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. BD2412 T 01:10, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bancroft, California[edit]

Bancroft, 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)

Bancroft was a station of the Sacramento Northern Railroad. Built on the property of a wealthy local rancher. Used primarily for loading farm goods. Never was a community and no other notability. [1] Glendoremus (talk) 16:29, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: What about the sources on the page? Like [2], a government website, which lists it as a "Populated (Community) Place" (ie "Place or area with clustered or scattered buildings and a permanent human population (city, settlement, town, village). A populated place is usually not incorporated and by definition has no legal boundaries. However, a populated place may have a corresponding "civil" record, the legal boundaries of which may or may not coincide with the perceived populated place. Distinct from Census and Civil classes."), and [3]. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:18, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • GNIS has a terrible track record for accuracy. There are literally hundreds of cases where a remote railroad siding or rail depot has been called a populated place in the GNIS. I should have noted that Durham's "Place Names of the San Francisco Bay Area" call Bancroft a "locality" as distinct from a town or other community. Glendoremus (talk) 20:01, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see WP:GNIS and my favorite, the supposedly "populated place" of Susie that was really an industrial railroad spur. The GNIS is worthless when it comes to establishing that a place name is not only an actual community, but a notable one. Reywas92^Talk 23:49, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:55, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• delete For some reason there is a longer than usual history of topo maps for this, and they show nothing here until the 1930s. Later ones show a long warehouse-like building alongside the tracks, which aerials show as well, sitting in the midst of an array of orchards, and that is all that there ever was of Bancroft. More recently, the rail line was expanded and elevated, a canal was run through where the building once stood, and suburban sprawl has wiped away any traces of the orchards. GNIS simply copied the name off the topos, but as was said above, the track record for interpreting those names is not good enough for it to be used as a sole authority. Mangoe (talk) 15:23, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete' More mass-produced junk, a site now in the city of Walnut Creek, California. Reywas92^Talk 23:49, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not pass WP:GEOLAND. Lightburst (talk) 15:08, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Mass-produced without verification and fails WP:GEOLAND. –dlthewave ☎ 02:07, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) P,TO 19104 (talk) (contributions)

Bo en[edit]

Bo en (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)

Possibly not notable. I'd like to see what the consensus is. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contributions) 23:18, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:27, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I’m the article creator. I honestly don’t care how this goes. Even as I was creating this article, I wasn’t too sure if my sources were good enough.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 23:55, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - In fairness he might just pass requirement #1 at WP:NMUSICBIO thanks to articles in Pitchfork and Japan Times, which are already cited. He seems to have gotten some notice for unconventional soundtracks for a couple of notable video games, which might also help with requirement #10. He also has an article in Fader ([4]) that could enhance the Wikipedia entry. However, I would not argue with anyone who thinks that additional reliable sources are necessary, as I can't find much else beyond the routine streaming and industry listings. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 02:54, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Articles in Pitchfork and Japan Times meets WP:NMUSICBIO #1 and would also meet #10 based on the video games he scored. RoseCherry64 (talk) 11:00, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:44, 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 Procedural close. We can't start changing Dixie Mall at this AfD. Consider a formal requested move at which if successful this DAB would be eligible for speedy deletion. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:25, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dixie Mall (disambiguation)[edit]

Dixie Mall (disambiguation) (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)

Neither entity is called "Dixie Mall". As far as I can tell, no mall was ever specifically just called "Dixie Mall". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:53, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:58, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:54, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: all handled by hatnote on the US mall. Googling suggests that the Canadian mall is definitely referred to informally as "Dixie Mall"- it's quite likely the primary topic so the redirect is going to the wrong one, but this dab page is certainly redundant in any case unless we decide there's no primary topic in which case it should be at Dixie Mall instead of the redirect. PamD 09:18, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh WP:SOFIXIT: I've made a dab page at Dixie Mall. This can now be a redirect to it, so...

Redirect to new dab page at Dixie Mall as it isn't clear which is the primary topic. PamD 09:22, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There are only 2 possible uses and a disambiguation page is not required. Redirect Dixie Mall to Dixie Outlet Mall and put a hatnote there. Shhhnotsoloud (talk)
• Delete. Per XLbHammer. No disambiguation is necessary. Edison (talk) 19:41, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I reverted the copy-and-paste duplication of the dab content to the base name. If there's no longer a primary topic, the existing disambiguation page should be moved to the base name. If there's a primary topic (either the current one or the Canadian mall), then the disambiguation page should be deleted. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:37, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• OK, as my attempt to WP:SOFIXIT failed, delete but also retarget Dixie Mall to the Canadian mall which is clearly often thus referred to, rather than the defunct US one. We don't need a dab page if we agree to move from one as primary topic to the other as PT, rather than my proposed compromise of no PT. PamD 22:13, 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) ~ Amkgp 💬 14:21, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suzi Gablik[edit]

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

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

Subject fails WP:NPROF, WP:NARTIST, and WP:ANYBIO. As the citations show, she publishes stuff but there's very little about her. Many of the citations fail WP:SPS and I don't count the Smithsonian links simply because she donated notes of hers. I could donate my notes to the Smithsonian, too. I don't think WP:GNG reaches this low. As this is another of Mitzi.humphrey's works, we'll never know the possible extent of the CoI involved here. Regardless, the subject doesn't have a claim to notability. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:41, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:41, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:41, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:41, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:41, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There article doesn't do her justice. I just added https://www.jstor.org/stable/43155548. More to come. Vexations (talk) 22:21, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Suzi Gablik is a very well known art historian. Unfortunately her article was created by a notorious COI editor, and is caught in the chain of deletions. I will try to improve it to reflect her notability. Netherzone (talk) 22:23, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

She received a National Lifetime Achievement Award for outstanding achievement in the visual arts by the Women's Caucus for Art.[5] Netherzone (talk) 22:36, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Her work is in the collection of the Smithsonian Museum of American Art and the Black Mountain College Museum; and she has exhibited her work at the Museum of Modern Art, New York. I've added sections for these to her article with three citations. I think she clearly passes NARTIST between the notable award & the two collections. (Sorry for so many edits to this AfD.) Netherzone (talk) 23:02, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Passes WP:AUTHOR by having a substantial body of work reviewed in reliable publications. The article seemed to lack any sense of proportion or of why a person might be notable, but what matters is whether sources exist, even if they weren't yet used. (Also, while I could probably give the Smithsonian 12.8 linear feet of documents, they wouldn't bother to catalogue and archive them.) XOR'easter (talk) 22:26, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Author of seven books on art history, including the Thames & Hudson Magritte book. Easily meets GNG and likely also meets WP:NARTIST.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:07, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The nominator's assertion that he could donate his papers to the Smithsonian is not accurate, unless he's accomplished in some field that I'm not aware of. The Archives of American Art is not a junk drawer. — Toughpigs (talk) 00:01, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Easily passes both WP:AUTHOR and WP:ARTIST. I would argue that anyone with three book reviews in the New York Times is notable regardless of what else there is, but in this case what else there is is plenty. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:08, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, (WP:ANYBIO - art history/criticism fields) - whiteout!!. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep "The Archives of American Art is not a junk drawer" Theredproject (talk) 17:00, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Captain Galaxy (talk) 21:40, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Attina Marie Cannaday[edit]

Attina Marie Cannaday (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)

Completely unremarkable criminal, subject of utterly unremarkable news coverage all related to a single event; WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E. JBL (talk) 21:13, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. JBL (talk) 21:13, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. JBL (talk) 21:13, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Keep - Per WP:CRIME (perpetrators, bullet two), the crime was historically noteworthy in that Cannaday was a minor sentenced to the death penalty. Also Cannaday's story inspired a film. Her legacy (see the section I added to the article titled Legacy) seems to make this not really 'one event'. (Note: Per WP:BLP1E, if Cannaday is deemed insignificant herself, the information from this page should be merged into a page about the crime itself (ie. the event).) Samsmachado (talk) 04:21, 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 Body painting. I'm sure glitter butts can be adequately covered there, if sourced. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:49, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Body glitter[edit]

Body glitter (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 subject seems naturally to fall within Body painting; I'm not seeing independent notability here. GirthSummit _(blether) 21:09, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:16, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, I go to "Body paint" article and find it means only painting on body but not using other stick-on jewelleries (multi-coloured jewels, gemstone, rhinestones or crystal ornaments). You can search images of "glitter boobs" or "glitter butts" for more details. AneHara (talk) 21:22, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I would have no problem with some sourced content, written in an encyclopedic style, being added to Body painting to indicate that glitter is used sometimes. It's about decorating the surface of the human body with coloured substances - I don't think we need a separate article to cover the occasions when those substances are shiny. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:46, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• delete and then redirect as I did. There is no reason for this to be a standalone article, there is no coverage of the term body glitter and any article would require original research. Praxidicae (talk) 12:39, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so I'll redirect this to a section in Body painting article. AneHara (talk) 10:29, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete & Redirect - To Body paint. I would suggest a merge if there were anything worth merging. As it is, to do so would just about require a complete re-write enroute. Oy vey. --Jack Frost (talk) 10:34, 28 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) 21:34, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amarna Miller[edit]

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

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

pure promotionalism--reads as a press release, complete with links to everything possible.

No actual major films, but "she is also very active in social media" DGG ( talk ) 20:32, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:38, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:38, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - She passes the GNG with coverage in multiple Spanish reliable sources.[6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14] Reducing her notability to social media activity is just an WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:15, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Do you think the main/only issue is the promotionalism? And do you feel she otherwise meets the notability criteria? I ask because, on promotionalism alone, at a glance it doesn't seem like the article is so bad that WP:TNT is the only solution.
  • I've only really taken a glance at the article. I personally don't place much weight on all of the porno-related links myself. AfD and DRV have consistently reaffirmed the higher standard adult performers need to hit until they can meet notability (most recently in my Eva Lovia AfD), and so in that respect I doubt she meets notability, but I do notice the feature on GQ Spain for example. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:19, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed from comment to keep. Meets GNG, not overly promotional. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:30, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:49, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:50, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:50, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:07, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Per WP:NOTCLEANUP. With reliable sources indicated above, the article easily passes WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 23:29, 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. BD2412 T 01:13, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rose Setten[edit]

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

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

The subject asked me to nominate this for deletion, due to being nonnotable, and the existence has created security issues. S Philbrick(Talk) 19:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:53, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as notability is doubtful anyway. Mccapra (talk) 21:10, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:13, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It is a stub article with a lack of substance for any semblance of notability. She won a contest that does not have its own Wikipedia article. The article is grimly irrelevant. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 02:25, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have noticed in the article's history that an account claiming to be Rose Setten herself had requested deletion of the page. Independent of this request, the recent previous iterations of the article beforehand had a fragile basis to be on Wikipedia anyways (i.e. Lack of discernible discography or musical releases). Mungo Kitsch (talk) 02:33, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no reason to have this article especially if the subject does not want us to have it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:20, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 17:08, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no policy reason to override the subject's request for deletion, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:02, 26 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. BD2412 T 01:16, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Davis (minister)[edit]

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

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

Does not appear to be notable. Minor local coverage of a minor crime. —valereee (talk) 18:35, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —valereee (talk) 18:35, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —valereee (talk) 18:35, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. —valereee (talk) 18:35, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. —valereee (talk) 18:35, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, most sources are local news stories (Wikipedia is not news) and there's no indication of notability outside of one instance of church fund misuse that was covered in the Associated Press and some other news sources. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:54, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete news coverage for embezzling from the congregation he was over is not enough to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:30, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as only has temporary coverage for a historically insignifcant crime, so does not pass WP:CRIMINAL in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:30, 27 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. No consensus to delete this article, however, still an open debate on whether it should be named after the person or the event that can be decided outside of AfD. (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 14:39, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Raphael Gray[edit]

Raphael Gray (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:BLP1E and WP:BLPNAME Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:07, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:07, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:07, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:07, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:07, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Wp:crime no.2 - certainly something different by sending bill Gates stuff bought from his card. Meets WP:BLPcrime. Also enough coverage in Telegraph, BBC, the guardian, a feature on Frontline on PBS, included in several books and crime discussed in US Congress discussions about improving cyber security. Also unusual as was found guilty but did not get jailed. User:Davidstewartharvey
• Keep. Half a dozen high-profile notable interviews: PBS did an interview. BBC has an article. The Independent has an article. The Advocate. The Guardian. Webster New World Hacker's Dictionary. Joint Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit and the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the Committee on Financial Services. Implementing Homeland Security for Enterprise IT. The event is notable and remarkable: I'd agree with "rename", but I'm not sure what we'd rename it to. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 18:38, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The time period of reference has an extreme disconnect between what the FBI were aware of being involved in and what was capable. Here is an example (lousy article rework: https://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/secrets-former-credit-card-thief-dan-defelippi-1282/ ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Purduephotog (talk • contribs) 16:41, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment people are saying that this it notable, and I agree that the hacks themselves pass the GNG however, WP:BLP states:

Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met

• If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.

• If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article.

• The event is not significant (I think that this event is significant so this does not apply)

In that case, I think reformulating this article to refer to the event rather than to a low profile individual who hasn't been in the news for two decades would be better. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:45, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• What will the title of the article become? ~a (user • talk • contribs) 18:49, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think changing the title to Curador the name he made the hacks under, would be better.

If changing title what about The Hacking by Curador or Raphael Gray? More self explanatory and makes the page more about the incident? User:Davidstewartharvey

What about "Curador hacking incident"? Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:40, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

works for me.User:Davidstewartharvey

• Comment. FYI, this article was submitted to reddit and is currently one of the top posts: [15]. Jason McHuff (talk) 22:57, 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 moved to Draft:Katie Ascough. This subject should not be restored to mainspace except through the regular AfC review process. BD2412 T 01:17, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Ascough[edit]

Katie Ascough (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)

CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:50, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 18:03, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• CommanderWaterford, this needs a rationale? AllyD (talk) 18:03, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep article needs a total rewrite but subject clearly passes GNGBlackumbra (talk) 18:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Draft This nomination needs a stated rationale, but I can see several grounds. I am not convinced the subject meets GNG - a routine student, made known in one country for removal from an elected student representative position, and not having done anything very notable since - but as someone has done some work in gathering references, I'd be willing to give a chance to make a proper biography of it. SeoR (talk) 21:54, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Either keep or move to draft. Agree with Blackumbra that the article needs a total re-write, but the subject clearly passes GNG. No rationale has even been given for deletion by the nominator. Serhatserhatserhat (talk) 17:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:13, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 15:03, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - much ado about nothing, petty student politics that no-one outside of the bubble cares about. Spleodrach (talk) 21:51, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - While the nominator has not put forward any deletion rationale (and should have, and should frankly should have known that they should have), in terms of WP:COPYVIO, the content here objectively meets WP:G12. In that a very quick check confirms that it was wholescale "copy and pasted" from the sources on which it is based. While some of the copy/pasted content is passed-off as quotes and the like, the rest is not clarified as representing the original authors' work(s). And should be deleted for that reason. Alone. (We can't just wholescale copy and paste from 3 or 4 news articles, and pass it off as an article. We have long had policies in this regard. This is not new information for anyone. Including the editor who created this article.) Otherwise, in terms of WP:SIGCOV and WP:ANYBIO, it seems to me that any article on this subject (if written by an editor not blatantly plagiarising the work of others and pared back to the relevant facts) would fall within WP:BLP1E. Specifically, that the principal claim to notability arises from the subject's election to (and subsequent ejection from) a student representative body. Which, while it generated column inches at the time, all related to (effectively) the same event. In short: the current article should be deleted. As blatant copyvio/plagarism. And anyone contemplating replacing it (with something self-penned) should consider BLP1E. Guliolopez (talk) 00:26, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Per WP:NOTCLEANUP. Article should be heavily rewritten. Other than that, it easily passes WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 01:20, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify Terrible article and needs rewritten. Plenty of coverage available to satisfy notability. It really needs WP:TNT and started from scratch. scope_creep^Talk 16:10, 27 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 List of largest stars. (non-admin closure) Captain Galaxy (talk) 17:44, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AZ Cephei[edit]

AZ Cephei (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:NASTRO and WP:GNG. It is a faint slightly variable red supergiant with no journal coverage specific to this star or a small number of stars including this one. The article makes a claim to notability on the basis of having a modestly large although quite uncertain radius. I tried to redirect to List of largest stars, but this was reverted. Lithopsian (talk) 17:15, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:NASTRO. Aldebarium (talk) 19:42, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:57, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of largest stars per your original suggestion. This does not meet WP:NASTRO but there is no compelling need to delete the page history. I do have to chuckle at the sheepishly selfconscious use of Quora as a source though. If the result is redirect, and people still undo it, we can approach the closing admin to protect the redirect. Reyk _YO! 16:34, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per all of the other discussions on pages linking to "largest stars" Sam-2727 (talk) 00:03, 26 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. There is a consensus among those participating that this topic does not meet our guidelines for an article on places. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:07, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Germans Corner, Virginia[edit]

Germans Corner, Virginia (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)

There is no evidence that this place exists. I tried some WP:BEFORE, but I found nothing. 🌴Koridas🌴 (Negotiate) 00:44, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. 🌴Koridas🌴 (Negotiate) 00:44, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:52, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per WP:GEOLAND point 1. The source links to a US Government website and is classified by them as a "Populated Place." AFAIK, this is what is meant by "legally recognized" in the context of WP:GEOLAND. AviationFreak 04:01, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. My search did not return any results, nor did the alternate "Jermans" spelling, and the "unincorporated community" label used in the article is completely unsourced. GNIS does not confer legal recognition; it's merely a catalog of place names and locations, and the "populated place" feature class is reserved for places that do not have legal recognition. This appears to be another case of GNIS mislabeling a local landmark as a "populated place" instead of a "locale" as described at WP:GNIS. –dlthewave ☎ 14:51, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per dlthewave. I was unfamiliar with WP:GNIS when I made my above recommendation. AviationFreak 15:37, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• delete Gets less hits than usual, and the only serious ones are locale references about soil types. Curiously, the name doesn't show up until the 1970s on the topos, and its appearance suggests that it's the name of the house that sits in the bend of the curve. Mangoe (talk) 02:27, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete I found enough to prove it is a real place, but I don't think enough for an article. Appears to be an intersection with a few houses. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 18:28, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I know it is a reasonable debate about whether this is notable enough to be kept, but I would lean in favor of keeping. The location as a place name clearly exists. E.g., [16] ("The first tornado hit between 8:45 p.m. to 9:05 p.m. near German's Corner in Richmond County") (2015); [17] ("Junction of VA-639 and VA-624 near Germans Corner") (1982); [18] ("On February 17, the eagle checked in along the Rappahannock on Mulberry Island, a few miles outside of Germans Corner, VA.") (2019). And it appears on USGS topo maps at least as far back to 1968 (bottom left: [19]). This 1968 book about Richmond County has it under the "Jermans Corner" alternate spelling [20], and tells how it got its name: "Jermans Corner. A locality one and one half miles north of Naylors Beach at junction of Routes 636 and 624. Named for Wilbur L . Jerman, who built a large house there is 1923, where he lived until 1946. His wife, Cleva May, had received a deed to 50 acres, extending south and west of the corner, from her father J.H. Balderson in 1920. On some maps, the name is wrongly spelled German." "Germans Corner" also appears on maps on some documents on the Richmond County website. I don't see an advantage to deletion, I am happy to add these sources to the article. Is the world better off not having easy access to knowing why this locale exists (and is misspelled commonly, now)? Btw, Wilber died in 1968, and Cleva in 1974, you can visit them in Arlington, VA [21].--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:05, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Milowent, I strongly think none of the sources are reliable. The first few are all passing mentions, and Find a Grave is not a reliable source. Koridas ^talk? 03:14, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Koridas, you don't think a published book on the history of Richmond County, VA is a reliable source? But I am not suggesting we use findagrave as a source, I was just sharing that out of personal interest in what happened to who the locale is named for. As for the passing mentions, they are offered in response to the assertion in your nomination that there is no evidence the place exists. You would concede, would you not, that the original basis for your good faith nomination has been disproven? That's how collaboration works!--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:19, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the authority of the source, this is not enough to pass GNG as a location, and neither is it enough to pass GEOLAND as a settlement.----Pontificalibus 17:39, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's your opinion, to be sure. I don't intend to peruse the non-online archives of Virginia newspapers. I'm just pleased to know what Germans Corners is, and whether the rest of world can know is not my sole decision.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:09, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an opinion, it's a matter of fact based on policy. Nowhere does WP:N or any other policy advocate having articles for named locations in the absence of either in-depth coverage, or evidence of a settlement or natural landscape feature with that name.----Pontificalibus 10:58, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

yes, i'm sure we don't have any articles that fail your tests.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:16, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia, it is also a gazetteer. See WP:Five pillars Our encyclopedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. --Bejnar (talk) 19:48, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Bejnar, No, it's not a gazetteer, because Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, nor is it a directory. Koridas ^talk? 19:51, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ. I agree that Wiipedia is not a dictionary (See WP:NOT) nor a directory (ibid.), but it is a gazetteer, which does not meet the definitions of directory or dictionary. --Bejnar (talk) 15:11, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bejnar While WP:Five pillars states that Wikipedia "combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers" that does not mean it actually is any of those things. In fact, it lacks features of all of them - it has too much detail on certain topics for a general encyclopedia, is not particularly focused in the manner of a specialized encyclopedia, lacks the lists of future events such as moon phases and tides found in an almanac, and does not feature the comprehensive lists of geographic features found in gazetteers. Our inclusion criteria places are actually quite exclusive, and in the absence of sources discussing them in detail we don't have articles on mere named locations that have never been settlements.----Pontificalibus 15:50, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment ^[1] from 1982 has it as a place, definatley has a cemetery ^[2], but is just an address in the 1909 postal address. However here ^[3] is using it as a place nearest to their research. Rightmove US does not have it, but an architect firm had plans to build an eco project here ^[4]. Looking on Google maps it looks like what we would call in the UK a hamlet, with about 7 to 8 homes dotted around the said road junctions.User:Davidstewartharvey

• Reply - The Google Books source is a passing mention, Find A Grave is not reliable, the wild life center source is a passing mention, and the last source is also a passing mention. Koridas ^talk? 03:17, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No evidence it was a settlement, and no other reason to believe this location name is notable.----Pontificalibus 17:39, 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) 20:45, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Qua (board game)[edit]

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

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG - source cited only include 1 sentence discussion the game, and a search for other coverage only turned up https://quagamer.itch.io/qua by the developer of the game DannyS712 (talk) 16:04, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. DannyS712 (talk) 16:05, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no claim to notability, inadequate coverage, fails WP:GNG. --Bejnar (talk) 19:42, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I have improved the Qua (board game) Article, and have added a Conflict of Interest disclosure to the Talk page. I am Ok with changing the status from published to draft if someone else wants to edit it for publication. I had an email communication with Cameron Browne to confirm that Qua is the first fully 3D connection game. QuaGamer (talk) 06:13, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The improved article still has no claim to notability, and the game still has inadequate coverage, still fails WP:GNG. --Bejnar (talk) 15:15, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I agree there is inadequate coverage in independent sources. If this Article is deleted, what happens to internal Wikipedia links to it? Will they still go to this deleted article like the links to Selfo ? QuaGamer (talk) 19:12, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The first source barely mentions the subject and it's a User generated source, the second source doesn't even have anything to do with the subject and fails to mention it, and third source isn't really helpful at all (how-to guides are generally considered unreliable). Koridas ^talk? 04:38, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The first reference is to the 19th issue of Abstract Games Magazine. Qua is one of the articles in this issue. Here is a direct link to the Qua article in issue 19: Qua QuaGamer (talk) 05:43, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Still fails WP:GNG for lack of adequate coverage. Still has no claim to notability. --Bejnar (talk) 19:07, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Understood and I agree. If this Article is deleted, can it be merged with other games into a new Article that collects three player connection games, such as the ones listed in Cameron Browne's Connection Games book and perhaps others (e.g., Tricon: https://www.popcorn.cc/~zandor/english/tricon.htm)? QuaGamer (talk) 21:44, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• delete doesn't appear to meet the GNG. I can't find a BGG page for it, which is a bad sign. Hobit (talk) 16:35, 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. Big shout out to newspapers.com. I need to use them for older articles instead of the google newspaper archive. (non-admin closure)  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 09:34, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Never Too Late: My Musical Life Story[edit]

Never Too Late: My Musical Life Story (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:NBOOK and WP:GNG. Only significant coverage I can find is a Kirkus review.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 17:43, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 17:43, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The Christian Science Monitor and Los Angeles Times are blurbed on the back cover of the paperback, so those reviews exist in some capacity. Caro7200 (talk) 18:06, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The way I understand it, WP:BOOKCRIT excludes the blurbs written on the jacket cover because those aren't independent enough.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 04:40, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that may mean blurbs from other authors, celebrities, etc.? Critical blurbs are taken from printed reviews (in this case). I'm not suggesting that a book with a blurb should be the cited source, just that those blurbs originated in RS. Caro7200 (talk) 14:46, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment there's a brief review here, one here Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:05, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep there's three reviews with my two above and the one provided by the nom. I also clipped the LA Times review mentioned by Caro7200 from newspapers.com, another one here, partial review here, and some more from Newspapers.com. That's a clear NBOOK pass imo. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:14, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Meets WP:BOOKCRIT: [22], [23], [24], [25], [26]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:21, 28 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:21, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fantasque Sans Mono[edit]

Fantasque Sans Mono (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)

Notability not shown. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 14:35, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 14:35, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete-only one of these weblinks that you could consider a source is this brief post. The others are the developer's Github and a font repository website that lets you download free fonts. Blythwood (talk) 08:43, 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. No consensus to delete this and refs that show it meets WP:BKCRIT; issues of COI/PAID can be handled outside of AfD (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 14:55, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The J Curve (book)[edit]

The J Curve (book) (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 book does not meet the standards of WP:NBOOK. The only source—the Economist’s 2006 Top Books list—is not anything close to establishing notability. Moreover, as documented here and here, it is very likely the company and/or associates of the author, Ian Bremmer, have been engaged in at least a decade of edits from a slew of accounts with the purpose of using Wikipedia as an advertisement. This article is one such example. It should, at best, be part of Ian Bremmer’s page. WhinyTheYounger (talk • contribs) 15:09, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Updating to say that I think redirect to author is a reasonable course of action, as discussed below. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 16:49, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:12, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per WP:BKCRIT, "The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself." In addition, to the economist article, it is not hard to find reviews. For example, Carnegie Council, or Foreign Policy magazine (this piece links to a review in the Wall Street Journal, but the link was busted and I'm not going to go find it), or The Telegraph, or BBC, or The Futurist, and I think we could count Military Medicine, too. It satisfies NBOOK criteria. If there is a consensus on combining with the Bremmer page in order to best deal with CoI edition, that is a very reasonable decision that I support. However, on notability, the book crosses the threshold with room to spare. AbstractIllusions (talk) 16:08, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• redirect to author agreed it's reasonably notable, but it's also undeclared paid editing by one of a ring of meatpuppets. the article dates from before our present PAID policy, but meatpupettry was always prohibited. the bio article already contains material on the book, in fact rather too much material, and the section there will need to be abbreviated. DGG ( talk ) 03:49, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Is there an "original sin" policy that says that notable subjects should be deleted if the person who created the article had a CoI? If the book is notable, then the article can be edited to take out the promotional content. — Toughpigs (talk) 17:42, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think there is (or should be) an "original sin" policy, but I do think with minimally followed pages a good solution to biased editing, including CoI, is to consolidate to centralize the content. It can be easier to achieve proper weight, balance, and context when the content is consolidated. There has been one major content change to this page (deletion of the horrible Trivia section) since it was established in 2007, which could certainly justify redirecting to author to get the most good editors reading it and adding on to it. Keep is the right decision based on GNG or NBOOK, but to make the content the best it can be, the best decision is probably redirect to author. AbstractIllusions (talk) 04:17, 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 delete. wbm1058 (talk) 00:55, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Transport aviation (disambiguation)[edit]

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

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

Doesn't disambiguate articles with similar titles. Delete or listify. Fuddle (talk) 14:43, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: Redirect. Article can be blanked and redirected to Airline (disambiguation) instead of being deleted, considering its same definition. If needed, extra infos on said other article can be added. Gerald Waldo Luis (talk) 3:31, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Fuddle (talk) 14:43, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Fuddle (talk) 14:43, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:57, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. No redirect as it's not a synonym of airline. For example, military transports don't belong to airlines, nor do Air Force One and other government airplanes. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:25, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is also a malplaced disambiguation page as a Transport aviation article or redirect has never been created. – wbm1058 (talk) 11:42, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete doesn't actually disambiguate anything. -- Whpq (talk) 13:48, 26 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) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 17:14, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kansas State–Nebraska football rivalry[edit]

Kansas State–Nebraska football rivalry (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:GNG requires If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content." WP:NRIVALRY states "Sports rivalries are not inherently notable." and defers to GNG.

The article has been tagged re lack of rivalry citations since August 2018, as none of the 3 existing citations support the article's claimed topic. These teams are frequent conference opponents (almost 100 games) due to their status as longtime Big Eight and Big 12 conference members. However, searches do not return significant coverage of any rivalry, with many of the matches tied to WP:PRIMARY or non-RS sources such as fan sites. Fails GNG policy requirements. UW Dawgs (talk) 15:17, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:34, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:34, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:34, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:35, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Let's start with basics: This was never a major, traditional rivalry. That said, a reasoned argument can be made that there should be room on Wikpedia to record historically-significant series that have been played more than 90 times. Criteria qualifying this series as historically notable include (a) frequency of play - 95 total games spanning from 1911 to 2010; (b) geographic proximity - at 135 miles the closest competitors in the Big 12; and (c) eight marquee matchups where both teams were ranked, including 1995 (#2 v #8). The second-ever televised college football game in 1939 is also a plus. Lack of competitiveness is a counterbalancing factor with Nebraska holding a 78–15–2 edge, though that's heavily skewed by Nebraska's total dominance in the Devaney/Osborne era. Finally, and while not dispositive IMO, there are instances of the series being called a rivalry: ESPN ("Cornhuskers ended a 99-year rivalry with Kansas State"). Cbl62 (talk) 16:31, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is certainly one of the most played rivalries of all time. I'm aghast that it's even been nominated...--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:33, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep considering how close both universities are and how it used a major in-conference game before Nebraska realigned. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 16:44, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Cbl62 and KingSkyLord. Ejgreen77 (talk) 04:32, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep While not a major rivalry, this counts as one. I'm persuaded by Cbl62. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 22:47, 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 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 06:27, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Johannes Korndörfer[edit]

Johannes Korndörfer (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)

Lacks WP:MUSICBIO, has not been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and independent CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:27, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:27, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:31, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-06 ✍️ create

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:47, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandru Oroian[edit]

Alexandru Oroian (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)

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:16, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:16, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:16, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:35, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:01, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 11:02, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - currently fails NFOOTY; can always recreate if he ever does make a fully pro appearance Spiderone 17:07, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:09, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Article about semi-pro footballer which doesn't satisfy the GNG. There is some online Romanian-language coverage, but it's almost entirely routine. Jogurney (talk) 14:27, 25 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) 20:44, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AJ Mattioli[edit]

AJ Mattioli (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)

DELETE - fails WP:N Trawnabrah8765309 (talk) 19:23, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. 02:45, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. 02:45, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

• 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 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:55, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 03:14, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This article is supported by multiple independent reliable sources, specifically 1, 2, and 10. AviationFreak 03:54, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1. 10 is IMdb, which is not a reliable or notability-supporting source, and #2 is a 67-word blurb in a listicle, which is not substantive enough to count as a GNG-supporting source if it's very nearly the best source on offer. So the only one that's actually starting to get us somewhere is #1, Gay Star News, which is not enough coverage to pass the "notable because media coverage" bar all by itself either. Bearcat (talk) 20:42, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, as the article for the production/distribution company it undoubtedly meets GNG. Also nom is suspicious at best. Gleeanon409 (talk) 14:40, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable indie director fails WP:DIRECTOR. Possibly WP:TOOSOON for this one. KidAd (talk) 18:03, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable film director. Does not meet inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:28, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. While I do share the concerns expressed above about whether the nominator is acting in good faith or not (see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/More of Our Stupid Noise (2nd nomination), in which I expressed doubts about the same editor), the sourcing here just isn't cutting it. By far the majority of the footnotes are primary sources that are not support for notability at all, and even the few that are real media mostly still just namecheck AJ Mattioli's existence without being about AJ Mattioli to any non-trivial degree. There's only one source here that's substantive enough to start getting us somewhere, but that's not enough all by itself, and nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt AJ Mattioli from having to have a lot more than just one notability-building source. Bearcat (talk) 20:49, 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 no consensus. After two full relistings, no specific consensus for a particular outcome or action has emerged. Perhaps further discussion on the article's talk page would be beneficial. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:24, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

USAFA Class exemplar[edit]

USAFA Class exemplar (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. No in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources. --Pontificalibus 08:16, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 13:14, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 13:14, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. In its current form it isn’t supported by independent sources that indicate notability. Garuda28 (talk) 13:28, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep added multiple independent sources that support notability Keeper5689 21:08, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Having had a chance to review the additions, the article still appears to fail WP:GNG. Would reccomend merging content into the United States Air Force Academy article. Garuda28 (talk) 21:14, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Passes WP:LISTBIO and WP:LISTPEOPLE. (I'd be interested in the thinking behind some of the choices.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Both of those are about whether specific people should be included within a list, and don't address the notability of this topic.----Pontificalibus 08:52, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into United States Air Force Academy or United States Air Force Academy Cadet Wing.User:Davidstewartharvey
• Delete This is trivia with no encyclopedic value. Nick-D (talk) 00:04, 27 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) 01:57, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Legends of Alcatraz[edit]

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

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

The article is WP:SENSATIONAL WP:FRINGE content: there are multiple citations of the Weekly World News (!!), and the bibliography is full of such academic tomes as "Ghost Hunting: How to Investigate the Paranormal", "Hell House: And Other True Hauntings from Around the World", etc.; a sentence in the lead about Native American legends is sourced to something titled "Famous Ghosts and Haunted Places". The reality-based content is limited, pushed to the margins, and intentionally framed to minimize its impact.

At a minimum, the current article content calls for WP:TNT. Moreover, I think that it is not possible to write a proper encyclopedic article on this topic. Superficially, there is a lot of sourcing, but the book references are pretty much all unusable trash. Omitting WWN, the newspaper references are soft-news puff pieces, many of them published in October (i.e., in the lead-up to Halloween), or book reviews of the kind of trashy books being used as sourcing. Per WP:SENSATIONAL and WP:FRINGE, these sources should all be excluded from any measure of notability in the encyclopedic sense. And at the end that leaves nothing. Probably the content could be trimmed down to one paragraph, to be included in the article Alcatraz Federal Penitentiary, and redirected there. JBL (talk) 15:03, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. JBL (talk) 15:03, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. JBL (talk) 15:03, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. JBL (talk) 15:03, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. JBL (talk) 15:03, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - No evidence that there is an actual subject matter here; just little bits of poorly-sourced crap which relate to Alcatraz but cannot be said to constitute an actual topic. This doesn't even fall under the category of, "We know it's nonsense, but it's notable nonsense." The plural of anecdote, as they say, is not data; the fact that if you scour the bottom of the intellectual bucket roughly enough, bits of crud will rise to the surface, does not mean that the bits of crud piled together will make an actual topic. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:19, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and Orangemike. Silly-season fluff is not a solid foundation for an encyclopedia article. XOR'easter (talk) 15:52, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I fully agree that Alcatraz haunting legends are notable. But there are not enough WP:FRIND independent sources to justify a stand alone article. Once you strip out all the sources (e.g. paranormal themed books) pushing the WP:FRINGE belief that ghosts exist, can be detected by psychics and ghost hunter gadgets, and the sensational "silly season" stuff, plus all the WP:OR "padding" about gruesome deaths, insanity, mistreatment of prisoners, etc. (and Mark Twain's quote that he found the island gloomy and cold falls into this category) -- I doubt if there are enough WP:FRIND independent reliable sources with which to construct an encyclopedic article. The most that could be confirmed to be notable by reliable independent sources is that some people believe Alcatraz is haunted. And that could be accomplished by a line or two at the main Alcatraz article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:37, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per nom. The article is a mess of "information" sourced to WP:FRINGE publications, tourist-trap style travel guides, tabloids (as noted by the nom, the Weekly World News is cited multiple times as if it were a reliable source), and WP:SYNTH. The few respectable looking sources are either being used to support general information on the prison that has nothing to do with the so-called "legends", or being wildly misconstrued. For example, several of the actual legitimate sources may speak of the prison feeling "haunted" or "sinister" in a metaphorical sense, but it is clear from the context of the actual source that that they are not talking about literal ghosts, which this article intentionally misinterprets to support these "legend" claims. In some cases, the cited sources appear to be outright lies, as the source they are using does not even mention the information that the article claims it does. While the topic of legends regarding the iconic location might actually be a legitimate topic that could be discussed somewhere, perhaps as part of the main Alcatraz Federal Penitentiary page, this particular article should not be kept, merged, or preserved in any way, as it fails the most basic tests of WP:VERIFIABILITY in its content. Rorshacma (talk) 01:17, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A pleasure to support Orange Mike, a craftsman of the delete discussion. - Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 11:41, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:FRINGE. I concur, however, with JBL that a couple of paragraphs should be redirected and included in the main article's section dealing with this stuff.---Darius (talk) 20:56, 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) 20:42, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

South Carolina–Texas A&M football rivalry[edit]

South Carolina–Texas A&M football rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No evidence of a rivalry. Just two teams that have played one another. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:56, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:56, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:56, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:56, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:36, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep including re the 4 existing 7 WP:RS direct citations with quotations, tied to the Bonham Trophy and/or Battle for the Bonham Trophy which is "exchanged between the states' governors." This travelling trophy (which itself easily passes GNG) is a hallmark of a college football rivalries and supports the rivalry claim. To the extent there is disagreement(?), this article would simply by retitled as "Bonham Trophy" and moved to Category:College football rivalry trophies in the United States, where there are more than 100 similar existing articles and redirects. UW Dawgs (talk) 15:55, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment re prior 2019 article move (retitling) and the cause/history of this AfD listing.

This article was originally Bonham Trophy for which there are now 7 direct, RS citations and quotations included in the article.(see here) In Nov 2018, the article's "rivalry or trophy" title was discussed at Talk:Bonham Trophy#rivalry or trophy. Without discussion, the article was moved to the current "rivalry" location in Jan 2019.[27] The moving editor was then pinged on Talk, nothing occured, and the article has retained its current "rivalry" title. Probably a mistake in hindsight.

Yesterday, the same editor who retitled this as a "rivalry" article made a non-sequitur comment[28] about this article on an unrelated AfD (where they had created that article) without referencing prior their movement/retitling of this article. And 11 hours later, another editor created this AfD listing, without apparent awareness or reference to prior undiscussed retitling/movement or Talk discussion of this article.

So again, we might not be discussing the same topics. The trophy (and this article's intended topic at creation) clearly and easily pass GNG policy with multitple RS citations and direct quotations on point. That said, the outcome should be Keep or Revert to original title plus additional categorization with 100+ other sibling CFB trophy articles in Category:College football rivalry trophies in the United States. UW Dawgs (talk) 18:11, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A grand total of six games played . . . all since 2014 . . . and South Carolina has not yet won even a single game . . . this is supposed to be a notable rivalry? A very, very strong case can be made that this is way, way too soon. Yes, the athletic department administrators got together and created some sort of trophy in an effort to stir up a "rivalry", but two of the sources cited (here and here) are about how the supposed "rivalry" is viewed as a joke with neither the coaches nor the fan bases even realizing there was a trophy. Try again in a decade, if this really turns into a rivalry (and after the Gamecocks have won a few games). Cbl62 (talk) 16:48, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A bit more: Other than the creation of the trophy nobody knows about, this series fails every criteria for traditional rivalries: (i) lack of history (dates to 2014), (ii) lack of frequency (6 total games); (iii); lack of competitiveness (0-6); (iv) lack of geographic proximity (1,100 miles); (v) lack of marquee matchups with both teams ranked (zero); and (vi) lack of fan base frenzy factor. Cbl62 (talk) 16:53, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Cbl also another example of SEC fans' liberal use of the word rivalry.–UCO2009bluejay (talk) 17:12, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Cbl. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:37, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Cbl. WP:TOOSOON. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 01:01, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Cbl: There is bare mention of "rivalry" and unlike the Kentucky–Vanderbilt football rivalry, that has several mentions of such a rivalry, this is not yet established. -- Otr500 (talk) 04:48, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Cbl62. Fails WP:GNG and definitely is WP:TOOSOON. Both of these teams have real rivalries elsewhere, and this ain't it. Ejgreen77 (talk) 04:36, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per Cbl. Good grief; we might as well have 'rivalry' articles for every combination of every team in every event... Non-notable and way too soon. --Jack Frost (talk) 10:17, 28 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) 20:41, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Behrouz A. Forouzan[edit]

Behrouz A. Forouzan (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)

Whilst I can find evidence that he is a published author of textbooks, I can’t find evidence that he is sufficiently notable under WP:PROF. There are currently no secondary sources and I can’t find evidence of anything to help improve the article. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 13:02, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 13:02, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 13:02, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 13:02, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 13:02, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 13:02, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete writing textbooks alone does not make one notable. We have to show they are widely used and impactful, which is not done here. We also cannot have an article sourced only to the subject's website. Wikipedia is not meant to be an annotated directory to websites.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:46, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. As a retired community college professor he's unlikely to pass WP:PROF, which is aimed at research universities. As a prolific textbook author he has a reasonable chance at WP:AUTHOR, but as JPL wrote above, "writing textbooks alone does not make one notable", one needs in-depth independent sourcing about those textbooks, such as published reviews or published reports by non-authors about how well a curriculum based on those texts worked. I searched but did not find any such sourcing. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:22, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment A few of his books seem rather well-cited [29][30][31], but I have not been able to turn up anything in the way of reviews. XOR'easter (talk) 23:39, 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. This does not preclude any possible MERGE. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:19, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Autoteollisuus-Bilindustri[edit]

Autoteollisuus-Bilindustri (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)

None notable bus company that only existed for a few years in the late twenties and early thirties. Aside from the single source in the article all I could find about it was an extremely trivial mention in a book. There's not enough in-depth coverage in multiple sources out there to pass GNG or NCORP though. Adamant1 (talk) 07:12, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 08:26, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 08:26, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have started the article and obviously I am against the deletion. This is a spin-off from article about Sisu Auto and the reason for writing this article is keeping the main article in a decent length without missing essential information. Moreover, it links to at least five other articles. --Gwafton (talk) 09:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• merge this article and Autokoritehdasto History of Sisu Auto and split a good bit of the history section in Sisu Auto to that article as well. I don't see an independent pass of WP:NCORP or WP:GNG, but cannot read Finnish. As the creator says, the content mainly helps provide context to Sisu Auto (and the Sisu article is pretty long already), and that would be best served in a history article Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:50, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've drafted what I imagine the history article might look like at User:Eddie891/Sisu, taking bits and pieces from all the articles linked above Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:59, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Agree with Eddie891. Main page for sisu just needs history breaking down and this article merged. User:Davidstewartharvey
• Keep I still stand for a separate article for Autoteollisuus-Bilindusti. Even if the history section is separated to another article and Autoteollisuus-Bilindusti is included into it, its length probably exceeds the current length of Sisu Auto. Gwafton (talk) 21:40, 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 redirect to John II, Duke of Lorraine. Closing as redirect since the merge has already been completed. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:39, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marie de Bourbon (1428–1448)[edit]

Marie de Bourbon (1428–1448) (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:NOTGENEALOGY, no evidence of notability   // Timothy :: talk  09:57, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  09:57, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:28, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:37, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Per WP:NOTPAPER and WP:PRESERVE, I don't see the issue when she is clearly an historical figure that is being chronicled? Britishfinance (talk) 11:36, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• She is mentioned in geneologies, but the only reason appears to be her marriage. I can find nothing to indicate she meets WP:GNG and her relationship alone does not confer notibility WP:BIORELATED, WP:INVALIDBIO.   // Timothy :: talk  12:47, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• She would not be a full delete given the notability of her father, mother, husband and child, all have Wikipedia articles – it would be at minimum a redirect. But who would we direct to? And in doing such a redirect, we would lose any way for a reader to understand her connections. That is the benefit of WP:NOTPAPER and WP:PRESERVE. Britishfinance (talk) 17:19, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to her husband, John II, Duke of Lorraine, where all her "connections" (other than her mother) are already enumerated (and Mom can be added too), plus her greatest significance is as a duchess. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect to her husband. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:24, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to her husband John II, Duke of Lorraine should work, I will add a few more bits from her article to her husband's article so nothing is lost. Britishfinance (talk) 16:27, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I have completed the merge of the two articles now. Britishfinance (talk) 16:43, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/redirect seems to be the best answer. Thanks Britishfinance for doing the work.   // Timothy :: talk  17:20, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I think Marie de Bpourbon very much so has notability as Rene of Naples fought very hard to secure Lorraine for his son and Marie was mother to his heir also don't take this personally but I'm feeling that women aren't getting enough recogniition on wikepedia as Marie was litearly a peace treaty why should she have to be redirected to her husband's page is that all her life is worth her Marriage . Again do not take this personally it's just that I think that Marie's page should not be deleted however if that's the choice the administrators take It's fine by me- Rajputudor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajputudor (talk • contribs) 17:06, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I tend to agree with you Rajputudor, but the details on her are very thin at this stage. She is definately a redirect in my view (and is chronicled in several databases of nobility, plus her familial connections are all notable), however, we would need more content/references about her to support a standalone article on her. However, I have merged her references and content to her husband's article and I think a Redirect to his article, John II, Duke of Lorraine, will work.

• Delete Wikipedia is not a geneological database. We do not have article on people who are only notable as part of notable families instead of being notable for what they did.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:22, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Given the notability of her two parents, husband, and son (all with WP articles), she does merit a Redirect. I have completed the merge of her article into her husband's article John II, Duke of Lorraine so that nothing is lost. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 19:21, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 15:11, 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) 20:51, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Zambian names[edit]

List of Zambian names (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)

Completely unsourced, little more than a badly maintained list of translations Jac16888 ^Talk 09:12, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:32, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Leaning Delete per nom and WP:NAD. However I was able to find this source [32] which may mean it meets WP:LISTN. I am interested in what other more experienced participants here think regarding this source.   // Timothy :: talk  12:36, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Of the few blue links in this list, most link to completely unrelated articles; the few that are remotely relevant link to places. I'm not sure what kind of "name" this list is even intended to include, as it is the list seems completely arbitrary as to what is included. There is no "Zambian language", it is instead highly ethnically and linguistically diverse, so that may further speak to whether such a list even makes sense together. If this was meant to target surnames, we have a well developed category structure of Category:Surnames by culture and Category:Surnames by language; "by country" was deleted years ago. postdlf (talk) 15:17, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:37, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:16, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete most of these lack articles. There is nothing showing these meet any reasonable notability requirements.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:24, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete One of 33 least developed countries in Africa. There are over 70 ethnic groups and at least 73 languages in Zambia, mostly in the Bantu family, so the country is too culturally diverse to lump them all into one article. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:36, 28 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:17, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Lutz[edit]

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

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

Local politician, notability is not clear from the article. Ymblanter (talk) 08:09, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lutz is a Mountain Party leader, article has been edited to reflect this. As one of the two current officeholders, he is a speculated candidate for Governor, though such decision will not be announced until after the party's State Convention later today Gappalachia (talk) 08:59, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 08:09, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:38, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Being leader of a minor political party without legislative representation is not an automatic inclusion freebie, and neither is being that party's gubernatorial candidate — the notability test for politicians is holding a notable political office, not just running for one. And of the nine footnotes here, six are primary sources that are not support for notability at all, such as his own party's self-published content about itself and raw tables of election results from the state elections agency — and of the three that are actually media, two are the purely routine "candidate questionnaire on the issues" that every candidate in every election always gets, thus not constituting evidence that his candidacy is special, and the third is not about him at all, but just offers a glancing namecheck of his existence in an article whose primary subject is somebody else. This is not enough. Bearcat (talk) 11:17, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What political offices are deemed notable? Holding an elected regional (multi-county) Supervsior position for a State Agency isn't good enough? Today Lutz has been announced as the party's gubernatorial nominee. While I agree the sources can be improved upon, that "glancing namecheck" characterization is hyperbolic and overlooks the reality that Lutz not only organized the event, but in his current elected position is a major stakeholder in the controversy. Better sources and information will be added. Gappalachia (talk) 22:20, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, a regional supervisor position for a state agency definitely is not good enough, and no, being his party's gubernatorial nominee is not an inclusion freebie either. The only "inherently" notable roles that automatically guarantee inclusion in Wikipedia the moment a person holds them are: president, state governor, cabinet officials, national and state legislators. And no, not candidates for those offices, either: actual holders of those offices only. Any other role below the state legislature gets a person an article only if they can be shown to have a nationalized profile backed by nationalized coverage. Bearcat (talk) 04:09, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep being a party leader seems notable enough to me. 108.14.43.250 (talk) 22:40, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet vote removed Humanengr (talk) 20:48, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Except it's not notable enough for WP:NPOL, which is all that matters. There's nothing "inherently" notable about being leader of a minor party that has no legislative representation. Bearcat (talk) 04:09, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete none of the coverage in the article qualifies, I can't find any qualifying coverage per WP:GNG, and none of his positions pass WP:NPOL. SportingFlyer T·C 17:35, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Lutz is not even the state level leader of the Mountain party, he is just the person on the comittee from State Senate District 16. That means at best he is one of 16 members of the state party leadership, or in the top 17, and for all I know there are more than 16 state senate districts in West Virginia. Even if Lutz was with the party that controlled the governorship and state legislature, he would still not be considered notable for holding the position he holds. When it is a party that has 0 members in the state legislature, than this is absurdly far from making him notable. Again, he is not the state head, so that is not even remotely close to being a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:11, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable. --Lockley (talk) 09:43, 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) Captain Galaxy (talk) 14:44, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

George G. Imeretinsky[edit]

George G. Imeretinsky (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:NOTGENEALOGY, no evidence of notability Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:16, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:16, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:16, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The Times for example ran an obituary in the paper on 28 March 1972 after he died, his first marriage gained coverage again looking in The Times as an example. So he seems notable. - dwc lr (talk) 15:34, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as factually credible, sufficiently sourced as is, and just notable enough. --Lockley (talk) 01:50, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, unlike the other Georgian nobles nominated, this has received attention outside of genealogy listings. Coverage of him certainly exists per DWC, it just needs to be added to the article. Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:47, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I have cited the obituary in The Times. These Bagrations do seem to get about. If it wasn't for Wikipedia I would only know about the Russian general in 1812. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:04, 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 redirect to A Clockwork Orange (novel). (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 18:32, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moloko Plus[edit]

Moloko Plus (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)

There are some WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS of this, but not meeting the standard of significant coverage in reliable third party sources described in the general notability guideline. Article is fundamentally and inevitably a repetition of what this fictional element is, as described in the fiction itself, and thus doesn't rise above being just WP:PLOT, which is what wikipedia is WP:NOT. Shooterwalker (talk) 07:34, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:42, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 07:44, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to A Clockwork Orange (novel) per WP:ATD, where it is mentioned._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 09:49, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to A Clockwork Orange Moloko Plus has not been seriously studied. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 10:32, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to A Clockwork Orange - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:03, 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. czar 07:46, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Daedalus Lift & Access Equipments[edit]

Daedalus Lift & Access Equipments (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)

Do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Fails WP:NCORP DMySon 07:34, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:43, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:43, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: All sources I can find on Google are either non-independent or basically just copy information from the company register. Danski454 (talk) 15:33, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:19, 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 merge to Hyborian Age. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:50, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mitra (Conan)[edit]

Mitra (Conan) (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)

There isn't enough significant coverage in reliable third party sources to create an verifiable article that is substantially more than WP:PLOT, and that also meets the general notability guideline. Shooterwalker (talk) 07:30, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 07:42, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 07:42, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 07:43, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Hyborian Age per WP:ATD._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 09:45, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Hyborian Age There is no indication that Mitra is independently notable. However, the target article needs a section that discusses the setting's deities. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 10:43, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Redirect per above. No referenced, non-plot content to merge. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:58, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG. This fictional deity does not seem to have garnered any reliable, secondary coverage. Given that it's not currently mentioned at Hyborian Age, a redirect without mention probably isn't best. References in the article are three primary source novels and a fan wiki. Nothing cited well enough to merge. Hog Farm (talk) 16:13, 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 merge to Hyborian Age. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:50, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Crom (fictional deity)[edit]

Crom (fictional deity) (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)

Insufficient coverage in reliable third party sources to support a WP:NOTABLE article, with insufficient material to create an article that is WP:NOTPLOT. Shooterwalker (talk) 07:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 07:43, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 07:43, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 07:43, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Hyborian Age per WP:ATD._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 09:46, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Hyborian Age I could not find any in-depth discussions of this deity. Again, the target article needs a section that discusses the setting's deities. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 11:03, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per above. No referenced, non-plot content to merge. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:58, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Hyborian Age, sourced to primary sources and a YouTube link, so it fails GNG, and is described from an entirely in-universe point of view, so it fails WP:PLOT. There is no information worth merging. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:49, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as it is not currently mentioned in the proposed target. buidhe 05:06, 27 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. !Votes have been trending keep since sources were located. (non-admin closure) buidhe 05:05, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dustin's Bar Mitzvah[edit]

Dustin's Bar Mitzvah (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 band. I found no reliable sources for the band or for any of their albums. See WP:NBAND. 🌴Koridas🌴 (Negotiate) 15:33, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I can't find any sources for them or their albums that were not either self-published or unreliable. Does not meet WP:GNG. AviationFreak (talk) 15:41, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:46, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:46, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is an unnotable band. As this is another example of a non-notable band managing to stay on Wikipedia for years. After it was originally deleted in January 2006, The article has avoided a speedy deletion that was requested minutes after it was recreated the following October. Pahiy (talk) 15:47, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The article states that the group hit the Japanese (ORICON) singles chart, which if true would meet WP:MUSIC. I'm not good enough with my Japanese to be able to explore sourcing for this, but it suggests caution in deletion, and certainly no prejudice toward re-creation. Chubbles (talk) 15:56, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Drowned in Sound (a reliable source) managed to cover them: Dustin's Bar Mitzvah Never heard about them until today but I like their name. I will search for more sources. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 12:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Update - New Musical Express announced their split-up: Dustin's Bar Mitzvah have split up so it seems they attracted some media coverage at least. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 12:23, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Update (again) - The Times wrote an article about them: Dustin's Bar Mitzvah - Get Your Mood On (although this article is available for subscribers only, which I am not). I think this band is notable. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 12:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Update (yet again) - Biography from Laut.de: Laut.de BiographieGhostDestroyer100 (talk) 12:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per GhostDestroyer100. Chubbles (talk) 19:45, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per the multiple reliable sources identified above such as full articles in The Times and NME that show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the sources found by GhostDestroyer100. — Toughpigs (talk) 07:49, 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:14, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Changsha (fictional)[edit]

Battle of Changsha (fictional) (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 one is difficult, because there are real life battles with the same name. But for the fictional battle, no reliable third party sources have substantial coverage to create a notable article that would pass WP:GNG and WP:NOTPLOT. (Again, don't confuse this with six real life modern battles, also called Battle of Changsha, which do have notable and reliably sourced articles already.) Shooterwalker (talk) 06:54, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a fictional event from 三国演义, should not be included. 122.60.171.248 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:58, 20 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 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:11, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:22, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:22, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 07:47, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I don't see any sources discusisng this fictional battle in the context of the Ro3K work. Fails NFICTION. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:55, 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. There is a clear consensus that this is not notable and needs salting. I will be ECP this name. If there are other names that pop-up please leave me a message on my talk page (but reference this I get forgetful about stuff) and I'll be happy to deal with it. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:12, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Muhammad Hashmi Ashraf[edit]

Syed Muhammad Hashmi Ashraf (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)

Placed in mainspace for 2nd time by WP:SOCK after declined WP:AFC. WP:AFC has a slightly higher bar than WP:AFD so may be survivable. Probably/possibly WP:G5 eligible however I am not complete sure that an article is unwarranted. Unclear if notability has been established, the WP:CITEBOMB on international conferences spoken at seems insufficient by itself per WP:NACADEMIC and may be WP:A7 eligible for failure to demonstrate notability. Poor embellishment of citations does not help .... If an article is to be citebombed by foreign languauge citations that are needed for notability then the key ones in particular need full embellishment and perhaps pointing one on the talk page. If retained article and any redirects need to be salted. Given interest on SOCKs on this article closers may need to tkae that into account for !votes from IPs and newly created accounts. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:04, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 07:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• The call for A7 seems to misunderstand when A7 applies, but the fact that this has been repeatedly resubmitted by sockpuppets while sidestepping an AfC decline looks bad for this article. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 07:36, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:45, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:45, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I was considering putting this up for deletion myself. I thought there might be notability as an author, but the article makes no real claim of notability and the whole thing us refbombed with junk. Mccapra (talk) 12:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as per nom. 1292simon (talk) 21:20, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but Userfy by moving to User:Khadim ahlesunnah waljamaah/Sandbox2 (thus preserving the article history). If this man is as notable as the many citations to sources in Indian languages suggests, it is surprising that there are no articles on him in other languages Wikipedias. There does not seem to be any evidence of his notability in English.
  But, there is a very good reason for preserving the article history. That anyone would want to spend their time improving this article appears to be very strong evidence that they are a sockpuppet, either of Khadim ahlesunnah waljamaah or someone else. This article is like sockpuppet flypaper. Wikipedia needs it (just not in article space).-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:46, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(nom) I'm on the same track as you with the keeping of the article and attribution history visible, not exactly sure how and where though. It's also necessary to still salt the names (though there are so many variations of some of these names it is nightmare). I could have draftified myself but draftication without salting is pointless in this case: and it also gives opportunity for a case to be made for mainspace retention by someone.Djm-leighpark (talk) 03:05, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:10, 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 speedy keep. Nominator withdrew the nomination (non-admin closure)  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 19:53, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy Gray (activist)[edit]

Lucy Gray (activist) (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 does not pass GNG. There is no in-depth coverage of the subject and if you do a quick Google Search there is barely an information to establish the subject as someone of interest. Some of the sources are just mirrors of her Wikipedia page. cookie monster (2020) 755 06:05, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. cookie monster (2020) 755 06:05, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:27, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:31, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Maybe a "quick Google Search" isn't enough to satisfy WP:BEFORE. If you had looked properly, you would have found that she is notable hands-down. The article doesn't give it justice but I can't fix it myself due to a WP:COI (I've known her since age nine). Schwede66 06:36, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your shade, Schwede66. It was so polite of you and civil of you. cookie monster (2020) 755 19:58, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep I've found also this, this, this and this. Looks like the subject has got some coverage.Less Unless (talk) 10:46, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep SS4C is notable in NZ, and she's therefore notable as its convener. Also notable enough to have given a TED talk.--IdiotSavant (talk) 11:23, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As per other editors. User:Davidstewartharvey
• Withdraw – there seems to be consensus among editors that this article indeed does meet GNG and that I as the proposer do and did not understand the proper way to research and establish the article against notability guidelines. To save editors time, I'd like to withdraw this nomination. cookie monster (2020) 755 02:19, 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 redirect to Department of Science and Technology (India). Barkeep49 (talk) 04:08, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Advanced Study in Science and Technology[edit]

Institute of Advanced Study in Science and Technology (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 don't believe this organization meets WP:NORG. The only "independent" coverage that I could find is warmed over press releases such as this one[33] Sources cited in this article appear to be primary or affiliated. buidhe 05:10, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. buidhe 05:10, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. buidhe 05:10, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:40, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:40, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]