The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 10:13, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Limbo (2004 film)[edit]

Limbo (2004 film) (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 film with no independent 3rd party reviews. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:45, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:45, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:45, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete IMDb seeks to be comprehensive. Being made is not enough to show notability for our purposes. Nothing at all indicating notability here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:29, 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 delete . Academic Challenger (talk) 18:28, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reel Horror[edit]

Reel Horror (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 film with one questionable review. PROD was removed because "Ross Hagen is notable", but notability isn't inherited. Director is notable, but is film? Donaldd23 (talk) 23:41, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:41, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:41, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The notability of a director does not carry over to their movies. Wes Craven and Sean S. Cunningham, who are both much more notable directors than Hagen, have films without their own Wikipedia pages. Reel Horror itself is not any more notable than The Media Madman or Time Wars, to name other Hagen films.--HawthOffHead (talk) 2:40, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• Delete Except for the sources in the article I failed to find any other mentions about the movie. Fails notability guidelines.Less Unless (talk) 09:58, 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 . Academic Challenger (talk) 18:30, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nate McMurray[edit]

Nate McMurray (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)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Fails WP:NPOL. Compositionally identical to the 2018 article, except for one section. scope_creep^Talk 23:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:26, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:26, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nom. Democratic nominee in a safe Republican district is not notable just for running, and the primary has not received much coverage. In the unlikely event that the candidate wins, then the page can be restored. KidAd (talk) 23:44, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Are you serious? He has received far more than normal coverage. There are enough references to meet WP:GNG.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 15:21, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not really notable outside of his campaign. I'm not seeing anything outside of normal campaign coverage. Also, as a not to the closing admin it appears McMurray is canvassing through his campaign's social media. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:32, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well anyway, I wrote the article and I have nothing to do with him. But ignore those comments at the top.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 20:04, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nice article, yet I have to agree with the comments of KidAd and GPL93. McMurray is not really notable outside of the election and it is unlikely that a Democrat will be elected in a traditionally Republican district. Best, LefcentrerightDiscuss 23:19, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Why is it being considered for deletion? The information it contains is accurate. Or is it just that his political opponents don’t want him to have visibility? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.253.147.143 (talk) 18:39, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This article on Nate McMurray should NOT be deleted. It is well researched and entirely factual. I am a donor to Wikipedia and respect your independence. Do NOT DELETE — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Grass Is Always Greener (talk • contribs) 19:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC) — The Grass Is Always Greener (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete he is an unsuccessful candidate for congress. We have decided that the normal level of coverage these people get, even in tight races, is not enough for notability. With extremely rare exceptions we need coverage outside the context of the election and significant amounts of it to show someone notable. We do not have that here.Signed by user:Johnpacklambert. Unusual missed by signature by editor. scope_creep^Talk 12:16, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unsuccessful candidates are generally not notable, he is no exception. SportingFlyer T·C 16:30, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Regardless of whether the election in question is a past one which the subject lost, or a future one whose final results are still pending, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they have not already won — the notability test for politicians is holding a notable office, not just running for one. And the fact that the candidate can show some evidence of campaign coverage does not in and of itself get them over GNG as a special exemption from our normal practice for candidates, because every candidate in every election can always show some evidence of campaign coverage, which means every candidate in every election would always get that exemption and the rule itself would literally never apply to anybody at all anymore. So to get a candidate over the notability bar, you need to show one of two things: either (a) he already had preexisting notability for some other reason that would already have gotten him into Wikipedia anyway (e.g. Cynthia Nixon), or (b) he can show such an unusual depth and range of reliable source coverage that you can credibly claim his candidacy as much more special than everybody else's candidacies, for some reason that would pass the ten-year test for enduring significance (i.e. Christine O'Donnell). But neither of those things are on offer here at all. And no, it isn't an ideological bias either, because the same rule applies to all candidates regardless of whether they're Democrats or Republicans, and regardless of whether the incumbent is a Democrat or a Republican. So, no prejudice against recreation on or after election day if he wins, since his notability claim will thus have shifted from "candidate" to "officeholder", but nothing here is a valid reason for him to already have a Wikipedia article today — being a clearinghouse of campaign brochures for current election candidates is not our job. Bearcat (talk) 21:43, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Most of this article is about the elections he has run / is running in, as opposed to being about him. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:08, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• keep, he's got solid credentials and it could be expanded significantly. Got lots of media attention as well. Kingofthedead (talk) 07:17, 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. Academic Challenger (talk) 18:32, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whitton, Illinois[edit]

Whitton, Illinois (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)

GNIS stub with no evidence of notability. Historic aerials and topos show there was never more than a handful of buildings here, and there's no sources available to establish notability. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:43, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:43, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Roland was born on July 10, 1922, the son of George F. and Laura E. (Beckett) Unangst in Whitton, Illinois" [1]. (from what looks like the findings of fact in a legal case - hard to tell the context because of snippet view) "That the branch of petitioner's railroad running between Aurora, Kane County, and the Twin Cities of St. Paul and Minneapolis, passes through and serves an unincorporated community in Hanover Township, Jo Daviess County, known as Whitton; that said community contains a population of approximately 40 persons. [2]. Since Whitton was at one time regarded as a community, and as a place at least one person was from, it passes WP:GEOLAND as a (once-)populated place that is/was recognized as a community. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 23:17, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per CactusJack. SportingFlyer T·C 03:47, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; I concur with CactusJack. I found other mentions of the community; [3] and also on a topographic map showing the nearby Hanover Bluff Nature Preserve [4]. It's obvious the place existed as a populated place. Not that these are usable sources for the article, but they do point to the existence of the place sufficient for WP:GEOLAND. It never was much of a place in terms of population, and its unlikely we'll ever get a more thorough article than this, but it certainly did exist and was a populated place. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:06, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep May have been a tiny community but still counts, meets GEOLAND. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 15:51, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now, because of the obituary and case citation indicating a population, cited by Cactus Jack. I'd be interested in knowing whether this existed before the Savanna Army Depot; from the Hanover Bluff topo map (cited by Hammersoft) it appears that Whitton was basically a railroad crossing just outside of the Savanna Army Depot boundary. (Though someone claiming seriously to be "from" there is a good indicator of a real settlement, it wouldn't be appropriate to make "at least one person was from" to be an outright WP:GEOLAND criteria on its own; by that criteria, Griffiths Mobile Home Park IL to the northeast would be notable. A lot of these U.S. names come from the U.S. topographic maps via the Geographic Names Information System tagged as populated places, which doesn't make a distinction between types of settlements, and considered railroad stops to be settlements as well. HomeTownLocator is an example of a "source" that is just an automated page about each GNIS entry. We could find someone "from" the trailer park very quickly in theory, since there are still 9 trailers there.) --Closeapple (talk) 17:27, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Of note; I did try to search census records from the early 1900s, presuming there was population to be reported. I ran into problems with spellings of the name, and conflicts with similarly named places (ex; Wheaton, Illinois). My search was inconclusive. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:16, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:51, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Modèle 1978 helmet[edit]

Modèle 1978 helmet (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)

Article does not give third-party source and none can be found. Possible failure of general notability guidelines. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:28, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:28, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:28, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As we have articles on pretty much every other helmet ever worn (see Category:Combat helmets), I fail to see why this one should be non-notable. Military equipment of major countries is most certainly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:04, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Necrothesp, well I only found hits to other Wikis, so no notable third-party sources. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:08, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: This helmet is part of an evolution of military protective gear. It was the French Army's standard issue for over 10 years and was the last steel helmet before the introduction of fiber helmets. Unfortunately no book has yet been written on the dialectical evolution of helmets in response to shrapnel and small arms fire. When one is, this helmet will be part of the story, paralleling similar evolution in US military gear, amongst others.Acad Ronin (talk) 01:26, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  So you saying it should be kept despite having no source? --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:07, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - it still needs sourcing... Ingratis (talk) 02:10, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Ingratis, I tried looking for one but only found hits to other Wikis. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:54, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Tyw7: - I understand! I was agreeing (clumsily) with your point. Ingratis (talk) 12:39, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: this article is certainly weak source-wise, but the subject is clearly notable, and what is stated in the article is not controversial. Wikipedia has rules for certain reasons, and sticking to the letter of the rule irrespective of their spirit is not constructive. And in any case, unsourced or weakly sourced articles should be marked as such or preferably improved, not deleted. Deletion is for unencyclopedic material. Rama (talk) 07:28, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Rama, if there's not enough sources, perhaps it should be merged to another article. Perhaps a super document for all the hemets. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:54, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  The Modèle 1978 has the same sort of references as many other articles on similar subjects on en:, and exists in three languages. I you think that helmet models do not warrant their own articles except for the most famous, you should start a general conversation on the subject, not single out a specific instance. Rama (talk) 09:03, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, hundreds of thousands of soldiers have worn this on their head. It has to be notable! Vici Vidi (talk) 05:27, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Vici Vidi, so just because tons of people use it, it has to be notable, even without references? --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 08:06, 18 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) 08:06, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, If there's a lack of sources, find some! I literally just spent less than 5 minutes looking, and came across these: 1)http://www.nyc-techwriters.com/militaria/french_helmets2.htm 2)http://msgrenot.free.fr/modele_1978.htm 3)https://www.world-war-helmets.com/fiche/https:/www.world-war-helmets.com/fiche.php?q=Casque-Francais-Mle-F1-serie-1 SmartyPants22 (talk) 15:23, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  SmartyPants22, I did and only found hits to other Wiki sites! --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:51, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep While WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument and some other keep votes also aren't very convincing, the fact is that during this AfD, some editors have added quite a bit of sourcing to the article. The article now cites 3 books, and though I don't have the books and cannot really evaluate the depth of coverage, it seems to me that the subject passes the GNG. PJvanMill (talk) 15:53, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but WP:COMMONSENSE. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:05, 23 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) 10:13, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Barrett[edit]

Lauren Barrett (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 actress, Found this one-bit mention but other than that nothing, Fails NACTOR & GNG –Davey2010^Talk 22:26, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:49, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 09:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete lots of minor parts, not enough major to pass the notability guidelines for actresses. IMDb is not enough to even more towards notability, and the other mentioned source is clearly not in any way even close to being enough on its own.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:38, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unfortunately, as she only has two known roles on film and television. One of these roles is uncredited, the other an early life of character child role so WP:NACTOR is not passed at this time, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:07, 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. Noting that User:Xannir has been blocked for sockpuppetry. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:47, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Snoboy, Fremont, California[edit]

Snoboy, Fremont, 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)

Yet another GNIS stub with no evidence of notability and no sources to be found. It appears to have been a railroad siding without even a station to its name. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:07, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete/redirect If it is part of Fremont, California, it should be covered there in its history. Reywas92^Talk 00:32, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete GNIS and topo maps suggest that this was a rail siding, not a community. The claim that this was a "former unincorporated community now annexed to Fremont" is entirely unsourced. –dlthewave ☎ 02:28, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Fremont, California as not meeting notability for solo article. --Xannir (talk) 13:33, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As noted above, it's a rail siding [5]. Not notable. Glendoremus (talk) 00:12, 24 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) 01:53, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hungry (Fergie song)[edit]

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

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

Not notable per WP:NSONGS as it did not chart, nor did it receive sufficient coverage independent of the parent album. Additionally the information could be and is largely already sufficiently covered at the album's page. ≫ (Lil-Unique1) -{ Talk }- 22:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ≫ (Lil-Unique1) -{ Talk }- 22:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect Per WP:NSONGS. Sourcing and content mostly in the context of the album, so it’s better to be covered there. Sergecross73 msg me 23:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The song did receive independent coverage in the following sources (i.e. outside of album reviews): 1234567891011121314151617. I am sure the nominator already knows this, but I want to emphasize the WP:NSONG policy only says chart placement may be a sign of notability. The focus should be kept on whether or not this song has received significant coverage from reliable, third-party sources. Aoba47 (talk) 06:04, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the reminder Aoba47, I am aware that chart placement isn't a deciding factor necessarily however many of the sources listed above and already in the article speak about the existence of the song or the music video. This coverage could be neatly and succinctly on the album's page. As another indicator why this may not be notable, according to the page views analysis, it receives on average 8 views per day compared to the album which receives an average of 282 views per day. In terms of where people are more likely to be informed about the topic, its likely to be the album page. ≫ (Lil-Unique1) -{ Talk }- 08:36, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the response. I would slightly push back against the part that the above sources only cover "the existence of the song or the music video", as some do talk about the song's lyrics and sound and provide critical commentary. However, I will leave any further discussion to other editors. Page views are not really relevant to a conversation on notability. Aoba47 (talk) 17:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Aoba47's sources are adequate to meet notability under WP:NSONG, so no need or benefit to redirecting or deleting. Rlendog (talk) 16:06, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Per Aoba47. With the song's independent coverage indicated above, the article is good enough to pass WP:NSONG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 02:02, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:48, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Smallman[edit]

Andy Smallman (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:NBIO. The Seattle Times article is about the school, not the subject. The other sources are self-generated or dead links. No SIGCOV on Google. Rogermx (talk) 22:05, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 22:05, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 22:05, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Nice resume, not a notable biography Reywas92^Talk 23:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete being the founder of a secondary school is not a sign of notability, except when it later becomes a tertiary institution, and a figure like Karl G. Maeser is bad precedent for this idea anyway, because there have been multiple biographies of Maeser written, so he passes notability guidelines regardless of weather he passes academic notability as a university head.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:41, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete: Not notable per wikipedia guidelines. Regards Pesticide1110 (talk) 10:47, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG. Less Unless (talk) 10:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NOTLINKEDIN Lightburst (talk) 00:08, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:48, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trisha Silvers[edit]

Trisha Silvers (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:BIORELATED. Lettler^hello 21:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Lettler^hello 21:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:47, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment How is WP:BIORELATED relevant? She's famous for surviving a natural disaster, her work with a foundation, and for receiving a national award. Being (briefly) married to an athlete doesn't preclude individual notability. pburka (talk) 11:50, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per everyone who participated in the 2014 discussion. pburka (talk) 22:49, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: no less notable than when she passed previous AfD: the fact that there's a navbox template for ((Young Australians of the Year)) suggests that it confers notability, and there's ongoing coverage. PamD 11:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: the discussion from the 2014 AfD is still valid, she's still notable as Young Australian of the Year and her other work. --Krelnik (talk) 18:21, 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 Keep. Consensus that she passes WP:NARTIST, despite COI concerns. (non-admin closure) Devonian Wombat (talk) 10:27, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Savedge[edit]

Anne Savedge (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:BIO and WP:NARTIST. Cursory check on Google news returns one trivial mention, and scholar.google.com returns a number of articles with trivial mentions. Nothing significant by the subject. Article was created by a contributor with connection to Richmond Artists Association. Article subject as well as the contributor have both served as the president for RAA. Graywalls (talk) 21:08, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 21:08, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 21:08, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - If the collections prove to be verifiable, then she would pass NARTIST on that basis. As the article stands, the citation for these collections is not verifiable. Could check the institutions to see if they have their collections online. Netherzone (talk) 22:08, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  reply @Netherzone:, for what its worth I queried https://www.vmfa.museum/collections/search-collections/?nav=1&keyword=savedge and got no result. I searched for her name in relation to the organization and she appears as a name in a trivial donor list. Graywalls (talk) 22:29, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Museums sometimes do not have the money to get all the metadata for the objects they hold into searchable digital form. For example if they pay someone $25 an hour to digitize material, and they have 1000 objects that take two hours each, then that is $50,000. See this source from July 2017. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:38, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I found a source for the VMFA collection, meaning she meets WP:ARTIST. There are also more than a few decent additional sources out there. As Graywalls says, the article was recently edited by a now-blocked COI editor, so it may need cleaning up. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:36, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  and where else? "The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." Graywalls (talk) 00:49, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Graywalls: Several is two or more: we have the Chrysler Museum and VMFA both sourced in the article. Plus lots of Google books mentions.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:51, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I once suggested we change that from several to "two or more", but it was pointed out that it was intentionally vague to prevent gaming the system. Anyway, she is in two confirmed collections and therefore meets WP:ARTIST.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:57, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I agree she's been in VMFA's permanent Collection. I see it in Chrysler Museum: https://chrysler.org/chrysler-museum-shakes-up-contemporary-collection/ and https://chrysler.org/exhibition/remix-redux/. Can you enlighten me if this is permanent collection? Graywalls (talk) 19:27, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Graywalls: "From ancient art to works from the modern masters, our permanent collection rivals that of any American museum."ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:40, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:20, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:20, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:20, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, meets WP:NARTIST, art held in permanent collections of multiple galleries/museums, 3 of savedge's photos also in The Polaroid Collection (that doesn't have a wikiarticle but is wikinotable:)), (see here). Coolabahapple (talk) 07:43, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  question How do we distinguish a notable gallery from run of the mill and vanity galleries? Graywalls (talk) 07:50, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Graywalls, that's actually fairly straightforward, but any attempts to establish a notability guideline for art galleries that I've been involved in have been thwarted by editors who insist that art galleries are no different from green grocers. If you're really interested, we can talk about how to determine notability by objective measures. I'm just, really, really sure that the community will never accept such a guideline. Vexations (talk) 12:08, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• comment so I'm not firmly insisting a position for deletion at this point; however I do challenge the line of argument that appearing in an inventory of liquidation or estate sale of this nature automatically gives a Wikinotable cred to anyone and everyone who appears in an inventory list. This bankruptcy auction was notable, because of some notable contents. I would argue that it would be hinging in inherited notability, which for orgs/companies is explicitly denounced, however, other notability guidelines are silent on. This could merit further discussion elsewhere. Graywalls (talk) 18:49, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I see where you are coming from. All other !keep voters have basically agreed that the two collections (VMFA and Chrysler Museum) mean she meets WP:NARTIST. This is in line with established criteria that we apply all the time for artists. So objecting to that is to some degree rejecting established criteria. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:07, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was suggesting that based on the above, the Polaroid Collection should not be part of the consideration. Graywalls (talk) 19:09, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Technically it could be, as she was in the collection once, making three collections ("once notable, always notable"). But even without it she meets the "several notable collections" guideline of WP:ARTIST.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:19, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I'm not super-convinced, I don't like the work, and the COI editing is seriously off-putting, but there is sufficient material in reliable sources to sustain a stubby bio, and the inclusion of her work in two museum collections is supporting evidence that professionals with relevant experience in the field have critically engaged with her work (that's another way of saying that someone who knows what they're doing decided the work was important). Vexations (talk) 12:15, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Vexations: My thoughts exactly.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:36, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and special praise for ThatMontrealIP for finding that VMFA citation. I went looking when the AfD was posted, but couldn't find it. I agree with Vexations that the article's origins, and status at nomination were pretty offputting, but I think that ThatMontrealIP has done a very appropriate cleanup. Theredproject (talk) 14:35, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Based on museum collections as per NARTIST guidelines. Netherzone (talk) 17:07, 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 Deleted per G5 by Ponyo (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 17:22, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shaji Thumpechirayil[edit]

Shaji Thumpechirayil (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 original articel was a copy of the subject's Facebook page and has since been hidden via revdel. The remaining stub is refbombed with unreliable sources, music streaming services and directory listings. Of all the references, only [6] and [7] might be considered for establishing notability, but the coverage is not substantial. Whpq (talk) 20:48, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural note Speedy deleted per WP:CSD#G5.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:10, 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. As a historical note, this is the last article in the once-enormous Orphaned articles from February 2009 category. May it rest in pieces. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:56, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

St. Luke's House[edit]

St. Luke's House (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 be a WP:MILL health service provider. I can't find anything besides passing mentions in any WP:RS. Nothing for Cornerstone Montgomery either, the company St. Luke's House merged into. Mbdfar (talk) 20:44, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No claim of notability. Mccapra (talk) 05:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Aside from a few brief mentions in local sources, I am not finding any real coverage in reliable, secondary sources that demonstrate notability. This does not pass the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 15:21, 23 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) 03:49, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of European dust devils and dust devil outbreaks[edit]

List of European dust devils and dust devil outbreaks (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)

These events are simply not notable. They typically do very little damage (see this pic of the very limited extent of the damage for the March 2020 dust devil listed in the article.) I'd be surprised if these even made the local news. Pichpich (talk) 20:42, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. It would be one thing if the events had articles associated with them. I can't even find a single notable dust devil worldwide on Wikipedia, let alone enough in Europe to warrant a list. Mbdfar (talk) 20:51, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Incidents of minor roof damage don't require any notice whatsoever, ever. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:09, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:39, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:39, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Dust devils are trivial. We might as well have a list of hailstorms. Mccapra (talk) 05:21, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NOTEVERYTHING Lightburst (talk) 15:41, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:19, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Very few events. Fails WP:LISTN. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 05:34, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I cannot see how any list of individual dust devils is notable. Lightburst (talk) 01:35, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:13, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Flesh (musician)[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Not the easiest name to search for, but even in conjunction with the names of various releases there doesn't appear to be any coverage of this artist in reliable third-party sources. Current sources are the artist's own Bandcamp and Soundcloud sites and the YouTube channel of his record label, and there doesn't seem to be anything better than this online. Richard3120 (talk) 20:26, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 20:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 20:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 20:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:42, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for bringing up the suggestion to delete the article. Granted, Flesh is not the most covered artist in history. I didn't know the standard for how notability is measured on Wikipedia (I understand it better now). When I created the article, I thought that several million views on one platform alone in theory warranted a dedicated article for the artist, especially given that comments have been left on the artist's music videos requesting additional information. Of course, this is not the same as third-party coverage. That said, now may indeed not necessarily be the best time to include this article in the main namespace for the reason you mentioned. I'd be happy to hear any other thoughts on the matter. Thanks again for reviewing! Thraex64 (talk) 20:47, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thraex64, pretty much any artist nowadays can get millions of views on YouTube, so it's not really anything out of the ordinary. Per WP:NOTDIR and WP:INDISCRIMINATE, Wikipedia isn't a place to just place album track listings just to provide information without context – there are plenty of other sources like Amazon or iTunes or Discogs which provide this service. Richard3120 (talk) 21:04, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Richard3120, understood- thanks again. Perhaps the current content can serve as a basis for a future article should the need for it arise. Sorry for the trouble, feel free to delete the article as I don't know how to.

No problem – you can read WP:MUSICBIO for the notability requirements and WP:RS to understand what kind of sources are required for an article. You can keep the content in the sandbox section in your user page to work on it there, or as a draft article, but if it's in draftspace it will be deleted after six months if you haven't worked on it. The AfD will run its course and the article will be deleted once it's completed. Richard3120 (talk) 21:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - In agreement with the nominator. The musician's bland name makes searching difficult, but a search for his various albums reveals no reliable coverage of any of them or the musician himself. All that can be found are his own self-promotions and social media. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DOOMSDAYER520, thank you for your input. The lack of coverage certainly didn't go unnoticed when I created the article. However given that some articles about related artists seem to be based almost entirely (if not entirely) on self-promoted sources or a type of circular-reporting, I wanted to give it a try as I've looked for the article myself on Wikipedia (and no doubt have other people). But in principle I agree that it doesn't meet the requirements to be in the main namespace at this time. In the meantime, the draft can be developed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Flesh_(musician) Thraex64 (talk) 21:44, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that Wikipedia is an all-volunteer site, so if there are other articles with the same deficiencies as this one, that merely means that nobody has noticed them yet. If you happen to see an article that is propped up with unreliable sources, you could try to improve it or even nominate it for deletion yourself. Sorry your attempt at an article for this musician isn't working out, but you are already contributing. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 23:28, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly unlikely to go unnoticed and that's a good thing. To be fair I haven't found any articles that would perfectly meet the criteria for deletion as I understand it but then again I'm relatively new to editing. Thanks again in any case! Thraex64 (talk) 23:49, 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 redirect to Extraordinary People (2003 TV series). Nothing notable to merge. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:56, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Girl Whose Muscles are Turning to Bone[edit]

The Girl Whose Muscles are Turning to Bone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I am unable to locate reliable sources for this documentary film, an article which is the product of student editing. The article does not seem to meet NFILM or GNG. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:26, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:26, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:26, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: fails GNG and NFILM. It's always a red flag when there are no sources found to make a Reception section. --RexxS (talk) 20:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Extraordinary People (2003 TV series). This refers to an episode of that TV show that is not notable on its own. PriceDL (talk) 03:00, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Extraordinary People (2003 TV series) as not independently notable, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:33, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Per PriceDL and Atlantic306 discovery of a broader topic, merge and redirect to Extraordinary People (2003 TV series). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:47, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:50, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bikini Royale[edit]

Bikini Royale (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 film with no coverage as to why it should have its own article. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:16, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:16, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:16, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 21:11, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 21:14, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the film does not have the substantive reviews we would need to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A one-off Cinemax softcore with a single review by a pseudonymous (Tars Tarkas) is the name of a fictional character) website owner, there's noting else out there but dvd listings and pornhub hosting links to its sequel. Zaathras (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:21, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as there is a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources so that WP:GNG is not passed imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:30, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete only one reference, even if we are generous and consider it WP:RS, is not sufficient to satisfy WP:N. Additional search didn't help either (sigh). Ipsign (talk) 18:49, 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 redirect to A Star Is Born (2018 film). (non-admin closure)  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 19:32, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson Maine[edit]

Jackson Maine (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 does not contain enough information that are not already present in the articles List of accolades received by A Star Is Born (2018 film) and A Star Is Born (2018 film). The main part of this article, the 'Character arc' section is basically the summary of the whole movie. Sricsi (talk) 18:12, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Sricsi (talk) 18:12, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to A Star Is Born. KidAd (talk) 00:20, 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. Sandstein 10:05, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Lloyd (DJ)[edit]

Andy Lloyd (DJ) (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 local radio presenter. Article doesn't meet WP:GNG criteria. More like a CV than an article - Funky Snack (Talk) 17:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable radio DJ.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:05, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:40, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:40, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:49, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Barely found anything about him. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 03:12, 23 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. Unanimously, if one ignores - as I have done - the wall of text by VirtualSwayy. Sandstein 10:00, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Imagined interaction[edit]

Imagined interaction (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 behavioural theory, once you look past the obvious COI editing. Fails WP:GNG on the following points:

1. Significant coverage, so that original research is not required: Significant coverage does not exist (not even mentions on popsci sites, which is a low bar). We cannot write about the topic without doing original research, extracted from sources (ie the original paper, and derivatives thereof) written by the author.
2. Reliable: failed
3. Secondary sources: non-existent
4. Independent of subject: It's either discussed by the author(s), or by parties directly linked to the authors (same department at the same university). Not independent.

WP:GNG certainly fails here. Also see AfD on the author: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James M. Honeycutt. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:57, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:57, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  * This textbook not written by honeycutt
  * Another textbook not written by Honeycutt
  * This Encyclopedia Entry not written by Honeycutt
  * This book chapter not by honeycutt
  * This review by Jim Abbot of Honeycutt's award-winning book

• Delete – this is based entirely on primary sources, and there don't appear to be any reliable, secondary sources that discuss this subject. Fails WP:GNG. – bradv🍁 01:10, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  

• Comment - The argument by User:VirtualSwayy that "Deleting this topic would harm many communication undergraduate and graduate students" is nonsense. Either the topic is discussed in Communication Theory textbooks, or it is not discussed in Communication Theory textbooks. If it is discussed in the textbooks, it will still be in them after the article is deleted. If it is not in the textbooks, then it is outside the usual scope of study. If it is being studied because it is in Wikipedia but not in the textbooks, then it is original research, which is a misuse of Wikipedia, and is not notable. I have not reviewed whether the article should be kept. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:32, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - At least one statement by User:VirtualSwayy is clearly true. They say that they created an account to object to the deletion. That is true. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:34, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  

REPLY: If a statement could be more than 100% irrelevant to the discussion, this would be. Thanks for lowering the bar even further with this 2 for 1. It demonstrates another fallacy (non-sequitur) while simultaneously demonstrating one of the most intellectually lazy rhetorical techniques that exits, paralipsis, where you imply that I made false statements, but you don't actually say it, so you don't have to make any actual argument.— Preceding unsigned comment added by VirtualSwayy (talk • contribs)

• Delete a muddy mess. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC),[reply]

• Delete. Xxanthippe couldn't have said it better: a muddy mess. – Majavah ^{talk · edits} 17:31, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The topic is probably notable, but significant portions of the article are incomprehensible. This is one of the clearer cases where an article should be blown up and started over. The collapsed argument by the SPA and the article have more or less the same quality. This does not mean that the SPA is a suckpoppet, but it may mean that the topic attracts this sort of rhetoric. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:56, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I was drawn to this discussion by the related AfD on James M. Honeycutt. The article here does not make a convincing case for notability. I am skeptical that it does hold, and in any case WP:TNT applies. Comment that the WP:BLUDGEON wielded by the SPA (and interaction with wikipedia software) is making the discussion a bit difficult to navigate. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:13, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete. As best as possible I've put aside my primary gut reaction at these broadcast sprays of academic logorrhea, in the article and here and at James M. Honeycutt. That reaction is impatience with my time being wasted which gradually ripens into mild disgust. Just being real. It reflects badly on LSU for one thing. With more objective coolness I believe there might be a valid idea struggling to breathe under this suffocating pile of COI & broken ideas & undeveloped writing skills but it's nobody's job to go in there and rescue it. --Lockley (talk) 19:16, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The very first sentence (Imagined interactions (IIs) are a type of social cognition and mental imagery grounded in symbolic interactionism in which individuals imagine conversations with significant others for a variety of purposes) is both the antithesis of clarity and a copyvio of Honeycutt and Ford (2001). Opaque copyvio continues with beneficial mechanism for operationalizing the study of intrapersonal communication. Then we get Honeycutt et al. (1989) discuss how IIs have their theoretical foundation in the work of symbolic interactionists and phenemonologists, including Mead (1934), Dewey (1922) and Schutz (1962). This is lifted from Honeycutt and Ford (2001), with the trivial substitution of "et al." for "and his colleagues". I'd fail a student who wrote a paper so dishonestly. A top-to-bottom rewrite would be necessary to save this article, supposing that the notability case can be made for it, which I doubt. XOR'easter (talk) 22:59, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• delete this is a hot combo of really shitty original research and promo. Praxidicae (talk) 23:11, 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. See, mutatis mutandis, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Imagined interaction. Sandstein 10:04, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

James M. Honeycutt[edit]

James M. Honeycutt (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 academic, once you look past the obvious COI editing (most of which was cut down), for the following reasons:

Under WP:NPROF, only (1) or (5) could possibly apply. Analysing both:

1. The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.: We do not need to consider the limitations of the former "broadly construed" part, because this individual's impact cannot be demonstrated by independent reliable sources (the 2nd condition).
2. The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon.: Being "Professor Emeritus" simply means retired professor. His position is listed simply as "professor emeritus" on Louisiana State University's website: https://www.lsu.edu/hss/cmst/people/faculty/JHoneycutt.php -- no reliable sources to call him distinguished. So this criteria also fails.

On WP:GNG: we fail on significant coverage, secondary sources and independence of subject (the few books on the matter are all authored by him, or he's a key contributor).

We do not give every single lecturer and/or professor a Wikipedia article. The criteria to determine the cases where an article is warranted is not met in this case. Also see AfD for his theory: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Imagined interaction. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:49, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:49, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:49, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE REMOVE THIS DELETION FLAG. IT DOESN"T EVEN PASS THE SNIFF TEST!

UNDER WP:NPROF, BOTH (1) AND (5) ARE MET.

• has held... distinguished professor...: Flag links his faculty bio and says " -- no reliable sources to call him distinguished."

As the flag correctly states, "Being "Professor Emeritus" simply means retired professor." So what logical gymnastics moves does one use to get from there, to where it ALSO means "not distinguished". When distinguished Professors retire they become... wait for it.... Professor Emeritus. But that's not the worst thing. The worst thing is...

YOU ARE NOT EVEN READING YOUR OWN "EVIDENCE" THAT YOU LINK!!! YOUR LINK clearly states he received the distinguished faculty award at LSU in 2012. This can be verified with the office of academic affairs' HERE. Just in case you don't think a distinguished faculty award makes you a "distinguished professor", let me clear that one up. It awards "sustained excellence" and carries with it a permanent salary increase.At LSU, an award with a salary increase is classified as a "designated honorific". Recipients of designated honorifics at LSU are unambiguously and explicitly considered "distinguished professors". You should actually READ my evidence. It's really, really good, and by "my evidence" I include your link, because every link here from both you and me supports James Honeycutt meeting NPROF(5). Nothing supports your claim. NADA!

THE END! THIS UNABILGOUSLY AND VERIFIABLY MEETS THE ONLY CONDITION THAT NEEDS TO BE MET, NPROF(5). Please Remove the deletion flag. VirtualSwayy (talk) 21:50, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Here is the link to his google scholar page. Google scholar puts his h-index at 34. However two of the articles that factor into that, including the single most cited article which accounts for more than 20% of his lifetime citations, don't have his name listed as an author. Agreed that the article is a mess and creates the perception that large chunks of it were written by someone with a COI. MoneciousTriffid (talk) 21:23, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed odd that some of the GS entries do not contain his name as author. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:08, 17 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]

I am changing my comment to delete, and have edited my top level statement to reflect that. Read through WP:TNT and that seems a good fit for the current incarnation of the article. Entirely independent of any conclusion about the underlying subject's notability either way. MoneciousTriffid (talk) 23:16, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – from the number of citations this is a very borderline WP:NPROF case, but the promotional writing and lack of reliable sources are major problems that cannot be easily solved. At the very least this needs to be deleted per WP:TNT. – bradv🍁 01:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Despite all the objections from the subject's affiliate above, this article still does not have a single reference to an independent reliable source. If there any usable sources out there, I am unable to find them. – bradv🍁 23:47, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  * This textbook not written by Honeycutt
  * Another textbook not written by Honeycutt
  * This Encyclopedia Entry not written by Honeycutt
  * This book chapter not by Honeycutt
  * This review by Jim Abbot of Honeycutt's award-winning book

• Delete Even cutting out the dubious cites on GS we are left with around 3000 cites and an h-index of 32. Marginal for a pass of WP:Prof#C1 in the well cited field of pop-pschology. His citations on Research Gate [10] are 1263, some three times less than those on GS: curiouser and curiouser. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:56, 18 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete per WP:TNT. While I think that the subject is probably marginally notable per WP:NPROF C1 and possibly C8 (although certainly not C5), the case doesn't look so strong per previous comments. The unreferenced mess that is the existing article would need complete reworking in order to be a useful article. Blow it up. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-notable per above analysis. Given the COI problems here and at the related Imagined interaction, also up for deletion, plus the suspiciously similar verbal styles shared by the OP and their single-issue defender, this is a candidate for G11 speedy deletion as bald self-promotion. Blow it up. --Lockley (talk) 19:27, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete While a $2000 raise and a watch are nice, I remain unconvinced that they represent the kind of top-notch lifetime achievement in scholarly work that WP:PROF#C5 is about. With the notability case borderline at best, the current content is a mess, beyond the reach of ordinary editing to fix. WP:TNT. XOR'easter (talk) 22:46, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:45, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ramada, California[edit]

Ramada, 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)

Yet another Sacramento Northern siding, now vanished into the orchard the line sliced through. Not a community of any sort. Mangoe (talk) 13:01, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:22, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:22, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete - the only mention of a "Ramada" in Mansfield's more than 1,000 page History of Butte County, California (1918) is a mention of "Ramada Ranch". The 8th volume of the "Western Canner and Packer" from 1916 contains two mentions of Ramada. First mention: "Planting almonds at Ramada, Butte County: In the Ramada district of Butte County extensive plantings of almonds are being made as the soil has proven to be favorable." Second mention: "Prune plantings. ... Butte County: Preliminary estimates of planting in the district about Oroville indicate that at least 700 acres will be planted this year. The largest planting will be at Ramada, where it is estimated that three hundred acres will be planted." The only thing that gives me any pause is the mention of "Ramada district". That's most likely early-20th-century agrispeak for "in the vicinity of Ramada Ranch", but there's a chance it isn't so I'm weak delete for now, in case anyone turns up evidence that the "Ramada district" was a more widely recognized farming district and not just an ad hoc reference. But it is most likely that "Ramada" is nothing more than a ranch and a nearby siding that borrowed the ranch's name. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 00:02, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a non-notable locale. --Lockley (talk) 11:29, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - to CJ's point, district doesn't necessarily mean community. This one is not notable. Glendoremus (talk) 04:47, 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 merge to Birdhouse Skateboards. (non-admin closure)  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 22:50, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Beginning (2007 film)[edit]

The Beginning (2007 film) (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 film with no coverage as to why it should have its own article. Donaldd23 (talk) 16:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 16:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 16:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Birdhouse_Skateboards#The_Beginning_(2007). I think that this could be summarized into a paragraph and placed in the main article for Birdhouse - it doesn't really seem like there's any true coverage out there for this film. I will note, however, that the company article needs quite a bit of work as well. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect as above, not independently notable imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:24, 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. While the article has needed work for a long time, and possibly may always, consensus is that it passes at least WP:GNG. Hzh has provided several great print sources. (non-admin closure) Ifnord (talk) 15:17, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Crab soccer[edit]

Crab soccer (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 was the subject of an Afd discussion back in the early days of Wikipedia, and was kept on the basis of a large number of variations on "I can't personally find any sources but I'm sure they exist" and nothing even remotely based on policy, even the relatively laxer policies of that time. Thirteen years later, and the purported sources still consist of a Wikipedia page, a four-sentence entry in a Boy Scouts directory, a dead link, and a single paragraph in a blog entry from 2014. I've looked—hard—for anything approaching a reliable source; while I can find a fair few mentions on blogs and personal website, I'm literally finding nothing (on either Crab soccer or Crab football) that even remotely could be considered a source for Wikipedia's purposes.  ‑ Iridescent 16:51, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.  ‑ Iridescent 16:51, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A quick Google Books search brings up lots of coverage, and there are even mentions in a few scholarly articles. A web search was deficient, though. SportingFlyer T·C 18:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Found this straight-away. I know it is/was played in primary schools in the UK, as I played it in PE classes. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:10, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 14:47, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I vaguely remember playing this at school. But since when did we have articles on playground/school activities? Lack of sources is key here. GiantSnowman 14:49, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep additional sourcing to show there is reliable source coverage of this exists. We need better sourcing and more historical analysis, but this is a subject that passes notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete primary school kid's games with non-concrete rules is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:29, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (or at the very least merge as a WP:ATD to some relevant article about football variants). WP:DINC, and in any case there appears to be sufficient coverage of this in proper sources such as the one Lugnuts indentifies. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:19, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are enough sources to satisfy GNG, just a few here - [11][12][13]. Hzh (talk) 14:35, 24 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) 10:12, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Craig-Morgan[edit]

Robert Craig-Morgan (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 has somehow existed since November of 2005 and had a one source tag since 2009. However the one source is IMDb which does not meet the requirements of a reliable source. IMDb has obaque and clearly not working fact checking, and it seeks to cover everyone in what amounts to directory style, so it is not an indication of notability. Biographies of living people especially require a reliable source, but we do not have that here. John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• For what it is worth the article was created by someone who had not even created a Wikipedia account. We no longer allow non-account creation of articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:28, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 17:05, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 17:05, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 17:05, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non notable actor with no independent reliable sources found. Donaldd23 (talk) 19:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, non notable actor. Spleodrach (talk) 12:25, 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) 04:49, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Stone[edit]

Eddie Stone (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 sourcing is very bad. Some of the link do not exist anymore (not even on wayback machine). But the real point is that there is nothing in the source that proves notability. I looked myself for better sourcing but i couldn't find anything that proves notability. not even searching his real name "Patrick Marano".AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 15:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable performer of in pornography.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:14, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. gnu57 19:15, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. gnu57 19:15, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. gnu57 19:15, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. gnu57 19:15, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:03, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:04, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:04, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Our notability standards for porn actors at WP:PORNBIO used to be abysmally lax, so that practically every person who'd ever been in porn at all passed them by virtue of being technically verifiable in the porn industry's equivalent of IMDb. But they've since been tightened up substantially, and this guy doesn't pass them anymore. His only other potential notability claim is that he was also a single-station local radio host in a single media market, which is not an instant free pass over our notability standards for broadcasters either. Bearcat (talk) 20:55, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Barely found anything about him. Not to mention the name is very common. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 02:20, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete per nom; I tried to look for news on him - found only 3 passing references, . Ipsign (talk) 18:55, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:51, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Diesel Washington[edit]

Diesel Washington (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 sourcing of this article is one short article on Xbiz about him signing exclusive and the list of the winner of Hookies Award (definitely not an important prize). I searched some significant source myself but I couldn't find any. AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 15:19, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. gnu57 15:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. gnu57 15:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable pornographic performer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The anthropologist William Leap wrote two (very similar) articles about anonymous internet comments on a men's pornography website, both of which mention various postings about Mr. Washington[14][15]. I suppose that this is coverage of a sort, but I doubt that it could support a BLP. The only other coverage I found was this interview in Instinct and passing mentions or tabloid gossip in the Bay Area Reporter and Queerty. Cheers, gnu57 16:44, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable, despite Mr. Washington's many accomplishments. --Lockley (talk) 18:53, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:05, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 09:36, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep News search [16] shows 86 articles, mostly about him. While most mentions are passing, but [17], [18], and [19] seem to be admissible refs (plus dozens of others may count collectively too), so he is IMO passing WP:N threshold. Ipsign (talk) 19:08, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ipsign: The Queerty one is about the fashion company Diesel, not Mr. Washington (though his name does appear in a comment below the article). The Instinct listicle is marked as "contributor" content: "This post was created by one of our Contributing Writers and does not reflect the opinion of Instinct Magazine or the other Contributing Writers when it comes to this subject." I'm not familiar with SentidoG, but the article you've suggested looks like a blog post to me. Cheers, gnu57 19:45, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per gnu57 ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:22, 23 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 Pillory. (non-admin closure) buidhe 10:16, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pranger[edit]

Pranger (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)

History

1. This article was created on 9 July 2004 by user: Husnock. It had no sources — but that was not usual for articles created at that time.
2. The ((1911)) was added 25 March 2006 by user:Fastifex
3. The title parameter, "title=Pranger", was added on 7 May 2017 by user:DerbyCountyinNZ
4. Today I am going through the backlog of ((EB1911)) and came to this article (Pranger) which is listed in "Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating a citation from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica without Wikisource reference"
   • There is no such article in the EB1911 see Wikisource:1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Vol 22:4
   • The only mention of this word in EB1911 is in Ws: EB1911: Branks
   • It is also mentioned on Wikisource:An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Pranger

As there currently is no German entry for this word (and it is a German word not an English one), there is no reason for English Wikipedia to have an an article under this name. Particularly as English language sources that mention it seem to not be certain whether it is best related to a "Scold's bridle" (EB1911) or the "Pillory" (The American Cyclopaedia: A Popular Dictionary of General Knowledge, Volume 13: Pillory).

This article was created with no sources and after 16 years there are still none (and no evidence that it is anything but a German term for something in English, so it is not a notable item in English), it is time it was deleted. PBS (talk) 14:56, 16 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 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:19, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not notable, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Thanks to nom for the detailed and model WP:BEFORE research. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:45, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect or Delete - the de-Wiki article Pranger corresponds and is linked to the en-Wiki article Pillory, so possibly redirect the en-Wiki Pranger to Pillory. If not, then delete, as it is already on Wiktionary. Ingratis (talk) 02:07, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:43, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:43, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:43, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:41, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Pillory. Clearly notable, although maybe not as a separate article, given it is a type of pillory. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:40, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• What is notable about this a foreign word and how do you reckon that it is a different type of pillory? (people have been tied to a post and pilloried in many countries).PBS (talk) 12:49, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• What part of the unsourced text in "Pranger" do you recommend merging into "Pillory"? -- PBS (talk) 12:47, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Pillory. EB 1911, 21, p611 (article 'Pillory') says "In Germany it was known as pranger." Any other content is unsourced and may be WP:OR and should not be merged. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:17, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:56, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

K.M. Akhtaruzzaman[edit]

K.M. Akhtaruzzaman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I 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) 14:43, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 17:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 17:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete clearly promotional. Wikipedia is not the place to boost one's online profile. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:07, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:28, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Promotional article about the subject. No reliable external sources to substantiate notability. — Infogapp1 (talk) 20:56, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; Purely promotional article. -Hatchens (talk) 06:10, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:11, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Patton[edit]

Brad Patton (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)

Sourcing is irrelevant and there is nothing pointing toward notability. I searched for more sources and all I could find is that somehow spread the world that Mike Pence is a former porn star and got confused with Brad Patton and this is definitely not something relevant. AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 09:29, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:39, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:39, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:27, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:27, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:27, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:27, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable pornographic performer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:29, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Subject may be notable under his birth name as an athlete (skater), including a claim of a national-level junior championship. These issues have not been evaluated. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 00:41, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• actually i also searched for sources about his skater career, with his real name, but I didn't find anything that would make any difference. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 09:39, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• comment I did some extra researches of him as a skater and i still can't sill anything significative. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 13:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:N. FWIW, all news refs about him were in the context of accusing Mike Pence to be gay - an obviously passing mention. Ipsign (talk) 19:13, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:54, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coylet Inn[edit]

Coylet Inn (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 part of NPP. I kind of wanted to keep, this is the sort of article I like, but I can't see how it meets NBUILDING (for the building), NCORP as a business, or plain old GNG. Current sourcing is a 404 link to a commercial website, a listing in a directory, a brief mention in a local newspaper article about a fire at the building, and a brief mention in a local newspaper article about a spooky encounter at a hen do there. I've checked sites like Historic Environment Scotland and Canmore to see if they have anything, but all I could find was a passing mention in Canmore's description of the nearby (and similarly named) Coylet Hotel, a related but separate archaeological site. Can't find any better sourcing, so I can't find a route to notability. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment A number of additional sources have now been added to the article; however, none of them gives any significant detail about the hotel, the details are all about the ghost story associated with it, and the fact that a film was made about the ghost. From all of the combined sources, all we can say about the hotel itself is that it exists, that Emma Thompson had a wedding reception there, and that it is a 17th Century coaching inn (and that last one is rather dubious - none of the sources are RS for architectural details, and from what I can make out from the pictures it looks much more recent - it's possible that there was merely a coaching in on the site in the 17th C, or that some of the fabric of the current building is old, but without a good architectural source I wouldn't be comfortable with that description). I would be happy to withdraw the nomination if a decent description of the building could be found in an RS like a Pevsner, or if some descriptions of the hotel itself were found (in the form of reviews) in RS, but at the moment I would suggest a possible merge and redirect to The Blue Boy (film), which covers the film made about the ghost story (which is really what the substantial sources are about). GirthSummit _(blether) 10:08, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Just noting that I have now managed to get my hands on a copy of FA Walker's book on the region (part of the Pevsner series of architectural guides). It has descriptions of several buildings on the shores of Loch Eck, but this isn't one of them. This strengthens my view that the inn isn't notable as a building - those books are pretty comprehensive in their coverage. It could in theory still be notable as a hotel if there were multiple reviews in RS that would satisfy NCORP, but I'm not seeing them. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:30, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete We don't keep Wikipedia pages about a house just because there is a story about a haunting. Show RS about the house outside of a ghost story. Sgerbic (talk) 05:52, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a non-notable bed and breakfast. --Lockley (talk) 19:17, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Nom. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 14:10, 23 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) 05:24, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DSOGaming[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG / WP:NWEB. Non-notable gaming website, created by a possible WP:COI. (IceWelder, I've went through the proper channels). soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 13:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:47, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:47, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:47, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete from the coverage I found in the VG search engine I only seemed to find passing mentions as opposed to the significant coverage needed to meet WP:GNG. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 16:44, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Does not offer significant coverage from reliable third-party sources. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 17:16, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not enough substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. It's possible that this site could even become a source itself for VG criticism, but that doesn't mean there's enough independent coverage to explain what this source is. No prejudice against re-creating it once reliable sources are found, as always. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:46, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:03, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Guevara[edit]

Greg Guevara (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)

YouTuber (with 237k subscribers) that does not meet GNG. Eostrix (talk) 13:17, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Eostrix (talk) 13:17, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Eostrix (talk) 13:17, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Eostrix (talk) 13:17, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No indication found of subject’s notability. Mccapra (talk) 22:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Barely found anything about the YouTuber. Search results mostly show various people bearing that name with various occupations instead. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:30, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the sourcing is not there to show a passing of GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It lacks WP:GNG and Google search results indicate that there are no sources that discuss the subject in detail. Reinforcing the notability of the subject would be very difficult for those that may want to help. Cryforjustice (talk) 12:25, 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 merge to Chester, South Carolina#Police. (non-admin closure) —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 09:06, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chester Police Department (South Carolina)[edit]

Chester Police Department (South Carolina) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not enough for its own article. Merge to Chester, South Carolina. Fuddle (talk) 13:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. Fuddle (talk) 13:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Agree with merge but I think this isn't really an AFD issue - it's notable, just probably better covered under the geographical location. FOARP (talk) 13:45, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to article on town. This is way too small a town to justify a seperate article without really good sourcing to show notability very strongly, which is lacking here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:37, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge is the best idea. --Lockley (talk) 20:26, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - easily fits in city article and there is no reason it needs to be separate. LadyofShalott 01:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge' I had to write it to see how hefty it would be. I will get to it in the next few hours. --''Paul, in Saudi'' (talk) 11:35, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done But I am never sure how to delete a page and make a redirect. Can someone lend a hand?--''Paul, in Saudi'' (talk) 13:06, 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 deleted as A10. (non-admin closure) —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 09:21, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of MasterChef Junior episodes[edit]

List of MasterChef Junior episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unnecessary list creation, all info is completely copied and pasted from the exact same information in the individual season articles. In addition no such list exists for the parent show MasterChef (American TV series). SanAnMan (talk) 12:32, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:45, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. 09:47, 17 June 2020 (UTC) Ajf773 (talk) 09:47, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. All the episodes are on individual seasons' articles. There is no need for an amalgamated list. Ajf773 (talk) 09:47, 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 Withdrawn. The nomination has been withdrawn. (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 17:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SC-76 Thunderbolt[edit]

SC-76 Thunderbolt (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 GNG. The one primary source used to cite this article is well short of RS, a google search found nothing attributable. Cavalryman (talk) 12:17, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn – notability established by FOARP. Cavalryman (talk) 14:35, 16 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]

• Keep per WP:NEXIST. Particularly these two sources: 1 (see the review on p. 10) 2 (see the extended quote from Simon Schofield - a defence expert). There's also some coverage of the appearance of the rifle at IDEAS 2014 but I'm not sure if that is based on a press-release or not. I've added these references and a couple of other ones to the article - take a look. FOARP (talk) 13:15, 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 no consensus, with no prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation.

Some notes: it seems unlikely that this film is a hoax, as evidenced by the film having a page on Rotten Tomatoes (here) (although there are no critic or audience reviews), and having received some coverage in some publications, such as Medium (here), despite this being essentially a reprinted press release. Furthermore, the article does not qualify for WP:G5 speedy deletion because it was created before its creator was found to be socking. Also, please note that these side notes are not an !vote within this closure. Rather, they are just notes to address some aspects of the nomination for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:28, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dajjal: The Slayer and His Followers[edit]

Dajjal: The Slayer and His Followers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:HOAX and WP:NOTPROMO, no mention in any RS or verification that this film even exists. Created by the same sock farm that made the now twice AfD'd Rana Abrar (the director here) article. Other promotional articles (now deleted) for non-existent films by the same sock farm include: Son of Kashmir: Burhan, The Evil Marriage. A prod was removed without any improvement to the article (adding simply references to editable databases). I cannot find a single RS which reviews it or even verifies the existence of this film besides trailers. Gotitbro (talk) 13:13, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Gotitbro (talk) 13:13, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Gotitbro (talk) 13:13, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Gotitbro (talk) 13:13, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:07, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:07, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jordan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:07, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• If the film doesn't exist, then the article should definitely be deleted. But after a quick Google search, there is actually a lot of websites that cover this film. Sam1529 (talk) 05:03, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• This film has a lot of media coverage and it is a notable topic, you can just see by searching on Google. There are many controversies on this film which is why it is known by many people. There are many ratings and reviews from large film and media agencies on it. Just because pages related to it got deleted doesn't make this film less notable.

These pages are being removed by those who are against the movie of another controversial film "Son of Kashmir: Burhan" which is also a very notable film as its news was aired on famous Pakistan and Indian News channels but it got removed out of animosity of those who opposes the topic of the film.

One can search about Dajjal Film and see its presence on media is very notable. A speedy deletion of this film has been rejected just a month ago which was made by the same person who is now putting it for deletion again and again.--JonnyK.2 (talk) 08:24, 4 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:48, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sheep Films[edit]

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

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

Not a notable website. Wikieditor600 (talk) 14:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I found no sources to substantiate General notability, the website suggests no coverage of that kind exists. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:22, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:49, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tigris.org[edit]

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

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

Not a notable website. Wikieditor600 (talk) 15:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:07, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:07, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Found my way here from a sockpuppet. This website clearly does not establish notability and should absolutely be deleted. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 20:51, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Captain Galaxy (talk) 16:16, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sadochismo[edit]

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

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

I only found about four sources for this album, and three of them were just lists of weird metal subgenres that used it as an example of Pornogrind. There was one album review in German but I’m not sure that’s enough to prove notability on its own. Dronebogus (talk) 04:49, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 04:49, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 02:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I found a few reliable sources which talk about the abum: [20], [21], [22] and [23]. With these, the article is good enough to pass WP:NALBUM. My vote stands. I won't reply any further. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 01:09, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Much as my eyes roll straight over my scalp whenever I see Mr. Lil' Attitude doing his turkey strut routine as above, he's presented four usable reviews here. That's good enough. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:43, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]