogg[edit]

Da'unda'dogg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Appears to be a non-notable rapper. The sources in the article are two blogs and a deadlink to a Department of Justice site that based on the title and the information it's used to cite, looks to be a primary source document related to a past arrest by the subject. External links are myspace and discogs, useless as sources. [5] is about the death of the subject's son, and only really mentions Da'unda'dogg in a handful of sources. [6] fails WP:SCHOLARSHIP as an undergraduate paper, and only mentions Da'unda'dogg once. Everything else I'm finding looks thoroughly unrelaible. Hog Farm _Bacon 19:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 19:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 19:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 19:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. per nom.--Surv1v4l1st ^{▌Talk|Contribs▌} 23:45, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable rapper.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:45, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete difficult to see how subject is notable. Awbfiend (talk) 02:00, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and the other comment above. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 11:04, 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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:43, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hicham idelcaid[edit]

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

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

I have declined a nomination for A7 speedy deletion since the article does contain some sourcing, which does constitute an assertion of importance. With that said, I cannot see that the subject of the article has made any encyclopedically significant accomplishments beyond what is normal for his career, and I will therefore recommend delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:06, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• speedy delete Then he followed his energy and discovered a new passion, and he started helping people and sharing his passion and spreading positive energy. is utter fucking nonsense. The rest is completely unremarkable and this is what a7/g11 are designed for. None of the sources discuss him in depth and those that do are garbage. Praxidicae (talk) 19:10, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the positive energy hasn’t reached this far I’m afraid. Mccapra (talk) 22:22, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Do I really need to justify that? Alright: WP:BIO. The few alleged sources are dubious, to put it mildly. Reiki healers (and although you can't see me, I am doing air quotes) are thirteen in a dozen, and there's nothing to suggest this one is in any way remarkable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:45, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Devokewater  (^{🦉 talk} _talk🦉) 19:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:00, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There is also a possible COI here; the creating editor claims to have personally taken the photo which now appears in the article, suggesting a connection with the subject. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:07, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:GNG and is definitely very much looking like a resume rather than an encyclopedia entry. -- Dane ^talk 04:20, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and the other comment above. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 11:07, 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 redirect to Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (American game show)#Special editions. A substantial portion of the discussion revolves around whether or not we should be having this AfD. Given that the show is young it would be possible for it to not be notable in April and have passed GNG by now. However, the consensus of participating editors is that this incarnation/version/season (or whatever word you prefer to for this article topic) is not independently notable. As there is an alternative to deletion, redirect is the consensus outcome. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:12, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (season 21)[edit]

Recreation of article removed through prior AFD on 25 April 2020. No details have changed in the eight weeks since the prior AFD closure. Subject adequately covered in Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (American game show)#Special editions. AldezD (talk) 18:52, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AldezD (talk) 18:52, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. AldezD (talk) 18:52, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. AldezD (talk) 18:52, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - this article is on the revival of the show Who Wants to Be a Millionaire which is now being hosted by Jimmy Kimmel. Saying that this is like making a page about one season, and only one is undercutting the situation. On the show's official website, ABC marks the episode as "Season 1" as it's a revival of the show (which was canceled in 2019). This new season has a new host, a different broadcasting system (no audience), and features celebrity contestants, rather than normal ones. The article also has enough references notable for its own page. Because of WP:SUSTAINED, I believe that the article's original reason for deletion has been overruled, as the series has been renewed for a second season (twenty-second overall). Once again, I'm saying "Keep" as this article has enough reviews, viewing information, and references to not be deleted. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:00, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply—This is not a new version of the show, just as there are not four articles for the separate runs of Jeopardy! from 1964–75, weekly syndicated in 1975, syndicated 1978–79 and syndicated 1984–present, nor are there separate articles for each season of Millionaire. It's the same Who Wants to Be a Millionaire program with minor rule changes, which is all covered in the parent article. One series of eight special episodes featuring celebrities does not meet MOS:TV, MOS:EPISODE, MOS:N. It does not have "enough references notable for its own page"—19 of the 25 references are television ratings. Nothing has changed from the deletion discussion that closed eight weeks ago. You are re-creating a page based upon your own opinion that was previously deleted per consensus. AldezD (talk) 20:25, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Six non-rating references are still more than enough to apply for WP:GNG. The difference from the original deleted article (and the reason this article should stay) is that it has been renewed for a second season. The article in question is of a revival, making it notable enough for its own article. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:57, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Move - I've been thinking about your reasoning for a long time @AldezD, and I thought about something. This is a revival of the show Who Wants to Be a Millionaire. The official website, Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic and many other websites count this as its very own show, and I have been thinking that Wikipedia should too. You're right that it would seem off if one out of twenty-one seasons of the show received an article, so I am suggesting that we move this one (after editing it a little bit), to Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (2020 game show), as it has enough information to be notable for its own page, and once again, is a revival of the original series (which has never happened before) and it is being counted as an original series (apart from the rest) by various websites. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 12:59, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose to moving—This is not a separate program (i.e., not "2020 game show") from Who Wants to Be a Millionaire. What you are proposing is simply renaming this article that you recreated after consensus from a prior AFD was to delete it. This article does not meet the guidelines linked above. It is not notable for it's own page. The prior AFD addresses this. Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (American game show)#Special editions contains all necessary details about the eight 2020 episodes. AldezD (talk) 13:57, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Well, in that case, I stand with my original choice that WP:SUSTAINED can apply to this article. The show has a new way to play, a new host, is a reboot, has more coverage, and has enough information to remain its own article. Anyone could argue that this is a different show altogether, and that it also could be moved to Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (2020 game show) -- Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:36, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP Television shows should have articles for their episodes if it list valid information such as the ratings. Dream Focus 17:52, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move - I think the best way to deal with this AfD is to move the article to Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (2020 game show). @AldezD makes a point by saying that one season shouldn't have an article if they rest don't, but this isn't really part of the original either. It's a reboot, a revival, and I believe that it is notable for its article, but that it should be moved to a page article that describes it as its own show. If you visit my sandbox, you can see how the article would look if moved. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 18:02, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Consistent with the previous recent AFD and my comment there. WP:NOTSTATS: We don't have articles on every entity on television just to maintain viewship data. If kept the current title is appropriate. Reywas92^Talk 18:42, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is a recreate from the previous AfD which closed as redirect: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (American game show, season 21). However I don't even think a redirect is sufficient in this case. This goes by the consensus that this series doesn't require articles for each individual season, as there are none others for the first twenty seasons. Ajf773 (talk) 19:59, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - After reading the entire AfD, which changed my opinion from keep to move back to keep, I need to announce my final stance. I suggest we keep this article as it is notable for its own page. It has enough reviews, information, and references to stay and the original AfD can be cleared because I believe WP:SUSTAINED still stands. The article is of a reboot, and has way too much information to simply delete or redirect, so I suggest we keep it. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:18, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I have struck out your previous votes. Ajf773 (talk) 20:31, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment—This recreation of a deleted article does not have "way too much information". It has episode ratings and celebrity contestants, and unsourced winnings for each celebrity. Critical Reception can be added to the parent article. AldezD (talk) 20:40, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Episode summaries (including winnings) can be verified by the episode itself, this isn't "unsourced" as it's not necessary to say "X happened in the show on date. Citation: "Episode 1". Show Aired on date". Not that I disagree with the point, but just FYI. Reywas92^Talk 23:01, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - firstly, I’m deeply troubled that this article has been recreated so quickly after AfD consensus was against a stand-alone article merely eight weeks ago. Secondly, a new host and some new prizes does not equal a “revamp” or “reboot” - it’s just a new season. There’s nothing in this article that can’t be included in the parent article. If editors believe that there’s too much information, we perhaps need to go down the route of looking at WP:FANCRUFT and deleting unsourced records of individual episodes or appearances. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 21:46, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  It wasn't eight weeks ago, it was 25 April 2020, that three months ago. And more people are participating in it this time. Consensus can change. The main article doesn't have room to list the ratings for every single episode in a show that's been around for this many seasons. That is valid information an encyclopedia should have. Dream Focus 22:06, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Dream Focus Whether eight weeks or twelve, it is still highly inappropriate to recreate an article following deletion, as per WP:RADP. Consensus does not change this significantly within twelve weeks. Regarding your views on listing every single episode of a programme such as this - again, I feel this is highly inappropriate as per WP:EPISODE. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:26, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Redirect - I don't normally comment on AfDs apart from ones I've created/started, but I have some thoughts on this, so thought I'd share. First, while I didn't participate in the previous one, from the comments in this, I've seen there was a previous AfD on a similar article that resulted in a redirect. This article definitely seems like a roundabout way at getting around the previous AfD, even the titles of them alone tell that (Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (American game show, season 21) and Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (season 21)). Secondly, whether keeping, deleting, or redirecting this, it's definitely original research referring to this as 'season 21'. While I'm sure there's other series/game shows with special exceptions, we have sources stating this is a 'new' series', with the press release that Millionaire was renewed referring to the renewal being for a second season. Thirdly, regarding what others have said in this AfD, I really don't agree that something like the ratings is enough to warrant keeping this. WP:NOTSTATS and whatever else goes against that entirely. If the main (or one of the main) points of keeping a TV series article is for the ratings alone, there definitely needs to be some more notability for keeping it. Lastly, if this were to be considered as season 21, I still wouldn't see a reason as to why only one of the 21 seasons is worth having an article on. The information on this 'season' or 'new series' can easily be included on the parent article, probably either in the 'Broadcast history' section or the 'Special editions' section (like it currently is, but the info currently there can easily be expanded on). Should also be noted that Nickelodeon's Double Dare has a similar history with different versions over the years, including a recent 2018 reboot/revival. The 2018/19 info is included in the franchise article, rather than having a separate article created just for the 2018 version. I see no reason the same can't be done in this scenario. Magitroopa (talk) 02:27, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the article about the show itself. Having pages for each season is cloying.TH1980 (talk) 03:59, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Move - This is why the option to move the article is still in mind. A reboot has the chance to have its own article considering the circumstances. The article features celebrities, has valid info on the new way the show is made and broadcasted, and is notable for its own page. It could be moved into something like Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (2020 game show) and I believe that option is still valid. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 12:46, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Some Dude From North Carolina you’ve mentioned “the new way the show is made“ - do you mean via video link because of COVID? I feel strongly that we shouldn’t be creating new pages for every single current television programme because they’re filmed in lockdown. Similarly, we don’t have a new page every time a new host joins a show. I honestly fail to see the significant differences of this season from others, that couldn’t be incorporated into the parent article. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 15:10, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply - Significant differences. 1. The first revival of the show, ever. 2. Aired during the COVID-19 pandemic. 3. Featured celebrity contestants. 4. New host, new rules. 5. Has been renewed so WP:SUSTAINED applies to the original AfD. 6. Ratings, viewing data, and reviews can be seen by readers. All of these are significant differences that make the article notable for its own page. Saying this is not notable is like saying the spin-off/reboot of Family Feud is also not notable, which it is. The article has a lot of info, and just deleting it, redirecting it or merging it wouldn't make much sense. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 15:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment—@Some Dude From North Carolina 1. It is not the first revival of the show "ever". Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (American game show)#Who Wants to Be a Super Millionaire aired in 2004, two years after the original regular ABC series ended. That version had significant rule changes, both offering bigger prizes and new lifelines. These are significant differences but do not warrant a separate article for Super Millionaire. Your #2 above, aired during a pandemic? So what? That does not mean it's appropriate to recreate an article previously deleted per consensus. 3. Other celebrity editions have aired since 1999. Those do not have separate articles. 4. Meredith Viera hosted a syndicated edition followed by three others. It does not have it's own article. 5. Your WP:SUSTAINED argument does not point to any changes in the eight weeks since the prior AFD's closure. 6. Ratings of eight celebrity episodes does not meet WP guidelines to recreate an article deleted per consensus. AldezD (talk) 16:04, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Another reply - @AldezD, Who Wants to Be a Super Millionaire was made two years after the original stopped airing, but it wasn't because the original was canceled. It was just a spin-off that happened to take place after a short break from the original show. The article in question is about a revival. The show was canceled, and ABC decided to revive/reboot it. You keep saying 8 weeks, but someone else pointed out that the old AfD is clearly 3 months old, and since then, the show has gained a lot of new viewership and reception, which WP:SUSTAINED applies to. This season is notable for being aired during a pandemic because it changed the way the game was played (empty audience, and new lifeline), and this is the first season which featured only celebrity contestants playing for charity. As @Dream Focus pointed out earlier, this page has enough valid information to stay as its own page. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 16:35, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Some Dude From North Carolina The original 1999 program was canceled in 2002. It stopped airing. Then Super Millionaire aired as a special limited series "during the week of February 22, 2004, and an additional seven episodes later that year in May." It's not a spin-off that took place "after a short break". It was two years later. Same thing happened in 2009 with the "10th Anniversary Celebration". It's not a new show. It does not have it's own article. Neither should "season 21" of this program. "...Since then, the show has gained a lot of new viewership and reception"—No episodes have aired for two months. How can a show "[gain] a lot of new viewership" if it's not airing? You're making arguments against WP guidelines and a previous AFD that resulted in deletion per consensus. AldezD (talk) 16:44, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Yet another reply - @AldezD, once again, I have to tell you that since the last AfD, many things have changed. Considering your reasoning behind Super Millionaire, I have to explain that this revival is different. It is not a special edition, but an actual revival. Many sources sort it as season 1 of a new show, as it was a reboot from the original. Super Millionaire was a special edition spin-off of the show, while the article in question is an entirely new program, as many sources have proven to agree with. For references, see the official website, Rotten Tomatoes, and Metacritic. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 17:51, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Some Dude From North Carolina It’s not the first ever revival, that would be the UK version. At this point it might be worth comparing with the UK version, where I’m from - the original format which was subsequently imported by the US - the UK version has one article for all of its seasons since 1998. This despite having different hosts, formats, prizes, lifelines, rules, a national scandal, celebrity editions, couples editions, axing and recommissioning, and a “revival”. Now I’m not saying that because “other stuff exists” we need to follow this template, but in my opinion this seems a more sensible layout, to divide the franchise by country, rather than by country and season. Re:COVID - completely nonsensical argument, there is no sense in creating a new page for every TV show that’s had to adapt its filming because of COVID, we’d be creating hundreds of new pages unnecessarily. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 20:49, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Article seems notable for its own page according to WP:SIGCOV. (45.37.82.84) 17:33, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect or delete, Wikipedia is not a TV almanac. This is not a keep vote. Stifle (talk) 14:03, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:19, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gilaman[edit]

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

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. The only web sources I could find are mostly focussed on this movement PTM. I cant find many reliable sources that are independent of this subject. The coverage that exists for this person consist mostly of routine coverage of the movement and a few articles regarding his arrest. But certainly "significant coverage" does not exist, which is a key requirement in meeting WP:GNG Kami2018 (talk) 16:21, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:22, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:23, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:23, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:ARTIST because he is a notable Pashto-language poet. One of his published poetry books is "اویا کاله برباد شومه". He is also regarded as one of the leaders of the Pashtun Tahafuz Movement. Khestwol (talk) 17:24, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The person lacks the references to be notable. Whatever his role in the Pashtun Tahafuz Movement is, the article shouldn't be kept without reliable in-depth sources on him. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:21, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Besides being a poet (artist) and political activist, Gilaman was also reported to be a victim of enforced disappearance (after his deportation from Bahrain to Multan Airport) because of his activism in PTM. I think that this event by itself falls under WP:N/CA. Khestwol (talk) 19:31, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be rude or anything, but you can say whatever you want about the person. It's completely meaningless to the AfD process if you don't back it up with sources though. The only reference in the article about anyone getting arrested or anything similar to it doesn't even mention him. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:37, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we need to find more sources about his Pashto poetry to add it to article? It will be in Pashto though. Khestwol (talk) 19:44, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe as long as they proper sources. You might want to look over WP:GNG first though if your not familiar with it. If all the sources are in Pashto, it might better to just create a Pashto article instead. Since it indicates people who speak that language are probably going to be more interested in the person then English speakers. Whoever they are. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:51, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will try to add something. Also, the English-language article from Bahrain which you referred to above does mention him, but by an alternative spelling of his name, "Geelaman". Khestwol (talk) 19:54, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my bad. I was thinking that might have been the case. It doesn't help with finding sources if he goes by a bunch of alternative names. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:55, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He's not going by a buch of alternative names. He only goes by two names, as many Western creative professionals do, but they are not in the Roman alphabet, and there is not such a standardised way of transcribing those names into the Roman alphabet as there is with Russian or Chinese names, for example. Yes, that makes it more difficult to find sources in the Roman alphabet, but it is by no means going by a bunch of alternative names in order to confuse those of us who are most comfortable using English. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:50, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per @Adamant1:
• Update: I have now created a Pashto article on Gilaman as mentioned above. Also, I added another source to this en article [7]. The new source clearly states that Hazrat Naeem Abdul Qayum, alias Gilaman Pashteen, [has] allegedly been abducted and forcibly disappeared. As of now, Gilaman is one of the few people on Wikipedia (6) who are included in Category:2020s missing person cases. Of course, I think Gilaman is also notable for his Pashto poetry. But if this article is deleted, we might need to create another article to at least mention Gilaman's enforced disappearance event from Multan Airport as per WP:N/CA. Khestwol (talk) 20:20, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the subject fails to quality general notability guideline. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 16:23, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• As a side note, as I have written before, the nom Kami2018, who is mass reporting Pashtun articles for deletion, has disruptively edited articles about Pashtuns in the past and was recently given "last warning" on his talk page twice for removing sourced content from various related articles. Thanks, Khestwol (talk) 22:35, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• By giving this argument, I suppose you cannot justify the presence of these articles which have no importance at individual level. Thankyou Kami2018 (talk) 01:38, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination since subject fails WP:NARTIST, WP:POLITICS, and even WP:GNG. Sustained referencing in reliable sources is not there. -The Gnome (talk) 08:42, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A model AfD discussion with thoughtful consideration of sources. Ultimately there is consensus that we don't have enough for an article. Haukur (talk) 21:15, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CJML (AM)[edit]

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

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

Poorly referenced article about a defunct unlicensed low-power temporary special events radio station that operated for a few weeks in 2005. As always, radio stations like this are not entitled to a permanent presumption of notability just because they existed -- but the "references" are unreliable DX-hobby blogs that are not support for notability at all, not real media coverage. And the Recnet entry that was listed as an external link isn't for this station, but for an unrelated FM radio station that isn't even in the same province as this one, let alone the same city. There's simply no real basis, or valid sourcing, for permanent notability here. Bearcat (talk) 04:29, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 04:29, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 04:29, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• All I could find while trying to posit this article's notability were two mentions in the Winnipeg Free Press, but only discussing it as a temporary venture which broadcast for as much as two weeks a month at times in 2005 and 2006. [8][9] Delete. Raymie (t • c) 04:47, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep: Mostly because I can add this DX'er report (which I know is OR but I am willing to believe) to the mix with Raymie's newspaper articles. This could be the shortest-lived AM station in the history of AM radio. :) That, in and of itself, is notable. :D That said, the article won't be missed if it is deleted. A couple weeks worth (if that) of broadcasts on a former station's frequency for "events". It won't be missed. Interesting (for the fact it's short-lived), yes. Missed, no. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:27 on July 12, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome • #BlackLivesMatter

• Delete: Low-power temporary special events stations might be a bit more noteworthy than, say, a "VF" station, but not by much, and it might be difficult to prove if this is "the shortest-lived AM station", given the many short-lived stations in the 1920s (and the lack of guarantees that some other, ultimately-shorter-lived special event station hasn't come along at some point). The two newspaper citations provided ought to be useful as refs for the brief mention of CJML in the article for CKY-FM (the license successor to the old CKY 580, whose frequency was reused for CJML), but that's about it. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:04, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I said it "could" be the "the shortest-lived AM station". :) But I'm interested by weird things, so take that into consideration too. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:12 on July 27, 2020 (UTC) • #WearAMask • #BlackLivesMatter

• Del as non notable; even taking the broad view that every radio station fully licensed and originating programming in USA/Can is notable – which I think is more or less the guideline, no? – there's not even evidence of that (the temporary low-power operation doesn't cut it), nor much utility as a historical reference since details are so scant. Just put a sentence in CKY with the newspaper articles and be done with it. I'm surprised this has been relisted. Xenon54 (talk) 20:01, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:14, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Educational Attainment Disparities Between American Racial and Ethnic Groups within the U.S.[edit]

Educational Attainment Disparities Between American Racial and Ethnic Groups within the U.S. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

While a highly worthy topic, this article seems to me to be Original Research or Synthesis of published material. It is possible that it might be rescuable by WP:TNT Fiddle Faddle 16:50, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 16:50, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 16:50, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 16:50, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Seems like Achievement gaps in the United States covers the same material without being an essay that is clearly arguing for the highly contested view that so-called "cultural factors" are critical in explaining achievement gaps? Material in this article could be merged into "Achievement gaps" where relevant. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 21:29, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• AleatoryPonderings, Merging that which is not OR to the article you mention is a perfectly reasonable outcome Fiddle Faddle 21:44, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is pretty much a collection of original research in order to prove someone's opinion, much like an essay. There is useful material, but it is so disparate we would have to parcel it out to different articles. Zoozaz1 (talk) 22:53, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Thanks for the feedback, I'm new to editing and this is my first new article (and defense of an article)! I understand where commenters so far coming from, but as I read the rules on OR & Synthesis, the main takeaways are:

(1) "no reliable, published sources exist" 

– all of my sources are published, reliable sources;

(2) "serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by any of the sources"

– the article cites over two dozen sources, and the overall conclusion of the article is stated or implied with varying degrees of explicit between them. For example, my citation of John McWhorter's work explicitly cites some parts of black culture as contributing to the "achievement gap" between races in the U.S., while data from the National Center for Education Statistics demonstrates statistically significant and clear differences among races in amount of time high school students spend doing homework. While NCES doesn't explicitly cite cultural differences, they certainly don't state or suggest that there's anything genetic that causes Asian Americans to do 5 or more days per week of homework at a rate that is more than double than that of African Americans. Kathy Seal's article explicitly cites Asian culture as directly contributing to educational outcomes, and the Vuong article concurs to the degree that that it comes with a cautionary warning that Asian parenting and its strict emphasis on achievement may be ultimately be to their children's detriment in some ways.

As AleatoryPonderings mentions above, this is not my original theory or opinion, but something that is already out there in the arena of public debate. Admittedly, the topic raises isn't the most politically correct and it raises some uncomfortable questions, but we know that truths often do that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RubleCain (talk • contribs) 16:16, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The title itself, I will admit, is not WP:SYNTH. However, I still do not think, in this form, that the article is a valid Wikipedia article. It read close to an essay; the lead even has a counteargument in it, implying this is an argument, not an encyclopedia article. The family stability section seems ill-fitted for the article, combining a scholarly and worthy topic of the impact of family stability on school preference with the implication that the culture of each ethnic group somehow contributes to family stability, not shown in any of the sources (Yes, the numbers are different across different cultures, but that does mean the culture itself contributes to it). The uncited claim "Black disparities in marriage appear at all levels of education, suggesting that something more than class status is at play" doesn't help. The section ignores correlation/causation, the existence of systemic racism, and the reality that African American culture is somewhat different from the majority culture of the US, increasing friction and tension (When I say different, I do not mean better or worse; simply that there is a tension that negatively impacts African Americans (or Latinos) across class levels). Furthermore, the second section, a comparative analysis, is inherently WP:SYNTH; you are doing the comparing and has the same problems as before. Note that the sections don't explicitly say that culture impacts education; it is simply says cultural groups has differing degrees of educational success. Ignoring causation vs. correlation and centuries of slavery and discrimination that would logically have an effect on educational achievement. The summary goes on to dismiss that view (again uncited) and claim a conclusion not stated in the vast majority of citations. This is both an essay and very clear synthesis. Zoozaz1 (talk) 16:55, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge after discussion. It should be merged and redirected to Racial achievement gap in the United States. However, I think this page should be kept for now to allow merging of content. My very best wishes (talk) 17:02, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as intrinsically and fundamentally WP:SYNTH. Perhaps references can be used elsewhere, though they are of variable quality (stuff like local news, an op-ed, and a random website are mixed in with the National Academies Press). However, the prose shouldn't. XOR'easter (talk) 23:33, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unless someone is willing to rewrite the article from scratch. Unfortunately, RubleCain appears to have misunderstood the purpose of Wikipedia, writing above about "the overall conclusion of the article". Wikipedia articles don't have conclusions because they don't present their own arguments; this is an essay, not an encyclopedia article. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:14, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or draft then rewrite --Devokewater @ 10:57, 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 merge to Zack and Miri Make a Porno. Sandstein 10:39, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zack and Miri Make a Porno: Music from the Motion Picture[edit]

Zack and Miri Make a Porno: Music from the Motion Picture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Apparently non-notable soundtrack album. I'm finding last.fm (deprecated), the AllMusic entry consists of one user-generated review and a track listing, and a variety of blogs. A NPR piece that came up was about the film, not this album. I found a source in a website title theplaylist.net, but it looks bloggish and I can find no information about that source at WP:MUSICRS or at the WP:RS/N archive. It is possible that there are sources for this, and I just missed them, as I had safe search on while doing my WP:BEFORE. However, I found no good reliable coverage of this. Has been in CAT:NN since 2018. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:02, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:02, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:02, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:02, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into the film article. Donaldd23 (talk) 22:01, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Zack and Miri Make a Porno KidAd (💬💬) 06:53, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Zack and Miri Make a Porno: Not notable enough to have a standalone article. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:09, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into the film article. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 11:09, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into the film article. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 17:53, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 06:51, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Big Valley, Lassen County, California[edit]

Big Valley, Lassen County, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Another entry created from Durham's gazetteer, but other sources do not agree that it is a town. Mostly they say that it means the whole valley itself, but Gudde identifies it as an early name for Nubieber, which is southwest of Bieber, by the way. I just don't think this is an actual town, and it's pretty clear that the population numbers from the one site are for the whole area. Mangoe (talk) 12:58, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 14:27, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 16:54, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - If it has a population, it's a town. Also, it passes WP:GEOLAND as it has a source from the United States Department of Agriculture. Koridas 📣 17:56, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but this is just ridiculously inadequate. Let me spell it out: the Big Valley is, duh, a big valley, encompassing (according to the one site I found) four cities/towns as well as a lot of territory between them. Here is the first paragraph of that USDA report:

The Big Valley area comprises the northwestern part of Lassen County and the southwester part of Modoc County, Calif. It lies near the northwestern corner of the State, about 55 miles south of the Oregon boundary and about the same distance from the western boundary of Nevada. The area is irregular in outline, with a maximum length north and south of 23 miles and a breadth of approximately 20 miles. It contains 245 square miles, or 156,000 acres.

Of course an area that large has a population, as does Lassen County, California and California itself and the United State of America and North America and the Western Hemisphere and the Earth. None of them are towns, and this valley isnot either. Mangoe (talk) 18:11, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The question when it comes to WP:GEOLAND is if it's a census tract or not, and it seems to be. So, I'm going with not notability. "Population" isn't really relevant in this case. Since a small farm is technically "populated." What matters is if the place was only named and put into the GNIS system for the sake of the census--Adamant1 (talk) 19:28, 9 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete "If it has a population, it's a town." is nonsense. Big Valley is a census county division (census source), which is a purely statistical entity used by the census and is not (a town). California has almost 400 of these and they are not notable places. A separate Big Valley (California) article may be appropriate for the landform, could be merged with Big Valley Mountains though not sure that's really a notable range... Reywas92^Talk 19:32, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. "has a population" is not sufficient. Glendoremus (talk) 04:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEEP - I improved it a bit by adding the newspaper and citation https://www.tipurdy.org/archives/files/lassen-county-obituary-index/big-valley-gazette-1907-1956/ I was surprised a place with a population and a newspaper would appear in the deletion lists. The population as such would revolve around the newspaper. Goldenrowley (talk) 19:40, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to say, Whether or not you categorize it as a town or a valley with people in it, that shouldn't be the argument. Unincorporated places are legitimate topics. Goldenrowley (talk) 19:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The paper was published not in a town called "Big Valley", but in Bieber, California, an actual, still-extant town which is the only substantial population center in the Big Valley. So it is hardly surprising that the publishers should name their journal so as to encompass the larger area, but it doesn't in the least show that there was a specific settlement called "Big Valley"; indeed, it tends to argue for the opposite.

And it does matter. I'm happy for you to go write an article on the physical feature called "Big Valley", and list the towns lying therein, but that's not this article. Mangoe (talk) 19:55, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rewriting would be tedious. All you'd need to do is call it a valley, and categorize it a populated valley, rather than a town. The title doesn't say town, so it could keep the same namespace. Goldenrowley (talk) 17:52, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's not a town, but as a valley it appears to be notable. Perhaps rename to Big Valley (Lassen County, California). ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 17:50, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. California Mountain regions populations are not like New England, it orgazines around a lake or a highway and it's misleading to judge Northern California rugged areas by how big the town center is. Not that you have, I was just thinking how we make a big deal here in Northern California whenever we see any gold miners settle, even a few. Usually there's a mine or a lake or something that they center around. Goldenrowley (talk) 19:39, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:22, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alliance of Renewal Churches[edit]

Alliance of Renewal Churches (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG. See also WP:NORG. Google News Archive search shows only passing mentions. Google Books search reveals only two pages of discussion in one book, and a description in a self-published source here. Daask (talk) 17:28, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Daask (talk) 17:28, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Daask (talk) 17:28, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Daask (talk) 17:28, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• This is covered in reasonable depth in this pan-Lutheran overview type book: [10]; another such book is Brug's WELS and Other Lutherans, which is probably the most comprehensive of such works and attempts to be scholarly with footnotes. Along with the "Apostles Today" coverage, that is substantial coverage in three reliable, third party sources, meaning this denomination meets GNG. Additionally, this is the only charismatic Lutheran denomination ever in history that identifies as Lutheran--excepting the by some measures certain Laedstanti in Scandinavia which are charismatic not from the larger movement but due to indigenous influences and also maybe excepting the Christ's Household of Faith commune in St. Paul although they may not identify as such. This Lutheran charismatic factor makes it more interesting to write about. American Lutheranism has a side-history of charismatics within the larger denominations during the 20th century, but most of that has died down (or in some cases, pastors get kicked out and form non-Lutheran congregations with their supporters). The ARC is to-date a continuation of this history and curious because it stayed Lutheran.

Some years back I edited a template for American Lutheran denominations and vetted them myself to see if they were legit--this one passed the "test" so to speak because it is in fact a real denomination with congregations and ministers. At the time nearly all congregations were co-rostered with the ELCA, a much larger denomination. Yet since then the ELCA has cracked down on co-rostering and I would not be surprised if more of the ARC congregations are either only Alliance of Renewal Churches rostered or co-rostered with another more flexible denomination such as LCMC.

The denominations which failed my vetting were possibly defunct or were shells to enable sort of a fantasy world where ordinations are purchased and clergy have meetups without regular physical congregations. I think they have been deleted already.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:24, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources identified above so the subject passes WP:GNG in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 18:26, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But where are those "multiple" and "reliable" ones? This does not help. -The Gnome (talk) 08:47, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete we cannot keep an article that is only sourced to a subject's website. Nor can we keep an article that uses so much jargon.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:07, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additional references have been identified in this discussion and jargon can be removed as per WP: so fix it, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:45, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete since subject is evidently not notable. Even with the article being nominated for deletion, efforts to keep it have not been able to identify leverage on which to claim notability. Wikipedia is not a directory of religions nor a compendium of random information. -The Gnome (talk) 08:47, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 06:56, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjeev Aggarwal[edit]

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

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

Purely a promotional article WP:PROMO. Fails WP:GNG. Calling for an AfD Discussion. Kindly note Amplus Energy Solutions, a company founded by this businessman is currently going through AfD discussion. Hatchens (talk) 16:58, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 16:58, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 16:58, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. (I'm willing to change my vote to redirect to Amplus Energy Solutions if it passes its own AfD discussion). ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 18:19, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep

1) A couple of in-depth references: Reference1, Reference2. These are the first links I've found.

EDIT: Found what seems to be another in-depth, reliable source. Reference3. This is a case study by IIM-Ahmedabad, IIM-Ahmedabad is frequently compared to Harvard Business School and in my experience clearly has the #1 spot in terms of fame. I haven't been able to access it due to money required to see it, but from the limited synopsis/contents it seems to be very in-depth and covers the subject well. I think these three sources meet the WP:3REFS guideline.

2) I distinctly remember during the creation of the article sifting through multiple sources which seemed non-trivial yet didn't have a very high depth of coverage. This satisfies the WP:BASIC criteria which says that in place of one in-depth story, multiple independent secondary sources can combine to show notability. A simple google search will show multiple such links.

EDIT: Adding a bit more context: Non-triviality on WP:BASIC is defined as how far removed the coverage is from a simple directory entry and how in-depth it is. So, basically what the criteria mentioned above says, from what I understand, is that even if sufficient depth is absent, multiple sources can combine to show notability. There are quite a few links in which news sources have published his opinions on relevant stuff. Which suggests to me that he is viewed as an expert. What's the community's view of this? For eg. Link1Link2. A simple common-sense thought experiment can be: What if a user reads any of these comments in these famous newspapers by the subject of this article and wants to know more about him. What's the first place people go to gather more information? Wikipedia ofcourse! And if we're able to provide information to all of those people, I think it's a valuable article and completely in line with the Wikipedia mission at large. Also, these do seem fairly far removed from a simple directory entry.

3) The fact that there is coverage in reliable print media about the article's subject for a long period of time (Reference, 2007 through recent years, see above referenced articles) shows endurance, a central part in establishing notability.

4) From a common sense point of view, the article referred to in point 1 (Reference1) indicates a case study about this (this refers to both the person and the company he founded) is used at IIM - Ahmedabad. IIM-Ahmedabad is about as reliable as you can get, with multiple sources having called it the Harvard Business School of India. Also that 2006 article mentions that the person in question was an executive at a fortune 200 company. Of-course, this doesn't establish notability in line with Wikipedia's notability guidelines, but this does give broader context important for the article.

Coming to your promotional point, yes, this article and the Amplus Energy Solutions do seem to have an issue with promotional content. The promotional content seems to have been inserted after I had published the article. Those changes should be reverted/cleaned up. --Hmanburg (talk) 19:39, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Neutral: The listed sources are mainly focused the company he founded, whose article is undergoing it's own AfD and will likely be deleted, and barely mention him. The given links are also mostly quote-mentions which is a pretty common PR tactic. Paying for these types of quote mentions is pretty common in India, and this fact shouldn't be ignored considering the history and subject of the article. My BEFORE search suggests no notability. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 23:53, 23 July 2020 (UTC) I'm not sure anymore. I don't have enough experience with AfDs of businesspeople and executives. WP:NBUSINESSPEOPLE states that "Biographical material on heads and key figures of smaller companies which are themselves the subject of Wikipedia articles are sometimes merged into those articles and the biographies redirected to the company" and Amplus article is deleted. Some American solar company founders do have articles, but I think they should be nominated for deletion too. Maybe I'll nominate them for deletion to see the outcome and then decide here, but currently I can't make a decision. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 21:14, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TryKid: I'm not sure if you are referring to the references I have provided above (which I have added to the article). Incase you are, I'll put a few quotes from the mint article and the Ken article, which you might have missed and show that the articles indeed do talk in depth about the subject.

Mint:

Founder Sanjeev Aggarwal, its managing director and chief executive officer, became the poster boy of India’s solar sector and was invited to overseas events where India made a pitch for foreign investments in its growing green economy. His business model became the subject of a case study by the Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad.

The Ken:

For an energy professional who decided to strike out on his own in 2010, his initial proposed coal and gas plants nearly burnt him down. Coal in India was hit by the mega coal block allocation scam post 2009.

Soon after, Aggarwal, founder and chief executive of Amplus Solar, hit gold with distributed solar energy. Building, operating and maintaining solar plants on rooftops of businesses, who pay anywhere between Rs 4.50 to Rs 6 per unit of electricity, cheaper than what they pay for grid electricity, worked out well.

Hmanburg (talk) 12:19, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, for some reason your ping to me failed and I didn't get any notification. The Mint article seems reliable, it mainly covers Amplus but it isn't enough to establish the founder's notability. The promotional tone of that article seems to have played a big hand in it's deletion. This doesn't seem to be as promotional. Maybe you can copy this to WP:DRAFT and try to create it through the WP:AFC process? Regards, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:47, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TryKid: I think it is impossible to get people to change their mind on the internet (and the deletion brigade also is pretty aggressive), but anyway here goes: Although the Mint article does cover Amplus in detail, it clearly focuses on the subject as a major part of the article. I agree that the article alone isn't sufficient to establish notability due to the requirement of multiple sources, but multiple sources are there. You might have done just a quick skim of my original response, missing relevant material. The Mint is obviously an extremely reliable source per this and also what you pointed me to - User:Winged Blades of Godric/Indian Media. The Ken is arguably even more reliable than Mint. Their website clearly shows the level of excellent journalism they do. I did read the article a while back, but don't have access to it now since my subscription has expired. It is extremely in depth about the subject of the article and clearly well researched by the editor. The next source, the IIM-Ahmedabad case. Case Studies by IIM-Ahmedabad usually contain very detailed information and coverage about everything and it's 19 pages long. Although I don't have access to it, due to the general way cases are organised and the synopsis+summary available, I believe it would qualify as the third source and satisfy notability per WP:3REFS. Besides that, I have read print sources (physical newspapers) which cover the subject in-depth; I haven't mentioned this and disregard this since there is no way I can find them or in anyway reference them. These are just the sources I found on the internet by googling. These alone are sufficient to establish notability imo, and I haven't done a deep dive on all sources that exist. I hate to call upon this fact, but I think there is definitely an angle of Eurocentric bias is biographies on Wikipedia due to structural issues. I don't think a similar article about a white American who graduated from Harvard Business School (IIM-A for India) and had US sources with a similar level of reliability would ever have been nominated for AfD. Also, I have seen Indian editors completely ignore Indian articles and hop on to the bandwagon for foreign articles. I have also substantially improved the article, and I agree that in it's previous state it wasn't keepable on Wikipedia. The fact that such a substantial biography with details was possible to create solely through secondary sources strongly suggests notability. Using WP:COMMON I think this article also clearly helps the project in being an online encyclopedia. Considering all this and more, I think notability is clearly established and we should keep the article. Hmanburg (talk) 19:50, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I have added valid references (those mentioned above) to the article per WP:HASREFS and have improved the article. Hmanburg (talk) 12:20, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I suggest that this AfD should stay open for another week if an administrator thinks there is possibility of more discussion. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 21:14, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I think the person is notable per WP:BLP, WP:GNG, but the problem is with the tone and information mentioned in the article. It needs to be changed as its not per WP:NPV. The article may be kept but it should be much thin to pass as an encyclopedic entry. --Harryishere (talk) 10:15, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Waiting for the Sun. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:14, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We Could Be So Good Together[edit]

We Could Be So Good Together (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable song, fails WP:NSONG. Nothing significant written about it, only passing mention in the context of the album or a performance. Merge to album article Waiting for the Sun. Binksternet (talk) 21:26, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Binksternet (talk) 21:26, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Binksternet (talk) 21:26, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge or Delete Only brief mentions appear, usually in the context of album reviews/analyses. Fails the "subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label" requirement of NSONGS. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:02, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I am not sure that the references currently in the article represent the entirety of references that exist for this more than half century old subject whose references are likely mostly offline. But given the current state a merge or redirect would be appropriate until someone actually finds other sources. Given that there is reliably sourced content here and the likelihood of additional sources that are less accessible, deletion would not be appropriate. Rlendog (talk) 15:37, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was able to find additional coverage on newspapers.com. Admittedly, this is primarily within album reviews so does contribute much to the song's standalone notability but helps indicate why merge or even redirect is more appropriate than deletion. I would actually suggest a merger with Unknown Soldier should be considered rather than the album article, since this was the b-side of Unknown Soldier, and the album article does not have sections devoted to each song. Rlendog (talk) 13:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Decent amount of coverage in the article, including a solid paragraph from Doors FAQ. Also some coverage here, here, and here. WP:NSONGS states that an "article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." We have enough for a reasonably detailed article. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 18:20, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • NSONGS gives that advice for topics that have already passed the notability requirements of having significant non-trivial coverage of the song outside of the context of the album. Your Stephen Davis book link mentions the song in passing in the context of the album it was left off. Your Laurence Coupe book link shows Coupe talking about Morrison as Dionysus, with no significant discussion of the song. The Doors FAQ gives the song one entire paragraph. I don't see NSONGS being satisfied enough. Binksternet (talk) 19:56, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 23:33, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nomination proposes merge, not delete. Rlendog (talk) 13:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge the text that's amply supported by sources to Waiting for the Sun and place a Redirect under this title. -The Gnome (talk) 08:38, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:46, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of movie umbrella titles in North America[edit]

List of movie umbrella titles in North America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not a necessary or useful list. Doesn't meet WP:LISTN or WP:GN. Boleyn (talk) 17:16, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom (the reference in the nom to WP:GN should probably be to WP:GNG instead). This is a list of the titles that various television networks and local stations gave their movie programming, such as "The 6 O'Clock Movie" or "The Morning Movie" or "The Late Show" -- or, in the case of Cartoon Network, "Movies". However, few of these series of movies are individually notable and there are few sources provided for this long list. In fact, many of these series seem unlikely to have been notable as series to anyone outside the network's or station's own promotional department. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:36, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:34, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:34, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:34, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:34, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:34, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and WP:NOR. A lot of this appears to be original research and TVTango doesn't appear to be a reliable source. Ajf773 (talk) 08:53, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The vast majority of these aren't independently notable in their own right, and an even more overwhelming majority of them aren't reliably sourced at all — and mostly unsourced lists of mostly non-notable things is exactly the kind of lists we shouldn't be keeping. Bearcat (talk) 10:56, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• The notable ones are categorized under the more apt label Category:Motion picture television series, and a list corresponding to that group would be appropriate. I don't see the encyclopedic value in listing every local affiliate's local movie branding. Given that it would take a complete rewrite and retitling to turn this into a notable entry-only List of motion picture television series, I'm actually thinking WP:TNT may be appropriate here (which it almost never is). postdlf (talk) 18:02, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:47, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Ortrud of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg[edit]

Princess Ortrud of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is a purely genealogical entry, yet Wikipedia is not a genealogy database. She was a princess only to those who chose to call her that and the general public had no idea that she existed. She lived a private life as a private citizen and an encyclopedia has no business covering her. Surtsicna (talk) 17:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 17:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 17:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete She was not really a princess or a duchess since she was born after Germany became a republic, and some decades after the Kingdom of Hanover was annnexed by Prussia. PatGallacher (talk) 18:11, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and the other comment above. Smeat75 (talk) 15:42, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not supposed to be a genealogical dictionary even for royal families that held power, this applies even more to royal families deposed before the subject of coverage was born.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:10, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Yet another article sourced entirely to genealogy books. JoelleJay (talk) 21:25, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Devokewater @ 10:55, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and the other comment above. Olaf Kosinsky (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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:50, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra, Princess of Leiningen[edit]

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

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

Seven years ago, the article was kept rather than deleted because "reliable sources were added". The reliable sources cited in the article, however, do not indicate that the subject is notable. They are genealogical publications that confirm only her existence and relationships to other people. That does not qualify as "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", i.e. the article does not pass WP:GNG. I cannot find anything about her in either English- or German-language media. Surtsicna (talk) 17:02, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 17:02, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 17:02, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I think a number of Wikipedians are trying to reduce the amount of "deposed monarchy cruft", particularly in relation to the former royal family of the Kingdom of Hanover, which was annexed by Prussia way back in 1866. This person did survive a previous deletion discussion back in 2013, but the most serious argument could have been that she took part in a marriage between the descendants of Queen Victoria and Christian IX, hardly a serious claim to notability. PatGallacher (talk) 18:26, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We need an end of this deposed monarchy cruft. Being in a marriage that gets some notice is not in any way, shape, means or form a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:30, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I strongly agree with the nom and the other comments above. Smeat75 (talk) 15:46, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. When the only sections in a modern person's article are "Marriage and issue", "Titles and styles", and "Ancestry", that person is not notable. JoelleJay (talk) 21:20, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable --Devokewater @ 10:58, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and the other comment above. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 11:14, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the article on her husband, Andreas, Prince of Leiningen. A ((R from spouse)) seems appropriate here: while there is consensus a standalone article on the subject is not needed, a redirect to her husband's article (where she is mentioned) seems preferrable over deletion per WP:ATD-R. --Dps04 (talk) 18:01, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:54, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Malik Gant[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:NGRIDIRON, having never played professionally. Fails WP:GNG due to a lack of significant coverage I've been able to uncover. Fails WP:NCOLLATH having a run-of-the-mill college football career at a lower-level FBS school. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:46, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:46, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:46, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete seems to have no professional career and a typical college football career. Coverage in news appears to be fan blogs and transaction-type data, so I'm unable to find any notability measure for passing. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NGRIDIRON, and any other notability measure I can think of. Could be worthwhile in an online sports almanac or other information site, so I suggest enthusiastic editors try another wiki.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:35, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• DeleteI'm the one who created the page, at the time he was on the roster of the New England, and I thought other fans of the team would like to know some basic details on the players, and I did try to find the best sources that are not much different that those of other minor football players, but I see the reasoning behind remooving it and would add if washed out of the NFL before ever playing in a single game and he has become a privet citizen now I see no reason not to remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historymaj18 (talk • contribs) 07:17, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Some coverage but I don't think it's enough for GNG. Would be willing to reconsider if more sources come up. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 13:46, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Cbl62 (talk) 14:21, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Devokewater  (^{🦉 talk} _talk🦉) 19:52, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:NGRIDIRON, WP:NCOLLATH, and WP:GNG, per all above. Ejgreen77 (talk) 07:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a totally not notable football player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:19, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 11:15, 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 delete. Sandstein 06:52, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fundamentally Cynical[edit]

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

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

doesn't appear to be a notable show and has virtually no coverage outside of a minor piece in a local paper. Praxidicae (talk) 10:30, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:36, 11 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📧) 11:36, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Don't see a lot of folk raving on it. It pretty much went unnoticed. Might be WP:TOOSOON although there it a lot of animation on the go. Delete scope_creep^Talk 22:19, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unverifiable with no significant 3rd-party coverage. --Lockley (talk) 20:46, 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.