The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. qedk (t 愛 c) 05:10, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Irish Legal 100[edit]

The Irish Legal 100 (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 list does not meet the WP:GNG. Most coverage is routine or announcements of its existence. Deprodded in 2010 by its creator and has not come up for deletion since. Raymie (t • c) 04:31, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 04:31, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 04:31, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the Irish Voice (which is pretty content lacking already). --Prosperosity (talk) 06:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Yet another useless society pages article of little outside renown. Nate • (chatter) 23:55, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I can find lots of metions of people being on the list but no coverage of note on the list itself. -- Whpq (talk) 19:16, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete do not redirect, as there is no sourced mention of the list in the Irish Voice article and it's doubtful to be WP:DUE there. buidhe 01:36, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Academic Challenger (talk) 17:44, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

African Hebrew Development Agency[edit]

African Hebrew Development Agency (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 only reference - a Youtube video - takes you to African Boreholes Initiative Ltd. Rathfelder (talk) 20:58, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 20:58, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:02, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not youtube. You need more sourcing than a youtube video posted by someone connected to the subject.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:04, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. -Hatchens (talk) 04:40, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Academic Challenger (talk) 17:47, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Atlético[edit]

Atlético (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:ARTIST. Cannot find any mention of this group anywhere in any language. Rogermx (talk) 20:47, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 20:47, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 20:47, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 20:47, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the article is in bad shape, seeing as it does not mention any sources. The group does seem real, per this UNAM/MUAC museum listing. Research in Spanish would be helpful for finding sources. I saw this in Spanish, and the Spanish Wikipedia article has ten sources that are worth investigating. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:41, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• The Spanish version has some citations. Some dead links though. Worth checking perhaps? Vexations (talk) 21:53, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A Mexican art collective of 20 years ago. The OP looks to be a responsible editor, mostly about football, so no obvious evidence of self-promotion or COI. I went through all the Spanish-language article's links, predisposed to discover something marvelous about Mexican art collectives of 20 years ago. But then the projects sound gassy. "The first pieces they made were a series of postcards sent by email with photos of the members and funny or ironic phrases about their private characters, then they continued this practice with stickers that were suddenly distributed." The sources are no better. The linked biography of one member (es:Dulce Chacón (ilustradora)) doesn't even mention or link back to Atlético. There's no visible lasting influence, or sustained careers, or connection to other collectives, or place within any larger aesthetic scene or cultural moment. I wanted it to be notable. --Lockley (talk) 08:36, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'll agree with Lockley's analysis. Not much to be found here. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 11:51, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Article has no sourcing, and after an online search, I could not find anything to add to it in the way of sourcing or in depth coverage. Does not pass GNG or NARTIST guidelines. Netherzone (talk) 19:35, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Academic Challenger (talk) 17:53, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RockCrete[edit]

RockCrete (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 startup. References are from Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn and other unreliable sources. Google search gave some results for a different company of the same name, but next to nothing for this one. M4DU7 (talk) 20:32, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 20:32, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 20:32, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: An article about a consultancy, sourced to routine listings and featuring a product list and information on a minor Twitter campaign that they ran. Searches find listings of similarly-named but apparently unrelated construction companies but no evidence of notability for this firm (or as RockCreteDesign or RYU Ventures). AllyD (talk) 07:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom as non-notable. --Lockley (talk) 04:32, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all of the above Spiderone 08:22, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Academic Challenger (talk) 17:54, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Christie, California[edit]

Christie, 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)

No evidence of notability. Durham's "Place Names of the San Francisco Bay Area" calls it a locality on the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad. Google maps shows nothing at the location except a nearby PG&E substation. No evidence that this was ever a community. Glendoremus (talk) 20:18, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

8:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This location is near the border between two quad maps which, oddly, show the name in different locations, but there's no sign of anything but a substation and a couple of sidings. No evidence of a notable place here. –dlthewave ☎ 20:45, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete if it is an unpopulated place, as it seems to be. --Lockley (talk) 01:20, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I searched the 1878, 1882, 1917, and 1940 histories of Contra Costa County and found no mentions of Christie except in passing as a railroad station and in a list of "communities and stations". Searching for people "born in Christie", and excluding results from other states, turned up no results. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 04:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Academic Challenger (talk) 17:40, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sami Mnaymneh[edit]

Sami Mnaymneh (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 independent notability demonstrated beyond HIG Capital. Slashme (talk) 19:26, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Slashme (talk) 19:26, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Background: this article has previously been redirected to HIG Capital but recreated. Source review: --Slashme (talk) 19:27, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: "Private Equity 4.0: Reinventing Value Creation", printed by John Wiley & Sons, is a reliable (and scholarly) source that provides in-depth coverage on Sami Mnaymneh: "H.I.G. Capital was founded in 1993 by Tony Tamer, previously a partner at Bain & Company, and Sami Mnaymneh, who brought hands-on deal-making expertise, having been a managing director advising private equity clients at heavyweight Blackstone Group. Before his spell at Blackstone, Mnaymneh was a VP in the M&A department at investment bank Morgan Stanley & Co., where he devoted a significant amount of his time to leveraged buyouts and served as senior advisor to a number of prominent US private equity firms." It's evident from this paragraph that Mnaymneh's notability extends beyond HIG Capital. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:46, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I listed that source above, and I don't see that coverage as in-depth at all, and in fact, he's only mentioned in a section about HIG, so it definitely doesn't imply independent notability. --Slashme (talk) 12:57, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Yes lots of coverage comes from to press releases but the source from Forbes is written by the staff member thus absolutely passes WP:RS. John Wiley & Sons cannot be ignored either, so WP:GNG is met. Other references include: [1][2] which are good for establishing that he is well known to independent reliable sources. Bvatsal61 (talk) 07:05, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you look at the Forbes source? It's a bare listing of facts. Neither the Bloomberg source nor the Telegraph source that you list goes into much detail about Mnaymeh himself: the one's an article about takeover talks between HIG and another company, and the other is about how HIG owns a bed company in Britain, again only going to show notability in the context of HIG, not independent notability. --Slashme (talk) 12:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. It is a strange thing, that someone so rich can be so obscure in WP:RS, however, that seems to be the case. The Private Equity 4.0: Reinventing Value Creation ref is about his firm (which is notable), and not him. The Forbes article is not about him, but a type of deal that many private equity firms are using (him being one). Most of the other refs are really WP:MILL stuff about his firm's deals (again, his firm is notable), in which he gets a passing mention. I cannot find a single WP:SIGCOV piece from a good independent RS on him as the principal subject – a strange outcome, but hard to see how this does not end up as a being Redirect to his firm, HIG? Perhaps some good RS will do a piece on him in the future? Britishfinance (talk) 13:51, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Disregarding sock votes, the consensus is to delete. qedk (t 愛 c) 05:10, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kunni[edit]

Kunni (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)

A non-notable short film with no significant coverage in reliable sources and no evidence of satisfying WP:NFILM. The previous AfD was closed a year back as "no consensus" and I'm still not seeing anything that establishes notability. GSS ^💬 08:16, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 08:16, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 08:16, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:FILM. Craffett (talk) 08:27, 7 June 2020 (UTC) — Craffett (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

@Craffett: which part of WP:NFILM? GSS ^💬 08:28, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article is well written and WP:cites sources. Craffett (talk) 08:29, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to impersonate me, at least make good arguments. creffett (talk) 13:34, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Passes WP:GNG.52Tarby (talk) 12:32, 7 June 2020 (UTC) Struck comment by Kingshowman sock. JavaHurricane 13:35, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The references in the article are extremely questionable. As they only seem to contain trivial coverage. There isn't multiple in-depth reviews of the film out that I could find for notability either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamant1 (talk • contribs)

• Delete Resources are weak and not reliable. Fails WP:RS. DMySon 05:09, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The consensus seems pretty clear (non-admin closure) Celestina007 (talk) 18:31, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tems[edit]

Tems (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)

Subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources hence fails to satisfy WP:GNG. She is a musician but fails to satisfy any single criterion from WP:MUSICBIO. Having carried out a WP:BEFORE i found this source but it looks like a paid for promo article hence unreliable. Celestina007 (talk) 18:44, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 18:44, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 18:44, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 18:44, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 18:44, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 18:44, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep: I can relate with the angle of the nom, as I still consider her an upcoming musician but with an Headies nomination (for vocal performance) and a couple of reviews to her music, I am inclined to vote a keep. Without the Headies nomination, I would have been neutral or weak delete. HandsomeBoy (talk) 23:52, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Some of her songs have been critically reviewed, including "Looku Looku" and "Try Me". Her single "These Days" also received coverage in Pitchfork. Apart from this, she has been interviewed by reliable outlets such as The Fader and OkayAfrica. In addition to her nomination at The Headies, she was revealed as one of YouTube's 2020 Class of Foundry artists. The article can definitely be expanded though.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 00:10, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Versace1608, I really do not believe subject of this article has done enough to merit a stand alone article at this point. I mean per se she certainly doesn’t satisfy any criterion from WP:MUSICBIO, Anyway, at least now people would believe we aren’t married or bound by blood oath in real life hahahahaha. Celestina007 (talk) 15:20, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have removed the ((Undisclosed paid)) because I see no evidence for this: looking at the article edit history it was initially created by an editor who edits a wide range of topics, has been expanded by people such as Victuallers. ... OK, looking at creating editor's talk page I see they have been asked about paid advocacy but have denied it. PamD 10:00, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Some of her songs are well listened too, in the millions. Perhaps she is very early in her career. Certainly notable at the moment. Unfortunately "Tems" is shorthand for "Transanal endoscopic microsurgery", so doing a search is difficult. I think it is reasonable keep, but proving it is difficult, hence weak keep. scope_creep^Talk 18:15, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. WP:CSK no. 3; clearly the nominator has not looked, as suggested, at the French page (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:25, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CRISES[edit]

CRISES (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)

Finding verifable sources have failed. Therefore WP:DEL#7 Nightvour (talk) 12:38, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:28, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:28, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Have you tried the sources in fr:Centre de recherches interdisciplinaires en sciences humaines et sociales? (not watching, please ((ping)) if you need a reply) czar 15:57, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Redirect optional. Sandstein 10:21, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Arcana: Or Stock And Share Key[edit]

The Arcana: Or Stock And Share Key (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 article is mainly WP:OR. It has superficial referenciness but the references don't actually support most of the content. Obviously it's bollocks, but I don't think it's notable bollocks. Guy (help!) 12:28, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:01, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:01, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/Redirect to Sepharial. As described by the nom, the bulk of this article appears to be WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. While it superficially looks like there are numerous sources, most of these do not mention the topic at all. They are on a variety of other astrological or financial topics that have nothing to do with this pamphlet, that have been cobbled together to give the appearance of sourced content. The few sources that actually do talk about the topic are either the pamphlet itself, or from non-reliable sources. Searching for additional sources largely turns up the same - primary sources from the author of the pamphlet, or mentions in WP:FRINGE publications. The author of the pamphlet, Sepharial currently has an article, however, that article itself is poorly sourced and bare bones, and I have not looked into whether he was actually notable himself. If he is, this article would, at least, be a useful Redirect there. If not, this can be deleted. Rorshacma (talk) 19:31, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, without prejudice against restoring to draft if sources become available. BD2412 T 05:25, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

M. L. R. Karthikeyan[edit]

M. L. R. Karthikeyan (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)

Apart from trivial mentions here and there, I'm unable to find any reliable third party sources featuring or covering the subject that may warrant his own wiki. The lack of References does not help either. May be worth merging with more notable subjects. Infogapp1 (talk) 18:04, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Infogapp1 (talk) 18:04, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 18:12, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable singer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:49, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Lack of reliable, independent resources. The entire article is written without cited any source. And notability is in question WP:SINGER. DMySon 05:16, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:20, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

European Movement in Finland[edit]

European Movement in Finland (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)

Apart from the org's website, I'm unable to find any third party reliable sources or media coverage that can verify its claims whether it be significance or notability. Infogapp1 (talk) 17:58, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 18:13, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 18:13, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 18:15, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I cant find any RIS for this at all. The fi.wiki article isn’t any better. Mccapra (talk) 05:33, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Academic Challenger (talk) 17:50, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Masha Nazeem[edit]

Masha Nazeem (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)

She won a non-notable award. And was invited by the president to Rastrapathi bhawan(the equivalent of being called to the white house). Her inventions could be significant, but didn't really take off to a level to be considered notable. The only point of notability is a few articles in multiple reliable newspapers about her being selected for the CM's(equivalent of state Governor) award and few articles about a few inventions of her, and her "innovation center" she set up to promote science. Well-Sourced: I would say yes(but focussed only on 2 events), Significant: I would say no. Daiyusha (talk) 17:34, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 18:15, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 18:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets WP:GNG in my opinion. Samsmachado (talk) 04:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep borderline passes WP:GNG. Polyamorph (talk) 11:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar 20:40, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mere Arman Mere Sapne[edit]

Mere Arman Mere Sapne (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)

An article about a Bollywood film, without even a plot, sourced only to IMDb and another non-WP:RS source since its creation in 3016. A WP:BEFORE search turned up nothing better (not even the plot). Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 17:04, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 18:15, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 18:15, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agree with nom. Donaldd23 (talk) 01:22, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I wouldn't go so far as calling Osianama unreliable. Our article about the owner makes him sound shady, but he bought Cinemaya, a respected film magazine held by many university libraries, so the database may have solid foundations. The one time Osianama was examined at the Reliable Source Noticeboard it was judged reliable. The problem is that it is indiscriminate and shallow. It aims to list all Indian films, so fails WP:NFSOURCES.

Searches turned up brief mentions in Screen World Publication's 75 Glorious Years of Indian Cinema[3] and Encyclopaedia of Indian Cinema[4], and a 1969 Pakistani Urdu film of the same name, but nothing of any depth. WP:NOT tells us that Wikipedia should treat creative works in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works in addition to concise summaries of those works. Sources with which to do that haven't been found. Unless and until they are, Wikipedia should not have a stand alone article about the film, it should only list it in List of Bollywood films of 1963, which it already does. I wouldn't redirect, since an equally legitimate target would be List of Pakistani films of 1969. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:04, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:20, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Schaler[edit]

Jeffrey Schaler (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 significant coverage in reliable, independent sources found. Subject doesn't meet WP:NPROF, either: Current Psychology does not appear to be a major, well-established academic journal; I have yet to find anything that suggests he's more than a normal academic. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 21:30, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 21:30, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 21:30, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 21:30, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as WP:Too soon for GS cites to pass WP:Prof#C1 yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:30, 30 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]
• Weak keep WP:NAUTHOR is somewhat plausible. The subject's book Addiction is a Choice has been reviewed several times.[5] (The book seems to be tending towards WP:FRINGE, though I'm uncertain about that; and at least some of the reviews are mainstream.) He's also edited several books with reviews.[6] If one of the edited books was authored, it would be clearer, but I think there's enough. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:21, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Accession of Turkey to the European Union. (non-admin closure) buidhe 17:58, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Commission on Turkey[edit]

Independent Commission on Turkey (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)

Lack of notability. Reports of the Commission are cited and notable but unable to find resources covering the Commission, only mentioning the name for citation. Better to merge on Accession of Turkey to the European Union. Evolutionoftheuniverse (talk) 19:17, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Evolutionoftheuniverse (talk) 19:17, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Evolutionoftheuniverse (talk) 19:17, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect Per nom. I see this has already been done on tr.wiki. Mccapra (talk) 05:39, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:19, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don Pepot[edit]

Don Pepot (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)

Believe fails WP:NACTOR, very unsourced BLP - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 15:38, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 15:38, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:53, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not even close to enough sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:49, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per nom, no claim to notability under WP:NACTOR. Ifnord (talk) 15:17, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: There are a few articles mentioning his name. Other than that, I barely found anything about him. Easily fails WP:NACTOR. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 02:11, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Internet references from Filipino comedians in the 1970s and 1980s are hard to come by. I've added some info about him, like winning what seems to be a lifetime achievement FAMAS Award for comedians in 2005, and rumors in 2014 that he was dead with a TV feature about him. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:39, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Changed my vote, per Howard the Duck. I even found a book where he and Inday Pusit were partially discussed. With sources #2 and #3 in the article, I believe it's good enough to pass WP:NACTOR. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 04:24, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:42, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Naag Mohini[edit]

Naag Mohini (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)

An article about a Bollywood film, sourced only to IMDb (non-WP:RS) since its creation in 2016, without either plot or castlist. A WP:BEFORE turned up nothing of substance, just the usual bare listings (this is typical) and advertisements to sell some of the songs. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 16:54, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:05, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:05, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete we always need more sourcing than IMDb.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:03, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agree with nom. Donaldd23 (talk) 01:22, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all of the above Spiderone 08:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:42, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apna Ghar Apni Kahani[edit]

Apna Ghar Apni Kahani (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)

An article about a Bollywood film, sourced only to IMDb (which is not WP:RS) since its creation in 2016, without even plot or castlist. A WP:BEFORE search turned up nothing of value; in fact, the only thing with any depth to it was this personal reflection, clearly not RS. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 16:33, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:01, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:01, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not supposed to be an IMDb mirror.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:01, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non notable film. Donaldd23 (talk) 01:21, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all of the above Spiderone 08:23, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:41, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ashmusy[edit]

Ashmusy (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 social media celebrity who doesn’t satisfy WP:GNG. Although a before search shows subject mentioned in a few reliable sources but having had a close observation of those sources show they are not independent of the subject as half are interviews and the other half seem to be echoing what she self published whilst others seem like paid for promo sources. Celestina007 (talk) 15:32, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:32, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:32, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:32, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:32, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. All of the article's sources are interview sources, nothing independent of the subject.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 22:15, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. Chancer. scope_creep^Talk 18:16, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable social media influencer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:37, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:41, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Eighteen, California[edit]

Camp Eighteen, 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)

This is really another test case as to why WP:GEOLAND is just not good enough a standard. The only thing I can find out about this spot is that it figured in the Keddie murders as the place where one of the bodies was found. Other than that, every thing is from GNIS or topos, with a slight contribution by the railroad regulators. If it weren't for the topos, this would be an open-and-shut "place on the railroad" case; but those maps show a lot of buildings. What were they? I have no idea, and I cannot find anyone else who does. The earliest aerial I can find, from 1969, shows nothing but the same pattern of trails, burn scars, and trees that GMaps shows now, only the burn scars are in different places. "Camp" suggests a lot of different possibilities, none of which I can resolve. Searching is impeded by the many occurrences of "camp, eighteen" in a variety of works, but as soon as I throw "Butte" into the mix, the hit count falls into the clickbait range, If someone can find something that gives some description of the place before it became just a place to dump murder victims, I'd be glad to withdraw this (and would ask that they expand the article accordingly), but otherwise I just can't see keeping an article on a place of which we know essentially nothing except its location on the globe. Mangoe (talk) 15:21, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 16:07, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:11, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Mangoe Have you gotten newspapers.com access yet? There are a few hits there [7][8] indicating this was a Civilian Conservation Corps camp in the 1930s, one of more than 30 labor camps in just one district covering four national forests in northern California. We have Category:Civilian Conservation Corps camps of largely CCC sites repurposed during WWII but no list this could be redirected to so I'll go with delete. A temporary military-esque worksite does not have the automatic notability of a settled, recognized town or village. Reywas92^Talk 16:43, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Thanks to Reywas92 we know what it was and can feel confident that it doesn't meet notability standards. Glendoremus (talk) 18:05, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nothing about this site meets notability requirements. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 22:17, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a non-notable locale. --Lockley (talk) 11:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:41, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Mazloum[edit]

Ahmed Mazloum (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 businessman, with no indication of meeting WP:GNG. The article formerly suffered from a bit of WP:CITEKILL but when the sources were checked more closely it turned out that none of them is independent, and many of them were in fact copies of the same press release. Looks like a promotional effort. bonadea contributions talk 15:50, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 15:50, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 15:50, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 15:50, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the record: this is the version of the article before the most recent culling of duplicate and otherwise irrelevant sources. --bonadea contributions talk 15:52, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Comment The nomination rationale is exactly why I PRODded the article in January. The PROD was contested by the article creator and I’ll take another look at the sources here to see if anything has changed since then. — MarkH₂₁^talk 20:47, 7 June 2020 (UTC); changed comment to !vote 07:52, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. Mccapra (talk) 05:45, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 10:53, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UTC Climate, Controls & Security[edit]

UTC Climate, Controls & Security (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 division, now defunct as per merger of United Technologies. Störm (talk) 00:17, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect lack of reliable sources, fails WP:ORGSIG, merge to UTC is best option I think. Drat8sub (talk) 01:47, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:19, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:26, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that deleting the page on UTC Climate, Controls & Security (aka UTC CCS) is helpful. Whether we agree with corporations changing the names of their divisions, UTC CCS was, at the time, a notable, if short-lived division of UTC at an "interesting" time on the corporation's history. UTC's decision to combine Carrier with UTC Fire & Security was part of an (ultimately) failed experiment that created a commercial division called UTC Building & Industrial Systems (aka BIS) with Otis Elevator and UTC CCS, to balance against the "pure aerospace" side of UTC that included Pratt & Whitney and UTC Aerospace Systems. But as an entity, the products and brands that were part of UTC CCS represent a notable portion of the worldwide market for HVAC, fire suppression/monitoring and security products.

Here are a few articles that refer to UTC CCS:

• https://www.courant.com/business/hc-utc-building-climate-20160518-story.html
• https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/utc-building--industrial-systems-announces-plans-for-world-class-intelligent-building-showcase-and-customer-experience-center-300108842.html

OZ_Rhett (talk) 01:43, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Michael Kulas. (non-admin closure) buidhe 17:56, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mosquito (Michael Kulas album)[edit]

Mosquito (Michael Kulas album) (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 non-notable album. No sources are given to support notability, and no useful coverage can be found about this album. JohnmgKing (talk) 22:58, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. JohnmgKing (talk) 22:58, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. JohnmgKing (talk) 22:58, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. JohnmgKing (talk) 22:58, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are similar articles about Michael Kulas' other albums, and both of them are non-notable in my opinion, I cannot find significant coverage on any of them. The articles were also created by the same user, who did not provide any sources, and therefore I believe they are related enough to be bundled in this way.

Another Small Machine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Imperial Cheerleader (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

JohnmgKing (talk) 23:08, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect all to Michael Kulas: Barely found anything about the albums. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 08:00, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:19, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lumileds[edit]

Lumileds (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:NCORP, sources are standard notices regarding acquisitions, sale and funding. A Google search revealed much the same. S0091 (talk) 23:20, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 13:18, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 13:18, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The coverage of the company sale which foundered in January 2016 because of US Govt opposition to the potential technology transfer to China (FT and NYT references, plus industry coverage such as [9]. etc.) goes some way beyond routine announcement coverage. That said, I'm not sure whether it confers notability on the particular firm, or can be said to be already adequately covered in Committee_on_Foreign_Investment_in_the_United_States#Notable_cases? AllyD (talk) 13:28, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article is definitely in need of attention and improvements. Lumileds is an important LED research and manufacturing company, both current and historical. As a former CEO of Cree mentions in ^[1], when Cree was a new player, Lumileds was already an established leader in the industry. I agree that a lot of the coverage out there is focused on the purchase and subsequent sale from Philips, but I think that's because it was a big deal. There is also coverage of Lumileds IP strategy ^[2], as well as its products in specialized sources such as ^[3]. Furthermore, Lumileds and/or Lumileds' LEDs such as the Luxeon are mentioned in several WP articles: Flashlight, Maglite, Light-emitting diode, Light-emitting diode physics, Gertrude Neumark, Apollo Global Management, Epistar, Bridge of Peace, Waterford Crystal, and Heat sink. (I added missing internal links in some of those). --Alan Islas (talk) 14:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Expanded article a bit and included additional sources. Alan Islas (talk) 12:36, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Academic Challenger (talk) 18:03, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of PlayStation Now games[edit]

List of PlayStation Now games (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:LISTCRUFT #7 (it is just 1 paragraph followed by 842 links to other articles) as well as #3, #6, #11 and #12. Wikipedia is also WP:NOTBROCHURE / WP:NOTCATALOG. By this article's own admission in the opening paragraph, it is 10 months out of date and may now be unsourcable as Sony doesn't appear to keep an accurate full list of games available on PS Now. Even if it is sourceable though I still think it should be deleted as I'm not sure what 1 paragraph followed by nearly a thousand links adds to an encyclopedia. WP:LISTCRUFT #7 agrees. It would also be a lot of work to maintain, (new games are released very frequently) which seemingly is not being done other than game developers adding their own games to the list, which causes its own problems. This would be much better served as a category. Thanks, AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 13:36, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• If I’m understanding the nomination and content, this would be the gaming equivalent of “list of movies currently streaming on Netflix”, which would be inappropriate as a list and even worse as a category. See WP:NONDEFINING. postdlf (talk) 15:10, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I think I agree, this feels very much like a WP:CATALOG issue. Govvy (talk) 20:41, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this article is no different than than any of the other “list of video games for platform x” that are all over Wikipedia. Per the nominators own admission, this was inspired by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Google Stadia games, which ironically is movingly strongly towards a keep consensus. Sergecross73 msg me 22:19, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Xbox Game Pass games where we nipped that in the bud before it became like this article, a messy WP:CATALOG of little use once games rotate off the service and only existing for 'video game wars WP:PROMO' points for a Netflix-like service. The difference between this and the Stadia article is those games will be likely permanently on that service (as long as it lasts), not like this. Nate • (chatter) 23:59, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• This argument doesn’t make any sense. PS Now and Stadia are the exact same sort of service. Deleting one but not the other would be like deciding to delete the Sega Saturn list but not the Nintendo 64 list. Sergecross73 msg me 01:34, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• One question I have is are there significant differences between these two lists and the deleted List of Xbox Game Pass games or would keeping these list be an legitimate argument for restoring that list?--69.157.254.64 (talk) 02:39, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment One is a paid service where games rotate on and off every month like Game Pass does and is a value add on top of the main membership, while Stadia's library will theoretically be steady throughout its lifetime and its main feature. These are apple/orange comparisons, and this is a list of cruft the layman won't understand (only those really into games understand why a game's download size is needed here, for instance). Nate • (chatter) 02:55, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I completely that some of the columns should go, but that’s a WP:NOTCLEANUP issue, not a reason to delete. Sergecross73 msg me 13:48, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well...it's absolutely useless as it doesn't tell us when games were on the service, which seemed to be the entire point of this list in the first place but somehow got ditched somewhere down the line. It's just a list of games which outside of existing on this service for a month or longer, aren't connected by anything else but their platform. Also...FIVE sources out of ~850 games. I'm tired of having to deal with list of articles with such an absurd ratio of sources to items. Nate • (chatter) 22:13, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That still falls under WP:NOTCLEANUP. I’m sorry you’re tired, but that has no bearing on anything here. If you’re tired, tag it for improvement and let someone else do it. We don’t delete articles based on your motivation levels. Sergecross73 msg me 14:37, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It does have complete bearing on an article state; just throwing up a source or 'playstation.com/herearethegamesonpsnoweventhoughitstenmonthsoutofdate' and calling it a day is unacceptable, and article tagging is completely useless to crufters who wish to maintain these unsourced lists. It is unacceptable and 100% grounds for deletion. Also again, this is an unfiltered WP:PROMO. Nate • (chatter) 22:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Some list articles are useful. This isn't one of them. Also consistent with the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Xbox Game Pass games result. — Niche-gamer 10:58, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Thats not a valid rationale either - see WP:ITSUSEFUL. And Gamepass is not a relevant comparison point. Gamepass is comparable to PS Plus, not PS Now. I think you’re confusing your services. Sergecross73 msg me 14:37, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Wikipedia is WP:NOT a catalog, a directory, or a database of everything on the internet. Here's the list from the commercial provider themselves. We should feel deeply uncomfortable when articles do nothing but duplicate the information on a press release, a brochure, an online store, or other primary sources that are commercial in nature. Because it blurs the line between Wikipedia as a source of knowledge and Wikipedia as a marketing tool. Granted, there's lots of lists of content. But this one is different in that products will be rotated in-and-out based on the whims of self-published marketing, as opposed to the long-term establishment of notability based on reliable secondary sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:32, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. To me, it's also WP:NOTCATALOG, it's a rotating list of games available at some point, for a service for which the user has to subscribe. To me, that's very similar to PlayStation Plus or Games with Gold (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Games with Gold games (2nd nomination)). soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 15:58, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Unlike Stadia, games are not specially developped for PS Now. It is a service that allows playing games release for other platforms (PS1, PS2, PS3, PS4, PSP, PS Vita), not unlike a rental store, or perhaps more accurately a virtual arcade where you pay an entry fee and can then freely play all the games within. There are no "PS Now games". Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 16:19, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTCATALOG. Unlike Stadia, PlayStation offers other services and consoles making this an additional streaming service for customers to purchase to play games. However, in the case of Stadia without the streaming service element there are no games at all. In this case PS Now are all games from the PS3/PS4 libaries and offer no exclusives and the games avaliable are likely to fluctuate from month to month for 2nd/3rd party games. Perhaps, this list be exported to a different PlayStation wiki. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 16:40, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. PS Now is not a platform that games are developed for, but just a storefront. --Masem (t) 01:15, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 07:34, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. qedk (t 愛 c) 05:13, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jang Hye-won[edit]

Jang Hye-won (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)

Reviewed as a part of new article curation process. No indication of wp:notability under with wp:GNG or the SNG. I did not translate the sources but they do not appear to have wp:gng type coverage of her plus, presumably if they did then there could be content on here in the article. There is no content other than to say that she is an actress and model known for her role in a TV show which has no wp article. North8000 (talk) 13:23, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:26, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:26, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your message. I think you shouldn't delete it because she is a new actress and she still has a long way to go. I added a biography and career. I mean she did participate in Miss Gyeonggi in 2019 and in the very same year she did a lead role in witch store, in future she will be doing more dramas and other activities which people can write here it is too soon to delete it.(59.103.96.130 (talk) 14:52, 14 June 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for your efforts. I don't think that you understand how Wikipedia works in this respect. Wp:notability covers it. Briefly, the requirement to have a separate article is that there has been substantial coverage of the topic in multiple independent wp:reliable sources. Also, those sources are where the material for the article comes from. But, regarding article quality, adding materia such as you did is helpful because until then there was essentially no content. North8000 (talk) 16:11, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 09:02, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Per nom. Fails notability. --Jack Frost (talk) 05:09, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Following relisting, the rough consensus is that coverage requirements are met. (non-admin closure) feminist | freedom isn't free 07:38, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedof.me[edit]

Speedof.me (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 website. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Störm (talk) 00:46, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 01:08, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- Tytrox (talk) 05:19, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- Adila1360 (talk) 06:05, 30 May 2020 (UTC) -- The article meets the notability guideline. It has received significant coverage from reliable independent sources. See the References section and that is why it got approved by SarahStierch exactly 7 years ago. Since approval, it has become only more notable. It's been referred to in several books and many scientific articles as well as news agencies and blog posts.[reply]

NOTE: Adila1360 is an SPA and the creator of the article, and virtually all their edits over the last few years have been to the nominated article or were related to it. JavaHurricane 08:49, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry @Adila1360: but it seems your thoughts may come across as conflict of interest. As JavaHurricane has noted, a large majority all of the article's edits, and as much of your own Contributions, have been on this article alone. This is not to say that your POV is invalid, but rather more consensus is needed to back your claim due to the CoI issue. -- Tytrox (talk) 05:11, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries @Tytrox:. I never tried to hide the fact that I'm the main editor of the page. In the AFD guideline, it says I can contribute to the discussion just like any other editor. Also, it says the content should be addressed not the people. As you know, this is not a newly created article. It’s been considered notable for the past seven years. So, I’m curious what suddenly changed that suggested it’s a non-notable candidate. On a different note, SpeedOf.me was the first Internet bandwidth test service that utilized HTML5 instead of Java or Flash plugins. This is something that all other speed tests (including speedtest.net) followed and adopted years after. This fact was removed from the original article because there was no concrete reference to support it. -- Adila1360 (talk) 05:49, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - article does not make any claim of significance + the sources are "run of the mill". JavaHurricane 08:40, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Though article seems like an promotional listings. But it needs to expand in a proper way so as to impart depth knowledge about this tech. — PangolinPedia 23:30, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:58, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Being accepted at AFC is not a guarantee of notability. The references in the article just mostly have speedof.me as one of many speed test sites. Coverage is not substantial. -- Whpq (talk) 16:57, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The article needs a bit of expansion. The references seem reliable. However, reference #9 has an exact phrase about the site from #8, the former should be removed. Other than that, the article is good enough to pass WP:SNG. My vote stands. I won't reply any further. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 01:45, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:42, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:42, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:42, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The appropriate guidelines for this topic is WP:WEB. I disagree with JavaHurricane that the reason for deletion is that the article does not make any claim of significance. There are multiple references that discuss the specific notability of this website, which is that because it uses HTML5 it may be more accurate than other technologies. If this claim needs to stand out in the article, then fix the article. Its certainly not a reason to delete. Whpq !votes to delete because they say that the references "just mostly" include this website in a list of lots of speed test sites. That isn't entirely accurate. Most of the references contain reviews with indepdendent reviews carried out by the tech journalist/author and not just a mere list of websites. In my opinion, here are two references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. This CNET article discusses this website in some detail, comparing results obtained with results from other testing sites and explains why HTML5-based speed tests have an advantage. This Lifewire article also provides an in-depth article on the website and the technology including the Independent opinion of the journalist. Topic is notable, meets GNG/WP:WEB. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:59, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Besides the sources already present in the article, we have [10] (although this reads fairly promotional so it might be paid for). CNET, BBC, and Tech Radar are also all reliable, so this is a minimally notable. Sam-2727 (talk) 23:16, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I see that the sources I put were already mentioned. But anyway, keep. Sam-2727 (talk) 23:16, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) buidhe 17:55, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Randall Bell[edit]

Randall Bell (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)

Pure self-promotion for a real estate agent. The original article, created by an army of sock-puppets, was deleted in October 2014, but less than a month later another single-purpose account, AllthatshineLA, re-created it. All points raised in the 2014 AfD still remain valid: this biography does not meet WP:ANYBIO or any other relevant standard. bender235 (talk) 13:44, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:42, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: all spam, no notability. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:34, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - No doubt a promo, but the guy passes WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. I Googled "Randall Bell""appraiser" and found one reliable source after another. And not just passing mention, these are full articles about Bell, see [11],[12],[13]. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:43, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But how to "de-fluff" it? --bender235 (talk) 02:21, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It should be tagged as a promo, which may attract an editor skilled at trimming biographies. Promo aside, the guy's work is fascinating. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:01, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:56, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:56, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep he appears to be a fairly common subject of magazine/newspaper features WSJ, Seattle Times, LATimes, Associated Press Rolling Stone (interview) . These are indicative of wide spread coverage and are spread out from the 90s to 2020, showing that the significance isn't one-off. Passes WP:GNG and WP:NPERSON. The article may be a promo, but with this amount of coverage that isn't really enough to justify deletion. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:53, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete we have rules against creating an article on your self for a reason. If he is truly notable someone else will create it later, we must not at all tolerate people creating articles on themselves. If we do not stand fast to this rule our whole project will be overrun with self promotional rubbish.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:12, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the article had just been created User:Johnpacklambert and only edited by the proponent, that might be a valid argument. But in six years since it was created, it has been vastly rewritten by many editors - including yourself in 2015! Nfitz (talk) 19:17, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doing four minor edits that either add or change cateorization is not the type of edit that moves the article out of the factors about its creation. So the above is a dinsingenous assessment of my contributions. If we do not enforce the rules against people creating articles on themselves we will go down the path of turning into LinkedIn or Who's Who. We must fight this, and so we must delete this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:35, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To pretend that I claimed that you'd made extensive edits yourself is disengenous. You and many editors contributed over the last half-decade to rewriting it. There is nothing in Wikipedia "rules" that make it okay to delete an article 5 years after it was created, because the version as it existed 5 years ago was problematic. And if you don't know that, then there is a rule about competence to edit, that I believe should be used to topic-ban you from AFDs. Nfitz (talk) 20:52, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - references meet GNG with references provided above. Subject is notable, and article should be improved, not deleted. Nfitz (talk) 19:17, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:43, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:43, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Significant coverage in the Chicago Tribune, Seattle Times, People and The Wall Street Journal. I was considering making an edit to the first paragraph to soften the statement "Bell is an expert on real estate damages," but then read the whole article, and yeah, he clearly is an expert on real estate damages. Whether the article has been created/edited by people with a conflict of interest is not relevant to its notability; there is no policy on "original sin" that demands the deletion of articles on notable subjects in order to punish CoI editors. The subject is clearly notable. — Toughpigs (talk) 22:57, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep:As per Nfitz and Toughpigs. All the points that i was about to state have already been stated by Toughpigs (like if he was reading my mind). Further, what Johnpacklambert says is totally illogical. It makes no sense whatsoever. "Someone else will create it"? If this was to be the mentality of each one of us then wikipedia would have been shut a decade ago. The subject is clearly notable. It has also received signicant coverage in independent and reliable sources. That's it. No way it is a "Strong delete". Regards Pesticide1110 (talk) 08:46, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"And if you don't know that, then there is a rule about competence to edit, that I believe should be used to topic-ban you from AFDs." This may sound rude but it won't be even slightly wrong if done. If you go on to check the contributions of Johnpacklambert, you can see that, in general, all of his edits are votes for deletion (and only deletion) on AFDs. You can also observe the same pattern i.e. to say that it does not meet this/that notability guideline and hence it should be deleted. And that too without explaining how and why, which directs us to a possibility that he never even tries to do a proper check on whether the subject of the article is notable or not. I have seen him calling out those subjects not-notable which easily satisfield WP:GNG and so can you. I know that its a big accusation if considered that he has over 300,000 edits. But edit counts are more like an illusive characteristic of an wikipedian. Quality of edits is of paramount importance and i can see the quality being sub-par here. Regards Pesticide1110 (talk) 08:46, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an uncalled for character assasination. I have very clearly explained why our rules clearly state we should remove this article based on its bad creation history and why we should not tolerate such bad creation histories and how they undermine the project. The claim that I always vote for deletion is just plain false.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:11, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Plain false? Ok fine. Maybe it is. But won't it be better if you prove it rather than just saying it? Can you show us a total of just 10 Afds where you have commented in favour of keeping the article? Just 10. Regards Pesticide1110 ^{Lets wrestle!} 18:05, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Have tidied up this BLP (and thus no need for the tags). He does meet GNG (per the refs in the article, and which are also re-quoted above), and this includes several WP:SIGCOV pieces, including a dedicated piece from the Wall Street Journal. He really is an expert in this area, and his career and the cases that he has taken on are very interesting (and fully supported by multiple RS quality independent sources). It is also possible that he meets WP:NAUTHOR in his field of Stigmatized property (for which we have a WP article). Britishfinance (talk) 14:27, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted per WP:G5. (non-admin closure) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 02:42, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mukose Umar[edit]

Mukose Umar (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:NMUSIC. No sources provided for the award mentions his name. Sources are either interviews or announcements of his music release from unreliable news websites. WP:SIGCOV not satisfied. Lapablo (talk) 12:31, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lapablo (talk) 12:31, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Lapablo (talk) 12:31, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• speedy delete and salt as a g5. See Prince Omar, this is yet more paid for spam. Praxidicae (talk) 13:04, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable singer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:26, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a promotional effort, have added G5 Atlantic306 (talk) 01:07, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Comments with WP:AGF violations are disregarded. Sandstein 10:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

De Bethel cats[edit]

De Bethel cats (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 term "De Bethel cats" is rare and there are very few sources for this. It seems that a pair of artists had a distinctive style, that's cool, but I don't see sufficient sources to convince me that their art form passes WP:GNG - all I see are few mentions in passing plus some captioned photos. I'd suggest a merge to the artists page, but it does not exist yet, and I am not even sure if they are notable. If they are and their entry is stubbed, merge and redirect could be considered, not that there is much to merge here (give that right now the article is a single sentence and the sources I see don't suggest it could be expanded beyond a short paragraph at best). Anyway, the issue is not length, of course, but failing notability. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:32, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Minor coverage, GNG fail.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 12:45, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The nomination seems to be retaliation for this comment earlier today; tsk. These artworks were covered in a TV programme which I watched the other day and, as they are covered in detail elsewhere too, they pass WP:GNG. The fact that the artworks are now rare and collectable is not a reason to delete as we don't cover just mass market items like Beanie Babies. See Wally Bird for another curio of this sort. I created that article 10 years ago and, while it is not going to be featured any time soon, it's not a problem either. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:55, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please avoid personal attacks. You fail to address the issue of how this topic passes WP:GNG, so please focus on the issue at hand. PS.I am confused: which article was created by you 10 years ago? Anyway, the other article linked (Wally Bird) also seems to have issues with sourcing and notability, and I'd suggest improving it before it ends up discussed here. (No, this is not a threat, just friendly advice) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:00, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Andrew Davidson:It is a problem, as sourcing is the same today as it was ten years ago: not enough.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:48, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think this is a summary of the relevant TV show -- no idea if the site is reliable (or if the show can be a source?) but it provides some support for the idea that the cats are "a thing" which attracted the interest of collectors. ~ oulfis 🌸(talk) 05:43, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete according to my search, it fails GNG. buidhe 01:40, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:51, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cranes Software[edit]

Cranes Software (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)

Does not satisfy NCORP. Found some routine coverage and passing mentions, but no signs of SIGCOV. M4DU7 (talk) 11:22, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 11:22, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 11:22, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 11:22, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. Does not satisfy WP:NCORP. AviationFreak💬 16:59, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete References do not meet the criteria for establishing notability, they are based on interviews and company announcements/PR. Topic fails GNG/NCORP. 3lack5tar (talk) 18:20, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)
SSSB (talk) 08:03, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Leigh[edit]

Jeffrey Leigh (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)

A google search yeilds next to no results (most results are for Murder of Suzanne Capper, different Jeffrey Leigh as far as I can tell). I see no indication that this passes any notability criteria (including WP:NCRICKET).
SSSB (talk) 10:43, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:46, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:46, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:46, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. First-class cricketer in five matches and therefore passes WP:NCRIC. Johnlp (talk) 23:40, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• You're right, knowing very little about cricket I missed that point earlier (despite double checking several times. Withdrawing non.
  SSSB (talk) 08:03, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. All comments are keeps and I, the nominator, no longer support deletion, since notability has been established. (non-admin closure) Not a very active user (talk) 17:16, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wirehead (video game)[edit]

Wirehead (video game) (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 game doesn't seem to be notable. The article currently cites only two sources, one of them being MobyGames, which, according to WP:VG/RS, is unreliable. I wasn't able to find any reliable sources discussing the game with a web search. However, because of the game's age, sources discussing it might be mostly printed and not available online. Not a very active user (talk) 10:36, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 10:36, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 10:36, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 10:36, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A cursory glance shows me multiple RSes, including All Games, GamePro, Hardcore Gaming 101, Sega Visions, 1UP.com, and Polygon, that covered this game. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 09:53, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It passes WP:GNG with multiple significant coverage in reliable sources, such as GamePro [14], AllGame [15], The Charlotte Observer [16], Polygon (website) [17], and Sega Visions [18]. It had a preview in Mean Machines [19], and it seems it also got a review in Sega Power Issue 75, but I was not able to find it anywhere archived sadly. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:42, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per sources above. You’ve got to search for sources different when it’s 90s games or older. Sources are locked away in hard copy magazines, not always in Google searches. Sergecross73 msg me 14:04, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per sources above. — Toughpigs (talk) 14:07, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above, seems like there are enough sources to help boost the article. Govvy (talk) 16:53, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Withdrawn. Article has been moved to the draft-space and nomination has been withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:29, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lemonbalm (Survivor ORG Career)[edit]

Lemonbalm (Survivor ORG Career) (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)

Seems not notable as per WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO and confusing ~ Amkgp 💬 10:18, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn by nominator as it has been moved to draft-space ~ Amkgp 💬 10:44, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 10:18, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 I withdraw my nomination As it has been moved to draft-space by someone ~ Amkgp 💬 10:22, 14 June 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 June 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:30, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:50, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

K.M. Rifatuzzaman[edit]

K.M. Rifatuzzaman (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)

A non-notable businessman, fails WP:GNG and WP:TOOSOON claiming to be the CEO of a corporation only ~ Amkgp 💬 10:28, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 10:28, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 10:28, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Note: @Amkgp: This is a duplicate article of Dato' K.M. Rifatuzzaman & already proposed for deletion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dato' K.M. Rifatuzzaman. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 15:44, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I just blocked the creator of this article for undisclosed paid editing. The article is terrible and might be nominated for G11 as well. Even if it turned out that the person was notable, the article as it stands is not acceptable. Note also that an article on the Akhtar Group, by the same creator, was deleted twice in 2015 for being promotional. Drmies (talk) 14:44, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Pure spam. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:23, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Most of the sources are passing mentions or advertisements. The first few barely even mention him! 🌴Koridas🌴 (Negotiate) 19:42, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: @BD2412: Pinging you because this is the exact same article of the one you've closed. I'm in favor of WP:SNOW here as well. Thanks. ~ Nahid ^Talk 15:26, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not Who's Who, you can not directly buy your way into being covered.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:29, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 04:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Martel Maxwell[edit]

Martel Maxwell (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)

Was recently one of three presenters of a BBC daytime TV programme. Unfortunately almost all of the coverage about Maxwell are from her employers, therefore not independent and with a vested interest to promote her. She published a novel but I can't find proof it meets WP:GNG either (the second online news interview about it was with a newspaper that is not an allowable source on Wikipedia, and a former employer anyway). Unfortunately, whatever the intial reasons were to create the article, time for it to go in my view. Sionk (talk) 10:06, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Sources such as the Radio Times and Daily Telegraph are fine for establishing notability and so the subject passes WP:BASIC. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:29, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the Radio Times isn't an independent source, if Maxwell is a BBC presenter? And the short Telegraph review is about the book, not her. Sionk (talk) 11:10, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, FWIW the Radio Times hasn't been a BBC publication for years. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:33, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:49, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:49, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:49, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:49, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 17:43, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: review of novel by Telegraph, coverage in RT, etc. PamD 09:46, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Most of the references are not from her employers and where they are they are only used to verify fact not opinion. There are enough other sources to pass WP:BASIC. Nthep (talk) 15:40, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per other editors refs show notable.User:Davidstewartharvey

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:57, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Baken[edit]

Evan Baken (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:MUSICBIO. Can't find reliable sources for information provided and also don't think what is provided demonstrates notability. Suonii180 (talk) 10:02, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:48, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, does not appear notable outside of context of band. Found one RS that devoted a couple of lines to his actual drumming. Caro7200 (talk) 13:43, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 16:12, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:41, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:41, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not notable as a drummer or a person in the music business.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Both sources as passing mentions. It cites an interview, oh wait, it cites two interviews. Neither sources are independent. Therefore they are unreliable and, unless more sources could be found, DELETE. Koridas ^talk? 01:51, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:52, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pennek Nigeria Limited[edit]

Pennek Nigeria Limited (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 organization which doesn’t satisfy WP:CORP. A before search shows no real evidence of notability. Most of the sources which discuss the organization all look like announcements. Celestina007 (talk) 09:37, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:37, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:37, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:37, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:37, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:37, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The subject doesn't meet WP:NCORP. Sources are basically just announcements as stated by nominator. Lapablo (talk) 09:51, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I agree. I rejected the speedy nomination but I don't believe there's notability. Deb (talk) 15:45, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 18:17, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:53, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Triantafyllos Vaitsis[edit]

Triantafyllos Vaitsis (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 seems non notable and an act of promotion. It contains mainly references to the website and the social media profiles of the subject of the article. The rest of the references are from non reliable websites, promotional articles and some catalogs just refering his name and not any other inforamtion about the subject. Gnslps (talk) 09:08, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Gnslps (talk) 09:08, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Gnslps (talk) 09:08, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:11, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I see no in-depth secondary sourcing in an English search. There are a couple of namechecks... that's it. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:53, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - After checking the sourcing on the article it seems that the only thing other than a blog or 404 page was an article in VICE, however I'm not sure that VICE is considered a RS. And even if it were, that is not enough to pass the GNG or NARTIST criteria. Netherzone (talk) 19:45, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nomination, and the reasoning right above by user Netherzone, as well. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 13:31, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:54, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Myay Man Moe[edit]

Myay Man Moe (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)

seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:POET. The references are flimsy and they do not show significant coverage about the subject. Ninja✮Strikers ^«☎» 08:57, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:00, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:00, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Non-notable writer and under-sourced article. Phyo WP (message) 13:44, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I tried to find articles about them on Google but nothing came up. Definitely not notable. Presented source are fake and fails WP:RS.Cape Diamond MM (talk) 14:05, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above because he is not writer and didn't find sources of him in anyplace. So this article shouldn't kept.SoeThiha5 (talk) 15:32, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:18, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Academic Challenger (talk) 17:58, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of public statues of individuals linked to the Atlantic slave trade[edit]

List of public statues of individuals linked to the Atlantic slave trade (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)

Nominating this article for deletion discussion because it is unnecessary (see Atlantic slave trade), limited in coverage, poorly formatted (the lists are in two different formats), incomplete (and may never be complete due to the very wide spread impact of the Atlantic slave trade), definitely overcategorization, too short, will quickly become obsolete (as statues are taken down on an almost daily basis), and also may be inciting illegal vandalism (I fear that this article may be used as a 'hit-list' for which statues to illegally vandalize next, for proof of this see the time at which the article was made, the topic of the article, the "see also" link to Iconoclasm, and the many external links to non-objective sites which argue in favor of conducting these illegal activities). Flyingfishee (talk) 08:05, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to add the following reasons for deletion that probably should be considered in this discussion: WP:LISTN, WP:OR, WP:TOOSOON, WP:NPOV. I forgot to mention these in my first proposal but they've been brought up by other users.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:01, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:01, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]