< 11 May	13 May >

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 05:17, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Lovgren[edit]

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

Non notable actor. WP:BEFORE shows no evidence of secondary coverage Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:17, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:17, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:17, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:17, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:17, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it is a travesty that an only IMDb supported article has lasted 14 years.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:05, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He was in the main cast of Intelligence and his roles on various shows, including Madison, indicate he meets WP:ENT #1. Searches in a few Proquest databases have retrieved reviews that cover his performances in certain films and stage performances as well as articles about his career. I'm adding a few but not all. Canadian Wikipedians may have better access to sources. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 14:29, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- DiamondRemley39 is there a way that we can access these sources? Do readers need a Proquest account? Cardiffbear88 (talk) 00:10, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Cardiffbear88, you would need Proquest access, but I don't know that one can get a Proquest account. Most US universities and library systems have at least some Proquest access; one accesses through one's library account. You could try interlibrary loan. Do you need clarification on one or more of the sources? DiamondRemley39 (talk) 00:14, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks. I’m just not sure how other !keep voters can assess the quality of the sources, or how substantial the coverage of the subject is, unless they all also have Proquest accounts. Thanks for the tip, I will check with my local library. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 00:18, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Cardiffbear88, sure thing! Per WP:NEXIST, it is enough that the other sources exist; other editors may or may not get to evaluate them depending on the resources available to them. Without database access, one could start by looking up the publications and named authors to see if they appear to be of the reliable secondary source caliber. Again, there aren't really Proquest "accounts" to my knowledge. Proquest owns the rights to reproduce the content in certain areas within certain collections; much of this content is available outside of Proquest as well. Don't get hung up on the "via" part of a citation. I believe I was fairly specific in my contributions to the article, so again I ask whether you have questions about the content added to the article as it pertains to this AfD. That what I added are more than passing mentions should be apparent. As beyond-the-Google research by me and RecycledPixels indicates that there is significant coverage, it would be considerate and even prudent to withdraw the nomination before more people spend time on this page... And before it starts snowing. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 02:24, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don’t think it’s wise for me to withdraw my nomination until I can locate the sources for myself, so I will search these out and allow other editors to debate the nature of the sources. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 03:04, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:ENT for significant roles in notable films. DiamondRemley39 has added some additional sources and film appearances to the article, I did a quick search on newspapers.com and found plenty of references to Canadian Indie films in Canadian newspapers that establish his notability, e.g. "The Vancouver Connection", Toronto National Post, 28 November 2000, p.E3. RecycledPixels (talk) 20:50, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As per the above "Keep" arguments. Dflaw4 (talk) 17:37, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NACTOR as validated by the multiple reliable sources references added to the article so that deletion is no longer necessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:03, 17 May 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:57, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bhagwan Shri Krishna[edit]

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

A Bollywood film, sourced only to IMDb (non-WP:RS), without even a plot. A WP:BEFORE search turned up nothing. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Narky Blert (talk) 21:02, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. While a search can be location biased Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and if there are sources "out there" then proof needs to be offered. IMDb is not a reliable source (See: WP:ELP, WP:RSPS, and WP:RS/IMDB), and creating articles then one day (maybe) in the future finding sources is backward to the intent of Wikipedia WP:policies and guidelines. I am not opposed to recreation if sources are presented. WP:NEXIST states: Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet. If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate. However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface.

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. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:56, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aakhri Nishchay[edit]

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

A Bollywood film, sourced only to non-WP:RS IMDb. A WP:BEFORE turned up a plot summary, which the article lacks, but nothing at all of significance. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Narky Blert (talk) 20:35, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:42, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:42, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. A search did not produce anything significant and Wikipedia is not an IMDb mirror. It is considered unreliable per WP:ELP, WP:RSPS, and WP:RS/IMDB. Wikipedia is also not a crystal ball so if there are sources "out there" then they need to be presented. Not opposed to recreation if significant coverage in independent and reliable sources are presented. -- Otr500 (talk) 14:34, 20 May 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:33, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Naukabout Music Festival[edit]

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

This appears to be a non-notable festival. No reliable references come up on Google. Interstellarity (talk) 20:32, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Interstellarity (talk) 20:32, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Interstellarity (talk) 20:32, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Interstellarity (talk) 20:32, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was able to find a couple of article in the Cape Cod Times, a local paper ([1], [2]). Aide from that it was just event listings and press releases. -- Whpq (talk) 01:55, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 18:38, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find anything other than the two Cape Cod Times articles as well. Fails WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 23:06, 19 May 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:33, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Washington County, Maine shootings[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS. There is no evidence that this event has any discernible impact beyond the small, rural communities in which it took place. User:Namiba 20:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 20:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 20:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite the article creator's claim that it was interesting because it happened in a 'quiet area' of Maine...that is not a good reason for an article creation regarding a crime. This is WP:NOTNEWS, and the deaths of three innocent people are not 'interesting', but sad when it was a local story. Have some tact when thinking whether creating a crime article is the right thing to do, please. Nate • (chatter) 00:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:10, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Almost 3 months since the incident. Fails WP:LASTING. Lorstaking (talk) 09:09, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I hadn't even heard of this until now, which means it wasn't even in national news coverage. Therefore, not that notable. Love of Corey (talk) 21:58, 18 May 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 Mayors of Bayonne, New Jersey. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 05:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John J. Cain[edit]

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

Non-notable mayor that was in office for only two years, not reliably sourced. Only reliable source I can find is a newspaper obituary which is far short of meeting WP:NPOL requirements. Rusf10 (talk) 20:04, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 20:04, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 20:04, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Mayors of Bayonne, New Jersey.09:15, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Delete article has no reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:58, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A mayor of Bayonne could potentially be kept if the article were genuinely substantive and well-sourced, but it is not a large or important enough city to confer an automatic inclusion freebie on every mayor just because his existence is technically verified by an obituary. Bearcat (talk) 17:56, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Mayor of a small town. Just because he served as a mayor, does not warrant him an article. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 20:26, 17 May 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 Lili Reinhart#Writing. I'm unconvinced that adding the infobox content (which is the only real content in the article that's not already in the redirected section) to the redirect target section is necessary, but if anyone disagrees, I'm not fussed about it - feel free to add it in. (non-admin closure) Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 22:10, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Swimming Lessons: Poems[edit]

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

A book that hasn't been released yet and thus fails WP:CRYSTAL. Two sources are from the author's Instagram account and another is an interview with a passing mention of the book. Lettler^hello 19:58, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Lettler^hello 19:58, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Lettler^hello 19:58, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lili_Reinhart#Writing. That already has almost all of the content of this article. Meters (talk) 03:45, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - This unreleased poetry book is not notable right now. If it does become notable, then the redirect can be undone. -- Whpq (talk) 01:59, 17 May 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. (non-admin closure) Interstellarity (talk) 12:56, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delgado Street Bridge[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG Either delete it or make it more detailed, editors! JTZegers (talk) 19:39, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – as a listed property on the NRHP, it is inherently notable; see here for further explanation. CJK09 (talk) 19:44, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Isn’t this listed in the National Register of Historic Places and therefore satisfies WP:NBUILDING? — MarkH₂₁^talk 19:45, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - NRHP contributing property. https://catalog.archives.gov/id/77846810 184.153.150.57 (talk) 19:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep for NRHP property. Nominator is an eager new editor who is on an AfD spree but doesn't understand ins-and-outs of notability yet. Schazjmd (talk) 20:35, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:44, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - NRHP properties are inherently notable. Hog Farm (talk) 23:46, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I expanded the article from information that was in the linked historical cultural properties inventory form. Had this information been included in the article in the first place... oh, never mind. It's useless for me to voice my opinion on this issue again. Whatever. I'll let other people decide whether this article is worth keeping or deleting, as well as whether it's worth it for me to expand short articles on short bridges. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 02:09, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:59, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:59, 13 May 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) Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:06, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Costain[edit]

The result was speedy keep per User:Dormskirk

Strong oppose founder of one of the UK's largest, best known and oldest construction companies, Costain Group. Also he is listed on the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography and not many of the UK's industrial leaders achieve that distinction. Dormskirk (talk) 19:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dormskirk. Mccapra (talk) 20:07, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:45, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:45, 12 May 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) Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 22:05, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Magnar Sætre[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG JTZegers (talk) 19:33, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:35, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:35, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NPOL. Mccapra (talk) 21:18, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, member of Parliament for 8 years. Geschichte (talk) 11:18, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly passes WP:POLITICIAN. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:18, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG and NPOL, MOP for a long time. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 16:58, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:POLITICIAN. Less Unless (talk) 19:18, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:NPOL as he was a national legislator. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 22:55, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:NPOL as a member of the Storting. --Enos733 (talk) 04:37, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, the article needs some improvement, so by all means flag for ((refimprove)) — but serving in the national legislature is a straight pass of WP:NPOL #1, and the fact that his term was in the 1980s and 1990s means that his best sources aren't going to be found on Google. Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not necessarily the current quality of the article — and politicians get media coverage, you're just going to have to dig into a database of archived Norwegian media coverage to actually find it. Bearcat (talk) 17:53, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Members of National Legislatures definitely meet notability guidelines. PoliceSheep99 (talk) 18:13, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:POLITICIAN.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:24, 19 May 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. Invalid nomination. From the nominator's user page: "I used to work on nominating articles for deletion, but due to my misunderstanding of the deletion policy, I was forced to quit that role and now work on expanding stub articles". Geschichte (talk) 07:28, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Parnówko[edit]

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

Fails WP:GEOLAND JTZegers (talk) 19:32, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Mccapra (talk) 21:17, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I think there is pretty substantial evidence this town exists, as just one example, there is a weather report for it here: [3]. As such it passes GEOLAND. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:28, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:48, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:48, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Named town, passes GEOLAND. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 16:58, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly passes WP:GEOLAND. SportingFlyer T·C 19:50, 14 May 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. Invalid nomination. From the nominator's user page: "I used to work on nominating articles for deletion, but due to my misunderstanding of the deletion policy, I was forced to quit that role and now work on expanding stub articles". Geschichte (talk) 07:28, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arhopala madytus[edit]

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

Does not comply with MOS:LIFE JTZegers (talk) 19:31, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Koridas (...Puerto Rico for statehood!) 19:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES, as it has at least one reliable source. The citation simply needs to be an inline citation rather than an external. Koridas (...Puerto Rico for statehood!) 19:39, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: MOS:LIFE is about how to write about life, not about what to include in the encyclopedia. And as Koridas links above, species are generally notable. Just to be sure I've added some references and copy edited the article. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 20:31, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:17, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep No salient reason given for deletion, article complies with all requirements for a taxonomic topic. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:34, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Failing to meet manual of style should not be reason for deletion. It can be fixed. No argument for deletion. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 16:59, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, separate species deserves a separate article. Cavalryman (talk) 09:12, 14 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. I have referred to WP:DEL-REASON, cannot see on what basis the editor is proposing deletion, and suggest that they familiarise themselves with the policy before any further nominations. A search for this species in Google Books delivers numerous texts and therefore passes NOTABILITY. William Harristalk 05:30, 15 May 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. Invalid nomination. From the nominator's user page: "I used to work on nominating articles for deletion, but due to my misunderstanding of the deletion policy, I was forced to quit that role and now work on expanding stub articles". Geschichte (talk) 07:28, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Archytas of Mytilene[edit]

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

Is not very detailed. Fails WP:GNG JTZegers (talk) 19:30, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:32, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Not very detailed" is not a criteria for deletion. As to GNG, clicking on just the "books" link above shows mentions in several different books. Station1 (talk) 21:04, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He also gets a couple of paragraphs in Archytas of Tarentum: Pythagorean, Philosopher and Mathematician King. pp. 26-27. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:26, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No good reason for deletion. See WP:STUB. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:20, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's been argued that anyone whose name survives from antiquity is notable; I'm not sure I'd go that far, but this is someone widely known in antiquity, even if relatively little is written about him. Diogenes Laertius, cited by this article (which is simply a transcription of the brief article in DGRBM), has an anecdote about him ("my instrument speaks for me"); Athenaeus of Naucratis mentions an essay on flutes, apparently considering him the same as Archytas the disciple of Pythagoras, whom he says was a flute player, like many Pythagoreans (but it's possible that Athenaeus is confusing two people, one a musician and one a mathematician). Pauly-Wissowa has a brief notice (Archytas, No. 4), which mentions erotic poetry, and cites something else to Athenaeus (I think; Google Translate's German is credible, but it can't always identify oblique or scholarly references). It may well be that the musician, be he the same or different from the mathematician, is mentioned in other works; but either way, the fact that we don't know a lot about him doesn't make him non-notable. P Aculeius (talk) 14:29, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep is not detailed? WP:STUB's are such articles. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 17:01, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per P Aculeius. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:17, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "It's been argued that anyone whose name survives from antiquity is notable; I'm not sure I'd go that far" <= I would in fact go that far. :) Ford MF (talk) 02:03, 15 May 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. Invalid nomination. From the nominator's user page: "I used to work on nominating articles for deletion, but due to my misunderstanding of the deletion policy, I was forced to quit that role and now work on expanding stub articles". Geschichte (talk) 07:28, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ushkova house[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and I could not get it to look neat. This article does not cite any sources. JTZegers (talk) 19:30, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:33, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A quick glance at the Russian language article shows there are enough sources to pass WP:GNG, it should be easy for someone to source this unsourced article. SportingFlyer T·C 19:53, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sportingflyer. Mccapra (talk) 20:12, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable, although the article needs work. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:21, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:21, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes GNG, anyone who knows a little bit of Russian should add the sources at Russian entry to this article here. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 17:08, 13 May 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. Invalid nomination. From the nominator's user page: "I used to work on nominating articles for deletion, but due to my misunderstanding of the deletion policy, I was forced to quit that role and now work on expanding stub articles". Geschichte (talk) 07:28, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Luciobarbus pallaryi[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and does not comply with MOS:LIFE JTZegers (talk) 19:27, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Easily passes WP:GNG with numerous scholarly articles and an IUCN listing. SportingFlyer T·C 19:52, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. Species names are inherently notable as long as they are cited in reliable publications, and there are a few. Also listed in IUCN [4] as per above. --Dps04 (talk) 20:22, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:17, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep No salient reason given for deletion, article complies with all requirements for a taxonomic topic. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:35, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no argument made for deletion. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 17:08, 13 May 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. Invalid nomination. From the nominator's user page: "I used to work on nominating articles for deletion, but due to my misunderstanding of the deletion policy, I was forced to quit that role and now work on expanding stub articles". Geschichte (talk) 07:28, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Janiszowice, Krosno Odrzańskie County[edit]

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

Fails WP:GEOLAND JTZegers (talk) 19:25, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:27, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:28, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As a populated community that verifiably exists, it passes WP:GEOLAND easily. CJK09 (talk) 19:33, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Easily passes WP:GEOLAND. Not a great nom. SportingFlyer T·C 19:50, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Actually clearly passes WP:GEOLAND. Recognised settlement. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:16, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clear pass at GEOLAND, recognized town. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 17:09, 13 May 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. Fenix down (talk) 22:20, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel Silva (footballer, born 1996)[edit]

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

This soccer player only played on National Independent Soccer Association and USL League Two which are not considered "fully pro" per WP:FPL. So, I don't know how he can possibly meet WP:NFOOTBALL. SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 19:14, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 19:14, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:30, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:30, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Any technical NFOOTY arguments aside, he fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 19:47, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable football player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:53, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:38, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:40, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Stumptown Athletic squad should be browsed for more similar cases. Geschichte (talk) 07:37, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above.--Ortizesp (talk) 21:57, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable Matthewishere0 (talk) 00:41, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. While there is some sentiment towards keeping this article the consensus, when weighting all comments, suggests there is support to delete as not-notable. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:50, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blake Moore (Utah businessman)[edit]

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

Resume of candidate standing for political office. It may be intended to support his campaign, but there is nothing in it that meets notability requirements. Mccapra (talk) 10:25, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 10:25, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 10:25, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 10:25, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but move to Blake Moore (Utah politician). I think it just scrapes WP:GNG as there are plural news sources, at least a couple of which are significant coverage. I've cleaned up a lot of the article to reflect this and to make the tone a lot more NPOV than it was. However, the content of the article is for the most part nothing to do with him being a businessman, and about his politics, so it should go there. If consensus is to keep, Blake Moore also ought to be disambig'd. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 11:19, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, I agree that this exists to help his campaign. Caro7200 (talk) 12:58, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, but this should be cleaned up to sound less like a campaign advert. WesSirius (talk) 13:29, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As an unelected politician he doesn’t pass WP:NPOL so we’re left with WP:ANYBIO. A few mentions in his local press don’t demonstrate notability. Mccapra (talk) 13:36, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they have not won — the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable political office, not just running for one, and people are not exempted from having to pass NPOL just because a small handful of local campaign coverage happens to exist. Some local campaign coverage always exists for every candidate in every election everywhere, so our entire concept of maintaining notability standards for politicians at all would be meaningless if every candidate could always exempt themselves from it. Rather, to be deemed a special case who warrants a Wikipedia article, the candidate has to clear one of two particular tests: either (a) he already has other claims of preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten him an article anyway (i.e. Cynthia Nixon), or (b) he can be credibly claimed as much more special than everybody else's candidacies in some way that would pass the ten-year test for enduring significance, by virtue of his candidacy getting nationalized media attention that has already made him nationally famous (i.e. Christine O'Donnell). But neither of those things is being shown here at all, so he's not entitled to an article just for being a candidate. Obviously no prejudice against recreation in November if he wins the seat, since his notability claim will thus have changed from "candidate" to "officeholder", but nothing here is enough to already earn him a Wikipedia article today. Bearcat (talk) 17:52, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not at all notable. He has done nothing yet of note. He will not be notable unless he wins the general election in November. He has not even won the primary election yet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:25, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or alternatively redirect to 2020 United States House of Representatives elections in Utah. The subject is more interesting than most political candidates because of the High School Heisman award he won in 1997. However, winning the award is not notable in itself. It appears the rest of the coverage is campaign related and as Bearcat mentions, routine coverage of congressional campaigns does not meet WP:NPOL. As an alternative to deletion, it is acceptable to create a redirect to the 2020 House election page (for Utah). No prejudice against recreation if the subject wins election. --Enos733 (talk) 04:08, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:05, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Naypta's comments above. The article looks more professional since this AfD was listed. (See this diff for Naypta's clean up.) The article is about the right size (small) given the relative obscurity of the subject, but a quick stroll through Random Articles shows that there are plenty of examples of articles on topics of moderate notability. –Trevdna (talk) 17:11, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

can anyone !voting ‘keep’ please explain with reference to Wikipedia policy how the subject of this article meets our notability standards? Yes the article looks better now and yes it’s less promotional. That doesn’t make the subject notable. If he’s elected he’ll be notable, no question. Until then I can’t see a single policy-based reason to consider keeping this. Mccapra (talk) 17:49, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to 2020 United States House of Representatives elections in Utah. Not notable outside of his current campaign, which itself is not of an abnormal amount of coverage. Promotional or not it doesn't meet the standard necessary for politicians or the heightened WP:GNG standard in terms of coverage. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:36, 19 May 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. bibliomaniac 1 5 02:14, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cartoonists Remember 9/11[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:LISTN. The article sounds more like a short statistical overview of comic strips paying tribute to September 11th on the 10th anniversary, not an encyclopedic entry. Pahiy (talk) 15:07, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:35, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:36, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a quick google says the event itself is notable (and also an event rather than just spontaneous actions to commemorate the 10th anniversary of 9/11 by cartoonists) and I don’t see this is being a list. AfD is not cleanup and thats what this page needs, not deletion. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:42, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, however, judging by the looks of it, I think it should actually come as a mention in the 9/11 article. This will make a lot more sense, since this is more of a short summary of the subject. JTZegers (talk) 18:25, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This got news coverage at the time. I added some more content to the article, based on the following sources:
- "Cartoonists plan anniversary tribute for terror victims", The Des Moines Register (Sept 3, 2011)
- "Sunday comics to feature more serious tone", The Tribune (Sept 10, 2011)
- "Cartoonists Join Together for 9/11 Tribute", Huffington Post (Aug 30, 2011)
- "Comic strips to focus on 9/11", Los Angeles Times (Aug 31, 2011)
- "Museums & 9/11 Exhibits", Daily News (Sept 9, 2011)

(Note: The Huffington Post article is free to view; the other links are unfortunately paywalled from Newspapers.com.) I believe that this demonstrates notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 20:06, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for improving the article, I don’t think there is a legitimate question about wikipedia worthiness anymore. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 14:22, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:55, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 00:42, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This even made international news from newspaper outlets El Comercio (Peru): [5] and Der Tagesspiegel: [6]. Another piece on non-paywalled English coverage from ABC News: [7]. The sources clearly WP:NEXIST to satisfy GNG. LISTN isn't necessary since this is more than a list, but both the El Comercio and ABC News pieces contribute to satisfying LISTN as a discussion of the grouping as well. -2pou (talk) 16:35, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:00, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep mostly per Horse Eye Jack. The subject is fairly notable. Raymond3023 (talk) 15:31, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable enough to pass GNG. Multiple mentions in RS MistyGraceWhite (talk) 17:16, 13 May 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:47, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prospect Avenue (Brooklyn)[edit]

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

No indication that this street is anymore notable than any other in Brooklyn. A few local newspaper articles do not establish notability. Rusf10 (talk) 15:27, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 15:27, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 15:27, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is an instance of WP:MILL; it is a relatively short street, extending from Ocean Parkway to Third Avenue, almost entirely within Windsor Terrace, Brooklyn. Numerous parallel streets are just as long, passing through the same topography and street grids, but this has an article due to its width and the fact that it's a named street rather than a numbered one. The only portion of this article that is notable is the history. That section can be incorporated into the Windsor Terrace article, which does talk about the street grid. I am not convinced that having subway stations or notable buildings itself makes the street notable, despite it having two stations (specifically not the Prospect Avenue station (IRT White Plains Road Line), which is another street altogether in the Bronx) and an NRHP-listed building. Lots of streets in NYC have their own subway stations and NRHP buildings on them, which does not make the street itself notable, but is just evidence that the three major subway companies in NYC had an intense competition. epicgenius (talk) 15:44, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but make it better! Add pictures! Have more information! What's stopping you? JTZegers (talk) 18:35, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet notability standards for city streets, given the lack of focused citations that are beyond trivial coverage. Sounder Bruce 00:49, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sourcing shows that it exists, but there is no indication of notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:19, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Major and important avenue in Brooklyn. The book The Brooklyn Theatre Index has an entire chapter dedicated to it.[8] Forgotten NY dedicates extensive coverage to it.[9] And the Long Island Herald has a piece about one if its famous residents and goes into detail of the history of the avenue.[10]. And if it's important enough to have two New York Subway stations, Prospect Avenue station (BMT Fourth Avenue Line) and Prospect Avenue station (IRT White Plains Road Line), then it's important enough for Wikipedia. Oakshade (talk) 01:34, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Analyzing the sources, The Brooklyn Theatre Index appears to be just that, an index that provides listings of locations on Prospect Avenue (and many other streets, for that matter), and the existence of perhaps important venues along it does not confer notability to the thoroughfare itself. The Long Island Herald piece is primarily about Dr. Frederick Grubé, with only a few sentences about the street itself as a journalistic backdrop for the rest of the piece. I'm not certain about the Forgotten NY piece, but it just seems to be another directory of information about random sights and buildings along the street based on observations (and ostensibly to promote their tour business) without any mention as to why the street itself should be deemed notable other than the first part of the first sentence. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not that this matters, but this comment by Oakshade has a mistake (it does have 2 subway stations, just not the ones you cited). Prospect Avenue station (IRT White Plains Road Line) is in the Bronx. The other station on Prospect Avenue is Fort Hamilton Parkway station (IND Culver Line). epicgenius (talk) 19:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are two major subway stations at this major thoroughfare in Brooklyn. Many important institutions are on this street: the Grand Prospect Hall, P.S. 10, R.C. and Episcopal churches, restaurants, professional offices, retail stores, one of New York City's few charging stations for electric cars, etc. Bearian (talk) 21:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. The existence of a notable building on this street does not make the street itself notable.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:24, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Further, the existence of subway stations does not make a street notable. These can easily be construed to be located in Windsor Terrace rather than Prospect Avenue and it will still be just as valid of a claim. epicgenius (talk) 19:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The claims of notability do not add up. Directory listings, a mention in coverage in the local paper about a person who lived on the street, and so on do not add up to notability. If you cannot name the allegedly notable church, I have doubts it is notable. The use of the laws of a state as a source is an example of using primary documents. The article is entirely sourced to a sub-city level paper and there are not sources presented above that represent broader coverage of this roadway.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:55, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 00:41, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (relevant, non-repetitive material) to Windsor Terrace, Brooklyn.Djflem (talk) 19:38, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:00, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. How would it benefit any reader to lose this information, and how does it harm anyone to keep it? Merging and redirecting is second best, but not necessary. Station1 (talk) 21:43, 12 May 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. bibliomaniac 1 5 02:14, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

360 Mall[edit]

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

It does have coverage, but I don't think it makes WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 18:44, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kuwait-related deletion discussions. Koridas (...Puerto Rico for statehood!) 19:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:24, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article reads more like advert to me. The subject fails WP:NBUILD as there's no significant reliable coverage. Less Unless (talk) 19:24, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV, WP:NOTDIR --Cornellier (talk) 18:38, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As the mall doesn't have anything notable about it. There are only 3 sources in the article, and I couldn't find any more. Unfortunately, the article subject does not pass GNG. Koridas (...Puerto Rico for statehood!) 06:28, 19 May 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:25, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tsatthoggua[edit]

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

Non notable band. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:28, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A German "hyperspeed" black metal band. (Btw, don't know where that came from since no one wrote or said that in relation to this band, only sites that mirror Wikipedia.) But that's besides the point. I think they are simply not notable to be included in this encyclopedia. It has a primary sources tag since March 2008 (!) and no one fixed the article with reliable sources. But they don't exist either. I did a Google search and I found the usual stuff: unreliable databases like Metal Archives, Spirit of Metal, Rate Your Music and the like, Spotify, Amazon and Facebook pages, blogs, forums and pages which only mentioned the band/only covered them trivially. Tell me: which one of these indicate any notability? Neither of them. The only TRULY reliable source I found was a Rock Hard article which reviewed their "Hosanna Bizarre" album. Despite having a cult following as I noticed in some websites, it seems like they quietly slipped past the attention of notable media. But prove me wrong. Maybe there are some sources that are reliable and provide good coverage about this band. I did not found much. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:26, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:29, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:29, 12 May 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 May 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:37, 12 May 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:33, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Voice (jazz)[edit]

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

Non-notable band. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:31, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any notability here. The only sources cited is a website whose description says "with biography contributed by band" so it's not independent from them, and the other source is their record label, which is not independent from them either. Their simple name also makes it difficult to make a Google search. I think they are not notable, but prove me wrong.

GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:30, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:39, 12 May 2020 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:39, 12 May 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 May 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:52, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:43, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable band. Article only contains one source, which is primary. I couldn't find any sources about them either. Koridas (...Puerto Rico for statehood!) 01:52, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG Spiderone 00:15, 20 May 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. Invalid nomination. From the nominator's user page: "I used to work on nominating articles for deletion, but due to my misunderstanding of the deletion policy, I was forced to quit that role and now work on expanding stub articles". Geschichte (talk) 07:28, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adi Kurdi[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG - despite the length, there are no reliable sources. JTZegers (talk) 17:46, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep Two perfectly reasonable sources, the first of which includes links to other sources. And a Lifetime Acheivement Award winner can generally be presumed to be notable. 184.153.150.57 (talk) 20:03, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Obvious Keep - Award winning actor with a career spanning decades. The deletion argument (no reliable sources) doesn't hold up. Kompas is a well-known, national newspaper distributed throughout the country and Southeast Asia. The Jakarta Post is one of the largest English-language news sources in Indonesia.Scanlan (talk) 23:44, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article is a stub and need some work, instead of deleting I suggest another option such as placing "citation needed" or "need verification" tags. --Tensa Februari (talk) 00:57, 15 May 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:33, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Machine[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. The single citation isn't enough, even if we had an archive copy. This company is separate from the Canadian business of the same name, which might be notable. Searching for sources, I found routine listings, advertisements, and some mere mentions that focused on the subject's founder's daughter. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:03, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:03, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:03, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I created this by splitting content from Jean Machine (Canada), which was an unsourced muddle of two different companies (Canadian and British) with the same name. I added the one reference now in the page, but didn't have the foresight to archive it; I believe that the content, which I didn't write, is more or less supported by that source. I don't think this met our notability criteria even in 2013, and it surely doesn't now. Over the years I have from time to time tried to identify other sources, but never with any success. I was planning to AfD it myself (self-nominate?), but Chris troutman beat me to it; thanks, Chris! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:43, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Advertising, someone who appears to have a WP:COI keeps trying to add material. David J Johnson (talk) 10:37, 14 May 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 Materialscientist (talk) 03:06, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gossip Lanka News[edit]

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

Non-notable news website with no significant coverage in reliable sources and no evidence of satisfying WP:WEB. GSS ^💬 16:32, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 16:32, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 16:32, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only sources are the website itself and Alexa.com for its ranking. CrazyBoy826 (talk | contribs) 17:25, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:WEBCRIT, nothing notable about it. Less Unless (talk) 19:30, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete awful quality article that appears to be promotional spam. Created by a user with only seven edits, six of which are for this article. All mentions I found seemed to be trivial. Even if it is notable (which I highly doubt), the only way to bring it up to quality standards would be a complete rewrite. Dronebogus (talk) 20:33, 14 May 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:44, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Ring Crew Express[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG No notable tag team. Worked on a regional level, when ROH was an independent, small promotion. No sources in the article. I made a research and are mentioned in reports only (WP:ROUTINE), not focused on the tag team. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:04, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:19, 12 May 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:32, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Melo Eggleston[edit]

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

WP:NHOOPS does not say anything about NCAA players, and the praxis appears to be not to consider them notable. WP:GNG is not met either. There's strong reason to believe that the article was created for pay. bonadea contributions talk 15:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 15:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 15:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:00, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. I want to point out that for college athletes we use WP:NCOLLATH, which he also fails. – Sabbatino (talk) 09:39, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Sabbatino – I'll keep WP:NCOLLATH in mind for the future! --bonadea contributions talk 13:12, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable college basketball player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:12, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Does not meet WP:NCOLLATH or WP:GNG. Rikster2 (talk) 12:51, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NCOLLATH as non-notable player. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet any of WP:GNG, WP:NHOOPS, and WP:NCOLLATH. Coverage is routine sports reporting or appearances in databases--nothing to show WP notability. Papaursa (talk) 14:41, 19 May 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:32, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kamaraj School[edit]

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

This article does not demonstrate WP:N notability through the use of independent, secondary sources. As per Wikipedia, page with same title was deleted previously. ~Amkgp ✉ 15:31, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ~Amkgp ✉ 15:31, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ~Amkgp ✉ 15:31, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~Amkgp ✉ 15:31, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Romartus Imperator (talk) 22:45, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:27, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:27, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no detailed coverage from any reliable source Spiderone 10:43, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No sourcing at all from any reliable sources. Article fails WP:NSCHOOL. Koridas (...Puerto Rico for statehood!) 01:34, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unourced no claim of notability. I could only find three passing mentions. No in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. The original article was moved to draft space but rather than improving it by adding sources, the author recreated it again unsourced in main space. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 11:53, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. While not uncontested, there is consensus that this article is a POVFORK and thus should be deleted. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:44, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Demonization of the Serbs[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

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

The article is an extreme WP:POVFORK of articles like Anti-Serb sentiment, Propaganda during the Yugoslav Wars and others. IMO there should be a speedy delete process for extreme POV articles whose WP:LEAD begins with The Demonization of the Serbs or the Satanization of the Serbs (Serbian: Сатанизација Срба) was systematic[1] planned and deliberate demonization of the Serbs was pursued in Western media as a propaganda technique and war strategy during the Yugoslav Wars of the 1990's. --Maleschreiber (talk) 15:30, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:44, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Perhaps some material from the article could be moved to Anti-Serb sentiment, Propaganda during the Yugoslav Wars or some other article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:46, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I came here intending to push deletion but you have multiple independent sources that discuss the demonization of Serbs during the 1990s. That's specifically separate from a general dislike of Serbs as a people or the general concept of propaganda during the latest Balkan war. I'd have a hard time claiming that the topic itself isn't notable. Merging this content into other articles, with the amount of source material available, is going to run into WP:UNDUE issues. I think we have no choice but to keep it, even if the topic seems to be partisan invective. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They don't discuss this subject, they are a collection of sources whose authors consider the treatment of Serbian leadership or Serbia in general in the Yugoslav Wars by western media unfair or just mention the term, but this is not a subject in itself. This is the definition of WP:POVFORK: the presentation of one particular view about a legitimate subject as a subject in itself by assuming that the particular POV - extreme POV in this case - is a neutral mode of presenting a subject, in this case Propaganda in the Yugoslav Wars.--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:14, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. This FPIF piece, this from Politico, and this piece in The Guardian all speak directly to this subject. I don't see original research here. The quotes provided in the other citations state that there was demonization, although I think you're making a stretch to say that they don't think the demonization, itself, isn't a subject. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:40, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These articles are opinion columns. One of which seems to pacify or almost justify crimes because of crimes from WWII (and leave out another group’s crimes from that era, interestingly). Disturbing.... From the same FPIF article “ They still have Srebrenica. But like the other inflated or untrue elements of the demonization process, they have it by cheating. There’s no doubt that there were executions at Srebrenica, but nothing like 8,000”. Sources like that definitely are questionable........Also on the same site there is a direct response from another editor FPIF Counter linked in the article. This is why scholarly sources are sought after. For a stronger topic. Two pov articles clashing doesn’t really do so. OyMosby (talk) 21:21, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:09, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris troutman: I am somewhat curious (actually), as I am not sure I understand your argument here. Is there a difference in the application of WP:UNDUE here and in Anti-Serb sentiment?--Calthinus (talk) 21:14, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Calthinus: My point is that the Western media bias against the Serbs in the 1990s would entirely take over the article about propaganda in that war. The article about anti-Serb sentiment is about racial animus in a general sense across history, not the demonization to create the political consensus for various NATO interventions. I agree with Griboski that there should be aname change to this article but neither merge would be appropriate. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:40, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What you're saying presupposes that most Western media coverage about Serbia (not the Serb people) was illegitimate/biased in itself and/or based on fictional events which were used to "create the political consensus for NATO intervention". The belief that negative reporting about the state of Serbia was created to form a consensus about NATO intervention is shared by almost noone outside of Serbia and for the very few non-Serbian authors who espouse it, it usually goes hand in hand with conspiracy theories related Bosnian genocide denial. That article by politico is not related anyhow to the purported subject matter of this article. Also, it's a massive WP:UNDUE to accept the opinion of one Guardian piece as fact, when the points in that piece amount to a massive POV. Clark is a heavily criticized outlier in political commentary: RFERL: Clark has been making a name for himself as a leading apologist for Milosevic, for Serbian war crimes, and more recently for Putin's actions in Ukraine. But this time he has really gone too far. ---Maleschreiber (talk) 14:57, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:09, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if there is some useful info with good sources move it to Anti-Serb sentiment or to Propaganda during the Yugoslav Wars, and delete article.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 17:57, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge into Anti-Serb sentiment. An article covering essentially the same topic already exists.--Calthinus (talk) 21:02, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 1)This article is not WP:POVFORK and that's a bold statement in my book. I can agree that we should work more on the scope of the article. Alas, should the article be more focused and clear about some events? Yes. Does it need more sources? Yes. But why should we destroy something which has just started to develop? It is not unknown that the "interested parties" in the Yugoslav and some other wars used demonization (comparison to Nazis and what have you, which is/was quite moronic considering how many Serbs died from the hand of NG and their puppet states) in order to gather support from their voters and fellow politicians for several key moves during the same events. 3) There are multiple RS used and more can be found. Noam Chomsky has written about the topic. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 22:20, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a blatant and horrifically written POVFORK that pushes conspiracy theories and anti-Croat and anti-Bosnian sentiment in lieu of any content even remotely encyclopedic. If they are any useful sources here for Anti-Serb sentiment, they most certainly do not help with any content in the article. WP:TNT most certainly applies here even in the off chance this is a notable topic. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:35, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a blatant WP:POVFORK and per WP:TNT. It is full of cherry-picked sources and conspiracy theories. Any encyclopaedic content can be included in Anti-Serb sentiment, although that article is already highly POV and a WP:COATRACK for every single bad thing ever said or done to Serbs, whether there was anti-Serb thinking behind it or not. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:58, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the closing admin (it should be an admin in this case given the contentious nature of the subject) should be aware that several (but not all) of the editors weighing in here opposing the article deletion have well-established pro-Serb points of view. Their opposition needs to be weighed carefully based on the strength of the arguments presented and on the formation of consensus, per policy. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:49, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Anti-Serb sentiment article pertains to a general hatred of Serbs based on their identity. This article is about the role the Western media played during the Yugoslav Wars in the 1990s, which some (reputable scholars) have observed as being biased against Serbs or contributing to a demonization of the people as a whole. That is a worthy topic on its own. If the article is to be salvaged, it should be re-written and toned down to make it more NPOV and less conspiratorial, with a different title. Alternatively, its good portions could be merged into other articles. You can't state things like "The Demonization of the Serbs or the Satanization of the Serbs was systematic, planned and deliberate" in Wikipedia's voice as if it were a fact, especially in the lead. --Griboski (talk) 00:55, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- So, let me clear the air a bit: what you said, basically, is that "demonization of Serbs" is anti-Serbian sentiment only expressed, "specifically", during the war of the 90's?!--౪ Santa ౪^99° 02:02, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, I never said that "demonization of Serbs" is a phenomenon unique to the 90s; only that the perceived demonization of Serbs by the media during that time is a notable issue in of itself. --Griboski (talk) 02:52, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep This article refers to something very specific, not general Anti-Serb sentiment. The term refers to the extensive, over-the-top negative coverage of Serbia by the Western Press during the Yugoslav Wars. The term is widely covered by reliable sources, topic is notable. This seems more like just a case of WP:JDL by the nom. Khirurg (talk) 01:06, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as POVFORK and per WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 04:02, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because this is propagandistic article that has no place in wikipedia. From article: "The Serbs were presented as Nazi-like aggressive expansionists who were most responsible for the Yugoslav wars, depicted as particularly genocidal and sometimes referred to as "beasts" and "monsters". This article teaches us that the Serbs were actually flowers (in Yugoslav wars) and that in fact "demonization from western side" is blame for such a perception. Mikola22 (talk) 05:04, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per comments made by Peacemaker67 and Santasa99. Also, I couldn't find any other article on Wikipedia that deals with demonising one nation. Mhare (talk) 11:19, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Side comment about the sources: Many of them come from Serbian politicians and authors with a particular POV. See: Tomislav Nikolić, Žikica Jovanović, or the SLOBODAN MILOŠEVIĆ INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE Their POV coupled with that of some western authors is the core of this article, which presents a very minor viewpoint of a larger subject (Propaganda in the Yugoslav Wars) in wikivoice as an actual subject with the title "demonization and satanization of the Serbs" and flat-out weird claims like Former Yugoslav minister of foreign affairs Živorad Jovanović estimated that satanization of the Serbs was particularly increased during Rambouillet negotiations. Editors should also be aware that part of the non-Serbian bibliography is used out of context in the article and is unrelated to the purported subject.--Maleschreiber (talk) 12:02, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Devonian Wombat and Peacemaker67 give a good summary of the reasons why this article should be deleted. An article dedicated to the West-Serbia relations and public opinion during the wars or an article focused on how Western media did see Serbia at the time would be acceptable if written in a neutral way, without conspiracies and fringe stuff. If one wants to contribute to that topic, a new article should be created as this one is beyond the limits. Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:49, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (2)- I wouldn't mind, actually, if we keep the article, and start-over from scratch (WP:TNT), this time describing the phenomenon for what it is: a dramatic and costly instance of self-victimization. I am not sure if Peacemaker67 had that in mind when he mentioned WP:TNT in his "Delete" post, but for this idea to come into fruition editors would have to be willing to invest time and energy in writing it anew - it's just an idea.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 14:36, 13 May 2020 (UTC) On second thought, this is unnecessary complication, and anything worth writing about the phenomenon of self-victimization in Serbian society can be included in any of the articles close to the subject. Sorry.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 14:42, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment OR, despite one's POV wishes, we can include that aspect ALONG with legitimate criticisms (some coming from RS) about the media's portrayal of Serbs during this period. Because I hadn't realized Benn, Chomsky, Herman, Taylor, Black, etc. were all Serbs engaging in self-victimization. --Griboski (talk) 15:39, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Chomsky appears to be questionable by some such as Christopher Hitchens (who was critical of multiple ex-Yugo governments of the time) stating “ My quarrel with Chomsky goes back to the Balkan wars of the 1990s, where he more or less openly represented the "Serbian Socialist Party" (actually the national-socialist and expansionist dictatorship of Slobodan Milosevic) as the victim.” I don’t think anyone is saying Noam Chomsky is Serbian but rather is biased and dismissive of the Milosovic regime. It’s not POV automatically to not support a POV article.OyMosby (talk) 17:13, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My POV remark was regarding the editor's confinement of the entire subject to mere self-victimization (as if it was entirely invited), thus dismissing any legit criticism of the depiction of Serbs in the Western media as put forth by some writers. It wasn't about support for the article. Chomsky's views can certainly be challenged, but his standing as a prominent scholar cannot. Hitchens was left-wing and became more conservative and a warhawk after 9/11. He had his own biases. --Griboski (talk) 18:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Hitchens’ criticism of Chomsky and Milošević’s regime tied to “more conservative” and “warhawk era post 9/11”? Not to mention he was very much critical of the right-wing Croatian government and flirtation with Ustashe symbology as well as the right-wing Serbian government and Chetnik friendly aspects in the 90s. Being a prominent scholar does not override issue with bias. Hitchens was critical of both regimes and Chomsky yet I did not find information that depicts Hitchens as biased about the war. Or that his views changed on the 90s. He was to the left and his views did not change on both the Croatian and Serbian governments’ behavior. OyMosby (talk) 19:00, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only saying that his views gradually began shifting during the 90s, partly as a result of the war, changing drastically after 9/11 and that opinions can change for the better or for worse. My point was that every political commentator is capable of being biased. Not that he was right or wrong about his views on Yugoslavia. You can find instances of Hitchens being labeled an Islamophobe for his criticism of Islam for example. The number of people criticizing a source doesn't tell you about the validity of their opinion on a particular stance either. You refute Chomsky as a source but seem to have a grandiose view of Hitchens because he criticized both Serbian and Croatian nationalism. I'm not suggesting Chomsky can't be biased or wrong on an issue, but that doesn't preclude his views from being included in an article as he is a reliably published academic. He is not the only individual cited regarding the demonization of Serbs. So I'm not sure what your point is. This discussion is veering off-topic. If you have a concern about a source, you should take it to the reliable sources noticeboard for review. --Griboski (talk) 21:14, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OyMosby, indeed, Chomsky has come under sustained fire -- from the mainstream left and the mainstream right alike -- for many of his other stances as well, with accusations including Cambodian genocide denial [11] (Santasa99 may take some interest in this one too [12]) and normalizing Hamas, a terrorist group with a genocidal ideoology. He is respected by a minority of the left-wing, and none of the right-wing. His works in philosophy and in linguistics (where he also is the centre of some unrelated controversies) are irrelevant to the serious POV issues with relying on him for anything political. Not that Chomsky is the only fringey intellectual this page relies on; in fact the page's very scope is fundamentally reliant on the POV of a very specific subset of the Western political spectrum, as I'll demonstrate below.--Calthinus (talk) 21:36, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment POV aside, we have Demonizing the enemy which gives a solid basis for the article name. Considering that the article has some problems, which are solvable, even if gets deleted it gives us a great foundation for another article which would be more NPOV. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 16:17, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That article was created by the same editor and has many of the same problems like this article. If any editor subjected that article to editorial oversight, it would probably get nominated for deletion. The reality is that none of the content here could provide a standalone article because it is an extreme POV viewpoint about a subject turned into a standalone article. If you want to improve something, find a consensus with those involved on Propaganda in the Yugoslav Wars, don't create any more POVFORKs.--Maleschreiber (talk) 17:04, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It doesn’t make sense as a separate article to begin with. The article Demonizing the enemy is a general article about demonization. It was raised that there aren’t Demonization of [insert country/ethnicity] articles. anti-blank sentiment articles already exist. Also in relation to the editor’s previous comment, it is “moronic” to label any ethic group or country of millions as “Nazis”. A tactic used by Milosovic as well despite lack of mention in the article in question. It is not “moronic” for their reasons however, as despite the fact that countless Serbs were killed during WWII (and I understand where they are coming from with this), there were Serbs who supported and collaborated with the Nazis as well. Milan Nedić and his Regime. On top of that Chetniks collaboration with Axis forces. A part of history often ignored or left out of discussion. And let’s pretend for arguments sake it never happened, a country that was victim of abuse doesn’t mean it cannot become an abuser in the future or that it negates the actions. That is a logical fallacy. Again I am talking in terms of this rationale. There is no reasonable logic to label a country or people as “Nazis”. Between this kind of talk and the POV article this seems more like PoV pushing on Wikipedia as if it were a blog than an encyclopedia. As the article implies some sort of “misunderstanding“ of the Milosovic regime who is depicted as simply vilified “for some reason”. Also “WP:JDL” is becoming a joke counter argument by some editors at this point. As it can go both ways. OyMosby (talk) 17:13, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Devonian Wombat , Mztourist and Peacemaker67 pretty much explain the fairly straightforward problems with such article. The topic is given undue weight. The topic is valid as propaganda against Serbs and Serbia absolutely occurred. Such as bigoted methods as labeling them as Nazis or depictions as monsters in media. And such topics would make sense in the anti-Serb Sentiment or Propaganda during the Yugoslav Wars pages. Other countries or peoples that have been demonized follow this same route. This article seems intent on pushing a conspiracy in Wiki Voice as fact. As if the regime in Serbia and coverage of its actions and that of it’s support of Serb forces outside the country was simply Western demonization and conspiracy. Not the first time I’ve seen such theories pushed on the internet. All I have to say on the matter. OyMosby (talk) 17:13, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (and rearrange it into something like the Stereotypes of Jews article) or/and merge into Anti-Serb sentiment, Propaganda during the Yugoslav Wars (in new sections on NATO propaganda and international coverage) and Serbia in the Yugoslav Wars. The article is far from perfect, but there are valuable reliable sources that should also be included in articles: Demonizing the enemy, Media bias, Media bias in the United States.--WEBDuB (talk) 21:23, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If such valuable info can be included elsewhere... how is this page necessary? There is a page like Stereotypes of Jews: Anti-Serb sentiment.--Calthinus (talk) 21:36, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maleschreiber has already demonstrated the structural reliance of the page on a set of authors with obvious COI issues (like the prominent Serbian politician, Tomislav Nikolic, known for his role in the right-wing populist^[1] SPP... among others). Without them, though, we still end up with a page whose scope is shaped specifically by the views of adherents from a specific ideology that is rejected by the majority of the political spectrum. This includes Noam Chomsky, who I have discussed further above, but the portrayal of far-left/paleoconservative opinions as scholarly consensus is not limited to the use of his works in WIKIVOICE. Example citations include Edward S. Herman who is controversial on the left and on the right for trying to mitigate a then-ongoing genocide in Cambodia [13], Carl Boggs' Imperial Delusions: American Militarism and Endless War, Robert W. Merry's Sands of Empire: Missionary Zeal, American Foreign Policy, and the Hazards of Global Ambition, and Michel Collon. The latter might just be the most dubious of all: his tirades on Israel veered so far into what is deemed anti-Semitic that he was disinvited to the Beirut Francophone Book Fair (you know, Lebanon)[14]. He then sued for defamation, and the court threw out his case as "groundless". He also stands accused of falsifications [15], Hamas normalization, spreading conspiracy theories [16][17][18], genocide denial [19], and unethical "advocating for Bashar al-Assad" [20].

To be clear, I am not saying we can never cite people with fringe views, what I am saying is that we cannot have a page whose scope is shaped by their views, I am illustrating how it is the very definition of WP:POVFORK. That's not an NPOV issue that can be solved by improving the page, because any discussion of the actions of the Serbian government that triggered the alleged "satanization" is either omitted or at best crammed into a small background subsection (the scope would lead to predictable accusations of WP:COATRACK were any balance to be added). This page is exactly like what a page Demonization of Hamas would look like if it were created (using, no surprise, likely the same authors). --Calthinus (talk) 21:36, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

^ Zulianello, Mattia (2019). "Varieties of Populist Parties and Party Systems in Europe: From State-of-the-Art to the Application of a Novel Classification Scheme to 66 Parties in 33 Countries". Government and Opposition: 5.

Comment It is very disturbing to compare the fundamentalist militant organization and one whole ethnic group. I understood that the article just describes such examples... how is this page necessary? There is a page like Stereotypes of Jews: Anti-Serb sentiment. But there are also Antisemitism and Stereotypes of Jews pages. Ok, it's not necessary, but the content should be incorporated into other articles. I said keep or/and merge.--WEBDuB (talk) 21:50, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think they are trying to compare them to Milosovic’s regime not the Serb ethnic group itself. As the article mainly deals with Serbia as a country and the government. So making this as an example of what “the article just describes” would be incorrect. Again I agree with merging relevant and RS contents to relevant pages as you said earlier. In proper npov as well. Not almost depicting anyone as bigoted for criticism of a regime’s actions as attacking an ethnic group that regime is said to serve. Which is what the article comes across like now. Something used throughout history by countries and governments to deflect criticism or history. And hence problematic when Wikipedia will appear to be used as a tool to carry such actions forth.OyMosby (talk) 22:25, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WEBDuB Indeed the proper comparison is between the Hamas regime and Milosevic regime. You've stumbled on the fact that indeed my comparison was inadequate. The proper comparison might indeed be a page that portrays criticism of Hamas as racism against Palestinians which is even more WP:POVFORK. Stereotypes of Jews is a subset of Anti-Semitism with a significant bibliography. An analogous page for Serbs, sources-willing, would not make the POV allegation that a specific period of media coverage was in fact a massive racist conspiracy spanning from German to American media and PR firms, but instead could discuss derogatory stereotypes of Serbs. For example, I would absolutely support a page that called out anyone who claimed that Serbs are somehow uniquely prone to genocide -- the whole world has seen that Germans elected Nazis but now have a stable democracy that is at the forefront of defending human rights, and prominent Holocaust scholars have called out blaming Nazism on some sort of German essence is flat out anti-German racism. But this is not that page. This is a POVFORK that could nearly be considered an attack page.--Calthinus (talk) 22:36, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, ethnic slurs and attacks would go an “anti-blank sentiment” page as is already the way such pages function. I believe the Anti-German Sentiment page does just that for demonizing ethnic groups on the actions of those within the ethnic group. OyMosby (talk) 22:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For me the key is sourcing of the framing. Sourcing establishes Stereotypes of Jews as a notable article. If WEBDuB is right and there is non-fringe RS that establish such for a specific sort of "demonization" of Serbs, then sure. But that's an "if". Another big difference is that there is much scholarship on anti-Semitism. --Calthinus (talk) 23:17, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Chomsky & Herman. Calthinus, from the Cambodian genocide article: "Scholars and historians have varying opinions on whether the persecution and killings under the hands of the Khmer Rouge should be considered genocide. This is because the earlier scholarship which came about right after the fall of the Khmer Rouge regime in 1979 had claimed that the victims could have been killed due to the circumstances they were in." In this interview, Chomsky explains that the book was written based on information available at the time and they made a conscious effort to remain objective, due to the reliability of some sources.1 For his part at least, he doesn't dispute the interviewer's repeated genocide characterization.

I agree that some of Chomsky and Herman's views (particularly on Srebrenica & Israel for example) are at the very least controversial. Your above link to the website "capx" however also contains links on the page to inflammatory and potentially libelous statements such as "Edward Herman was a racist, misogynistic fraudster" by that same author. Chomsky and Herman's works on the media such as Manufacturing Consent are standard reading material in Political Science, Sociology and Media/Communications Studies courses in Universities. If you're looking for exclusion of their opinions on topics such as these because of "other stuff", you'll find resistance. I agree about the unreliability of most sources in this article though, particularly the Serbian ones. --Griboski (talk) 20:24, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Griboski Hey I'm just pointing out the controversy; those two men have thrown around some accusations of their peers being involved in imperialist war machines, some have thrown accusations back at them. And I have made it very clear, bolded in my full statement below, that I am not looking for exclusion of their opinions on topics such as these. The issue here is that we have a page framed by their views, not that it includes them. But to be fair you do somewhat acknowledge this in your argument that the page should be renamed (and thus reframed). I just don't think you go far enough. --Calthinus (talk) 23:32, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did see your comment in bold above, but just wanted to make sure; so I appreciate the clarification. Indeed, I agree with the gist of what you and some other delete voters are expressing. I just don't feel strongly enough to say that the entire article should be deleted as parts of it are useful for entry into a re-worked version or merged to other articles. --Griboski (talk) 23:56, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would propose a couple of options. One, creating a general article about what most of this article is alluding to, but written in a NPOV style. Something like Western media coverage of the Yugoslav Wars. It could give a general overview of the subject, major events and include a section on criticism coming from certain intellectuals/public figures on portrayal of Serbs along with counter-opinions from scholars like Ramet and Hoare challenging this view. The other would be to simply add a "Western media" section in the Propaganda during the Yugoslav Wars page. --Griboski (talk) 22:20, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The second option seems best. As it’s how all participants involved in the Yugoslav Wars and their depiction in various medias are placed. Merging into Propaganda during the Yugoslav Wars. It would also provide a wider view of the whole topic to readers. OyMosby (talk) 22:29, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure I'm fine with adding "Western media" to "Propaganda during..." if and only if there are non-fringey sources that explicitly call it propaganda, which I have not yet seen. There are plenty of places that actually useful material can be placed. But most of this page consists of citing fringe voices (Michel Collon etc) and politicians (Nikolic), and then stating their theses in WP:WIKIVOICE, so it isn't really useful for the most part anyways.--Calthinus (talk) 22:57, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am fine with inclusion of "Western media" aspect into "Propaganda" article too, and just like Calthinus, I will follow development there with great sense of urgency, maybe even zeal, because I won't sit idle and watch some kind of switcheroo unfolding, with moving nonsense from here to there.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 00:50, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There is enough RS to warrant an article under this specific title.Alexikoua (talk) 05:50, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete extreme FORK, totally uncyclopedic.--Fa alk (talk) 09:25, 14 May 2020 (UTC) - Sockpuppet of User:Albanian Historian[reply]
Delete, clearly a POV fork, and even if it could be established as a potentially legitimate separate topic, the current article is so ridiculously POV-driven it would be case of "purge and start over" per WP:NUKEIT. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:53, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per WP:SUBPOV, the title clearly indicates that its subject is the point-of-view. There is scholarly consensus that it exists. It has received significant coverage in an ocean of reliable sources that are independent of the legitimate article subject. I think that all contradictory views are given due weight in this article and do not see any need to delete it and start it over. The right approach to resolve eventual side issues is not deletion, but article improvement following wikipedia policies.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:16, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, this isn't SUBPOV. There's no "pov dispute" in a subject identifies as "demonization/satanization". What you've written is an extreme POV FORK with many abuses in terms of how bibliography is used. @Peacemaker67: there's almost double !delete (11), than !keep (6) comments, but I agree with your comment. Even with such a majority of !delete, the closing admin should be aware about the context of almost all the !keep comments.-Maleschreiber (talk) 10:33, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect calculation. Many editors recognize this article is a potentially legitimate separate topic and based their delete !votes on TNT essay (Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over). That would be wrong approach to resolving any eventual side issues. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:54, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, I won't get into interpreting what other editors meant to say with their !delete comments and you should neither. Let the procedure work itself out.--Maleschreiber (talk) 11:01, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: We have several RS provided, there is no doubt that we can get more.--Soundwaweserb (talk) 12:14, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Russian sources should be included to know who is behind the propaganda, there is a Serbian proverb: Everyone is guilty, only a Serb never .... so the war did not happen

Hello IP [21], please don't forget to sign, and do tell us how exactly you came upon this discussion... --Calthinus (talk) 15:51, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Calthinus: is there any way to find out who is the editor behind the IP?--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:54, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Probably there is if you dig enough, but please do not do so under any circumstances, as WP:OUTING is a really, really bad thing to do as you have no way of knowing just how damaging it could be to the real life person. Fyi. --Calthinus (talk) 22:48, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the editor's username not his RL identity.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:52, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I have no doubt that the comment was made in good faith Maleschreiber, don't worry. Just pointing out that if that is revealed, then suddenly a fairly precise geological location is publicly available for the user, whoever it is, in question, hence it is not great. I trust the closer will have the proper judgment to discount !votes with no policy based arguments from IPs. --Calthinus (talk) 23:34, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maleschreiber and Calthinus, I have a feeling that this person is inexperienced with inner workings of Wikipedia, and with not so good knowledge of English, I doubt person has an account and the username at all. I also see contradiction between his vote "Keep" and rest of his comment, and rest of his contribution under this IP, for that matter. He/she obviously confused and misunderstood the title - I bet he/she believes that this article is trying to revel Serbian propaganda and demonization of everyone else by Serbian prop, that deletion proposal is, say, in defense of Serbian rep, and he/she trying to prevent that. Or it could be even simpler, it could be that he/she simply copy pasted wrong voting word+markup, instead "delete" he/she copied "keep" and forgot it together with signature.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 01:33, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I follow the Antidiscriminator's work, so I decided to take part in this discussion. There are multiple sources that support the notability. It seems to me that the topic crosses the general notability guideline. --Acamicamacaraca (talk) 20:05, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: You do realise we don't have any other article named Demonization of (insert ethnicity/people/nation). C'mon, if there is no demonization of Germans or Arabs... ugh, I can't go on. Nobody here is claiming there was no anti-Serb sentiment, its just that many of the things in this article belonge there, in the article anti-Serb sentiment. Mhare (talk) 20:17, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Mhare: In normal circumstances an article about "demonization and satanization" would get speedy deleted, but what we're dealing with here is a large voting campaign IMO. Basically, we have users from Serbian wikipedia with little involvement otherwise in English wikipedia coming here to increase the !keep comments with no interest in addressing any of the very severe problems of the article. I'd also like to have a sockpuppet investigation to find out who is the editor behind the IP !vote. The best way to deal with all these aspects is for the community to truly engage with this discussion instead of allowing it to become a "vote race" for editors who try to game the system by unlogging and then commenting as IPs or editors with less than 20 edits in English wikipedia for the entirety of 2020. --Maleschreiber (talk) 20:52, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. More sorting lists will be notified as well as more appropriate noticeboards. --Maleschreiber (talk) 21:17, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@OyMosby: the article is getting worse and worse. The creator now is adding Serbian tabloid articles about how...Hollywood "demonized" the Serbs and how that in turn inspired...the Christchurch mosque shootings. Where does this end?--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:55, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t even know what to say to such misinformation. Regardless this is getting of topic and should be taken to the article’s talk page, not here. OyMosby (talk) 22:15, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Novosti is not that notable but dr Vladimir Vuletić [22], a professor at the University of Belgrade (which is far better than most, if not all, universities on the Balkans) and published author is RS and knows what he is talking about. Another things, somebody obviously did not understand the material. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 22:27, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If Vuletić is professor at the University of Belgrade, it doesn't make him automatically RS - but it says quite a lot about academic structures in the Balkans. No, I'm not going to treat as something worthy of debate, WP:FRINGE theories. To the reader who may not know the history of Večernje novosti, which published Vuletić's piece: this is a Serbian newspaper which during the Yugoslav Wars promoted the worst kind of pro-Milošević war propaganda. It is famous in the Balkans for editing a 1888 painting to make it seem as an actual photograph which depicted a war crime supposedly committed by Bosniaks. This is the kind of bibliography that is being put forward in this article.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:45, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like all your complaints about sources should have been brought up on the article's talk page. Rather than address your concerns and fix the article, you now run the risk of this AfD failing. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:53, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris troutman: I'm pointing out the sort of bibliography that is being used in the article to refute the claim that its problem has to do "just" with some POV parts. This is an extreme POVFORK which is getting worse and worse. There's nothing else to address here other than that. IP "voting" etc. doesn't affect consensus. Consensus isn't measured in terms of counting "votes" (although there is a !delete majority), but on the basis of the arguments put forward. Best.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:01, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

” a professor at the University of Belgrade (which is far better than most, if not all, universities on the Balkans)” Multiple Balkan universities are in the top 500 list of world universities. Greece alone as a few very high up above all with Universities of Belgrade and Split and Zagreb included. This is just come across as a needles and false jab. OyMosby (talk) 23:06, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not here to judge... What I have previously stated is a cold fact, regardless of anyone's take on it. Outside, in the real world, university professors from the Balkans (in general) often have to take 1 or 2 more jobs (which are not always that good) in order to provide for their family. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 23:39, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You said University of Belgrade is far better than most if not all others in the Balkans. Rankings show Greece to be the top. And both Serbian and Croatian universities making top 500 in the world. These are verifiable facts. There was no talk of pay. It implies as if all other Balkan universities are less credible. Perhaps not your intention. OyMosby (talk) 23:48, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on who is doing the list and on which parameters. There is no doubt that Greeks are ranked high up, as well. That is only your impression, which is off-topic and not my point. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 23:54, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Same could be said about your claim of UoB being the best of the Balkans. Multiple lists disprove what you said. Not just my impression. Greece ranks much higher than any of the ex-Yugo countries in fact^[1].Slovenia tops the exYugos. You can look this up on any worldwide ranking sites. Either way much of the Unis in the Balkans are credible sources of information by their professors.OyMosby (talk) 00:00, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sadko: and @OyMosby: that edit of Sadko seems to have modified the previous comment made by OyMosby. Take a look at it as it seems that you two had a technical edit conflict or sth similar. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:47, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the first time, it happens. Fixed, do double check @OyMosby. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 23:49, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It’s because we were editing dame time. No worries. OyMosby (talk) 23:50, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries Sadko. Wiki's software is not perfect. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:55, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - POVFORK. Chris Troutman's argument has some merit and RSs have clearly paid some attention to the image of Serbia during the 90s onwards. However, I still think the material is better located along with its historical background (Anti-Serb sentiment) and context (Propaganda during the Yugoslav Wars). I'm not convinced it'll inevitably end up being undue; a lot of the sources basically just reiterate the same points. --RaiderAspect (talk) 07:31, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Blatant POVFORK, the content is better suited in the Anti-Serb sentiment article. N.Hoxha (talk) 16:40, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delelte. Per above (POVFORK, POVTITLE, UNDUE, FRINGE, etc.). I don't have that much to add, other than suggesting an ArbCom look into this, and impose topic bans where necessary. I fear that this might only be the tip of the iceberg. Eisfbnore ^(会話) 23:04, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it was created by an editor (User:Antidiskriminator) who previously served a long TBAN on 20th/21st C Serb topics imposed at ANI. See TBAN, six-month appeal, year appeal, and ban lifted. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:48, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: I think that a procedure like the one you linked to should be followed and it should be filed by someone who has had contact with Ant. over the past few years, thus has a better overview of this editor's behavior.--Maleschreiber (talk) 12:07, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is most definitely not the place for discussions such as the one you are having. It may be interpreted in several ways, some of which are not that good. Battleground mentality and deals to "get someone" (you keep disagreeing with) should have no place on Wikipedia. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 13:14, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete This is a near textbook example of POVFORK. I don't think I've ever seen an article with more blatantly biased prose than this one. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 00:31, 17 May 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:32, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nologo Corporation[edit]

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

Even within Sesame Street, this in-joke is not terribly notable. It's long-lasting, yes, but not something front-and-centre like ACME. Zanimum (talk) 15:10, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:25, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:25, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:UNIVERSE. We don't need an entire article on a minor aspect / in-joke of a television series. Does not pass WP:FICT or WP:GNG either, as I found no reliable sources discussing the topic. An article like this is best left for Muppet wiki or Seasame Street wiki, not Wikipedia. --Dps04 (talk) 19:47, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it fails GNG, as as far as I can tell it has not been discussed in any reliable secondary sources. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:25, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NFICTION. My only concern is why this wasn't WP:PRODed first, saving us time? @Zanimum: - I suggest you first prod such articles (log it with Twinkle), then come back ina month to review what was deprodded. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:18, 19 May 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. Per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Störm (talk) 09:00, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Md. Abul Kalam Azad[edit]

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

Very short article with very few references besides what's already mentioned and Facebook. Fails WP:NOTABILITY as a minor politician. Romartus Imperator (talk) 15:07, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Romartus Imperator (talk) 15:07, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Romartus Imperator (talk) 15:07, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Per WP:NPOL which he passes as member of the National Parliament of Bangladesh. What is a minor politician?Vinegarymass911 (talk) 15:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NPOL. Mccapra (talk) 15:31, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 16:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep As member of parliament is presumed notable under WP:POLITICIAN. Being short (a stub) is not a reason for deletion. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:20, 12 May 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Penn State DuBois Alumni Society[edit]

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

Not a notable organization, and majority of article content isn't even about the subject. Most content deals with the larger Penn State Alumni Association rather than the DuBois Alumni Society. There is nothing in here showing notability of DuBois group or anything unique about it. Bitmapped (talk) 14:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bitmapped (talk) 14:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fraternities and sororities-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:26, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:26, 12 May 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. Sufficient consensus that this passes NGEO. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Little Norway, California[edit]

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

Fails WP:GEOLAND. Former hotel and cafe (pic) that burned down some time ago and appears now to be in some sort of state of limbo. The only coverage I can find is a local news article from 2001 about new owners' plans for the property] and a mention in a list of historical post offices in El Dorado county. I've seen nothing indicating this is significant, and not just another run of the mill lodge. This is not to be confused with another historical locale in Solano County. CJK09 (talk) 14:51, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CJK09 (talk) 14:51, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CJK09 (talk) 14:51, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rename or merge with Phillips, California. It appears that old name of Phillips Station is still in use, based on Associated Press coverage from this January. As for the merge option, 1.6 miles away from Phillips Station is Phillips. I assume there is or was a railway station in there at Phillips Station (now Little Norway), and that it just serviced Phillips. -- Zanimum (talk) 15:23, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A post office would normally only be established if there was a community to be served, so I think that the community must once have existed. Once notable, always notable. Little Norway is also the endpoint of this trail managed by the United States Forest Service Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit. This article (page O-8, page 242 of PDF) about Bullthistle (Cirsium vulgare) , an invasive species, says: "One of these specimens, as noted by Smith (1984) was collected in El Dorado County, along US Highway 50, near Little Norway (west of Echo Summit); ...:" Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:30, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Also called "Phillips' Station"; several commercial enterprises occurred there, including a post office. It was also a stop on the Pony Express. See [23][24][25] Magnolia677 (talk) 23:13, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (@Zanimum, Eastmain, and Magnolia677:) I've done some research and Phillips Station is the same place as Phillips, California, several miles to the west. The listing of Phillips Station as an alternate name for Little Norway appears to be a GNIS error; Phillips/Phillips Station/Vade is a separate location from Little Norway. From this document on historical post offices of El Dorado County, these passages are relevant:
(page 21) Little Norway: This high mountain post office, sixteen miles east of Kyburz and five miles west of Meyers, was established on Sep. 2, 1961, when the mail was moved here from the Vade Post Office (Phillips), three miles to the west. Don Peterson was the first postmaster. The Little Norway Post Office is now closed

(page 33) "Vade: This post office at Phillips Station, located seven miles southwest of Meyers, was established on Sep. 3, 1912 with Sierra Nevada Phillips Bryson serving as the first postmaster. . [ . . . ] When she tried to get a post office in Phillips she was told that name was taken. Consequently, when the post office was established it was named Vade - her nickname. On September 2, 1961, the post office was moved three miles east and renamed Little Norway, a post office that has now closed. Phillips, also casually known as Pow Wow, after the restaurant and gas station located there ("Eat at Pow Wow and get gas" the sign said for years), is the location of Sierra at Tahoe (formerly Sierra Ski Ranch).

(page 12) "Echo: [ . . . ] On Dec. 11, 1926 it was reestablished and renamed Echo Lake Post Office. On Jan. 31, 1961 it became a rural station of the Vade (Phillips) Post Office. On Sept. 2, 1961 it was changed to a rural station of the Little Norway Post Office.

Furthermore, the mere presence of a post office doesn't indicate a community per se. I have personally been to at least one non-notable business establishment that houses a post office (the general store in Tuolumne Meadows within Yosemite National Park). "Little Norway" presumably was simply a convenient place for a post office (which, if similar to Tuolumne meadows, was just a desk and a pickup/dropoff window within the establishment, not a full-fledged building) for the dispersed collection of houses comprising the informal community of Echo Lake, California. CJK09 (talk) 17:13, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Phillips, California or Echo Lake, California. It was the site of a lodge and "nothing more than a bar, restaurant, motel, ski shop and gas station", a resort site which buses took skiers to, but no indication it was an independently notable community. Reywas92^Talk 02:14, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources that actually discuss "Little Norway" (here's another one) clearly describe it as a very small resort/hotel/gas station, not a community. The existence of a post office isn't significant in this case since it moved around over the years and Little Norway was simply the building that happened to house it.

I appreciate the efforts that have been put into finding sources for this location, but it's also important to approach these topics with a critical eye. The post office list and topos make it clear that this is not the same place as Philips/Vade (these were actually different locations where the post office was housed), and the claim that a post office indicates the presence of a community is unsupported by any sort of evidence. This type of reasoning is what got us into the whole GNIS mess in the first place. As always we need to search for significant coverage or solid evidence of legal recognition that would meet our notability standards, and I'm not finding any here. –dlthewave ☎ 02:37, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found one source that discusses Little Norway as a place preceding the resort, a source about a different, earlier fire there, and then there's all the other sources other people have found. Even if we do consider this place to be a resort and not a community, we're getting to the point where we're finding enough sources that it meets GNG regardless. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 01:17, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep lots of sources found talking about both the resort and the small community near the resort. We have a decent article that may even be out of stubland, and lots of other potential available sources (though there are a fair few false hits.) SportingFlyer T·C 08:47, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer: Which source mentions a "small community" nearby? –dlthewave ☎ 14:32, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The one that comes to mind specifically is the 1967 fire. SportingFlyer T·C 14:34, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't access that article so I don't have the exact context, but based on my local knowledge of the area (I've been back and forth through the area many times, and I've gone up to Echo Lake once or twice) I strongly suspect that the nearby "small community" is Echo Lake, California. My understanding of the area is that Little Norway was a lodge/station very close to the small community of Echo Lake, and I haven't seen anything to change that. CJK09 (talk) 14:49, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's still lots of coverage of Little Norway over many years with residences, businesses, post offices described. It's still a clear easy keep - WP:GEOLAND doesn't demand much in terms of notability, and WP:GNG is passed anyways. SportingFlyer T·C 15:04, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the clipping about the 1967 fire. I'm not finding any sources that describe multiple residences and businesses; from what I recall about the area, it's common to find mid-20th-century lodge/roadhouse type establishments that include some combination of store, restaurant, guest rooms, gas station, tire chain rental and post office on the property. Most of the local coverage doesn't go into detail about what exactly Little Norway is, but phrases such as "extensively damaged Little Norway", "the inside of the building was gutted" and "the building's owners" (emphasis mine) wouldn't make sense in the context of a community. –dlthewave ☎ 17:14, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to nitpick over what one specific article says - what's clear is that this geography, whatever it might be, passes WP:GNG if not WP:GEOLAND. The sources cover it like a community (versus that of a resort), there's plenty of press, and we have a perfectly valid article. SportingFlyer T·C 23:10, 15 May 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:31, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Manchester (Captain Man)[edit]

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

A fictional character who is not notable. This page is also a copy of [[26]]. Lettler^hello 13:59, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. No independent coverage of the character independent of routine mentions in broader articles about the show. There's also WP:NOTPLOT and WP:OR concerns here as many of the details of the character seem to be gleaned from just watching the show instead of using independent, reliable sources. Sulfurboy (talk) 20:39, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:48, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:48, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion had been speedily closed in Special:Diff/956975821. Afterwards, the article was re-created by the original creator of the speedily deleted article. I have reverted the closure; the page creator seems to have been gaming the system. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:17, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as per violations and norms ~Amkgp ✉ 13:34, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as per Amkgp. Note that the same almost certainly applies to Draft:Henry Hart (Kid Danger) and it should also be WP:CSD'ed. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:51, 17 May 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) Sulfurboy (talk) 15:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Pierre Grünfeld[edit]

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

Reviewed as a part of new article curation / review process. No indication of wp:notability. No wp:gng suitable sources, No claims relevant to SNG. Article has been tagged for notability since December 2019 and creator has not edited since then or since their one edit which created the article in 2019. North8000 (talk) 13:25, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I also looked at this under new page review and couldn’t see how it was notable, but decided to leave it to someone else to bring it here. So thank you. Mccapra (talk) 15:35, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:33, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:33, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PROF. His works are highly cited [27]. TJMSmith (talk) 19:46, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 19:46, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has two elected academy memberships (French Academy of Sciences and Royal Academy of Medicine of Belgium. He is a correspondent rather than a full member for each of these, so I am not entirely sure if these academy memberships are sufficient for passing WP:PROF#C3 but they certainly count towards WP:PROF#C1. Also has the French Legion of Honour. The CV[28] at the French Academy of Sciences mentions a bunch of other stuff, including an honorary degree. Together with substantial citability, enough here to pass WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 18:34, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With thanks to Nsk92. Mccapra (talk) 13:49, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the arguments already made by TJMSmith and Nsk92. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:10, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:32, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chhonkar Jat[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability for this one-liner. Prod removed by author. Fails WP:GNG. There are many hundreds of Jat Gotras and creating an article for each of them with nothing else to show notability is contrary to the objectives of an encyclopaedia. Only a single ref. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 12:38, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 12:38, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from memory there was a whole run of articles on Jat Gotras that were deleted about a year ago as having unreliable sources, but I’m afraid I can’t remember specifics. Mccapra (talk) 15:38, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the editor who created this article also created a duplicate at Chhonkar (Jat Gotra) and Mccapra appears to be right about previous deletion. It was deleted under a different spelling at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chhokar and then deleted again per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chhokar rajput. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:05, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also Delete as the subject still fails notability standards. Best, GPL93 (talk) 23:44, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The creator of the article has also been blocked for sockpuppetry and has used said sockpuppets in order to try and disrupt the AfD process on this article. Romartus Imperator (talk) 23:43, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move to List of Jat gotras -- there are many hundreds, and this article is a one-liner, which sounds like they could be made into a list to me. sam1370 (talk / contribs) 04:14, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:35, 16 May 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 delete per G7 Materialscientist (talk) 12:47, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marlon Lim[edit]

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

Fails PROF and GNG both. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 12:18, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:41, 12 May 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) Sulfurboy (talk) 15:02, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Fitzpatrick[edit]

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

highly promotional article about a non notable actress with no coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 12:14, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an edit conflict between my edits and the AFD nomination but my edit summary said very much the same as the nominator. A raft of very minor roles, one significant role in rep at Aberystwyth and a very poorly reviewed film. This doesn't add up to notability. Fails WP:GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Velella (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:42, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:43, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:43, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:47, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom and as above. Weak Keep - some reliable sources have been added but some unreliable sources as well. I would add that, as a Welsh theatre goer, Aberystwyth Arts Centre is not known as a major producer of theatre so this role would not add much to notability for me. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:58, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Hey, guys, this AfD is a mistake. This person is a West End theatre and UK national touring star. The problem is that the article was incorrectly named. I've moved it to her stage name, Jenny Fitzpatrick, which is the name that all of the sources call her. -- Ssilvers (talk) 10:12, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Ssilvers - thanks, I’ve changed my vote based on the new sources in the article and the name change. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 12:44, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for letting me know and for all the work you put in to help. I am new to Wikipedia and need everyones help which is appreciated MarkLondon60 (talk) 17:01, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be glad to withdraw my nom however even searching her stage name doesn't give the coverage that is required. What sources support this? Praxidicae (talk)

You are looking at the wrong criteria. Per WP:ENT she clearly satisfies the standard of an entertainer who "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances...." -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:45, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria at WP:ENT require that the article also satisfies the basic notability guidelines that "...People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject."". These are the criteria that have not been met with this article. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:00, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, the criteria at WP:ENT state clearly that they are independent critieria. If your only reason for being notable is that you have such coverage (like, say, Paris Hilton or Kim Kardashian), then you meet GNG, but if you are a notable *actor*, you don't *also* need to meet the same coverage criterion. Above the specific notability standards (including ENT) it says: "People are likely to be notable if they meet *any* of the following standards" (such as ENT). If everyone had to meet WP:GNG, then there would be no reason to have all the more specific criteria. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:53, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: West End actress whose notability is clearly established Dreamspy (talk) 00:10, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: In view of the recent improvements which have been made to the article establishing her notability. As a graduate of Aberystwyth I can inform you that the Aberystwyth Arts Centre is a leading regional venue Jack1956 (talk) 00:42, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

Keep: Notable London West End Actress who has played the lead role in a number of productions. Author who has written a book and script for a movie which has its own Wikipedia page. Many other West End actors who are less notable have a Wikipedia page MarkLondon60 (talk) 06:45, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above keepers. Regional theatre counts towards notability. Good work improving the article, especially correcting to the more popularly known first name! DiamondRemley39 (talk) 13:28, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I would agree with the above comments that her theatre work and its coverage would seem to meet notability criteria. Dunarc (talk) 22:40, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: I think WP:NACTOR is definitely made out, though I'm not so sure about WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources. I think more improvement can be made in that regard. Dflaw4 (talk) 17:31, 17 May 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)} 17:43, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Infinite Conflict[edit]

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

The one review cited in the article is substantial, but I can't find any other reliable source (and very few sources in general) giving any attention to this game. No article for company either, so no obvious redirect target. There may be one or two offline sources of course, but even so one has to wonder what the lasting notability is, if after the first round of reviews it sank completely into oblivion. Fram (talk) 10:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 10:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 10:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: could not find reliable secondary sources to support a sufficient article. Jontesta (talk) 23:23, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Old enough to have more reviews but I don't see any of them to establish GNG. Accesscrawl (talk) 11:18, 20 May 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)} 17:43, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

National Socialist Party of Costa Rica[edit]

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

I'm concerned about the WP:v here. So a website appears in 2003, one newspaper makes an article about it. Seemingly, one other newspaper [29] carries the news about the website as well. A third article, in 2012, makes reference to the 2003 article. No indications of any IRL activity, any meetings, publications, etc of the supposed party. Soman (talk) 18:16, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject was allegedly a fringe micro-party with few verifiable details regarding its existence. Coverage has been sparse. Some important claims of fact are entirely unsourced. Subject appears to fail WP:NORG. Generally I have a fairly low bar for political parties. If it exists and has ever had access to the national ballot I treat it as presumptively notable. But this group, if they ever were really a thing, does not even come close to that fairly low standard. Assuming they existed there is no evidence they were ever more than a small gang of wannabes and street thugs. We don't cover that. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:59, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:55, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fusion with Neo-Nazism in Costa Rica. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 23:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Costa Rica-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:40, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:40, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too far from meeting WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Accesscrawl (talk) 11:15, 20 May 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:02, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sandeep Khosla (architect)[edit]

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

Non-notable architect with no in-depth coverage on him or his work only passing mentions and fails WP:GNG too. If there is no in-depth coverage on him from reliable sources then the subject in question does not warrant a standalone article on Wikipedia. I think this needs consensus to stay on in the main-space. - FitIndia ^{Talk Commons} 10:11, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:31, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:31, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the depth of coverage is not there to ustify the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:17, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable architect lacking non-trivial support. Fail WP:ARCHITECT and WP:GNG. GSS ^💬 06:15, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:30, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Axolot Games[edit]

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

Non-notable developer, fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. A quick WP:BEFORE shows some sources mentioning the company in connection with articles about either of its games, but no source I could find could be classified as "significant coverage" as required by GNG. IceWelder [✉] 08:46, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. IceWelder [✉] 08:46, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. IceWelder [✉] 08:46, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails the WP:SIGCOV standard of WP:NCORP Sulfurboy (talk) 15:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sourcing does not indicate notability. Stifle (talk) 09:52, 20 May 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:25, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Markus Dupree[edit]

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

Poorly sourced porn star BLP, who fails WP:BASIC and WP:ENT. RS citations in the article don't support the facts asserted or are trivial in nature. Independent searches for RS coverage yield allegations of bad conduct coming mainly from one podcast. The coverage is not very deep and the sources are less than blue chip quality. The scene-related porn award wins would not even have satisfied the now-superseded PORNBIO SNG. • Gene93k (talk) 04:56, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:56, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:56, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:56, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:57, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:35, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable --TheImaCow (talk) 16:09, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable pornographic performer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:00, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG; search for his Russian name " shows several dozens articles in news sources of different quality.Ipsign (talk) 15:50, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ipsign - Plenty of sources under their Russian name (Can't read Russian but I assume most if not all are fine and usable). –Davey2010^Talk 13:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 08:13, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Ipsign. He has significant coverage in news sources under a Cyrillic search. [30][31][32] Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:32, 15 May 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. Fenix down (talk) 08:05, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rohit Sarkar[edit]

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY BlameRuiner (talk) 08:05, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:14, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:14, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:14, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no international caps yet = too soon for an article. Giant Snowman 18:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there are plenty of sources in the article, but none of them are in English. Is it certain WP:GNG isn't met? SportingFlyer T·C 03:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources that work link to match reports. Searching for his name in Bengali brings up nothing that will allow GNG to met. Dougal18 (talk) 12:55, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:14, 14 May 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. Fenix down (talk) 08:06, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Patryk Tenorio[edit]

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

Football coach who fails GNG and NFOOTY. No significant coverage, never coached a fully-pro team BlameRuiner (talk) 08:02, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I support this page staying up for several clear reasons.

1. It is hypocritical of NFOOTY to claim this coach is not with a "fully pro" team as the wikipedia entry for NISA clearly states its a professional league - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Independent_Soccer_Association
2. I find it highly suspect that entries pertaining to USL League 1 and USL Championship are left unquestioned when there are many sources - including myself who is involved in professional football in the U.S - that can tell you there are players on $0 contracts who only earn pay if they are rostered which goes against what apparently is considered "Professional" on wikipedia.
3. This team participates in the National Cup (US Open Cup); most recently being in the 2nd round vs. a USL Championship team.
4. GNG is fulfilled on this article via citations 4, 7, 12.
5. The following citations are reliable as they come from universities: 2,3,5,9
6. The coach in the article coached for and was director for SF City FC - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_City_FC - if this is notable enough for a wiki page, how is the coach not considered notable enough to mention? With no coach, there is no team?
7. The University of San Francisco Dons Mens Soccer team is considered notable enough to have a wiki page and is a significant program within the U.S - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Dons_men%27s_soccer - again how is this considered notable but not the coach?
8. There are other coaches who have only coached college soccer in the united states with wiki pages such as - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Gunn - how are they left unquestioned and up on wikipedia given no appearances for a professional team occurred? (not passing NFOOTY) It seems there are very uneven guidelines followed on wiki.
9. My final comment is that I have seen and heard of many NISA related coaches, players, and teams being questioned on Wikipedia while the USL leagues are left unchecked. The USL is well known for trying to kill off competitors (NASL) and I feel its a little strange this keeps happening while the USL who runs perhaps less professionally then NISA at times - despite being 1 divisions higher - is left alone. Could this all be another ploy for USL to kill off more competitors? By getting rid of as many NISA related posts as possible? Futbol10p (talk) 08:28, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:14, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:14, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:14, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, has never been a head coach in a WP:FPL. Virtually a copy-paste, with slight changes, from here. To break down all the points from @Futbol10p: above: 1) The NISA is not listed at WP:FPL, and therefore it is of no relevance what is stated on the league's article. There are no sources shown to state that the league is fully professional. 2) WP:OTHER is not an argument against deletion. Stating your involvement in the game also brings up questions of a possible WP:COI. 3) Cup participation is irrelevant if the club is not in a WP:FPL. 4) Neither source four or seven is directly about Tenorio, he's just quoted in them. He literally does not appear in ref 12. 5) Although those may come from universities, they aren't enough to pass WP:GNG. Not independent of the subject. 6) First of all, he was an assistant for the club, not the head coach...second of all, notability is conferred completely separately for clubs and individuals. 7) Exact same as number six. Assistant coach, not the head coach. Fails WP:NCOLLATH. 8) OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Also, Gunn meets WP:NFOOTY by playing in the A-League and meets NCOLLATH by winning multiple coach of the year honors and three national championships as a coach. 9) Absolute conspiracy theory with no sources to back it up. Even bolder considering that the NISA has lost three teams (two folded) before even completing a full season.

(Sorry this is so long. If anyone would rather I address these at the user's talk page, feel free to notify me and delete all these points.) Keskkonnakaitse (talk) 16:53, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

appreciate the detailed response; my comments as follows: The distinction between a HEAD coach vs. Assistant has no bearing on WP:NFOOTY guidelines as it only states the need to be a MANAGER which is not specific to a head coach or assistant. In general, a "Coach" is not the same as a "Manager" - see following; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manager_(association_football) - Also stating that the article is a copy paste with slight changes calls into question the entirety of Wikipedia and is a contentious and misleading statement. Everything on Wikipedia is a copy-paste with slight changes otherwise there would be no need for citations and wikipedia would be creating original content, akin to a media/news or publishing company. Without referencing outside media or citing existing work - how is information created within wikipedia? Citation is essentially copy-pasting that is acceptable because the original source is referenced.

1. Here is a link to an official document from the United States Soccer Federation provisionally approving NISA league as D3 Professional - http://www.ussocceragm.com/book-of-reports - page 91 on 2020 Book of Articles. Also saying that the NISA article that the general public can access and review, is not relevant because its lacking listing on WP:FPL is dubious as it questions the legitimacy of wikipedia as a whole. The argument using @Keskkonnakaitse basis would mean that unfactual things are allowed to be posted on wikipedia and should just be disregarded because a mod said so. Also apart from the USL's own websites there are no other sources proving USL to be sanctioned by USSF. Strange that NISA is in question with an official document from the federation proving its legitimacy but not USL.

2. How are articles on Wikipedia created without involving subject matter experts on them? That would mean that COI is rampant on wikipedia per your argument or that Wikipedia lacks legitimacy with only non-subject matter experts creating and commenting on articles. This is a weak claim and sets a precedent that only people not involved in football can speak about football matters or articles.

3. Again, contradictory here that a club is not relevant because its not in WP:FPL even though it clearly participates in a competition deemed relevant for a clubs inclusion in WP:FPL. Here is a schedule posting of LA Force's participation in the US Open Cup posted via the United States Soccer Federations own website, see "West Region" - https://www.ussoccer.com/us-open-cup. Note this is also the first round PROFESSIONAL clubs are included.

4. Per WP:GNG "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Both citations mention Tenorio but are not required that he be the main topic. Also who determines what is trivial? What is wikipedia's definition of a trivial mention? This seems largely undefined and left to any reader's or editors discretion. If you review Tenorio's involvment via the SF City FC website (archives) its easy to connect that he was a coach for the game as well since he was employed by the club during this time period.

5. Universities are accepted as reliable sources and their page on Tenorio are not identified as such - advertising, press releases, autobiographies, or related to the subject's website - which does not exist. It is a bio on a hired staff member - not to be confused with an autobiography. These are written and prepared by college marketing departments not written by coaching staff though they may approve its release online.

6. Again insistence on Assistant vs. Head coach has no bearing on the argument. A coach is a coach of a team and is involved in decision making regardless of the Head or Assistant distinction. Also WP:NCOLLATH clearly states in an example that head coaches or assistant coaches can be referenced. The line used "Well-known" as a distinction is also baseless - who determines who or what is "well known"? The media, editors, general public? CNN? God himself? Lastly to add, winning the WCC Conference and entering the second round of the D1 NCAA Tournament are indeed considered "a major NCAA Division I record" within the collegiate sports realm. If every team achieved these feats easily, nothing would be major in collegiate sport competitions; there is a reason only a limited amount of teams from Division 1 are selected for the tournament.

7. Same as #6 - WP:NCOLLATH allows for head coaches AND assistants. Actually does not fail WP:NCOLLATH so long as assistant coaches are used in the example provided by Wikipedia itself.

8. This is a fair point and have no opposition to this.

9. This is actually inaccurate and sounds like a condemnation of the league by editor; 1 team - Miami - moved to a new league. The other two teams have actually not folded and are currently "inactive" as listed and looking to rejoin the league in 2021 with increased investor support. This information is known if you are a football fan actively following the various leagues and news throughout the U.S. Another reason why subject matter experts should be more involved with Wikipedia entries and not just casual fans.

Futbol10p 14:29, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:42, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Potential COI and retaliation as I opposed GiantSnowman on the following afd - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Xavi_Simons_(2nd_nomination)Futbol10p 14:29, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GiantSnowman is a well respected contributor, I would not expect them to "retaliate" on any article much less take something personally on an article that clearly fails our notability standards. SportingFlyer T·C 03:38, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump is the President of the United States and I'd expect him to not tell people that drinking lysol is good for you but that happened... Am I supposed to just take your word on that? All I am looking for are arguments based on facts not opinions. Futbol10p 21:38, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm telling you you're casting aspersions by implying GiantSnowman has voted based on their own opinion and not on the content of this article. I can also guarantee they are not voting against you because you opposed them on a different article. I don't really care if you don't believe me, but we're getting to the point where you should refamiliarise yourself with WP:BLUDGEON. SportingFlyer T·C 05:27, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly fails WP:GNG, there's not a reliable secondary source anywhere near this article, no others have been demonstrated, and it reads as if it was written by someone related to him or someone was paid to write it. Also fails WP:NFOOTY. Won't respond to any bludgeoning, either - this should be an easy delete unless other sources are found. SportingFlyer T·C 03:38, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's very easy to sit behind a screen and make sweeping comments about editors and if they are related or paid, etc. Just like I can say that SportingFlyer comments sound like they are written by an upset coach whom Tenorio defeated in a soccer match - there is no basis for these comments and do not add anything to the discussion at hand; speculative at best. I am not here to attack anyone but to question very real points being made on the legitimacy of the article and of the policing of posts relating to soccer across all of Wikipedia; too much of soccer is smoke and mirrors and how does anyone determine what is actually black or white? Especially non subject matter experts. That is not meant as an insult either but as a real point of contention. I would never make comments on posts relating to the NFL for example because I am nothing more than a casual fan.
Now that brings me to the real question I want to ask and would like serious responses to. How are these citations - #s 4, 7, 9 - not considered adequate secondary sources and what qualifies as an adequate secondary article to improve the legitimacy of this article? Thank you for your constructive input. Futbol10p 22:00, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You should read WP:ASPERSIONS. The article goes into a level of detail you don't typically see regarding his fluencies and coaching licenses (all unsourced) which is why I suggested the COI. Regarding notability, in #4 (the SFGate blog) he is only asked to make a one-sentence quote, there is no coverage on him specifically. Being quoted in an article doesn't count for notability. #7 (Protagonist Soccer) is both a blog and interviewed him, neither of which count towards notability. Article #9 only mentions him once in an article that's entirely unrelated to him. We have WP:V, but we are a long ways off from notability. SportingFlyer T·C 05:25, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm honestly not trying to denigrate anyone and aiming to create discussion based on valid counter arguments is all; apologies if you feel otherwise. Tenorio's fluencies and licenses are all mentioned in the following citations and public information; #s 3, 5, 6, 8, - again clearing up the idea there is COI. I do appreciate your feedback though and won't lose sleep if this article is deleted or not. More than anything the biggest takeaway for me is that NISA is not considered "fully professional" which I have taken to WP:NFOOTY to be addressed. Futbol10p 22:47, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable football manager.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:21, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is this a recreation of a deleted article? This seems familiar somehow. Govvy (talk) 16:31, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- This was a rejected AFC submission two months ago. Nevertheless user went ahead and created the page. --BlameRuiner (talk) 18:31, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and @Keskkonnakaitse's arguments. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 01:26, 18 May 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:25, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FILMLOKA[edit]

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

Underreferenced company that shows no signs of meeting WP:GNG. 2 of 3 refs are to the company's own site. Page is also barely skirting copyright, it's a closely paraphrased copy of the about page https://sites.google.com/view/filmloka/about. It's also a rejected draft Draft:FILMLOKA. Only other edits by this editor are about the studio's head, so possible COI/promo issues. JamesG5 (talk) 08:04, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:16, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:16, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:16, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it seems WP:TOOSOON for an article about a company that has only produced one film, also no sighn of passing WP:CORPDEPTH, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:59, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete'. As far as I understand, this production company has yet to produce a film. The article says that a 2020 film is in preparation but the cast is TBA so the project is still in its early days. Clearly fails WP:GNG. Pichpich (talk) 22:35, 17 May 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:02, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vera Von Monika[edit]

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

Not a single mention in independent sources, currently cited are two paid blogs. The "Worldwide Model Awards" thing fails verification. Her article has been repeatedly speedy-deleted here over the last six years. [33][34]. – Thjarkur (talk) 07:32, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 07:32, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt, the article is near G11 and A7 territory. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 07:38, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:20, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:20, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was about to open the AfD myself. It has been speedy deleted once for A7 and once for G11. The author recreated without any real improvement, so hopefully this AfD will stop that. Subject fails WP:GNG. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 11:02, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:01, 15 May 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nikolai Udianskyi[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

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

Promotional bio for cryptocurrency entrepreneur. No evidence of passing en:wp notability. Current version is after lots of crypto sites (unusable in general, but especially on a BLP) were removed. Talk page discussion with creator shows apparently inability to find actual third-party non-crypto RSes, and lack of understanding of en:wp sourcing. The Ukrainian version of the article uses the same bad sources as the English version. WP:BEFORE shows press releases and crypto sites. David Gerard (talk) 07:32, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 07:32, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 07:32, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 07:32, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as subject lacks coverage in reliable, independent sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Save @David Gerard: Do you really beleive that the founder of one of the biggest cryptocurrency ehchange (# 8 in the world list Top 100 Cryptocurrency Exchanges by Trade Volume with monthly volume $78 857 297 470, https://coinmarketcap.com/rankings/exchanges/ ) and founder of a bitcoin fork is not notable? Search for Nikolay Udianskyi in Google https://www.google.com/search?q=nikolai+udianskyi&oq=udiansky and you will find 2600+ results. Search for Николай Удянский (cyrrylic spelling) in Goggle shows 21 000+ results --Perohanych (talk) 08:49, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here one can find actual third-party non-crypto RSes:

"Nikolai Udianskyi — Dossier" (in Russian). lb.ua. Retrieved 2020-05-06.
Oliyarnyk, Mykola (2020-03-06). "Mykola Udianskyi — Ukrainian IT entrepreneur, social activist and scientist". elita.org.ua (in Ukrainian). Elite. Retrieved 2020-05-06. --Perohanych (talk) 20:56, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The about page suggests this is a promotional site aobut Ukrainians, and not an WP:RS as English Wikipedia defines the term. Again, you don't seem to have bothered learning how sourcing works on en:wp. What precisely is lb.ua? It's not a news site, what is it? - David Gerard (talk) 10:46, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
lb.ua IS a news site, one of the most popular in Ukraine. For example, today, on Sunday 2010-05-17, they published more than 40 news items, see https://lb.ua

elita.org.ua as well publishes news about prominent Ukrainians and their biographies --Perohanych (talk) 21:04, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It might be a news site, but this isn't a news item. It's more like a CV, which I suspect the subject wrote himself. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:00, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, have a look at wikidata:Property:P6980 and wikidata:Wikidata:Property_proposal/LB.ua_dossier --Perohanych (talk) 09:38, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure how that affects the assessment of the page concerned. Could you explain? Cordless Larry (talk) 11:56, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Upon review of the Google results provided by Perohanych, I agree there is a lack of independent sources that provide coverage on subject. --PrinceTut (talk) 09:31, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
forbes.com, entrepreneur.com, hackernoon.com, bits.media, thecoinshark.net, afroasiaforum.com, chainbulletin.com, coinspeaker.com, ukranews.com, RBC Ukraine and many-many other sites write about Udianskyi, confirm the fact that he founded Coinsbit exchange, that he organised one of the biggest in the world international conference on cryptocurrency and blockchain. Yes, the majority of them are websites afrom the world of cryptocurrency and blockchain. But Udianskyi is a man from the cryptocurrency and blockchain world. --Perohanych (talk) 11:35, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think there's enough reliable sources for the subject from my search results. WP:GNG. —Hiwilms (talk) 06:53, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:17, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Save. There are sources about him.--Кучер Олексій (talk) 16:30, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Keeping in mind that this is not a vote, but a place to advance arguments - what are the sources that meet the en:wp rules on reliable sources, and how do they meet these rules? - David Gerard (talk) 10:47, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possible cross-wiki PR/promo. Кронас (talk) 15:11, 16 May 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:25, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nwaora Augustine David[edit]

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

There is a bit of backstory to this BLP: biographies about Nwaora were created and recreated by seven different sock accounts in March-early April of this year. (See the edit histories/deletion logs of Augustine Nwaora, Draft:Augustine Nwaora, Draft:Augustine (Austyn) David Nwaora, and Augustine David Nwaora, as well as Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lionel4power/Archive). The current version was created about a week after the la(te)st sock was blocked, but I am not entirely convinced that the creator of the current version is another sockpuppet which is why this is at AfD and not tagged as G5, and I don't want to derail this discussion about the article's merits with SPI stuff.

Sock or not, I am certain that there is WP:UPE involved. One of the blocked sockpuppets said that this was a "client biography", and I estimate the likelihood that the current creator would have independently discovered and researched and created an article about this person, under a subtly different title to avoid detection, to be just about zero.

The reason the article has been deleted and draftified more than once is a lack of notability, and that is still true. Nwaora does not meet WP:ANYBIO – he did not meet it in March, and he still doesn't. None of the sources in the article is independent – there are two press releases (both of which have been represented twice or thrice as different sources, but it's the same PR) and two puff pieces with photos from Nwaora's press kit, and text that's found elsewhere. I take a very dim view of people who use Wikipedia to promote themselves or make money, but fortunately that doesn't even have to be considered here since the person is so clearly not notable. bonadea contributions talk 07:30, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 07:30, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 07:30, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources in the article

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Source	Independent?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.independent.ng/who-is-augustine-austyn-david-nwaora-%EF%BB%BF/	Puff piece, and the same text is found on promo website "thefamousnaija.com"	✘ No
https://www.vanguardngr.com/2020/03/meet-business-paladin-and-entrepreneur-nwaora-austyn-david/	Puff piece, and the same text is found on promo website "thefamousnaija.com"	✘ No
https://www.thisdaylive.com/index.php/2020/04/12/nwaora-augustine-hunger-will-kill-faster-than-corona-virus/	Press release A	✘ No
https://www.vanguardngr.com/2020/04/why-im-in-love-with-real-estate-business-austin-nwaora/	Press release B	✘ No
https://www.sunnewsonline.com/hunger-will-kill-faster-than-coronavirus-in-nigeria-nwaora-augustine-bentell-properties-limited/	Press release A	✘ No
https://tribuneonlineng.com/why-i-am-in-love-with-real-estate-business-%E2%80%95-austin-nwaora/	Press release B	✘ No
https://www.independent.ng/covid-19-hunger-will-kill-faster-than-the-pandemic-nwaora-augustine/	Press release A	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

Just to be clear, I have of course done a WP:BEFORE search for sources without finding anything that was independent. --bonadea contributions talk 08:00, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:17, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — non notable individual. Celestina007 (talk) 14:51, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject fails WP:ANYBIO. Some of the article's sources are not independent of him. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 18:42, 15 May 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:25, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TravelWorm[edit]

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

This promotional article has survived since 2007 without anything like reliable independent sourcing. The refs provided are mostly dead and those that remain are interviews and trivia. Does not pass WP:NCORP. Mccapra (talk) 07:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 07:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 07:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 07:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The sources in the article that are still viewable appear to be largely promotional in nature. Searching for additional sources brings up some brief mentions, as the service is still in business, but no kind of coverage that would pass WP:NCORP or the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 16:14, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:34, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The policies cited by the delete position have not been adequately supported in terms of identifying what direction the POVFORK is, what the mainstream argument is if it is FRINGE, and NOTINHERITED applies to blanket statements about notability rather than the existence of articles based on shared content. The widespread misapplication of policy here is very suspect, to say the least. bibliomaniac 1 5 03:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Breast Tax[edit]

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

POVFORK of Nangeli which has a very dubious historicity and also copies Channar revolt. Does not deserve standalone page given the dubiousness per WP:FRINGE. Wareon (talk) 07:05, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Goldsztajn (talk) 07:31, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Goldsztajn (talk) 07:31, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't have two pages dealing with the same subject. I note that the page was already redirected by Winged Blades of Godric, but the redirect was reverted without any sensible reason. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 10:11, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article seems to be about the general topic, and would stand on its own well-sourced feet even if all the Nangeli material was removed. I have no comment about the notability of Nangeli here, as this is not an AfD about that article. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:47, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nangeli's notability is important to note here because all of the sources talk only about Nangeli, than Breast tax. 42.106.4.156 (talk) 16:51, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As it currently stands, this article simply repeats what is found in Channar revolt, and almost all of that is verbatim. It is pointless to have such repetition, and it can lead to forking. If the Breast Tax is independently notable, then there should be references about it that are independent of the Channar revolt of Nangeli, and it should be mentioned only briefly in the Channar revolt page, letting anyone interested follow the redirect. If sources only talk about it in those contexts, it should be Redirected to Channar revolt. Agricolae (talk) 17:32, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. 42.106.4.156 (talk) 16:51, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG since all sources discuss the village legend Nangeli. Subject lacks notability on its own. Azuredivay (talk) 01:20, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Breast Tax or Mulakkaram is about a tax legislation in the Kingdom of Travancore passes WP:GNG clearly sourced in WP:RS .Further there are sources in the Malayalam language and scholarly sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:30, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that the subject lacks coverage independent of Nangeli and Channar revolt, however I don't see any WP:HISTRS covering this subject or Nangeli, that means all of this could be recent hocus pocus. Lorstaking (talk) 09:11, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable as a tax. Plenty of reliable sources. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:03, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, All sources are about the story of Nageli, there are no WP:HISTRS sources. One source in the article says, "We can’t teach students about Nangeli’s sacrifice in textbooks yet because there is no exact date for it, and needs more evidence". The whole article is about it and Channar revolt, which have it's own article. No need for this redundancy. BhaskaraPattelar (talk) 15:55, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:03, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:03, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and resolve through informed discussion. The interrelationship (and/or validity) of the three articles mentioned and whether all or some should remain standalone articles is too complicated and subject-specific to resolve through a "keep/delete" vote under an arbitrary seven day deadline. postdlf (talk) 16:08, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The topic seems to pass GNG, there are reliable in-depth sources, and as for Nangeli, the topics are related but distinct. Historical/legendary character versus real historical event (legislation, whatever). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:56, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For passing GNG you have to be independent of the main subject which is "Nangeli" here. You should show sources which prove that they are independent of Nangeli. The historicity of "Breast tax" is dubious. Sources have been greatly misused on this article, such as Cohn who's book never mentioned "breast tax". Don't just rely on the bogus look of the article, better look into the article and assess the sources. As Lorstaking mentioned above, this is all "recent hocus pocus" with no coverage in academic literature. Mohanabhil (talk) 06:48, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the tax was real or fictitious, there doesn't seem to be a legitimate question as to whether it's notable...so it was either a notable, historical law or a notable legend/hoax. Also whether it is best discussed just in the context of the Nangeli legend or as a separate standalone topic is really a question of merging/redirection at best, not outright deletion. As I said above, this really needs to be resolved through normal editing and discussion, the article development questions raised are not appropriate for AFD, per WP:ATD and WP:BEFORE. postdlf (talk) 14:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and per my comment above about source falsification on the article. I don't see any mention of this allegedly historical practice in academic literature. Mohanabhil (talk) 06:48, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mainly because of lack of independent coverage and lack of historicity per BhaskaraPattelar. This is sufficiently a POVFORK of the main article. --Yoonadue (talk) 14:26, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm recusing myself from !voting as I came here as a result of an IP canvass; I'll leave it up to whoever closes this to evaluate the appropriateness (or not) of my comment. That said, aside from what is in the article already, there are a plethora of peer-reviewed materials which discuss the tax.^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]

References

^ "U.S. News global Top 500 universities". Washington Post.
^ Karunakaran, M. (2004). "CHANNAR REVOLT — A FORERUNNER OF RENAISSANCE IN TRAVANCORE — A STUDY". Proceedings of the Indian History Congress. 65: 1221–1222. ISSN 2249-1937.
^ Kent, Eliza F. (2004). Converting Women: Gender and Protestant Christianity in Colonial South India. Oxford University Press. pp. 210–217. ISBN 978-0-19-516507-4.
^ Vinayan, Sruthi; Raj, Merin Simi (15 February 2019). "The politics of representation and the "ideal Malayalee woman": Remembering Malayalam women's magazines of the early 20th-century Kerala, South India". Journal of Postcolonial Writing. 55 (3): 399–411. doi:10.1080/17449855.2019.1570966.
^ Allen, Charles (7 August 2018). "WHO OWNS INDIA'S HISTORY? A CRITIQUE OF SHASHI THAROOR'S". Asian Affairs. 49 (3): 355–369. doi:10.1080/03068374.2018.1487685. By the start of the 19th century the ordinary people of Travancore were being required to pay as many as 100 petty taxes, ranging from head tax, hut tax, marriage tax and taxes on the tools of one's trade to taxes on the family cow, goat or dog, wearing jewellery, staging festivals, growing moustaches, and above all what became known as the breast tax, mulakkaram, by which the women of lower social groups had to expose their breasts or pay a tax. The Brahmins, naturally, paid no tax at all.
^ Nair, Adoor K. K. Ramachandran (1986). Slavery in Kerala. Mittal Publications. p. 45. The Pooja Raja in Travancore made the Malarayans pay money at the rate of one anna, two pies (8 pies) a head monthly as soon as they were able to work, and a similar sum of presence money besides certain quotas of fruits and vegetables and feudal service....The head money was called Thalakaram in the case of males and Mulakaram (breast money) in the case of females.

Whether this should be part of a larger article on gender, caste and conversion in 19th Century southern India or perhaps caste structures in Travancore, it is clearly a separate issue from that of Nangeli or the Channar revolt...none of which should be discussed here, as AfD is not ...wait for it... clean up. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 16:50, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source no.1 is about Channar revolt. Source no.2 has no mention of a "breast tax".[35] Source no.3 is from 2018 and is just a passing mention. Source no.4 is also just a passing mention. It is absolutely possible that a "folk legend" has been around for more than a few decades but ultimately it lacks significant coverage in reliable sources without depending on Nangeli. Wareon (talk) 02:55, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per BhaskaraPattelar and WP:POVFORK. The apparent lack of historicity of this whole subject cannot be ignored. desmay (talk) 18:50, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:48, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep -- I note that the first three references are very modern publications, making it clear that he topic has recently been in the media. Whether historically it happened on not, the fact that it is believed in the mainstream media and discussed is quite enough to warrant an article. This is a wider topic than Nangeli or the Channar revolt, so that having an article is justified. There appear to be a number of WP:RS. The basis of the nom appears to be IDONOTLIKEIT, which is no basis for AFD. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:50, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is utter nonsense, given the dubious historicity of the subject depending on the notability of a folk legend named Nangeli and the subject has been already debunked by another modern scholar. Rumors and lies are also "believed in the mainstream media", but Wikipedia is not for righting great wrongs. This is not a wider topic than Nangeli or Channar revolt, but solely depends on the notability of Nangeli and Channar revolt that is why there is no need to retain this POVFORK. Either way, you don't have any sources to support your highly illogical views. Wareon (talk) 02:55, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Manu Pillai's piece from The Hindu is anything but a "debunking"; it confirms the existence of the mulakaram, among many other issues. "When Nangeli offered her breasts on a plantain leaf to the Rajah’s men, she demanded not the right to cover her breasts, for she would not have cared about this ‘right’ that meant nothing in her day. Indeed, the mulakkaram had little to do with breasts other than the tenuous connection of nomenclature. It was a poll tax charged from low-caste communities, as well as other minorities. Capitation due from men was the talakkaram — head tax — and to distinguish female payees in a household, their tax was the mulakkaram — breast tax. The tax was not based on the size of the breast or its attractiveness, as Nangeli’s storytellers will claim, but was one standard rate charged from women as a certainly oppressive but very general tax....When Nangeli stood up, squeezed to the extremes of poverty by a regressive tax system, it was a statement made in great anguish about the injustice of the social order itself. Her call was not to celebrate modesty and honour; it was a siren call against caste and the rotting feudalism that victimised those in its underbelly who could not challenge it. She was a heroine of all who were poor and weak, not the archetype of middle-class womanly honour she has today become. But they could not admit that Nangeli's sacrifice was an ultimatum to the order, so they remodelled her as a virtuous goddess, one who sought to cover her breasts rather than one who issued a challenge to power. The spirit of her rebellion was buried in favour of its letter, and Nangeli reduced to the sum of her breasts." The woman who cut off her breasts The Hindu, 17 February 2017. As above, whether this article should be renamed to cover broader issues related to caste, servitude and taxation in Travancore, whether it should remain Breast Tax, or something else ... is a perfectly reasonable discussion ... just not something for AfD. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 17:49, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As long as the subject is already rid of significant coverage in history sources it does not deserve a separate page per WP:NOTINHERITED. Capankajsmilyo (talk) 02:57, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete primarily because the sources seem to be focused on Channar revolt and Nangeli and don't explore this particular topic independently and in detail. As it says on WP:SIGCOV, "If a topic does not meet these criteria but still has some verifiable facts, it might be useful to discuss it within another article". Kerberous (talk) 16:52, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the topic seems to have received a fair coverage in Nangeli. TheodoreIndiana (talk) 15:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG on its own as described above. Already covered on Nangeli. Accesscrawl (talk) 11:23, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm frankly a bit mystified by those saying that this is fully covered in Nangeli so doesn't deserve a separate article. So what? This aticle is actually more notable than that one, given it's about an unusual historical tax and that's about a person who may be mythical. Neither is it fully covered in Channar revolt, given it persisted long after that revolt. It's well-sourced and I'm having difficulty making sense of the delete votes. I'm always a bit suspicious of AfDs where canvassing has gone on. What's the issue here? Someone (or some people) seems very keen on getting it deleted. I'd be very interested to know why. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:13, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Goldsztajn. Neither Nangeli or Channar revolt cover it in full. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 17:32, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, largely per Goldsztajn and Necrothesp. The number of sources covering this is large; many of them discuss the topic generally, and not only with respect to the two other articles being discussed here; and whether or not the concept was "real", when substantial sources exist, that is a debate we need to cover, not purge altogether. The "this is a hoax" !votes are, therefore, not based in policy. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:40, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:28, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suzanne Award[edit]

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

This page's sole content is already hosted by Blender on their website (see the external links). None of its winners besides the Blender Open Movies have wiki articles about them, and these are already listed at the Blender article. Therefore I don't think this article meets the notability criterias and should be deleted. – XYZt (talk | contribs) – 07:02, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:22, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:22, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At least per WP:TNT. The article is truly promotional by appearance and there is not enough encyclopedic value on this article. Accesscrawl (talk) 11:24, 20 May 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michael McPartland (quizzer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG due to a lack of significant coverage. Only a few people are notable for being on a game show and he isn't one of them. Dougal18 (talk) 06:50, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:23, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable game show contestant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:13, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep one of the most prominent people on the UK quiz scene, although this article doesn't reflect it and is short on a lot of info on this person he is close to holding the record for the highest number of appearances on UK quiz shows and is one of the leading competitors on the UK quiz scene. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabrestar (talk • contribs) 16:02, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Even if that was a thing McPartland is nowhere near "the record for the highest number of appearances on UK quiz shows". Ian Lygo, the Eggheads and the Chasers would like a word. Your only edits are to the article (adding in two WP:COPYVIOlating videos and a "man wins money on gameshow" article) and this AfD. Dougal18 (talk) 07:20, 15 May 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Crealude video games[edit]

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

A list of games without any stand-alone notability, by a developer that does not have an article on it. Fails WP:GNG / WP:LISTN.

There are three games listed. In the WP:VG/RS custom Google search engine, they all three get very little to no results.

Mind Run is listed at GameSpot, and that's the only mention.
Digi Follies gets zero results
Word War 5 is only mentioned in a list of similar games

There's no coverage on developer Crealude either. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 06:44, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. dibbydib ^boop or _snoop 06:51, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. dibbydib ^boop or _snoop 06:51, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete fails WP:GNG and is not likely to ever meet it; showing that something exists does not mean it is worthy of an article dibbydib ^boop or _snoop 06:53, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The company is non-notable, and so are its games. Why have a list about a non-notable topic's non-notable sub-topics? In response to the nom, the one GameSpot hit for Mind Run is a database entry pulled straight from GameFAQs, which is user-authored and not reviewed by GameSpot/CBS Interactive staff. Digi Follies and Word War 5 have very (very) brief reviews in one issue of Next Generation, but I wasn't able to find any further sourcing that went deeper than those five sentences on the web or in the Internet Archive. IceWelder [✉] 08:28, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So someone redirected two articles that were two years old to here, and decided to put all their games listed in one article. The games listed that got reviewed in reliable sources are notable enough to have their own articles. I suppose since those articles were so short and no one felt like expanding them, the person figured to just merge them here. Dream Focus 09:16, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Remind me again how one review of six sentences constitutes notability? That's not significant coverage. @BOZ (who probably isn't aware of this discussion) likely created both in good faith, but they would have been candidates for deletion themselves regardless. IceWelder [✉] 10:11, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Company is non-notable and neither are any of the titles on the list. Fails WP:GNG as well as WP:LISTN. Ajf773 (talk) 09:31, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly does not establish any notability, and neither do any of their games. I see no reason to keep this. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 22:41, 17 May 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 April Fools' Day Request for Comments#List of April Fools' RFCs. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 05:42, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peg DHCP[edit]

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

vanity article. Graywalls (talk) 01:57, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 01:57, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 01:57, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 01:57, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to April_Fools'_Day_Request_for_Comments#List_of_April_Fools'_RFCs, where it is mentioned. I'm not sure that vanity is a reason for deletion. While most RFCs are considered standards, I was unable to find secondary sourcing for this RFC. Basic facts, such as its existence and date of publication, are verifiable in multiple sources in GBooks. I could believe that this is a plausible search term, so a redirect that places this half-serious RFC in context seems a reasonable way forward. --((u|Mark viking)) {Talk} 10:37, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 06:33, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Mark viking. All April Fools' RFCs are well-known in the tech world, and redirects are cheap. Elizium23 (talk) 06:59, 12 May 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. Also salted as repeatedly recreated. BD2412 T 03:06, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Kabat[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted newly recreated article for non-notable mayor with just basically a CV. PROD removed by creator, fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 06:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. La Crosse isn't big enough for him to meet SNG. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 13:11, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable mayor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:09, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While a genuinely substantive and well-referenced article about a mayor of La Crosse WI could potentially be kept, that's not what this article is: this basically just résumés his career background and says almost nothing whatsoever about his political impact in the mayor's chair, but mayoral notability depends much more on the latter than the former. As for the six footnotes, five are primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, and the only one that actually represents media coverage about him is from a local radio station in La Crosse, which means it isn't enough to singlehandedly get him over WP:GNG all by itself as the only piece of media coverage in play. For him to be notable enough for a Wikipedia article, there would have to be a lot more substance, and a lot better sourcing, than this. And for the record, every single other person in Category:Mayors of La Crosse, Wisconsin has some other notability claim over and above having been mayor of La Crosse per se, such as going on to serve in the state legislature — so the fact that some of them have articles is not in and of itself a reason to exempt Kabat from having to clear our notability standards for mayors the normal way. Bearcat (talk) 17:46, 15 May 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:27, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjh Ki Bela[edit]

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

An article about a Bollywood film, sourced only to WP:IMDb (which is not WP:RS). A WP:BEFORE search offered me several opportunities to listen to or buy the songs, but nothing else. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Narky Blert (talk) 17:22, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:06, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:06, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 05:31, 12 May 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. Fenix down (talk) 08:07, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indian El clasico[edit]

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

Not a notable rivalry. Antila (✉) 05:16, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Antila (✉) 05:16, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Antila (✉) 05:16, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:38, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - limited coverage, no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 16:40, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GiantSnowman. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 17:05, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a notable rivalry Spiderone 10:41, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's not a notable rivalry with the mention of an El Clasico being here but they are only mentions of that and not an official rivialry like the Kolkata Derby. HawkAussie (talk) 12:01, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Deletion - There is no such thing exists. It seems like wiki hoax. Dey subrata (talk) 09:27, 15 May 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Dietsch[edit]

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

I've searched through what feel like hundreds of entries at Newspapers.com, and despite having found what feels like the same 3 sentences or so of coverage about the subject helping choreograph the fly fishing in A River Runs Through It (film) and some coverage of his first book, I can't find anything usable for writing an article or that would get us close to meeting WP:GNG. The book might be notable, maybe. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:10, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:10, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:10, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable writer and public speaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:58, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only claim of any level of notability is his involvement with A River Runs Through It, which doesn't appear to be significant enough to lend notability to a subject. Best, GPL93 (talk) 23:04, 19 May 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alabama Hill, California[edit]

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

No sign that this is an "unincorporated community". Quads show a peak at this location labelled with the typeface used for geographic features. 2013 edition of Durham's Place-Names states that it was named by miners from Alabama but does not mention a settlement. –dlthewave ☎ 03:35, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 03:35, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 03:35, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The only reliable source is the one in the article. The other one is absolutely not reliable. I could not find any other sources. Koridas (...Puerto Rico for statehood!) 06:30, 19 May 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:05, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Johann Hurlinger[edit]

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

WP:NOTABILITY. The entire page consists of three short sentences about a man with little to no information about his life outside of the feat that made him """famous;""" additionally, the only citation on the page leads to a dead website, and almost every Google result about him copies from this article word-for-word. If "Hurlinger" deserves a page, then everyone who has ever featured in the Guinness Book of World Records for an unusual and quirky feat deserves one as well. Also, according to the German Wikipedia page on "Hurlinger," his record was falsified and his actual name is Johann Haslinger, meaning that the article is relying on a factually incorrect Guinness World Record. HawthOffHead (talk) 02:52, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment German article Falsified seems a bit strong. It could well be simple mistranslation. It appears that rather than walikng on his hands he was in some type of wheeled cart and simple propelled himself with his hands. So... a bad article based on a dead link that appears to have been based on a mistake. The question is, was there sufficient coverage to make him notable for what he did do (and under his actual name), and does the mistake by Guiness help? Meters (talk) 06:16, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's very little coverage that can be found on Google Books. Most of it is just Guinness and books aimed at children that likely copied Guinness. The only two books that may not have directly taken his story from Guinness or the article are far from notable coverage; one is about mythological creatures and the other about vascular transport in plants, and both make very brief mention of him to show how humans can use their arms and hands like legs and feet before moving on. And that's under the Hurlinger name, making it likely that those two books took it from Guinness or Wikipedia as well, especially since both were published in the 2010s. Under Haslinger, it's even worse - not a single mention on Google Books or Google News, and the only mentions of him under that name on the first ten pages of a Google search for it are copies from the German article. It seems obvious, at least in my opinion, that the mistake by Guinness is the sole reason anyone in 2020 knows about his supposed record, and that there was next to no coverage until it was made. HawthOffHead (talk) 07:22, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:25, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:25, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no actual claim to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:57, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The event itself received some limited coverage at the time. Really nothing about the person. Everything since then seems to be rooted in the mistaken claim by Guinness. At best this would be a case of WP:1E, and I agree with John Pack Lambert and HawthOffHead that it does not even seem to meet that. Meters (talk) 06:19, 16 May 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 by nominator (non-admin closure) Sulfurboy (talk) 14:55, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Brandon (pornographic actor)[edit]

I am withdrawing the nomination --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 18:42, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Michael Brandon (porn star)

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

I went through all the sources here and I can't find anything suitable to sustain notability: n.1)it's an interview (primary source), n2)it's literally one mention, n.3)it's his own page, n.4) IMDb (not reliable), n.5) it's an interview (primary source), n.6,7,8 and 9) announcing the winner of a porn prize and porn prize do not count to prove notability since pornbio was deprecated. plus, in 3 of these sources his name doesn't even appear. So bad sourcing that doesn't yield notability. AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 02:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:43, 12 May 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Keep I'd argue that while interviews shouldn't be used to establish something mentioned in them, OTOH the mere _fact_ that a WP:RS decided to interview somebody, is good enough to count for notability purposes. Would SF Weekly interview me (or millions of others)? No. But they did interview Brandon, so there should be something special about him. Ipsign (talk) 07:02, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ipsign: actually I stongly agee with you, but is this a wikipedia policy or not? we should establish that interviews, at least those on very good media, count at least for notoriety. speaking of these Interviews, SF weekly is a local paper right? something distributed only in the sf bay area. so we have 2 interviews one of which on a local news paper, I don't believe that makes someone notable for WP standards. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 10:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, easily meets GNG, which should have been obvious if WP:Before had been followed. Gleeanon409 (talk) 08:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, interviews are primary sources, meaning they are useless for the purposes of establishing notability. As a result, this person fails WP:GNG, since there are no sources that would contribute to it. Devonian Wombat (talk) 10:31, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets the GNG. The Sfweekly article is fine. It is not a straightforward interview with Brandon; there are quotes from him, but also form others, commentary on the crystal meth problem & scene, discussion of his career, and even investigating reporting by the writer looking up his past criminal records. In addition, there's other sources out there in gay Media. http.Bay Area Reporter Advocate Out Chris7179 (talk) 15:09, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable pornographic performer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:13, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the SF Weekly and Bay Area Reporter coverage. Where is the "local newspaper" problem described in a policy? I'm skeptical that San Francisco can be dismissed as "local". — Toughpigs (talk) 23:01, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment Honestly it is a bit confusing to me. I personally wrote Carlo Masi bio and to be accepted I was asked (otherwise they woulsn't accept it) to show consistent presence on national and international papers (mainstream). Carlo Masi is just an example, I can see other porn actors who can present such sourcing. So, why are we keeping articles like this one basing on one single article which happens to be a half interview? I see people are voting keep and I accept it but I would like to understand why they are doing so, what is their keep based on?. When I nominate an article I expect 3 possible results: the article is deleted, the article is improved, I am given an explanation of why I wouldn't have nominated that article and how the sourcing proves notability. Here I can't see any of these results happening. We are discussing if one single article. How many people had an article like this in their life? Bilion, I really can't see how in good faith one can say that this article alone proves notability. where and what did you find in the guideline that makes you suppose that one or 2 articles make person notable?. what I feel is that some people are voting keep basing on their personal perseption of this subject. when we deprecated pornbio we decided that porn is not a short cut to wikipedia. people of porn hav to show the same level of notability than the others. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 10:36, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you may want to take a break from your quest to delete articles in this area. The sources usually exist but for systematic discrimination do not pop in a plain Google search.
- LGBTQ content is typically discriminated against; there are leading national, regional, and locally-focused media which almost never are tracked by Google.
- Gay porn news is almost never going to show in a Google search without the exact website.
- Loads of mainstream, and gay-porn focused print media is not accessible online, but have done in-depth articles and interviews—which are certainly acceptable—have to found offline.
- When I look I see plenty of sources for Brandon. Gleeanon409 (talk) 11:14, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I found the following, although some are mere mentions, others do go in depth:
"Adult Star Michael Brandon | Gay | AEBN". gay.aebn.com. Retrieved 2020-05-13.</ref>

Jul 28; 2011 | 2 (2011-07-28). "Monster's ball". Dallas Voice. Retrieved 2020-05-13. ((cite web)): |last2= has numeric name (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)</ref>

"Porn Giant Michael Brandon Vows Comeback After Rehab Stint". www.advocate.com. 2008-12-12. Retrieved 2020-05-13.</ref>

Dec 8; 2011 | 1 (2011-12-08). "Slick move". Dallas Voice. Retrieved 2020-05-13. ((cite web)): |last2= has numeric name (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)</ref>

"SF gay men's group welcomes new executive director". The Bay Area Reporter / B.A.R. Inc. Retrieved 2020-05-13.</ref>

Gremore, Graham (2013-11-23). "Lukas Ridgeston, Mason Wyler and More: Five Awesome Adult Film Comebacks". Queerty. Retrieved 2020-05-13.</ref>

"Gay AVN". AVN. Retrieved 2020-05-13.</ref>

"Town hall addresses suicide, solutions". The Bay Area Reporter / B.A.R. Inc. Retrieved 2020-05-13.</ref>

XBIZ. "Michael Brandon Arrested on Drug Charges". XBIZ. Retrieved 2020-05-14.</ref>

"Coming up in leather & kink". The Bay Area Reporter / B.A.R. Inc. Retrieved 2020-05-13.</ref>

"Trick or treat!". The Bay Area Reporter / B.A.R. Inc. Retrieved 2020-05-13.</ref>

"The Last Dance: Nob Hill Theatre, SF's only male strip club, to close". The Bay Area Reporter / B.A.R. Inc. Retrieved 2020-05-13.</ref>

Lee, Byron (2014-01-01). "It's a question of breeding: Visualizing queer masculinity in bareback pornography". Sexualities. 17 (1–2): 100–120. doi:10.1177/1363460713511099. ISSN 1363-4607.</ref>

"Golden Dildeaux dish". The Bay Area Reporter / B.A.R. Inc. Retrieved 2020-05-13.</ref>

AVN, Mickey Skee. "Mickey's Quickies | Jerry Douglas' 'Deep Throat' Kicks Up, Lukas Ridgeston Gears Up, Plus Gay Gossip AVN". AVN. Retrieved 2020-05-13.</ref>

AVN, G. Zisk Rice. "Tony Dimarco Becomes a Raging Stallion AVN". AVN. Retrieved 2020-05-13.</ref>

"Gay AVN". AVN. Retrieved 2020-05-13.</ref>

XBIZ. "My Big Fucking Dick Michael Brandon". XBIZ. Retrieved 2020-05-14.</ref>

XBIZ. "GayPornStar.TV Announces Top 10 Male Porn Stars". XBIZ. Retrieved 2020-05-14.</ref>

"Frankie Knuckles, RIP". The Bay Area Reporter / B.A.R. Inc. Retrieved 2020-05-13.</ref>

AVN, G. Zisk Rice. "Tony Dimarco Becomes a Raging Stallion AVN". AVN. Retrieved 2020-05-13.</ref>

"Michael Brandon Sex Suite at Palm Springs Resort Opens This Weekend AVN". AVN. Retrieved 2020-05-13.</ref>

"‎Sex is Fun Podcast su Apple Podcasts". Apple Podcasts (in Italian). Retrieved 2020-05-14.</ref>

AVN, G. Zisk Rice. "New Raging Stallion Releases Hit Multiple Niches AVN". AVN. Retrieved 2020-05-13.</ref>

"Adventure travel". The Bay Area Reporter / B.A.R. Inc. Retrieved 2020-05-13.</ref>

AVN, G. Zisk Rice. "Michael Brandon Awaiting Felony Trial AVN". AVN. Retrieved 2020-05-13.</ref>

"News Briefs: HRC panel to focus on immigration, LGBTs". The Bay Area Reporter / B.A.R. Inc. Retrieved 2020-05-13.</ref>

Barrett, Rusty (2017-06-01). From Drag Queens to Leathermen: Language, Gender, and Gay Male Subcultures. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-987496-5.</ref>

AVN, G. Zisk Rice. "David Taylor, Austin Wilde Share Raging Stallion 'Man of the Year' Award AVN". AVN. Retrieved 2020-05-13.</ref>

AVN, G. Zisk Rice. "Raging Stallion Names Ricky Sinz Man of the Year AVN". AVN. Retrieved 2020-05-13.</ref>

"Meth-Head Michael Brandon Back to Porn?". Queerty. 2008-12-10. Retrieved 2020-05-13.((cite web)): CS1 maint: url-status (link)</ref>

AVN, Mickey Skee. "Mickey's Quickies | Daxx Reed Dead, Michael Brandon Back, Lana Luster Resurrected AVN". AVN. Retrieved 2020-05-13.</ref>

"MONSTER, INC.: Michael Brandon turns 40 with a new boyfriend, a new line of adult toys, and a hot ‘party in the rear.’ AVN". AVN. Retrieved 2020-05-13.</ref>

AVN, Mickey Skee. "Mickey's Quickies | Michael Brandon's Looking Good, Brent Everett Signs With C1R, Cody Kyler Attacked, Gay Gossip AVN". AVN. Retrieved 2020-05-13.</ref>

"Jason Sechrest To Host 'Porn Star Talk' at Stockholm Pride AVN". AVN. Retrieved 2020-05-13.</ref>

AVN, Mickey Skee. "Mickey's Quickies: The Best of the Past Decade AVN". AVN. Retrieved 2020-05-13.</ref>

"Latest News AVN". AVN. Retrieved 2020-05-13.</ref>

AVN, Tom Hymes. "Gay Porn Star Roman Ragazzi Dead from Reported Suicide AVN". AVN. Retrieved 2020-05-13.</ref>

AVN, Benji Featherstone. "Ragazzi, Cruz Tie For RS Man of Year, Brandt Bestowed With "Bigger Than Life" Award AVN". AVN. Retrieved 2020-05-13.</ref>

AVN, Rick Richards. "Ragazzi Outing Makes Mainstream Headlines AVN". AVN. Retrieved 2020-05-13.</ref>

Belonksy, Andrew (2008-10-03). "Sad". Queerty. Retrieved 2020-05-13.</ref>

AVN, Mickey Skee. "Mickey's Quickies | Michael Brandon's Looking Good, Brent Everett Signs With C1R, Cody Kyler Attacked, Gay Gossip AVN". AVN. Retrieved 2020-05-13.</ref>

"2013 Grabbys Held This Weekend in Chicago AVN". AVN. Retrieved 2020-05-13.</ref>

Han, Sarah (19 November 2003). "8 Days a Week". San Francisco Bay Guradian. Retrieved 2008-03-12.</ref>

AVN, Mickey Skee. "Mickey's Quickies | Michael Brandon's Inappropriate Behavior, Gus Mattox's 'Canned Ham,' Brandon Lee's Comeback Wish AVN". AVN. Retrieved 2020-05-13.</ref>

AVN, G. Zisk Rice. "Bad Boys on the Hudson Scheduled for July 11 AVN". AVN. Retrieved 2020-05-13.</ref>

Kliem, Mark (18 September 2006). "Porn Star Auditions". Lavender Lounge. Retrieved 2008-03-12.</ref>

Harrell, Ashley. "The Rise and Fall of the Monster". SF Weekly. Retrieved 2020-05-13.</ref>

2002 Grabby Award Nominees & Winners Performer Awards. Retrieved 2008-04-19. Archived 2008-04-30 at the Wayback Machine</ref>

"Jake Deckard Named Raging Stallion's 2007 Man of the Year AVN". AVN. Retrieved 2020-05-13.</ref>

2005 Grabby Award Nominees & Winners Special Awards. Retrieved 2008-04-19. Archived 2008-03-28 at the Wayback Machine</ref>

Keehnen, Owen. "MICHAEL BRANDON Interviewed by Owen Keehnen for the upcoming book STARZ". Retrieved 29 July 2012.</ref>

"Michael Brandon Signs on as Vice President of 9X6 Lube AVN". AVN. Retrieved 2020-05-13.</ref>

"FabScout Entertainment Taps Michael Brandon as Director of Live Events AVN". AVN. Retrieved 2020-05-13.</ref>

"RileyPriceless.com Celebrates Christmas Cocktails Wednesday in WEHO AVN". AVN. Retrieved 2020-05-13.</ref>

AVN, Mickey Skee. "Mickey's Quickies | Sharon Kane Discusses Porn History, Mark Dalton Dances, Porn Gossip AVN". AVN. Retrieved 2020-05-13.</ref>

>Van Iquity, Sister Dana (March 15, 2007). "Shamrockin' Shenanigans: Make Way For St. Patrick's Day". San Francisco Bay Times. Archived from the original on February 10, 2012.</ref>

AVN, Michael Stabile. "Michael Brandon Arrested, Battling Meth AVN". AVN. Retrieved 2020-05-13.</ref>

"GayVN Awards past winners". Archived from the original on February 19, 2009.</ref>

"Angelo Marconi, Landon Conrad Named as Industry's Top Performers AVN". AVN. Retrieved 2020-05-13.</ref>

AVN, Mickey Skee. "Mickey Rings in the New Year with Some Fresh Dish AVN". AVN. Retrieved 2020-05-13.</ref>

"Michael Brandon to Judge 'American Penis' Contest AVN". AVN. Retrieved 2020-05-13.</ref>

Grabby Awards Wall of Fame Archived November 17, 2007, at the Wayback Machine. Retrieved April 19, 2008.</ref>

"Pleasure Unveils Lineup for AVN Adult Entertainment Expo AVN". AVN. Retrieved 2020-05-13.</ref>

XBIZ. "Gay Industry Awards". XBIZ. Retrieved 2020-05-14.</ref>

XBIZ. "2010 Grabbys Awards Honors the Best in Gay Adult Entertainment". XBIZ. Retrieved 2020-05-14.</ref>

XBIZ. "AEBN Announces VOD Award Winners". XBIZ. Retrieved 2020-05-14.</ref>

"Chi Chi LaRue/Channel 1 Win Big at Fourth Annual Cybersocket Awards AVN". AVN. Retrieved 2020-05-13.</ref>

Cybersocket Wall Of Fame Award Of Excellence - MICHAEL BRANDON - "CyberSocketWebAwards". www.cybersocketwebawards.com. Retrieved 2020-05-13.</ref>
There are more but these should help meet GNG. Gleeanon409 (talk) 12:00, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gleeanon409: googling any porn actor name will yield many results (ofeten hundred thousands of results) but very rarely there are any suitable sources to prove notability. Now, if we can find a couple of good sources I am more than happy and the page is imporved, otherwise "probably there are sources" is not an good reason to keep an article (even if I read this reason more than once already, see zak spears). I don't agree that porn is censored by google, and there is no problem having sources not online (as long as they actually exist). Some of the article I nominatd have been online for years and if no reliable sources have been added so far I wonder if they actually exist. you suggest me to take a break from nomminating, just tell me if I am being vandalic or if I am breaking any wikiedia rule. I followed everything on before, before nominating and I think my nominations are fair but if I am doing something wrong I need to know. ps. if you answer me please ping me :-) . --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 14:12, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AlejandroLeloirRey:, I think you are doing something wrong as I just demonstrated. You looked at a poorly written, under sourced article and after some searching(?), assumes it couldn’t become a good or even great article as sourcing didn’t exist. Well it does. And most articles need work, hard research to find information in sources, then re-writing the article to incorporate them. It takes work, and time to do so, far more time than to incorrectly misjudge the situation. When you keep sending articles to be deleted, coupled with perhaps mistakenly misleading nominations, you’re swaying others, who may or may not be mature or wise enough to know where to look, to also make bad decisions. And we all lose when a notable subject’s article is deleted. Gleeanon409 (talk) 14:58, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gleeanon409: yes, may be I could do more research before nominating and I will do it next time. Still, if an article has been there for 10 years and the sourcing is poor there are little chances to find good sources. like i already told you the fact that a google search yields 10 thousand results, especially for porn actors, doen't tell much about notability. the fact that most of the article I nominated where cancelled and those which were not deleted where relisted at lest once tells me that my nominations where reasonable. I don't want to destroy the porn section of wikipedia but most of the article were accepted under different guidelines. 90% of the porn acotr bio that are now on wikiepdia would not be accepted if they were written today. I want to improve the porn section getting ready of all not notable bios and keep just the bio that are worthy to be kept. speaking of this particular article among all the sources you found, did you find some that definitely prove notability? --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 17:12, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AlejandroLeloirRey:, you cannot use the current state of the article to judge if a good article is possible, only sourcing and work can tell. You need to do a much better job at researching for sources, IMHO. Gleeanon409 (talk) 17:45, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gleeanon409: I am going to try harder. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 18:01, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AlejandroLeloirRey: I'm sure that you're right that 90% of pages in that topic area are not up to current standards. There are two ways you can work on that problem: by adding more to existing articles and making them better, or by deleting articles that are currently bad. I recommend the improvement project instead of the deletion project, because: 1) It will tangibly improve the amount that readers will learn about the subject. 2) Improving pages is something that you can do yourself, without taking up other editors' time. When you put articles up for deletion, it creates more work for other people. 3) You know from your experience with the Carlo Masi page that articles which look non-notable to some people can be built up to acceptable standards. When you try to delete rather than improve, you risk deleting notable topics just because of how it looks to you. Obviously, you are free to do what you want. I find that improvement is more productive, more satisfying, and better for the project overall. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:11, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Toughpigs: so far I did a lot of work on the articles but just not as much on the sourcing. I assumed that I would find most of the best sourcing already in the articles, especially because the articles are old. now, went trough those links that Gleeanon409 gave me and I found a few (very few) that are not that bad and even though most of the articles were not from reliable sources they all agreed that the subject was very important in the field (even though most of the articles where about his getting arrested again and again for drugs). I included those sources in the article (please check I didn't miss understand anything, you know my english is far from being good). Now i feel that he actually passes notability. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 18:41, 14 May 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Dickson (bassist)[edit]

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

I am nominating this page for deletion because I believe its subject doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. --Martey (talk) 01:36, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:13, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:18, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete No references and one external link dibbydib ^boop or _snoop 07:09, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A longstanding under-referenced article with some past WP:COI editing. I added one reference, a notice for a concert involving the subject, but neither that nor the other sporadic coverage found in searches is enough for WP:MUSICBIO. AllyD (talk) 08:40, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, many search results were about his local band playing local festivals. Caro7200 (talk) 13:35, 12 May 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:27, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Green Springs Ranch, California[edit]

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

Article was initially created as part of a mass creation of GNIS stubs. Later another editor added many paragraphs of detailed history of the property - residents, marriages, children, ownership changes, and other such things. I'm not seeing anything in here that indicates notability, as opposed to just run-of-the-mill WP:ROUTINE family history. I'm not 100% sure on this one, and maybe it deserves to be kept. I'm just not seeing anything in particular that differentiates it from every other ranch first established by a wealthy Gold Rush era settler. CJK09 (talk) 01:31, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CJK09 (talk) 01:31, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CJK09 (talk) 01:31, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think it's a notable ranch based on a newspaper search. Also search for "Dormody Ranch" as "Green Springs Ranch" became its name in the 1960s or so. Does need a bit of cleanup. SportingFlyer T·C 02:14, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; agreed with SportingFlyer, the article needs work but there are available resources. -- Zanimum (talk) 15:32, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While its just a ranch and they are not usually notable, I think this is an exception as it meets GNG. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 15:50, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Faiz Khan[edit]

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

Article contains no prose content. Infobox provides no obvious claim to encyclopedic notability. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 16:30, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 16:30, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:09, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It was hard to find because of the common name, but I did end up finding significant coverage in several Indian newspapers. I have added those sources to the article and created a lead. I don't know where the information in the infobox came from, however; maybe that should be deleted if it cannot be sourced. Ikjbagl (talk) 19:14, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I added some more information to the page to indicate why the subject is notable, with sources. Ikjbagl (talk) 22:13, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:07, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ~ HAL 333 19:59, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Er, the stated reason for nomination no longer applies! Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:07, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Russ Woodroofe:, This is one of the reasons why "x per nom" !votes are useless. This isn't a voting process (which the WP:NOTVOTE page explains well); it's supposed to be a discussion that tries to come to a consensus. Saying "delete per nom" is just confusing when (1) the article now contains prose content and (2) no longer has an infobox (when the complaints in the nomination were that (1) there was no prose and (2) a dubious infobox). I guess that raises the question: since none of the reasons in the nomination apply anymore, should this be a speedy keep under WP:CSK reason 1? Ikjbagl (talk) 16:24, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. The coverage provided constitutes about one SIGCOV, two short of the minimum. The BBC source seems to be about a different muslim cow-protection adovocate. Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:20, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete' not an encyclopaedia articleEasytostable (talk) 02:36, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep as an on-the-ropes WP:GNG pass, but the article still needs a lot of improvement. (Also, don't you just love the "DuttEmailEmailBioBioFollowFollow" error made from the 6th citation) dibbydib ^boop or _snoop 07:14, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dibbydib, could you list which of the sources you are counting toward notability? Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:43, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The Washington Post and BBC sources don't have so much to do with the subject. The Hindustan Times and Times of India sources are some significant coverage, but given that the dates are almost identical, this looks like common coverage of a single event. India Today's coverage is a little glancing, but ok. The Mangaluru source is a bit strange, and I have doubts about its reliability. I'm not seeing this as adding up to WP:SIGCOV. Moreover, I see little hope for the article to be anything besides a permanent stub. The difficulty in distinguishing between this Faiz Khan and others of the same name doesn't help. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 00:18, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With the exception of the Hindustan Times and Times of India, there isn't really any reliable coverage other than passing mentions and as Russ Woodroofe points out those are both of a single event. Best, GPL93 (talk) 23:02, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:24, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apex, California[edit]

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

Fails WP:GEOLAND. All of these places are non-notable names on the map along the Southern Pacific Railroad in El Dorado County, California. Extensive research including government documents, mining records, newspaper archives spanning 172 years, local histories, and other sources failed to turn up any significant coverage. CJK09 (talk) 01:09, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CJK09 (talk) 01:09, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CJK09 (talk) 01:09, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all These appear to be sidings on the Placerville & Sacramento Valley Railroad aka Southern Pacific Placerville Branch, a few of which still appear on a map of the currently-operating tourist line [36], but they don't meet GNG or any other notability standard. California Place Names labels these as "localities" and gives a location but no other information. –dlthewave ☎ 02:56, 12 May 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 draftify. There's a consensus that the content of the article needs a lot of work to fit the tone, although the notability does not seem much in question. bibliomaniac 1 5 03:31, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Community film[edit]

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

A conversation at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Community_film reinforced my concern that this is more of an academic essay than a notable encyclopedic topic. There are some mentions of the topic, but nothing that establishes its notability StarM 01:06, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. StarM 01:06, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since it runs afoul of WP:NOTESSAY in being "primary research on a topic" and not published elsewhere. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:27, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, there appear to be WP:SET results for community filmmaking, which looks like the same topic. However, this article is still problematic in compiling primary sources to advance a topic. In a way, it may have been ahead of its time, but Wikipedia needs articles that summarizes what secondary sources say about a topic. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:40, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It would be helpful to have editors capable of writing a grammatical sentence! "Wikipedia needs articles that summarize what secondary sources say about a topic."

Do not Delete since the article is based on already published primary research, community film festivals, conferences, books, reports, academic papers, stretching back 30+ years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.46.27 (talk) 21:27, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment IP 77 shared some insight on the Talk page, here, which I'm sharing for convenience. IP, there's no need to criticize others' writing. Typos happen. StarM 22:26, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the correction! Now it would be helpful to make a case based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. The problem with this article is that it violates WP:NOTESSAY in not actually summarizing secondary sources that talk about the topic directly. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 01:28, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Close analysis of COMMUNITY FILM reveals:

(1) It is not Primary (original) research; the article is almost entirely based on already published primary research, community film festivals, conferences, books, reports, academic papers, stretching back 30+ years; in support of this point there are 30+ citations. (2) It is not a Personal invention. COMMUNITY FILM does not advance any specific author or his/her interests. (3) It is not a personal essay as it does not reflect personal views of a specific individual. (4) There is no evidence of Advertising, marketing or public relations. (5) evidently community film is notable topic and term as it has been used for 30+ years. (6) It is a current topic, with 6,250 references to it on Google News (7) 1,340 books and articles discuss this topic, according to Google Scholar. (8) There is a strong link with another article: Community Media, an umbrella term for various forms of community exhibition, production, theory etc.

However, COMMUNITY FILM is clearly in need of further revision and development to take account of the most recent scholarship as mentioned on the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.46.27 (talk) 07:41, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion: Evidently the page requires some revision but does not fall foul of wiki guidelines TheoryofSexuality (talk) 17:02, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This editor, before their above comment, last edited four times in October 2017, and before that, October 2013; see contributions here. Hard not to see this as a form of WP:SOCK. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:51, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note IP 77, @TheoryofSexuality: it would be helpful if you can bullet your posts with * (as I've just done) as it makes reading the page easier. StarM 18:12, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh! Is it really 9 years since this article was first posted? I'd no idea it would cause such a controversy!

I'm humbled by the insistence or suggestion that this article is an original contribution to research. (If only it were that easy in Academia). Speaking as a researcher, it strikes me that the article is highly derivative, rather like a non-critical literature review of published research.
Nonetheless, the summary and paraphrase of various academic works still sounds judicious and neutral.

I concur that the article could (should) be revised; for example, it would be helpful to include more up-to-date references to pop culture, e.g. community film festivals and events. Also, there are several points where the tone sounds rather polemical. I can't recall whether that aspect reflects the source texts accurately.

I'm not sure how notability is being defined in this context, however, other than by a computation of academic citations, or Google metrics for News etc. On that score, it appears that the topic has increased in significance in recent years. This development is not surprising, given the rediscovery of community values and the meteoric rise of inexpensive digital media.

Sadly, two of the most recent academic books that survey this topic are priced so extortionately that they are beyond the budget of the general reader who perhaps does not have free access to a University Library. Filmpartscom (talk) 18:33, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question about notability, I think the issue is this topic not being specifically termed. For example, DeeDee Halleck is referenced in this article when her book is about community media, and we have numerous books about that. So her quote seems leveraged to build on this actual topic despite lack of a direct connection. As another example, The Video Activist Handbook is referenced to apparently define the term, but the reference does not appear to actually do that. Same with @ Is For Activism: Dissent, Resistance And Rebellion In A Digital Culture not having that term. So when this combines different references that do not actually use the term, it looks like WP:SYNTHesis. I think it's difficult to see the actual scope of this article when "community film" seems like a WP:NEOlogism. If it was a more detailed description of the scope, something like activism in filmmaking, a reader can understand that the article would address the overlap of these two scopes. I don't see a clear definition of the scope as indicated by the sources. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:23, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What's the difference between the TALK page and the PROJECT page? Is all the most pertinent information in the correct place?Filmpartscom (talk) 18:51, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your various thought-provoking responses

Despite having community media in the title, the book by DeeDee Halleck is almost entirely about film in the community.

You guys clearly do a thorough job putting articles through the mill! Who'd have thought there were so many pitfalls and challenges?

In response:

I'd be honoured if I'd invented Community film in 2011, but that's not the case.WP:NEOlogism does not apply: several contributors have pointed to the use of community film in connection with annual festivals in Canada since 1990 and the UK (2006-7), whereas various film books record articles on this topic from the 1970s. The article could be improved by referencing these^[1].

WP:SYNTHesis ??? Looks to me more like an attempt to be inclusive with a range of references, rather than relying on a single source, which would surely have been challenged as a weak foundation?

This is a positive suggestion: "If it was a more detailed description of the scope, something like activism in filmmaking, a reader can understand that the article would address the overlap of these two scopes. I don't see a clear definition of the scope as indicated by the sources. " --- someone could work on that?
Any any rate the proposed deletion appears to have motivated various people to dig up some useful texts that I was unaware of, and surely they ^[2]could provide a solid foundation for a much improved article? Filmpartscom (talk) 21:44, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Filmpartscom:: just to answer your question about Talk v Project, I think IP77 was having issues posting here, but all should be on this page. Also I just tweaked your "in reponse" so fix the alignment, the content itself is fine StarM 01:50, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks: StarM

Unfortunately, I'm not able currently to track down track down refs mentioned on the Talk page as all our libraries are still closed due to the lockdown, and a key book is unavailable online:

Earliest notable refs [???] to Community Film, e.g. Beattie, Eleanor. The Handbook of Canadian Film (1977). Second Edition: "Teachers and librarians may find the sections "Using Films" and "Film Publications" and the bibliography most useful. In addition to the category "Film Study," the following new sections have been included in this revised second edition: "Community Film and Video,""Native People and Film,""Political and Third World Films," and "Women in Film." "

It's notable that Halleck refers to community video in the context of community access to TV and the showcasing of community film work, which is a very different angle from practical techniques for community filmmaking (pp. 104-106).

Due to the coronavirus lockdown, I'm not able currently to contribute to any significant new version of this article.Filmpartscom (talk) 07:24, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is it notable that the British government (2013) assumed that there was already a legal framework for Community Film, when it proposed to deregulate the sector? See: Community film Exhibition: A Consultation (July 2013)^[3]

The legal framework is also evident here: Statutory Instruments (Great Britain), H.M. Stationery Office, 1972 - Delegated legislation - 25 pages ^[4]

Most of the earliest refs to Community film date from the 1970s: "In the technical areas, Third World Cinema and Clif Frazier's Community Film Workshop Council were training qualified apprentices and had placed a few with local unions to work on New York films. " p.14 (Black Creation, Volumes 2-6, Institute of Afro-American Affairs at N.Y.U., 1971 -). From the same source: "THE BUS IS COMING: Independently produced community film. A black Vietnam vet comes home and finds racial turmoil brewing after the death of his brother at the hands of a racist cop." (p. 56)

And also some references from the 1940s: "Organized cooperation, at the local level, seemed the best way to begin — and the community film council was on its way. Like any genuine grass-roots movement, initial local film council leadership varied widely from community to community ..." (Saturday Review, Volume 32, 1949, United States)

"COMMUNITY FILM NEEDS AND RESOURCES • HOW TO ORGANIZE AND CONDUCT COMMUNITY FILM WORKSHOPS • HOW TO ORGANIZE A FILM FESTIVAL • HOW TO CONDUCT A COMMUNITY FILM FORUM • HOW TO ORGANIZE .." (p. 137) (School and Community, Volumes 35-36, Missouri State Teachers Association., 1949) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filmpartscom (talk • contribs) 08:51, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

Nominator comment just saying that if this ends up deleted, it should definitely be draftified so the IP, Filmpartscom and others can workshop where the content should live. A couple of possible names seem floated above. StarM 13:46, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In summary, considerable evidence has now been presented for the historical provenance of the page title and for its notability in terms of popular and ongoing academic currency. Narrowing the title to "activist" potentially increases confusion as it exaggerates a political angle; likewise or "filmmaking" delimits the angle of community education/distribution of film which is essential to the term's use. Finally, I'd argue that this article and its title has the same status and legitimacy as the wiki article on Community theatre, and has useful analogues with Community Media etc. It is agreed that further revision would improve the quality of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filmpartscom (talk • contribs) 12:50, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not going to say that the topic of community film doesn't belong in Wikipedia, but I don't think this article does a good job of introducing the topic to those who aren't familiar with it. If the article is kept, I think it would benefit from significant reorganization and rewriting. The article needs to give a more detailed explanation of what community film is, such as describing how such films are made and where they are shown, before getting into debates about whether community film has the power to change society. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:36, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The creator of this article has supported it here by citing [37] as referring to a UK proposal to deregulate the "legal framework for Community Film". But that's about removing restrictions on community organizations to show films as long as they do so in compliance with the age restrictions applied by the film censorship board. Local organizations showing commercial films, including Hollywood movies, isn't what this article is supposed to be about. They also cited [38], which makes reference to "an application for the registration of a foreign film as a Community film" and "in Regulation 15(2) after the words 'British film' there were inserted the words 'or a Community film'". This appears to be a reference to the European Economic Community. In summary, evidence being provided here does not necessarily support the apparent topic that the article is supposed to be about. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:23, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ditch Camp Five, California[edit]

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

Fails WP:GEOLAND. A run-of-the-mill work camp along a mountainside drainage ditch in the Sierra foothills. The article is inaccurate - it's not a community and never has been. No significant coverage found in extensive searching through local histories, newspaper archives, government documents, mining records, and more. CJK09 (talk) 01:04, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CJK09 (talk) 01:04, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CJK09 (talk) 01:04, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage. Durham describes it as a locality. –dlthewave ☎ 03:25, 12 May 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:27, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gollum: How We Made Movie Magic[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBOOK. Only review I found was at [39], which is the website for bookseller Powell's Books. Not sure if that review counts as an RS, even if it does, we need more than that. An interview with the author by NPR [40] is essentially a primary source as does not demonstrate notability. Hog Farm (talk) 00:31, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 00:31, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 00:31, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 00:31, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Regardless of whether or not it counts as a Reliable Source, the link to Powell's website wouldn't really help establish notability, as there is not actually a review on the page. Its simply a copy of the publisher's official synopsis and about the author page. I have not looked for additional sources yet, but if there are none, then it should probably be used as a Redirect to Andy Serkis#Other work, where it is already mentioned, at the very least. Rorshacma (talk) 02:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no sources that establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:02, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:BOOKCRIT is pretty clear: neither an author interview nor a bookseller constitute independent sources. BenKuykendall (talk) 22:52, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete these don't qualify as independent sources and can't establish a neutral, reliable article. Jontesta (talk) 23:31, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Andy Serkis#Other work, not seeing independent notability, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:54, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not seeing any reliable book reviews or awards, so fails NBOOK. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:16, 19 May 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. And salt. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:28, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Capital com[edit]

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

Article about a non-notable company that fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Being just the sponsor of Valencia CF does not assert notability. It should also be worthy of note that the article was created by a single-purpose account who is now indef blocked after clear signs of UPE were noted. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 00:23, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 00:23, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 00:23, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 00:23, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it is very obviously been writen by a paid editor. and is not notable enough. also its sources seem biased. Clone commando sev (talk) 02:35, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We've been here before, though with the dot-com dot in the title, so this is a wool-pull that hasn't improved in the least in the last two years on anything. If a mod could compare this copy to the 2018 version, we could have a G4 on our hands; also, I know broadwayworld.com has questionable source notability at best for entertainment articles, but why are we sourcing an article with a circular press release from that site?! Nate • (chatter) 04:56, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I see Shirt58 (talk · contribs) said on the talk page that it doesn't meet G4 through their reading of the text...I still have removed the BR source though as utterly unintelligible. Nate • (chatter) 05:10, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I tagged this for notbility as I could not find a quality independent source that would meet NCORP. I didn't go for full AfD because the article implied it was the sponsor of Valencia CF (a major football club), however, my understanding now is that it is not the main sponsor, which is Bwin. Had I known that then, I would have sent it to AfD. Britishfinance (talk) 09:45, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too lazy to go look at the deleted version, but I doubt this version could have been an improvement. Subject lacks sufficient coverage to even think it is notable. And while I note the UPE possibility, I have seen some decent articles from paid editors. This is not one of them. Maybe someone less lazy could G4 it? --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 11:56, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Belay the G4. Ritchee333 already declined that. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 12:02, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, when you have new references that post-date the last AfD, than that is strong grounds for a G4 decline imho. Britishfinance (talk) 12:20, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was already acknowledged by Shirt58 a few days back that G4 was not appropriate, otherwise I might have tagged it as such myself. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:51, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt This is clearly not notable IMO. Especially since it is a shoddy recreation of an article that was also deleted for not being notable and has the same sources from it. It should be salted so we aren't just going through this again when it inevitably gets recreated a third time with an extra space or something. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:34, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt Non notable and recreation of a article deleted for non notablity 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 10:54, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't reach WP:NCORP... doesn't even make any steps towards it. Cabayi (talk) 15:43, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, and notability is not inherited from being a shirt sponsor of a notable club. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:05, 15 May 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. The "delete" arguments are compelling, and it is unclear what exactly Sariel Xilo thinks could be merged, or based on which sources. Sandstein 15:28, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Calendars in the Forgotten Realms[edit]

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

Looks to be completely original research. I can't find third party sources that talk about this with any significance. You could probably take a sentence a calendar, and attribute it to a primary source in the context of a larger notable topic with good third-party sources. Otherwise not notable enough to ever write a good article, about this topic by itself. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:13, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, what next, Tables in the Forgotten Realms? Thoroughly non-notable, as it is sourced in its entirety to a primary source and a Tweet it fails GNG. It also fails WP:PLOT, as it is written entirely from an in-universe perspective. Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:07, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I wouldn't call this Original Research, as I'm pretty sure most of the information here can be found in various official D&D sourcebooks. However, it certainly isn't notable either. There are really no decent reliable, secondary sources that discuss the concept in any way that would pass the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 02:11, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively to Forgotten Realms. Information like the current game year would be a useful addtion to the Dungeons & Dragons 5th edition section in the FR article. But I can't see how other parts (like the table) could be added in a way that would benefit the FR article. Sariel Xilo (talk) 03:49, 12 May 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) Sulfurboy (talk) 14:52, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Conan chronologies[edit]

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

Tried to address this article over many years and it cannot be fixed. This just isn't a WP:N notable subject because there are no reliable third party sources that establish this as an independent topic. The article is sourced to the author and his estate, and other self published sources from fans. It's at best original research cited to the primary sources, a synthesis of fan-generated theories about the order of episodic content. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:32, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 01:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 02:57, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NEXIST: I see two reliable sources writing about the topic of "Conan chronologies" as a topic of academic interest. The first one is a book chapter that's currently cited in the article:

"Conan the Barbarian: Transmedia Adventures of a Pulp Hero" in Transmedia Archaeology: Storytelling in the Borderlines of Science Fiction by Carlos A. Scolari, Paolo Bertetti and Matthew Freeman, Palgrave McMillan (2014)

This appears to be an independent academic work of literary criticism. I see another one here, which I'll add to the article:

Robert E. Howard: A Collector's Descriptive Bibliography of American and British Hardcover, Paperback, Magazine, Special and Amateur Editions, with a Biography by Leon Nielsen, McFarland & Co (2015)

This is also an independent work of literary criticism by a reliable publisher, and there is a specific discussion of Conan chronology on pages 88-90, including: "The issue of the Conan chronology has been the cause of a great deal of deliberation, controversy and dispute since 1973 when Kevin Miller was the first to question the validity of the Miller-Clark Conan chronology."

As decades pass, there is a moment for every popular fictional work where "deliberation, controversy and dispute" stops being considered "fan discussion" and starts being considered "literary criticism". This has already happened for Sherlock Holmes and H.P. Lovecraft, and it looks to me like Conan may have crossed that line around 2014-2015. :) I haven't looked deeply for more examples, but I think that these two are enough to indicate that Conan criticism has arrived. — Toughpigs (talk) 02:45, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the articles you're citing. They barely mention the chronologies. One doesn't even mention them at all. I might have missed it, but the subject of those is critical analysis of Conan as a character and a series more broadly. There's some verifiable material to write into a main Conan topic that fans spend time evaluating the sequence of things. It doesn't mean that you then add detailed lists from 7 different fan theories, only cited to primary sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that some of the early fan theories have been published by independent publishers, and are themselves a secondary source. The primary source is a Conan story. I agree that the article should be edited, with extraneous material cut down. Per WP:ARTN, the current state of the article content does not diminish the topic's notability. People can clean up the article outside of an AfD discussion. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:42, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of sounding harsh, if you cut the "extraneous material" -- the primary sourced material -- there wouldn't be an article left. Which is why I proposed AFD. But I'm also looking to build a consensus with editors who do see the issues. Where would you start, if you were to start removing the most obvious "extraneous" parts? Shooterwalker (talk) 16:53, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would start by making edits to the article and discussing changes on the talk page, in collaboration with other editors who are knowledgeable in the topic area. You don't need a deletion discussion to talk about cleanup. — Toughpigs (talk) 17:40, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I proposed the AFD because I suspect that once you remove all the primary sourced material you wouldn't have anything left. But I'm asking you -- if the article can be improved, I could genuinely use a little good faith feedback. If you see this RFC at the original research noticeboard, people were telling me to not even bother improving it, years ago. I've come around to their position, because I'm not seeing the improvement, including when I review the sources you pulled up. But in the interest of consensus-building, I remain very much open to seeing even potential improvement, even as small as a comment about what "extraneous material" means to you. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Toughpigs's work. Caro7200 (talk) 13:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above comments. -- Zanimum (talk) 15:35, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Definite keep. It's tiresome that this matter keeps coming up, despite having been retired more than once in the past. BPK (talk) 16:05, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, several editors have said on the talk page that this article is mostly a WP:COATRACK for primary sources, even if you include these alleged third party sources that don't actually engage with the topic once you read them. Most patient editors will try to discuss and give it time, but don't mistaken patience for "retiring" the issue. We've avoided AFD until now, but it's gotten to the point where people need to do more than say that sources hypothetically exist. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:33, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also respectfully, you've made these same arguments for years, as archived on the article's talk page. It seems to me they were adequately answered there, and I refer interested parties to that talk page. I see no reason to rehash the whole thing here, though, certainly, new evidence can be brought in (and has, I see). A consensus is being sought on whether to keep or delete the page under discussion. All prior comment I've seen reinforces my opinion it should be kept, and I have expressed that opinion, as you have expressed yours. Absent new considerations one way or another, rejoinders appear pointless. At this point I think we should just let other voices be heard. BPK (talk) 17:12, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page doesn't have an answer. It's a series of "no consensus" discussions. If anything, there was a consensus discussion at the original research noticeboard to remove the original research. But you reverted the removal of primary sourced material after the RFC was closed, and it was out of sincere respect that we re-open the discussion on the talk page. In the short run, you can see those circular discussions as a consensus to quietly improve the article, and I'm happy to hear from people who want to give it more time. But in the long run, eventually, the massive gap between the article and Wikipedia policy speaks for itself. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We are, of course, not in agreement. I'll leave it at that. As noted, it's time fresh voices were heard. BPK (talk) 20:26, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable article dealing with one of the best-known and most written about characters in fantasy fiction. No reason whatsoever for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:12, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Toughpigs.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:47, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge to Conan (books). This is really an odd article. I can't think of any other fiction that has a separate chronology article, and this article really stretches a few third-party sources into a really diluted primary sourced article. But AFD is not cleanup. And we know that any author with a sufficiently large bibliography can have a separate spinout article, if you look at the guideline on Wikipedia:Notability (people). If this were called Bibliography of Conan the Barbarian I doubt anyone would raise an issue. And that bibliography could add a short summary of the chronologies, which could turn the bibliography into a pretty useful table, sortable by year of publication or chronology (the properly sourced ones). Jontesta (talk) 23:22, 14 May 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:06, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Magic satchel[edit]

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

This article is mostly original research, really just a coat rack of examples noted by fans of fantasy and science fiction. There's really nothing to say except fiction plays fast and loose with how much people can carry. Other mundane things that fiction doesn't treat in a realistic way: going to the bathroom, eating, the time it takes to cross large distances, ending a conversation with a proper goodbye... They're funny observations to make, but articles are more than just a list of fan-observations linked to primary sources. There isn't any significant coverage in third party sources to write anything other than an indiscriminate list of examples. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:25, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:44, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 03:02, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it is one of those "THINGS THAT GAMES NEVER GET RIGHT!" posts/articles. it has to go. Clone commando sev (talk) 02:31, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This really does just seem like a large mixture of original research and synthesis. While the concept/gag of something being able to hold more than it should be able to is pretty common, and I do see a few articles describing the term as a "magic satchel", I am really not finding any sources talking about the concept in a way that shows that this is a widely accepted term for the concept. Additionally, we already have an article on a topic that does have sources, Hammerspace, which is basically the same concept. If there was actually any decently sourced information on this page, I would have recommended perhaps merging it to that article, but there really is not any. Rorshacma (talk) 02:28, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article seems to have an affinity for violating WP:OR, therefore it needs to go. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 03:10, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP is not TV Tropes. Even if we could document that the idea of a "magic satchel" was notable, examples would have to meet sourcing requirements of WP:TRIVIA and that would cut a lot. --Masem (t) 03:43, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hammerspace, since this is seemingly an alternate name for that concept it should be redirected there. Devonian Wombat (talk) 10:29, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- And then redirect that article, which is also fan-froth, to cartoon physics? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:12, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article lacks the sources to actually establish the things it claims.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:03, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems like an article full of WP:OR Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(You Asked?) (What I have Done.)} 16:45, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:SYNTH. While hammerspace is a similar concept, there is not much that can be merged._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:45, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and others. IceWelder [✉] 17:53, 13 May 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.