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. MER-C 11:49, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scarlet Jei Saoirse[edit]

Scarlet Jei Saoirse (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)

Musician biography, does not meet WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG. No albums, no charting singles, no awards. I cannot find significant coverage. Schazjmd (talk) 23:52, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Schazjmd (talk) 23:52, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. BhaskaraPattelar (talk) 15:21, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Charitably it is too soon for a Wikipedia article on this singer, as she is only visible in the usual streaming, retail, and self-promotional sites. The article takes the time to point out that she is promoting herself independently -- good luck to her but Wikipedia cannot be a part of that effort. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:47, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not meet our notability guidelines for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:04, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — Doesn’t satisfy WP:MUSICBIO. Celestina007 (talk) 18:38, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Could not find any reliable, independent sources. Facebook, Discogs, Musicbrainz, Amazon, Spotify, Instagram, Genius, Tidal etc do not establish notability. And I could not find anything besides these. The best page I found was an interview with her. I think this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 19:58, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Have been in radio interviews — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.59.11.233 (talk) 02:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Artist is also in Voyage LA Mag, IMDB, BuzzMusic Blog, Nagamag, Peoplepill, Played on radio stations such as 102.8 Cruz Inc Radio, Seattle Wave Radio, Also featured in UK Blogs and Mags and Radio including: TuneBubble, TVadTunes, WigWam, Tophitz.co.uk, Thissoundnation, Mysoundmusic and more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terriellisjacobs (talk • contribs) 01:58, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:39, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dimlight[edit]

Dimlight (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)

Unreliable sources and a bunch of exaggerated claims for this Greek band. They are not notable and with a few hundred streams on Spotify, this article looks like a clear advertisement. Delete please. Glucken123 (talk) 15:43, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Glucken123 (talk) 15:43, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural Keep - No evidence that WP:BEFORE was followed and good evidence that it probably wasn't as this was part of a mass-nomination of dozens of articles about Greek culture over the course of a hour. FOARP (talk) 15:56, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:56, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I agree with this one. The sources in the article aren't worth sh*t (excuse my language). Facebook, Youtube, Metal Archives and stuff are not reliable sources. I looked them up and couldn't find anything besides the unreliable databases, streaming service links, social media pages and stuff where only the word is mentioned. I found some interviews and album reviews which could provide some notability as they cover the band, unfortunately, these sites look like blogs. Spotify stream numbers are not a count to notability though. And even though Glucken123 nominated so many pages about Greek bands/musicians today, which is crazy (I agree with FOARP about that), I agree with Glucken though that this band is not notable. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 16:36, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GhostDestroyer100 Hmm... None of these articles are well sourced but I see this review from what appears to be an RS, and this as well as well as this. This mass-nomination makes it hard to confirm which are and aren't WP:GNG passes though. FOARP (talk) 16:45, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I fear that there is an issue with FOARP as a result of the mass nomination. Highlighting a random Greek blog rockway.gr certainly does NOT mean notability! You have even previously attacked me for claiming that 0 Spotify listeners is not a reason to have a band removed from Wikipedia. This is really sad. Glucken123 (talk) 16:48, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Glucken123 - Please read Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. I think you may have been acting in good faith with you mass-nomination but you should understand that people who work on WP:AFD find it really unhelpful when articles are mass-nominated with no evidence that WP:BEFORE was followed. FOARP (talk) 16:53, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @FOARP: I have seen those and I am still not convinced. The first site has "music festival" in their name so it's not independent from the band and the latter two look like blogs. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:02, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rockway.gr appears to have an editorial team which suggests it would be a WP:NEWSORG pass. Same with MetalFan.nl. Not particularly bothered about this article either way other than the mass-nom. FOARP (talk) 17:59, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Despite concerns about mass nomination, this article has too much UGC, need more WP:RS. --Micky (talk) 01:00, 21 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:56, 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. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:40, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Birthmark (band)[edit]

Birthmark (band) (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 source, nothing notable about this group. Should have been deleted ages ago. Glucken123 (talk) 15:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Glucken123 (talk) 15:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:34, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural Keep - No evidence that WP:BEFORE was followed and good evidence that it probably wasn't as this was part of a mass-nomination of dozens of articles about Greek culture over the course of a hour. FOARP (talk) 16:02, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• 50 Spotify listeners and no notability. Do not confuse them with Nate Kinsella. Glucken123 (talk) 16:12, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Well, the "sourcing" in the article is crappy. No RS whatsoever, at least in the article. I have never heard about this band or the rest of the bands/musicians Glucken123 listed to AfD but I agree that they don't look notable. Although I agree with FOARP about the fact that @Glucken123: listed so many pages during just an hour is crazy. I think AfDs should always be made carefully because who knows, there might be some reliable sources despite not being shown in article. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 16:28, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Obviously promotional original research, since no sources can be found to verify the article content. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 23:31, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Another promotional article about non-notable musicians. --Micky (talk) 00:56, 21 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:01, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not one fact in this article is specifically cited to any source. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:28, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:42, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I Knew Them[edit]

I Knew Them (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)

Looks like an advertisement of an unknown band. Should be deleted. Glucken123 (talk) 15:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Glucken123 (talk) 15:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:00, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural Keep - No evidence that WP:BEFORE was followed and good evidence that it probably wasn't as this was part of a mass-nomination of dozens of articles about Greek culture over the course of a hour. These articles may well include articles failing WP:GNG (I suspect this one does - probably if you nominated 20+ articles at random you would find some that do) but the nom hasn't even done the basic work of determining whether they are or aren't. FOARP (talk) 16:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• One monthly listener on Spotify, zero sources that show notability and limited online presence. May I ask you to have a good look at your contributions to my deletion nominations - please? Glucken123 (talk) 16:07, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Spotify stats are *NOT* relevant for WP:AFD. Follow WP:BEFORE when nominating articles for deletion, especially the bit about finding alternatives to deletion. FOARP (talk) 16:37, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• No notable record label releases, no reliable sources or international press, an extremely limited presence on the web since the day they were found, and a sh*tload of claims that cannot be backed. Even their discography on Discogs is incomplete without any notable information or something significant. I agree on Spotify, but come on - google is your friend, and in this case there isn't much to be said about a band that has no notability. Glucken123 (talk) 16:43, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article includes a number of sources giving coverage to the band that need to be assessed properly. What is the nature of the Mic.gr review? Does Mic.gr have an editorial team (and hence, is it likely a WP:NEWSORG)? Same question goes for the Slovenia News/Si21 source. This is why WP:BEFORE is so important. FOARP (talk) 10:00, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mic.gr published a live review, where I KNEW THEM supported the main act. There is only one paragraph about their performance, that's all. Glucken123 (talk) 11:09, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@FOARP: There are no real sources. The so-called "References" are listings, at best. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 12:57, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not sources available to support notability. No sources available to verify the article content. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 12:57, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable, missing WP:RS. --Micky (talk) 00:55, 21 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:02, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not one fact in the article is specifically cited to any source. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:30, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MER-C 11:49, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Boris Shlikhting[edit]

Boris Shlikhting (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 notability guidelines. Lack of significant coverage and reliable secondary sources. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 02:11, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:16, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:16, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This should be a draft if it's still under construction, but a quick search on Google does not find anything indicated notability. --Micky (talk) 18:37, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:09, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable actor. Not every credited actor is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:02, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-notable. Even the Russian-language version of his bio, much more complete, shows no sign of notability. --Lockley (talk) 01:53, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This article doesn't make the case for this actor being notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:33, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:44, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kyriakos D. Kassis[edit]

Kyriakos D. Kassis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Another Greek poet with no significance. This is another example of a Wikipedia article with zero sources. Glucken123 (talk) 15:22, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:42, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural Keep - No evidence that WP:BEFORE was followed and good evidence that it probably wasn't as this was part of a mass-nomination of dozens of articles about Greek culture over the course of a hour. FOARP (talk) 16:04, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment No problem with procedural keep as the nominator appears to not have done WP:BEFORE. The subject appears to have authored numerous books on Greek history, or something like that. I can't really parse the subject or its importance; a Greek speaker with knowledge of WP:PROF would be ideal here if we continue with the AFD. The article itself is terrifically bloated. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:08, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• comment @ThatMontrealIP: Things are not as they appear to be; on the contrary, it's quite the opposite. His books must be either self-publications ("Ichōr" = Ιχώρ, is his own publishing house) or works printed by "obscure" publishers. The Biblionet database, the biggest Greek database of publications backed by the Greek National Book Centre, which usualy lists even the works of the least known Greek writers, for Kassis it has just one contribution in a collective volume [1]. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 16:16, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Openly promotional article, with no third party sources available to support or verify anything written in it. I cannot find even the slightest piece of information about him in Greek (which is striking since he is supposed to be an important artist with a huge body of work in several cultural sectors). Probable a product of promotional original research (the same is true for the Greek article, as I've just found out btw [2]). ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 12:22, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Almost all of his books seem to be self-publications [3]. His books listed at Protoporia's website [4] ("Protoporia" is one of the biggest Greek bookshops, both brick and mortar, and on-line) are registered either as publications by "Ichor" (Ιχώρ), Kassis own publishing house that prints only his books, or as "private editions". ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 12:33, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The existence of so many -virtually unknown- Greek poets on Wikipedia has not been questioned by anyone thus far. The fact that English Wikipedia even approves of self-published works without any notability or coverage, is shocking. In this case, I seriously doubt if anyone's had a look at this person's work to determine whether they are notable or recognised in Greece. A simple Google is not always the answer - the same thing of course applies to the existence of a Greek Wiki page and vice versa. Glucken123 (talk) 12:42, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep His most notable contribution seems to be his efforts to preserve the heritage of the Mani dialect and people, and he is cited by some respectable sources. His status as an independent scholar/writer/filmmaker has its pitfalls, see for example, his attempts at pseudo-scientific explanations. I've no doubt there exist some reviews of his writings in the Greek language, they are just difficult to find, perhaps being parochial and pre-Google. Curiocurio (talk) 21:51, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• weak keep Per Curiocurio. Nominator's comments sound like this was a good faith nomination though. --Micky (talk) 18:16, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:19, 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 no consensus. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:46, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blair Longley[edit]

Blair Longley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

• Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. Has never been elected, lead a party that has never held a seat.--User19004 (talk) 20:54, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:21, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

• Delete he was never elected to office. The party he was over is sominor it does not convey notability on its leaders.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:41, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep several references have been added to the article since the AFD started by User:Samsmachado, and it looks notable to me. Nfitz (talk) 05:29, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Not a notable politican but appears to be a notable activist. [5] [6] [7] [8]. Sources include Huff Post and The Guardian. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 13:22, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable perennial candidate. KidAd (talk) 06:13, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Please note nominator has been blocked for sockpuppetry and has done little but AFD articles since they created their account - all of which that I've carefully checked seem to be notable. Nfitz (talk) 09:02, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable political figure. No obvious accomplishments as an activist or candidate. --Lockley (talk) 18:39, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete there may be enough here in the sources for an article on the Marijuana Party, but he has no notability apart from his association with that party. The coverage on him is coverage any candidate would receive, with one exception where he talks about the political party. SportingFlyer T·C 16:36, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sockpuppets sometimes provide useful contributions, but additional sources show notability here. --Micky (talk) 17:54, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:47, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Which ones exactly? SportingFlyer T·C 17:37, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Alessandro Tiandelli. Not only is the subject notable, he is also a perennial candidate which in some cases confers notability in itself. Longley passes GNG, and since NPOL is preventing us from improving the encyclopedia it should be ignored. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 19:59, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NPOL speaks about presumed notability and does not be need be considered if the subject passes Wikipedia:Basic, as is clearly stated in that policy.Djflem (talk) 17:00, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then we'd have heaps of non-notable politicians scraping through on basic coverage, which isn't the case. That's why we have WP:NOT, to get rid of articles like this one where someone's not really mentioned much and always in the context of a fringe party. SportingFlyer T·C 17:45, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, that claim is not why "we" at Wikipedia have NOT: This article is not a dictionary entry; is not a publication of original thought: is not a soapbox or means of promotion, not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files; not a blog, web hosting service, social networking service, or memorial site; is not a directory listing; is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal; is not a crystal ball making prediecations; is not a newspaper article; is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This AfD certainly shows there's an an attempt to censor.Djflem (talk) 21:07, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know what I'm talking about - he fails NOTNEWS and PROMO and arguably NOTINHERITED since all of the articles discuss him in the context of the party (on top of the GNG failure). SportingFlyer T·C 16:51, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:29, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Phase (band)[edit]

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

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

Another band with no notability and unreliable sources on Wikipedia. I don't see a point in keeping this page. Glucken123 (talk) 15:34, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Glucken123 (talk) 15:34, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:00, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural Keep - No evidence that WP:BEFORE was followed and good evidence that it probably wasn't as this was part of a mass-nomination of dozens of articles about Greek culture over the course of a hour. FOARP (talk) 16:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Glucken123 nominated a lot of pages about Greek bands/musicians today during an hour which is crazy. Most of the pages he nominated does not look notable, I admit that, and the sourcing is bad on those pages. But this is a notable band, it even cites Allmusic and Billboard in the sources. When those two sites cover a band, you know it's notable. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 16:44, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GhostDestroyer100, pay close attention here. For starters, I have a Billboard account and the articles provided are fake sources, as the band's name is not mentioned at all! The same thing applies to Allmusic where anyone can add their band's biography! It's literally easy as 1,2,3 - try it. Finally, Musician's Friend links to a guitar listing! Glucken123 (talk) 16:53, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Glucken123:: Hmm, well I don't know. I have always been convinced that Billboard and Allmusic are reliable sources. I have read this so many times in Wikipedia. So I really don't know. But the rest of the sources are bad though as they are either blogs or concert sites. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:09, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I have no idea what's going on with this specific band or the 8 year old DJ, but the above message is a legal threat. Glucken123 (talk) 11:45, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No in depth coverage from reliable sources. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 13:08, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a staff written biography on AllMusic is a reliable source and being featured on BBC radio is another indication of notability so this band should be included in Wikipedia in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:13, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AllMusic allows ANY band to upload their bio on the website. In regards to BBC, it's a mixtape from 2014. Other than that, there is nothing else notable in the reference list. Glucken123 (talk) 02:46, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AllMusic allows submissions as any source does but the staff written bios are reliable sources. In fact of your many nominations only a couple have allmusic staff written bios so its obviously not as easy as you claim, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I am convinced by Atlantic306 and also wonder about the motivations of nominating dozens of articles in an hour. --Micky (talk) 17:48, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:24, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This seems to fail the GNG. PJvanMill (talk) 19:36, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep All music does not let artists add biographies as easy as 123 at all, and it is indeed an editorial bio like other editors have mentioned www.allmusic.com/FAQ/topic/updatebio . The billboard magazine issues are cited as well and can be found on academia.edu as well. The nomination is clearly an attack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.214.199 (talk) 21:27, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:28, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Wicked 7[edit]

The Wicked 7 (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. I can't find any evidence that the subject meets WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. Adam9007 (talk) 15:18, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Adam9007. I think that the article the Wicked 7 meets WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. The topic of the Wicked 7 project is significant and notable. Many sociologists, business managers, and scientists have tried to solve the Wicked problems, such as Horst W.J. Rittel, Melvin M. Webber, Mike Hulme, Richard Buchanan^[1], Dr.Min Basadur and Dr. Jeff Conklin^[2][3], Richard James Lazarus ^[4], Peter DeGrace and Lessle Hulet Stahl ^[5]. The Wicked 7 project is an attempt at a contemporary solution to the same global problems defined as Wicked, through its open-collaboration platform involving volunteers. The fact that the project was founded by Philip Kotler (in the business management world he is like Elvis Presley) in itself means a lot. Since its creation in 2019, the project has been supported by many experts from economics, business management, politics and activists such as Anthony W. Ulwick, Stuart L. Hart, Michael J. Gelb, David Hinds, Thomas H. Davenport, John Seely Brown, David Cobb (activist), Clark V. Fox, Adi Ignatius, Henry Mintzberg, Katherine Gehl, John Elkington (business author), Anil Kumar Gupta, Leonard Schlesinger.

The Wicked 7 project is presented at activistbrands.com^[6] and its concept was presented an the 11th Global Peter Drucker Forum ^[7]. The predecessor of the Wicked 7 - The $300 House - Approach to a Wicked Problem was widely covered in the media ^{[8][9][10][11]}

In summary, I believe that the topic is notable because a bunch of notable people has rolled up their sleeves to solve global problems. Let's give it a chance. Ivan Gurkov —Preceding undated comment added 16:50, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the project was founded by Philip Kotler (in the business management world he is like Elvis Presley) in itself means a lot Maybe so, but notability is not inherited; the organisation itself needs to have been covered in reliable sources, and I couldn't find any that discuss The Wicked 7 in detail. Adam9007 (talk) 17:24, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adam9007, I agree with you, the notability is proven by coverage in the media, so I edited the text above and put links to articles. I still work on the Wicked 7 article and eventually all the reliable sources will be in. Thank you for your understanding. Ivan Gurkov

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:15, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:15, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• It's hard to see this as an organisation from the contents of the article, which is mostly a discussion of the issues. Rathfelder (talk) 21:34, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep per the sources from Ivan Gurkov. Article overall not good, tag it as having issues and give it a chance, can be renominated later if not improved. --Micky (talk) 17:23, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:40, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is a case of WP:NOTINHERITED I think. A long list of notable people involved does not make Wicked 7 notable. That the Wicked 7 problems are all notable problems does not make Wicked 7 notable. Even sources describing one of these problems as a wicked problem does not make Wicked 7 notable. This is all inherited notability which doesn't count on Wikipedia. What is needed to establish notability, but is currently lacking, is indendent sources discussing the project directly and in detail. SpinningSpark 23:22, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Most of the sources are either not directly pertinent to this organization or are not independent, having been written by the founders of the organization. Specifically, of the 17 citations, 8 come from the project's founders or one of their websites (wicked7.org or activistbrands.com); 6 were published before this project was established; and the other 3 are undated but don't mention this project. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:39, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No discussion of the sources presented by Atlantic306. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:22, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harris J[edit]

Harris J (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)

Un-remarkable British singer who fails Notability; There is not anything I would call 'significant' coverage of this person. There are little known garage bands with more coverage than this. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 18:16, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This page has been full of puffery at times and it’s been a real chore to keep it well referenced, neutral in tone and accurate. Harris J fails to fails to meet Wikipedia’s notability criteria. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 18:30, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 20:50, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 20:50, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable singer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:08, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as has significant reliable sources coverage such as here,here and here. The third source from CNN Indonesia shows that he had an album released on a major label namely the Indonesian imprint of Warner Music and that album went platinum so he has claims to pass both WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC criterion 2, so there is no valid reason for deleting the article in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:43, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Atlantic306's sources. --Micky (talk) 17:20, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:41, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as is, article makes no claim of notability. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 01:19, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't speedy deletion A7, he has a major claim of significance by reliable sources that he had a national charting cd that went platinum so he is a clear pass of WP:NMUSIC imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. This article needs improvement to establish notability for this singer. When the article was first created in 2017, it cited 4 sources, but now it cites only 3 sources. Surely more information should become available about a contemporary singer as time goes on, not less. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:16, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. As there has been no challenge to the presented sources, consensus is that GNG/CORP is met, and therefore the topic is notable. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:46, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lur Berri[edit]

Lur Berri (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 meet NCORP standards for references. The fr WP articles is much more complete, but even poorer referenced. DGG ( talk ) 04:01, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:19, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:19, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:04, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This article lacks reliable sources and the subject do not have independent coverage with which it can be backed. Ugbede- (talk) 9:45, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Lougarot, Gisele (2008). Pays Basque Nord, Mai 68 En Memoires (in French). Donostia: Elkar. p. 19–20. ISBN 9788497836067. Retrieved 2020-06-13.

     The book notes:

     Lur Berri, à la recherde d'un second souffle
     
     À Saint-Palais, du côté de la coopérative Lur Berri —9 000 sociétaires—, on décline aussi assez nettement ses désillusions: « La tendance traditionnelle de l' agriculture française (production préferentielle de lait et de céréales) a été accentuée par la politique agricole pratiquée jusqu 'à présent. (...) L'essentiel des sommes dépensées pour soutenir les marchés est accaparée par les céréales. ...

     Durante cette fin des années 1960 chez Lur Berri, on est alors à la recherche d'un second souffle après une quinzaine d'années durant lesquelles la production de maïs a été l'élément moteur de l'essor économique de la région de Saint-Palais et de la modernisation de son agriculture.

  2. Beck, Jan Mansvelt (2004). Territory and Terror: Conflicting Nationalisms in the Basque Country. London: Routledge. ISBN 978-1-134-27604-2. Retrieved 2020-06-13.

     The book notes:

     Conversely, Lur Berri in Saint-Palais was a cooperative established by Christian democrats (Malherbe 1980). In 1962, Lur Berri became radicalized when they felt subordinated to Béarn during the introduction of Funk G.75, a new corn variety (Malherbe 1980: 65).

     This is a passing mention but "Malherbe, J.-P. (1980) 'Le nationalisme basque et les transformations politiques en Pays Basque Nord', in Bidart, P., ed., ed., La nouvelle société basque. Ruptures et changements. Paris: L'Harmattan." likely covers the subject more.
  3. "Chevalgate : une coopérative dans les arrière-cuisines de l'industrie agroalimentaire" [Chevalgate: a cooperative in the rear kitchens of the food industry]. Courant Alternatif (in French). April 2013. pp. 8–11. Retrieved 2020-06-13.

     The article provides four pages of coverage about Lur Berri.

  4. Gendron, Guillaume (2013-02-19). "Barthélémy Aguerre, l'appétit sans limite du patron de Spanghero". Libération. Archived from the original on 2020-06-13. Retrieved 2020-06-13.
  5. "Lur Berri : l'aliment des palmipèdes Labeyrie". La Revue de l'Alimentation Animale. March 2010. Archived from the original on 2020-06-13. Retrieved 2020-06-13.

     La Revue de l'Alimentation Animale is a magazine published by Éditions Fitamant, which is managed by fr:Jacques Fitamant. The page notes that this is only an abstract and a full copy can be found in the magazine.

  6. "Lur Berri kooperatiba blokeatu dute laborari batzuek, agintekeria salatzeko" [Some farmers have blocked the Newfoundland cooperative to denounce the authority]. Naiz (in Basque). 2020-01-07. Archived from the original on 2020-06-13. Retrieved 2020-06-13.
  7. Gauthey, Laurent (2009-04-09). "Castelnaudary. Les Basques font main basse sur Spanghero SA". La Dépêche du Midi. Archived from the original on 2020-06-13. Retrieved 2020-06-13.
  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Lur Berri to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 11:12, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Cunard's helpful contribution above, this indicates passing WP:GNG. Remember that missing articles do not indicate deletion is the best course of action; WP:DINC and WP:BEFORE is needed. --Micky (talk) 03:29, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:54, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This one is close but in my opinion there are at least two references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, this article on Chevalgate provides background to the company and discusses present-day (2013) information also and this abstract just about gets there. Topic meets GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:58, 30 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)  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   20:38, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Borden[edit]

Charles Borden (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)

Exists and there is some coverage, but doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 22:01, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I see Davidstewartharvey has added several reviews of his books to the article. Borden also has an entry in Gale's Contemporary Authors Online, and being included in a major reference work is a good sign that someone should be included in Wikipedia. I think that's enough to demonstrate a pass of WP:NAUTHOR, especially since he was active prior to the internet age and most sources are going to be offline. Spicy (talk) 08:13, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Just added new refs and added/amended text as some detail inaccurate (wife's name). Issue found is that Charles Borden is a common name, being a well known archaeologist and another being an attorney! Added reviews of books from Kirkus, but as these were written 50s/60s hard to find much else. Still think with what I have added that he is notable.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 08:31, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:NAUTHOR, because of the Kirkus reviews added to the article. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:04, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw nomination per helpful comments above. Boleyn (talk) 20:34, 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 delete. MER-C 11:48, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arantxa Santamaria[edit]

Arantxa Santamaria (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:NMODEL or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 21:51, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:22, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:NMODEL and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:26, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep - nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete !votes (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 13:57, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Esther James[edit]

Esther James (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:NMODEL or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 21:49, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep She has an entry in the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography and that alone establishes notability, as a few dozen AfDs have proven over the years (note that she's not one of the representative entries). I suggest you withdraw this AfD. I note that the DNZB reference was missing from the article but it was contained in the Wikidata entry. Schwede66 09:43, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw nomination per User:Schwede66's excellent response. Thanks for your help, Boleyn (talk) 12:58, 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) ~ Amkgp 💬 01:47, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fifth by Northwest[edit]

Fifth by Northwest (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)

Poor sourcing; unmaintained Thomas1617 (talk) 19:07, 27 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 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:31, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep seems to be a significant urban area of 700 acres such as would normally be included in Wikipedia. It has reliable sources coverage such as Columbia Dispatch and unmaintained is not a valid deletion reason in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:19, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. I'm certain 80% of the material in the article is neighborhood-level detail that just doesn't belong here. Local pride is all good, yay, just not in wikipedia. The backbone of the sourcing, the area commission website, is down. However since it seems to qualify for one of the many Cleveland Columbus neighborhoods that we've documented, maybe we should put it on a diet, send it to rehab, and keep it. --Lockley (talk) 08:48, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:23, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:23, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:21, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Le Desk[edit]

Le Desk (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)

fail WP:WEB, just a normal news website created in 2015, no history no awards no notable works, I checked all refs and it's WP:Trivial mentions, Alexa rank is #99,359 Ibrahim.ID ✪ 18:56, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. إيان (talk) 11:30, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. إيان (talk) 11:30, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. إيان (talk) 11:30, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. إيان (talk) 11:30, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is the most important independent media outlet in Morocco. Sources in the article. إيان (talk) 11:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per recent changes to the article. -TheseusHeLl (talk) 20:40, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep There appears to be some reliable coverage of this.★Trekker (talk) 22:50, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:20, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Fappening (film)[edit]

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

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

This does not meet WP:NF. Having a few passing mentions and two blog style reviews does not constitute as significant coverage. BOVINEBOY2008 18:36, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:45, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Lousy sources indeed. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 14:26, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - lacks the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 21:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: Back in 2015 there was a SPA that came to Wikipedia to write about Weathers and essentially spam Wikipedia with pages about his films and create pages for individuals who have worked with Weathers. This was also an issue in 2013, when another round of Weathers related articles were created and needed to be deleted. I'm not entirely certain if this is the same issue here, but I would not be surprised if it was. I've warned the editor who created this, but I think that it may be a good idea to salt some of the film titles that currently serve as redirects. If this is a case of the director asking or paying someone to come and edit the articles - I must recommend that he stop. This does not reflect well on you. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:27, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I actually looked at the past version of the page - the deleted version of the page's reception section is very, VERY similar, to the point where it's extremely likely that this is either the same person who was blocked back in 2015 or someone who was specifically paid to recreate the page and was given the same material and sourcing to use. Here's the former section:

The Fappening was met with high acclaim in the horror indie film community. The critical consensus states: "'What do you get when you cross the comedic dialogue brilliance of Kevin Smith, the grittiness of an 80’s Abel Ferrara and the sleazy fun of Russ Meyer? You get the films of Sean Weathers.' 9/10" - Through the Black Hole.^[1] The Final Cut said of the film, "Socially relevant and makes a statement."^[2] Search My Trash called it, "A very dark satire of (especially but not only) American celebrity culture."^[3] Indie Horror Films called it, "Hysterically funny and scarily accurate."^[4] Matt's Rotten Review said it was, "Full of sex, sleaze and horror."^[5] Classicalite said of the director, "Weathers is a curio of a talent."^[6]

I'm going to give the user a precautionary block as a promotion or possible block evasion. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:35, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:44, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Damek Tomscha[edit]

Damek Tomscha (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 minor-league baseball player who is now playing in indy ball; fails WP:Notability Pozzi.c (talk) 17:38, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:45, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:45, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:45, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Yeah, this may not be notable. It seems most of the people on this team don't have an article, either. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 15:30, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete' a non-notable minor league player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:31, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Fails WP:GNG. Alex-h (talk) 14:02, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MER-C 11:47, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Menlo Park Fire Protection District[edit]

Menlo Park Fire Protection District (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)

Organization lacks independent, in-depth sourcing necessary to pass WP:GNG. Prod was removed by User:Kvng. User:Namiba 17:34, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 17:34, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I found the following independent sources: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. I'm not sure this is enough to meet WP:ORG OR how WP:LOCAL applies here but it seemedd to be enough to WP:DEPROD. ~Kvng (talk) 15:48, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Several of the sources repeat the same information re: the Fire Department's response to the pandemic and should be treated as one source. While we can prove that it exists, there is no in-depth coverage.--User:Namiba 14:01, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all the sourcing is extremely local. Local papaers will occasionally write about the doings of the local fire department, this is not enough to justify having an article on that fire department.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:00, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:13, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, can't even recommend a "redirect" to the county level fire dept article as there isnt one. Drat! Coolabahapple (talk) 02:17, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There's no automatic notability for local fire departments, even if there's some routine local news and non-independent content. Lacks in-depth non-news coverage. Reywas92^Talk 20:29, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 01:41, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yuwen Zhang[edit]

Yuwen Zhang (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)

Despite its polished look the article does not, and is unlikely to ever, meet WP:GNG or WP:Prof. A close examination of the edit history revels the article is almost certainly an autobiographical creation. Grey Wanderer (talk) 16:41, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:00, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. The article clearly and obviously passes WP:PROF#C5 as a named professor ("James C. Dowell Professorship"), #C3 as a Fellow of both AAAS and ASME, #C1 for many highly cited publications [14], #C8 for editor-in-chief of Frontiers in Heat and Mass Transfer, and probably also WP:AUTHOR for his book publications if someone wants to dig up the reviews on those. And although it may have been an autobiography originally, that is not a deletion criterion, and it was twelve years and many edits ago. The first AfD already found evidence of passing WP:PROF and closed as keep with the finding that no valid deletion rationale was given. Now, 10 years later, the only thing that has changed is that evidence of passing WP:PROF is much much more abundant. But still no valid deletion rationale has been given. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:21, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Passes WP:Prof as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:19, 27 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]
• Speedy keep Passes multiple criteria of WP:PROF, as argued above. And autobiography (or CV-like writing) would be grounds to check the article carefully and edit as appropriate, not to delete it. XOR'easter (talk) 00:17, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes WP:PROF.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Agree with the reasoning above. Passes multiple criteria from the notability standards for academics including #3 (AAAS fellowship), and #5 (named professorship). MoneciousTriffid (talk) 03:44, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep H index of 50, named professor, fellowship, book author. Easily meets the notability criteria. Kj cheetham (talk) 19:40, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep, easy PROF pass with h-index of 50 as well as additional criteria.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉]) 12:26, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Per above , passes WP:Prof. Alex-h (talk) 14:10, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:46, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kayda[edit]

Kayda (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 seem to be notable and the page is unencyclopedic and lacks WP:NOV. Ibn Daud (talk) 16:21, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a textbook. Plus, some of the text seems to be copied directly from forums, blogs and other unreliable sources. -- Dps04 (talk) 15:31, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:05, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:05, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - nothing encyclopaedic about this at all; clearly fails WP:GNG Spiderone 17:24, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Wikipedia isn't a list or a textbook, and the article's subject isn't notable enough. CupcakePerson13 (talk) 15:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Cotswold Outdoor.. Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:04, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Snow and Rock[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Corporate Spam. scope_creep^Talk 15:14, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 15:21, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 15:21, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 15:21, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 15:21, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Speedy delete per CSD A7 and G11. –User456541 15:24, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/redirect to Cotswold Outdoor#Snow and Rock per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion, which I have done. Cunard (talk) 00:44, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Cunard: User:User456541 reasons unsatisfactorilly.——Serial ^# 09:07, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect as per Cunard. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:15, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Showbezzy[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO No evidence of notability. scope_creep^Talk 15:09, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 15:14, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 15:14, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I think admins should review the article well and it shouldn't be deleted for the subject not been notable...The subject is a notable artist in the Ghanaian Music Industry and has won a prestigious award. <ref>https://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/entertainment/Showboy-wins-International-Artiste-of-the-year-at-the-2018-Eastern-Music-Awards-707348</ref> and it's written about by several credible websites in Ghana.... 154.160.26.126 14:12, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment That is written in his own words on his site on Instagram, and is dud ref. scope_creep^Talk 21:34, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Under both names, Showbezzy and Showboy, his music is only present in the typical streaming and self-promotional sites where anyone can upload material, and his media coverage as a musician is entirely in the form of brief press releases and entries at gossip sites. He got some minor news coverage as an attempted murderer, but that does not make him notable as a musician or anything else. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:36, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete - purely PR and publicity attempt. →Enock4seth ^(talk) 16:02, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Just refactored and correctly placed the IP comment at the top. Raymie (t • c) 18:40, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:18, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Webtretho[edit]

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

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

Not notable since at least 2014. Recent edits have now changed the topic from a forum to a website. Fuddle (talk) 14:20, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Fuddle (talk) 14:20, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:23, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If there was a source for the claim of over 1 million registered users then that would be a decent claim for possibly being notable.★Trekker (talk) 22:46, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:32, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

George Imeretinsky[edit]

George 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) 21:18, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:18, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:18, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:4360:889A:B946:F9E6:87CB (talk) 15:04, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. BD2412 T 23:38, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign for Better Transport (United Kingdom)[edit]

Campaign for Better Transport (United Kingdom) (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'm not convinced that it satisfies WP:ORG or WP:GNG. It relies heavily on the organisation's own website with only trivial mentions in secondary sources. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:11, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:11, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:11, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• BBC, Daily Telegraph, Times, official history of the Transport Salaried Staffs' Association look like reputable independent sources to me. BBC has a whole article about the organisation's internal affairs. Rathfelder (talk) 18:31, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rathfelder: can you give specific cites which could be said to provide "significant coverage" of the organisation, rather than just trivial mentions please. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:38, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4612556.stm is long and detailed and focused on the internal politics of the organisation.Rathfelder (talk) 21:41, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks, I saw that one cited in the article, I thought it was more about Michael Palin, with just a minimum and incidental coverage of CBT's predecessor organisation.

I think we'll need more than just that though to pass the WP:SIRS test of significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:57, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Transport 2000 was not a predecessor organisation. It changed its name. I think you should do a bit more research before you start proposing to delete organisations about which you dont appear to know much. Rathfelder (talk) 22:00, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semantics does not alter the fact that article was more about Michael Palin than the organisation, and my knowledge isn't the point here, it is whether the organisation can pass the requisite notability test. And I'm not convinced, from what I've seen, that it has the appropriate coverage to do that. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:37, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete The organisation gets a lot of of passing mentions in media coverage and is routinely quoted by the British media whenever there is a transport proposal but I couldn't find multiple sources that would meet WP:SIRS so going to suggest a delete. I think, subject to the sources being available the organisation would have sufficient media coverage to warrant an article but at the current time I don't think we have enough to justify the article. (List below of the sources I have identified which give passing mentioned but are not sufficient secondary sources)^[1][2][3][4]Tracland (talk) 06:13, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. They are routinely quoted in the media for good reason. Virtually every one of the dozens of government reports on transport takes evidence from them, for instance [15]. This article in the Eastern Daily Express is almost entirely about the CBT's recommendations on Greater Anglia trains. Urban Transport Planning and Management discusses them from page 418 to page 421 including some discussion on controversial aspects of the organisation. Campaign for Better Transport on the Bus Services Bill is a BBC interview with a CBT representative. SpinningSpark 23:03, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Spinningspark: I get that as a transport campaign group they issue lots of press releases and respond to lots of transport consultations in support of their POV, but is there significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources that would satisfy the WP:SIRS requirement with regards to notability? -- DeFacto (talk). 20:38, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If I didn't think that, I wouldn't have !voted keep. SpinningSpark 21:17, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:46, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Plenty of independent coverage - some a long time ago when it was called Transport 2000 and not accessible to Google. Rathfelder (talk) 18:33, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rathfelder: If we are to use that independent coverage to help establish notability here though, we'll need cites, whether they be books, newspaper articles, or whatever, otherwise that notability will not be verifiable by readers. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:28, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The question is whether coverage exists. Not whether it's in the article. As the official history of the Transport Salaried Staffs' Association shows, Transport 2000 was a significant campaigning organisation. It got lots of coverage in the 1970s and 80s. Rathfelder (talk) 20:58, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rathfelder: to establish notability of this article, the SIRS guideline requires that there are multiple sources, with coverage in each which is significant, independent, reliable, and secondary. How can an assessment of notability be made without these sources being cited? -- DeFacto (talk). 21:13, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On the balance of probabilities. TSSA references other sources. Stephen Joseph was given an OBE for his work here. "His wide-ranging expertise and contacts have helped to make the organisation the country’s leading transport NGO."^[1] I can see plenty more sources. You might start with the House of Commons: Transport Committee which regularly took evidence from Joseph on behalf of the organisation. You are supposed to do this Wikipedia:BEFORE. "If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination. " Rathfelder (talk) 21:35, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, as I said before, it is a campaign organisation, and it lobbies hard to promote its cause. However, minutes, reports, etc. recording its contributions, even those produced by government committees, do not satisfy the requirement of in depth coverage of the organisation itself. According to WP:ORGDEPTH what we are looking for, and in multiple different secondary sources, is coverage that "provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization." And it's not a matter of quantity of mentions either, the above mentioned section also says "A collection of multiple trivial sources do not become significant".

And remember too, the organisation cannot inherit the notability of it's personnel, even that of Stephen Joseph. To clinch this, what we need to see are cites to a number of the type of quality sources that the guidelines ask for. If they aren't forthcoming, then it will be difficult to demonstrate that the requirements are met. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agreed with DeFacto, in order for this to be notable there need to be multiple independent reliable sources about the organisation itself not documentation recording its contributions as a lobby group to transport matters (such matters may themselves be notable topics in their own right). I'd like this article to exist but in order to be able to justify its existence in accordance with WP:ORG or WP:GNG we are going to need to be able to find multiple reliable secondary sources about the organisation itself [clarrification 1 July 2020 @ 19.28 BSTand cite these in the article and once found please ensure these are cited in the article to ensure the article is well referenced]. If these are available then I will happily support keeping the article but, at the moment, my opinion is we do not have enough to support keeping the article.Tracland (talk) 08:13, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's a common misconception about notability. We don't require that we have to "cite these in the article" before an article is notable. It is the subject that is notable, not the article. Here's what WP:ORG has to say on this, Notability requires only that these necessary sources have been published—even if these sources are not actually listed in the article yet. SpinningSpark 08:43, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And how do we know that such sources have been published if no-one is able to name them? Would I be able to create an article called 'DeFacto Publications' on the basis that because I can source that my work has been published all over the place, in newspapers and books and on websites including government websites, that there must therefore be multiple independent reliable sources describing my organisation in the necessary detail to support notability? -- DeFacto (talk). 09:27, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what strawman you are trying to knock down. I did provide sources in my first post here. SpinningSpark 10:17, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Spinningspark: sorry, I must have misunderstood your point then. Which sources do you mean that have been published but which aren't in the artle? -- DeFacto (talk). 11:09, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea whether the sources I put forward are in the article or not, and see no pressing reason why I should bother to find out. You can easily check for yourself if you really believe that is significant in some way. SpinningSpark 11:21, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Spinningspark: thanks, the penny has dropped now. You're thinking the four sources you mentioned further up should cover this? If so, I totally disagree with you, and I thought that was clear from my first reply to you. Of the four you offered, three are just coverage of their campaigning activities, and not the type of cover that WP:SIRS requires to demonstrate notability. That leaves the article in "Urban Transport Planning and Management", which I haven't seen yet, but even if it "provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization", it is the only source we have doing so, and SIRS requires multiple such sources. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:39, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it was perfectly clear that you disagree. It should have also been perfectly clear that I disagree with your disagreement. It is entirely beyond doubt that Urban Transport Planning and Management at least, meets the SIRS criteria. I don't know why you are hesitating to accept that one. CBT is discussed as an organisation, including its history, over four pages. They unarguably provide analysis, since there is a controversies section where they discuss and analyse criticisms of CBT. The first of these is the claim that CBT is an industry lobby group. That criticism, I believe, comes from Transport-Watch UK who discuss CBT on this page. They also give a short, but non-trivial, history of CBT. Now Transport-Watch is a bit iffy as a reliable source because it seems to be mostly a one-man show run by Paul F Withrington. However, I believe it is acceptable under WP:SPS since Withrington is a transport planning professional and has been previously published in the relevant field according to their site. That makes two sources and multiple is more than one. I also contend that articles like the one in Eastern Daily Pess count towards notability because they concentrate on a campaign by CBT rather than the issue CBT is campaigning on. Please don't waste space coming back telling me you disagree with that one, I know you do – if you didn't this would be an easy pass since there are a lot more like it. Also significant to my mind (but probably not getting past SIRS) is the fact that the Local Government Association felt it was necessary to take action in response to a CBT report. If the CBT were just a bunch of nobodies turning up at every transport inquiry to push their agenda, then they could have comfortably been ignored. But clearly they are not. SpinningSpark 13:30, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I accept what you're saying about Urban Transport Planning and Management, even though I cannot find it online to check, but that still leaves us short of the full 'multiple' of such sources that we require. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:19, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The wording in my comment wasn't intended to mean that the citations needed to be included in the article in order for the topic in order for the topic to be notable (this is clearly nonsensical or no articles could be made). It was intended as a recommendation as in: we are going to need to be able to find multiple reliable secondary sources about the organisation in order for the topic to be notable and [once these sources have been identified] cite these in the article [in order to improve the general quality article]. Apologies, as reading this back a second time I can see that this could easily be interpreted differently to what I actually meant . I've clarified my intentions above also leaving the original wording.Tracland (talk) 18:31, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Notability of Stephen Joseph is not inherited. He was brought before the Transport Committee - every year for several years - as a spokesperson for Transport 2000. The House of Commons clearly valued the organisation's contributions to its discussions. That is as notable as you get with a think tank or campaigning organisation. If that doesn't pass muster we should delete all the other articles about think tanks. Rathfelder (talk) 20:13, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Rathfelder and SpinningSpork. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 08:58, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 01:44, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Odessa Grady Clay[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG and notability isn't inherited ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:47, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:47, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:50, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It’s survived two previous nominations. If it doesn’t merit standalone status and this is going to keep cropping up every however many years then just delete it. I don’t have the energy to keep justifying and defending it. Jack1956 (talk) 14:25, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I've got your back – she's on my watchlist now. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:47, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. While it's true that her notability derives almost entirely from her famous son, Muhammad Ali, she is still notable. She's been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources, and clearly there's plenty of source material available to write a detailed biography. WP:NOTINHERITED means relatives of celebrities don't get a free pass, but it doesn't mean that they don't get articles even when WP:BASIC is met. pburka (talk) 14:27, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Notability clearly established during the previous nominations. Nothing has changed in the intervening years to make the article less notable. Dreamspy (talk) 14:41, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP:NOTINHERITED states that "notability not being inherited is not by itself grounds for deletion". There are plenty of sources which provide copious biographical details about the subject and so she passes WP:GNG. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:47, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per above, inheritance does not cancel out notability. This article has been nominated twice before, with outcomes of no consensus, then keep. What has changed that would make her less notable today than before? Jacona (talk) 15:09, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cassius Marcellus Clay Sr. (2nd nomination), probably these should be considered at the same time to waste less time. Jacona (talk) 15:12, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Has plenty of citations. Article reads like someone who was written about in the papers. Adjunct to a more famous person doesn't mean their own notability was inherited. Normal Op (talk) 16:22, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The 1966 Sports Illustrated coverage is especially strong, and her obituary was in The New York Times. Yes, her fame stems from her relationship with her son, but there are lots of mothers of celebrated people who never get direct coverage of their own lives and struggles. — Toughpigs (talk) 20:09, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, She, herself, has received enough coverage to satisfy notability Alex-h (talk) 14:17, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 01:44, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cassius Marcellus Clay Sr.[edit]

Cassius Marcellus Clay Sr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG and notability isn't inherited ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:46, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:46, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:46, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep WP:NOTINHERITED states that "notability not being inherited is not by itself grounds for deletion". There are plenty of sources which provide biographical details about the subject and so he passes WP:GNG. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:17, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As Mohammad Ali's father he received a tremendous amount of coverage in reliable sources and is, in fact, notable. pburka (talk) 15:34, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Easily passes WP:GNG. WP:INHERIT states "Also, notability not being inherited is not by itself grounds for deletion". It should be noted this is one of a pair of articles nominated, along with Clay's wife Odessa Grady Clay.Jacona (talk) 20:07, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Direct coverage in Sports Illustrated and The New York Times. Yes, he is known for being Ali's father, but there are lots of fathers of celebrated people who do not get coverage on their own. — Toughpigs (talk) 20:12, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - cited and referenced - perfectly valid article Jack1956 (talk) 22:07, 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 delete. MER-C 11:45, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mayra Suárez[edit]

Mayra Suárez (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:NMODEL or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 13:32, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:47, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:47, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:47, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:53, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:47, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:NMODEL and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:38, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:19, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Monica Shaw[edit]

Monica Shaw (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:BIO as a sportsperson or entertainer, or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 13:31, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:46, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:46, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:46, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:18, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mannie Rodriguez[edit]

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

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

A successful and interesting man, but doesn't meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 13:28, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:31, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:31, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete, he doesn't pass WP:GNG and being a superdelegate isn't enough by itself to pass WP:NPOL. It seems he's most 'notable' for his attendance as a superdelegate in 2008, but also attended some others (at least 2016. There's a bit of coverage in local news [16], but it doesn't seem to be particularly in-depth. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:41, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Due to the nature of how American political systems actually run, his positions are not ones that make someone notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:50, 29 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:24, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Platform for Transparency[edit]

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

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

A little coverage referring to them as this, but I don't think it meets WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 13:27, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:06, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:04, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:04, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unable to find any other reliable sources talking about the group besides the one in the article - the second article source doesn't actually talk about the group, but rather about one of its members, without even mentioning the grouping itself. Even the supposed official website of the group is just the personal site of one of its members. If there ever actually was an agreement here between these MEPs, it seems to have been entirely inconsequential in its nature, with no significant effect on the European Union, its parliament, or its member states. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 22:22, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peace Theological Seminary & College of Philosophy[edit]

Peace Theological Seminary & College of Philosophy (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:NOTABILITY in my view. Boleyn (talk) 13:25, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No indication of notability.Mccapra (talk) 16:54, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:08, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:08, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:08, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:20, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sports Development Foundation Scotland[edit]

Sports Development Foundation Scotland (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)

It exists, but it doesn't meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 13:19, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Comment: This organisation appears to have been active 2007-9 but was then deregistered as a charity in 2012 and its website was repurposed as a Japanese gaming site a couple of years later. Their accounts on the OSCR site indicate 22GBP income in 2008 - and that appears to be it. AllyD (talk) 18:04, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The article text presents the organisation's charity registration (but not its deregistration) and sets out its original aspirations, some as mundane as registering with the JustGiving site, none of which amounts to achieved notability. In 2009 the Scottish Sun had a passing mention of a fundraising event. The motion by a then-MSP about its formation may be the most substantial (even if no longer verifiable), but I don't see that a congratulatory motion at formation confers lasting notability, and might be countered by the overall silence apparent about the organisation's demise. Fails WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 18:28, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:23, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:23, 30 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 Nokia 3100#Variants. WP:ATD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:27, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nokia 3120 classic[edit]

Nokia 3120 classic (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)

It existed, and with a notable manufacturer, but it doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY itself. Easy to confuse coverage with the earlier Nokia 3120. Boleyn (talk) 13:09, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 14:35, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:01, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Nokia 3120 subsection of Nokia 3100#Variants, an added sentence would be ok. 00:05, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:18, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TOMfest[edit]

TOMfest (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:NOTABILITY. Festival which did attract notable acts but didn't have the coverage. Boleyn (talk) 13:00, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:06, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:06, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. 06:33, 30 June 2020 (UTC) Coolabahapple (talk) 23:57, 29 June 2020 (UTC)}[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. 06:33, 30 June 2020 (UTC) Coolabahapple (talk) 23:57, 29 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 💬 01:50, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Total Environment Centre[edit]

Total Environment Centre (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:ORG or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 12:57, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:00, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:00, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Long standing environment group in Sydney, NSW, Australia. Notable for long history, campaigns. Probably one of the 5 key environment organisations in Sydney (capital of NSW). I have never been a member but have personal knowledge of it over a period of over 15 years and it was well known in environment circles at that time as a long serving organisation. It is notable in its context. Australia has only 25 Mill, NSW only about 7.5 mill, Sydney only about 4.5. Other major (in Sydney) environmental organisations like Environmental Defenders Office and Nature Conservation Council willingly work with TEC. Greenpeace has also coordinated with TEC to my personal knowledge. A few notable campaigns are listed in its About page on its website. A google search of news done in Sydney for "total environment centre" (in quotes in the search) gives over 1,000 results.It is worthy of a Wikipedia page.dinghy (talk) 01:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Dinghy is correct and makes some good points. Deus et lex (talk) 22:51, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - A very important operation within the environment sector. Gets plenty of media coverage for it's significant work. Teraplane (talk) 23:37, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Like others, I am aware of the group and its historical role - Dinghy is correct in their comments. I note the article itself is pretty poor. It does need fixing. But I'd say no question of organisation notability. hamiltonstone (talk) 07:27, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have cleaned up the links, added an inline web citation and a category. Still needs a bit more Teraplane (talk) 08:09, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:47, 29 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. MER-C 11:44, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WebConfig[edit]

WebConfig (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 think it passes WP:NOTABILITY, but after 11 years in CAT:NN it could do with a proper discussion. Please see Talk:WebConfig for previous comments on its notability from others. Boleyn (talk) 12:55, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 14:37, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Unless someone finds better sources or identifies a merge.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:18, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I can't find any proper sources, and it is almost impossible given that it is so hard to search for. If anybody ever wants to write about this, they could put it in ClearOS. --Ysangkok (talk) 04:20, 30 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:17, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weblocks[edit]

Weblocks (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)

It exists, but it doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 12:53, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:55, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I don't think this meets GNG either. Interesting software but even the primary sources are down by now. Not historically significant, there are other continuation-based web frameworks that maybe could meet the bar. --Ysangkok (talk) 04:17, 30 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. MER-C 11:37, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald L. Turner[edit]

Ronald L. Turner (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)

Very successful, but I can't establish he passes WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Possibly worth a redirect to Ceridian. Boleyn (talk) 12:49, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:53, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:56, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Promotional CV, and the two sources are press releases. --Kbabej (talk) 17:22, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:03, 29 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:17, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quest Learning and Assessment[edit]

Quest Learning and Assessment (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)

Coverage is mainly from primary sources. I don't see that this meets WP:NOTABILITY. Possibly worth a redirect to University of Texas at Austin College of Natural Sciences. Boleyn (talk) 12:48, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 14:28, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 14:28, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 14:28, 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.