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) 00:10, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

J. Randall Price[edit]

J. Randall Price (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No indication of notability by either general or academic criteria. Professor at one of the lowest-ranked universities in the United States and only noted for until now fruitless research. There are no articles about the institutions carrying this research, which suggests they're not really notable either. Gabriel C (talk) 23:38, 8 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 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:51, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:51, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I don’t see anything that would make this pass WP:NPROF. The subject is a prolific author but I don’t see any critical discussion of his work. Mccapra (talk) 05:11, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. The subject fails even WP:GNG. A typical case of a biography text allowed to stay up through Wikipedia's past, lax policies. -The Gnome (talk) 13:09, 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 speedy delete. Page deleted by Jimfbleak per CSD G11. (non-admin closure) – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 13:53, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Nestorovski[edit]

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

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

Failed to meet notability ages ago, and I failed to find any new citations to bring it up to standard - multiple unconstructive and promotional IP edits, seems mostly to be used as a portfolio. Ed6767 (talk) 23:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:35, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:35, 8 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. Although there are three keeps in this discussion, StokesB has not advanced a policy-based reason and the other two have not advanced a reason at all. The weight of the argument is therefore with delete. SpinningSpark 23:27, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Angelina Green[edit]

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

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

This young singer appears to be a case of WP:BLP1E. She gained some news coverage in 2017 for being a contestant on America's Got Talent, but she was eliminated in the quarterfinals and has not had a notable music career since then. Particular weight should be given to BLP1E in this case since the subject is still a minor. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 22:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 22:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:36, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:36, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nominator, a search only goes back to a season of a talent show so yes WP:BLP1E in this case Joseywales1961 (talk) 13:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete coverage is too tide to one show apperance to rise to the level of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a talented up and coming artist with a solid social following and strong engagement, her involvement with AGT should be archived and her career chronicled in the pages of Wikipedia StokerB (talk) 00:08, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  This is the only contribution to Wikipedia so far by StokerB. -The Gnome (talk) 13:06, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Whether or not she is up-and-coming is highly subjective. Although she has continued to perform since competing on America's Got Talent, I needed to look at her social medias to find this out—none of her musical activities have been covered in independent sources since AGT, which is necessary to establish notability on Wikipedia. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 13:23, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Obvious misstep here in seeking removal. Momentum7 (talk) 07:43, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep what she did is set in stone — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.133.42.170 (talk) 09:26, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  This is the only contribution to Wikipedia so far by 94.133.42.170. -The Gnome (talk) 13:06, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Despite the brave efforts to prop up this text, its subject quite clearly fails WP:NACTOR and even WP:GNG. Which is why no evidence to the contrary is presented or found. Wikipedia is not a listing for all-inclusive information. The fact that the text has been curated mainly by a kamikaze account does not help, either. -The Gnome (talk) 13:06, 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. Sandstein 12:59, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mirror of Reality[edit]

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

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

Non-notable short film, all sources are reproductions of press releases, has no actual independent coverage, only showed in minor film festivals, per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 22:21, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 22:34, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 22:34, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete since subject blatantly fails WP:NFILM. A short film without any significant impact, mentioned only in listings and press releases. -The Gnome (talk) 17:49, 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. SpinningSpark 00:07, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At One with the Shadows[edit]

At One with the Shadows (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No evidence it meets WP:NALBUMS Tknifton (talk) 20:21, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:56, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - None of the sources are reliable per WP:NOTRSMUSIC. Even if they were, there's still not enough reliable sources for the subject of this article. 🌺Kori🌺 - (@) 05:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I even found some reliable sources which talk about the song: [1], [2] and [3]. The said sources, including the one from Metal Archives stated in the article, make the article good enough to pass WP:NALBUM. My vote stands. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 12:00, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Thebiv19 (talk) 15:27, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Thebiv19 (talk) 15:27, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NME & WP:NALBUM, seems promotional and lack notabilityLordofthesky (talk) 04:27, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

— Lordofthesky (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. - The user has made 7 edits to this point, six of them to 4 AFDs. - BilCat (talk) 09:08, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete since the subject fails WP:NALBUM. There is nothing that could validate an independent entry for this album. And the fact that the text was created by essentially a kamikaze account speaks for itself. -The Gnome (talk) 17:54, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NALBUM, Sources not that many or reliable. Album has no Top 100 ranking or awards. Expertwikiguy (talk) 18:07, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:17, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Tolba[edit]

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

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

per WP:BIO, no enough notability, no works or awards, just person known as a founder of a group was highlighted for very short period and no activity since 2013, all refs also are unreliable sources (you tube links - his articles - his company's website .. etc) Ibrahim.ID ✪ 22:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable activist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:16, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not all the sources are as User:Ibrahim.ID describes, but two short blurbs in The Huffington Post / Globe and Mail are insufficient. WP:ONEEVENT seems to apply here, and it's not clear to me that the event is even notable. Given that Costa Salafis is itself up for deletion, also proposed by User:Ibrahim.ID, I'm guessing not. Also notable is the lack of an Arabic-language article about either Tolba or his group...one would assume if he was still having a major impact in Egypt, this would not be the case. --Psiĥedelisto (talk) 22:06, 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 no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 18:38, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kobe (artist)[edit]

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

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

This article does not satisfy general notability guidelines or artistic notability guidelines. Of the 15 references, 9 are to the artist's own web site, 3 are commercial galleries, 1 is commercial, and 1 is social media. Google search on his name, Jacques Saelens, shows that he exists and uses commercial media; we knew that. Google search does not find any significant coverage by independent sources. The article is heavy on peacock language; trimming that out would leave a stub.

There have been a number of versions of this article with different disambiguators. The author changed Kobe (artist) to Kobe (Artist) because it "looks better", but contrary to the MOS. That isn't a reason to delete, but lack of notability is a reason to delete, and tweaking a disambiguator is the sort of editing where no amount of editing compensates for a lack of notability. The article says that the artist searched for beauty, simplicity, and purity, but the article's authors are not searching for simplicity or purity, which means something. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:05, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:05, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:05, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:05, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The best coverage I could find for on this artist is on Wikipedia. I trimmed the article in hopes of finding some decent sourcing underneath all those primary sources, but there isn't any to speak of. A search turned up very, very little.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:42, 23 April 2020 (UTC) changing to weak ke*p, see belowThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:33, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Hello, I am Albin Saelens, son of the deceased sculptor, artist Kobe (artistic alias of Jacques Saelens) and manage the website 'www.foundationkobe.com'. I would really love to keep this English wikipedia page about my father and would like to receive more information about what I should change in order to keep the page.

You can check on Christie's (https://artist.christies.com/Jacques-Saelens-Kobe--56826.aspx), Artprice (https://www.artprice.com/artist/303542/kobe), Artnet(http://www.artnet.com/artists/kobe-2/), Invaluable (https://www.invaluable.com/artist/kobe-hz4pe1my5u/), Mutual Art (https://www.mutualart.com/Artist/Kobe/11C6655FC263AD81),... that my father was an international recognized artist.

My father's sculptures are being cast at Fonderia Artistica Mariani (https://fonderiamariani.com/works/). This is a bronze foundry in Pietrasanta, Italy. Other international sculptors such as Botero, Hanneke Beaumont, Yves Dana, Igor Mitoraj,... also work with this bronze foundry. ((for the moment there is not picture of one of my father's sculptures mentioned on that page, but I have just asked to put a picture of a sculpture from Kobe on that page).

There have been already many books, catalogs, and one DVD published about him (see: https://www.foundationkobe.com/publications/) written in Dutch, English and French. Some of my father's works are shown in museums, such as 'Beeldengalerij Het Depot' in Wageningen, The Netherlands (https://www.hetdepot.nl/en/Kunstenaars/Kobe).

Some of his sculptures are part of a private collection (https://www.headquarters-katoennatie.com/en/the-bather-kobe) of one of the biggest Belgian companies Katoen Natie. His biggest sculpture (Arcade: 670 x 630 x 440 cm) is in a private collection in Canada.

I also work together with an English company named Vastari (they facilitate exhibition loans and tours worldwide) (https://www.vastari.com/contact). We are working on getting some more work of Kobe in international museums.

It is correct that my father has not been mentioned (as far as I know) in any English newspaper or magazine article. But there have been enough books and art catalogs published about Kobe, so in other words: I am convinced there is enough coverage about Kobe so that the wikipedia page does not need te be deleted. I do understand and I admit that I am speaking often in a "peacock language" (this is natural because I am his son). Please let me know what I have to change so that the page can stay online. (talk) (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlbinS (talk • contribs) 06:50, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AlbinS, the way to convince us of this is to say exactly which major collections permanently hold your father's work, and exactly which books and publications (in any language) talk about his work in any detail but are not produced either by his own foundation or by dealers trying to sell his work. All significant information given in the article should be verifiable from these independent sources. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 11:40, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. A quick search on my part (really nothing extensive) shows that a couple of his works are in major collections (although not the biggest national collections) and at least one of his exhibitions got dedicated coverage (though not many column inches) in a national newspaper. So I suspect he might just about (albeit narrowly) meet the relevant bar for notability. However, as set up now the page is a mess and I'm reluctantly inclining to deletion unless something more substantial in the way of independent sources is forthcoming. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 11:42, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I will do my best to improve this page (more independent sources, information about the collections that hold my father's work, and more information about books/articles). You will have to give me some time to improve the page. What time do I have? Kind regards, Albin (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlbinS (talk • contribs) 15:10, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @AlbinS:, you need to stop editing your father's article and use talk page requests instead, as you have a serious conflict of interest, being his son and also running a foundation that supports him. You can contribute your thoughts here, but not in the article. You also need to declare your conflict on your user page.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:26, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep with moreref tags on the page. I don't read Dutch, but it seems the artist is represented in museums and catalogs. The page has also been improved since the initial AfD nomination. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:09, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The fact that a biographical subject is an artist who has exhibited does not, on its own, provide the necessary support for inclusion in Wikipedia. -The Gnome (talk) 18:05, 15 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]

• A collection's website - they own the work and not just exhibit it. Then a magazine reference, and the rest, seems to add up to notability. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:22, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What you call "the rest" are actually more of the same. What we have here is an artist who has exhibited his work. He exists and has exhibited. We agree on this! But, on its own, this fact does not make him notable per Wikipedia's criteria. -The Gnome (talk) 22:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Subject fails WP:NCREATIVE and even WP:GNG. The emotional investment of the main curator of the article does not make this discussion easy but Wikipedia policy must prevail. The text possibly belongs in specialist publications; not here. This encyclopaedia is not a listing of haphazard information. -The Gnome (talk) 18:05, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems to be notable due to the fact that the works are in museums. Expertwikiguy (talk) 18:09, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the artist has exhibited his work in museums does not render him notable per Wikipedia's criteria. Same thing gos for authors who have been published opr film makers whose movies have been shown. -The Gnome (talk) 22:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete Exhibitions are not enough. If academics, magazines, etc., have not covered the artist despite the exhibitions, then the exhibitions are really immaterial. User:The Gnome is correct. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 22:15, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. I think this just scrapes through WP:N. Tableau seems to have a substantial article on him (although I can only see it in snippet view). The book Kobe: ingenious simplicity is co-authored by Kobe's son which detracts from its independence, but as far as I can tell, its publisher, Stichting Kunstboek, is established and reliable. SpinningSpark 00:53, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Changing to Weak keep, with previous d vote struck. This collection, turned up by all the free research above, is decent. Along with the other items found, it's clear that he had some amount of professional recognition, with some coverage and one good collection. It's enough. The son needs to understand that this page is not part of his advertising apparatus.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:36, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:17, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welove.audio[edit]

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

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

non notable music software, can't find any coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 09:45, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove does not meet WP:NOTABILITY, no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources found. XVDC (talk) 13:08, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:02, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:03, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:03, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:03, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-notable. The article is also clearly and advertisement. IceWelder [✉] 16:00, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The text's subject fails WP:NPRODUCT and WP:NSOFTWARE. Only a few crumbs of inadeqate evidence of notability exist, outside of the promotional blurb. -The Gnome (talk) 18:09, 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 comments about GNG failure are persuasive, and even other comments admit that most of the sources are passing mentions. Black Kite (talk) 18:38, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jagpreet Singh (headmaster)[edit]

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

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

Headmaster of a boys school. free of scandal and controversy. No claim to fame academically. In short fails GNG MistyGraceWhite (talk) 10:10, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as creator, the headmaster of The Doon School is always a prominent figure in India's private school sector. Given the position's stature, only proven and significant educators of the country are appointed to it. BahrdozsBulafka (talk) 10:20, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@User:BahrdozsBulafka notability is not inherited. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 10:27, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In agreement there, it is earned...as the article's subject has. BahrdozsBulafka (talk) 10:31, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@User:BahrdozsBulafka if he has earned it then WP:RS should have mentioned him in depth. They did not. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 10:41, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The mere fact that India's largest English newspaper considers it worth its while to report on the appointment of a school headmaster should give us some clues to its notability in India's education sector. BahrdozsBulafka (talk) 10:47, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@User:BahrdozsBulafka This is a classic example of inherited notability. They are reporting the appointment, not the headmaster. They will report the appointment no matter who is appointed; even if an orangutan is appointed, they will report that because the school is notable. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 13:20, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I agree with you in principle, however given WP:Systemic bias, things, people, orgs. often slip through the cracks on Wikipedia. This article is notable in the same vein as, say, Donna Strickland, a Nobel laureate who did not even have a Wiki article before she won the prize. No, I'm not drawing a parallel to the Nobel laureate here, but just illustrating the point that, often, a person's notable work in an extremely narrow field could be given short shrift for a long time (on Wiki, not the real world), and noticed only when they arrive at a major post or win a big prize. That shouldn't mean the post or prize alone is notable, and the person who won it is simply riding on borrowed prestige. After all, there must be a reason they won it... BahrdozsBulafka (talk) 13:44, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@User:BahrdozsBulafka Education, academia etc. Is not a narrow field. The existance of other stuff cannot be used as an argument or a rationale on wikipedia. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 13:49, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and that is not my argument here at all. You seem to have misunderstood my point. The nuance is about the narrowness of, for example, chirped pulse amplification, for which Donna won her prize, and in our case, distinguished educators in Indian secondary education. Not that "education, academia" as a whole is a narrow field, that's not what I wrote...Regards BahrdozsBulafka (talk) 13:59, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:25, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG, lacks significant coverage in reliable independent sources. XVDC (talk) 13:24, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - the article is part of a series and everyone that preceded it have articles of their own. like the other user said getting reported on in India's national newspaper says a lot about both the person and position. sources aren't abundant but likely are in other languages and India has a lot of them.Grmike (talk) 05:38, 1 May 2020 (UTC)grmike[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:45, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and comment - apart from the Times of India citation mentioned above, found another 2014 report (currently not cited in the article) in the national newspaper The Hindu reporting on the subject winning a "prestigious" award in education, and other passing mentions in The Tribune and another Times of India story (again, both not in the article). The newspaper sources hint at his recognition in the space before his latest appointment (well, to the extent a country's educator, no matter how illustrious, can be given space in a national newspaper along with subjects of politics, war etc.). Considering that in tandem with the news of latest post at Doon School, generally seen as the top school in the country, appears to satisfy the notability criteria. I also notice he was at another major Indian school, Mayo College (est.1875), for more than 20 years, and later became its vice-principal...In any case, the citations mentioned above should be used to further add to, and improve, the article, and see if there are more reliable sources that you might have have missed... FaithCharity (talk) 17:29, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment, and those links. I've now added to the article..Best, BahrdozsBulafka (talk) 17:08, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:ACADEMIC. - FitIndia ^{Talk Commons} 18:54, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable academic per WP:TEACHER and lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. GSS ^💬 06:36, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete since subject fails WP:TEACHER and even WP:GNG. The unacceptable argument about similar articles has made its typical appearance again. -The Gnome (talk) 18:14, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:09, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Liberal Part[edit]

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

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

This is the nth page created on a non-existent object, "La Parte Liberale del Popolo della Libertà" was simply the name of a conference held by Benedetto Della Vedova (see [4]), so this "faction" (so it has been described) never existed. I already know that the user who created this page will intervene to affirm that it was a relevant Italian faction, but that's a pity that its existence and its possible relevance will not be demonstrated. It is clear that the user has taken the name of a simple conference and on this page has made it a faction of a political party. And I believe it would be a pity if a page based on a completely false assumption was maintained due to the opposition of one or two allied users who don't give explanations... Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:38, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:30, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:30, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:31, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. No matter how small or short-lived, each and every party faction deserves an article. This is particularly interesting. --Checco (talk) 11:58, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Checco: Here too the same reasoning as for the Liberal-Popular Union is valid, you should prove that a faction with this name existed; the sources claim that "The Liberal Part" was the simple name of a conference held by Benedetto Della Vedova (it would be enough to read the sources). I found only two sources that refer to this "Liberal Part", and these two sources claim that it was only the name of a conference. A conference and a faction are two different things. And frankly I don't see anything particularly interesting or relevant on a page that merely lists its members (and the link of the source about the members is not even more active).--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:24, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Unfortunately also this time the user did not answer my question, it does not seem to me sufficient to say that the page must be kept because it is interesting, when the same user is not able to demonstrate the existence of a faction with this name or its encyclopedic relevance. In this page I only see the name of a conference turned into a faction and a list of members without sources...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 12:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is not even about a party; it's about a (small) conference trying to be a (small) faction within a (small) party, said conference-cum-faction being of a very brief life and leaving behind practically no grounds for notability. It fails WP:GROUP. Incidentally, we should get going with the WP:NPOL proposal. Nothing of legitimate interest here. -The Gnome (talk) 18:23, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per User:The Gnome; indeed, not actually its own party. "Conference-cum-faction" is incredibly witty by the way, bravo. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 22:19, 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 and redirect to Dubai Real Estate Corporation. Black Kite (talk) 18:43, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wasl Asset Management Group[edit]

Wasl Asset Management Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

It is not independently notable apart from its parent company DREC. Also, there are not enough sources available to pass GNG. Marcdenis51 (talk) 22:22, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:26, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:26, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:58, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Dubai Real Estate Corporation: The various references appear to be routine announcement coverage, which confirm this subsidiary is going about its business but do not justify an article distinct from that on the parent company. AllyD (talk) 06:41, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• keep and redirect - all of those partnersips and deals are officially with wasl. wasl is always named and is more likely to generate notability now and into the future.Grmike (talk) 15:43, 1 May 2020 (UTC)grmike[reply]

[5] - no mention of dubai real estate only Wasl. So in summary, keep wasl and redirect/transclude dubi real estate.Grmike (talk) 15:47, 1 May 2020 (UTC)grmike[reply]

• Keep The national, arabian business and gulfnews have multiple features with WASL in the headline and not just a mention. Construction Weekly lists WASL in its top 100 list. Infact, this page doesnt cover all the coverages well. Can be improved but GNG is easily established. Covidread (talk) 18:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is practically the only contribution by Covidread to Wikipedia. -The Gnome (talk) 18:40, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I am surprised to see that this article has been nominated for deletion!! A simple simple google news search can reavel its notability. I agree with Grmike that the parent received less coverage than the subsidiary, and can be redirected to this one. Here I have included some significant coverage Gulf News, Khaleej Times, Gulf Business, The National. - Thebiv19 (talk) 19:50, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I agree with Grmike and Thebiv19. This organization is notable to be kept and a section about DREC can be added to this article. Then redirect DREC to the section. Ivan hersee (talk) 13:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not a single one of the references is anything but a rehash of a company announcement and all references therefore fail WP:ORGIND. The references invariable start by clearly stating the the company "announced" something, no Independent Content just a regurgitation of information provided by the company. I've nominated the related company Dubai Real Estate Corporation for AfD just now as it also fails notability criteria for the same reason. Topic fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:56, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this highly promotional text about a company that possesses no independent notability. Most of what we have are advertorials, self published verbiage, and name drops. Subject fails WP:NCORP. -The Gnome (talk) 18:40, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, a promotional article sourced to press releases, passing mentions and unreliable sources. Fails GNG and WP:NCORP. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:42, 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:59, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Crik Nutrition[edit]

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

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

WP:TOOSOON. Sourced mostly to press releases/highly promotional and I can find little in the way of coverage - everything else is funding announcements and pr. Praxidicae (talk) 15:50, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been edited since nomination. See original article version.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:53, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Main Reason: In my research in the use of crickets as food and related companies, they are mentioned as the first to develop and produce such a product. Some companies sell similar but searches results show them doing so years later Updates: Spent a few hours sourcing first-source citations and neutralizing wording. Removed press releases, added many more reputable citations from newspapers, TV/Radio, and other well known publications.PolishGiraffe 20:06, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:07, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There is a claim of notability in the second sentence, about their being "one of the first companies in North America to develop and commercialize insect protein powder based on crickets". This claim is supported by two citations. The first contains the passage "Crik Nutrition is a new company with a one of kind product in North America;" the second contains the passage "Other companies that have created cricket-based food products include Crik Nutrition, which has formulated a cricket protein powder, and Six Foods, which has created cricket-based chips called Chirps." The claim is not firmly "we were the first" but "we were among the first". There is also the matter of an apparent change of sourcing which I've documented in the Products-section, and there might be a story there about sourcing crickets and making powder vs. sourcing powder, which would be an interesting strategic business shift if it could be established. I think this is on the edge of WP:TOOSOON, but I'd tip that over to acceptance based on anticipation of future emerging activities / information. It's worth noting that the number of firms involved in insect-based food production is substantial, meaning that Crik is by no means a pioneer in the field as a whole (see Category talk:Insect food companies); it might turn out that they are among the early movers in the supplement area - divorcing the form from the source (ala chicken nuggets :-) ). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:01, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There are 22 references listed within the article but not a single reference meets the criteria for establishing notability. Analysis of the sources as follows:
  • This case study by the Rural Development Institute formally acknowledges the participation of the company and states that all of the five participating companies provide "insight through inverviews". All of the information has been provided by the company and there is no "Independent Content", fails WP:ORGIND.
  • This from The Globe and Mail (Canada), this from Winnipeg Free Press and this from Kidesignmagazine are single mentions-in-passing that provide no information on the company, and therefore fail WP:CORPDEPTH
  • This from Edible Insects is a generic article on insect-based nutrition and doesn't even mention the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH
  • The next references are to articles based entirely on an interview with the owner. This from Metro News, this from MetroNews, this from Winnipeg Free Press, this from CBC, this also from Winnipeg Free Press and this from Futurpreneur Canada all fail WP:ORGIND as there is no Independent Content on the company.
  • This from the Whitehorse Daily Star is a profile on a different company, Entomo Farms, that briefly mentions the fact that Crik buys "cricket powder" from them. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH
  • This from Mens Fitness is an article on Protein and briefly mentions receiving a sample of insect powder from Crik. It provides no information on the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
  • This is from the "sites" section of Forbes and the long-standing guideline is that these pages are not reliable sources. Leaving that aside, the information in this article on the company is based entirely on quotations from the founder. Fails WP:RS and WP:ORGIND
  • This is a link to the company's Indiegogo campaign, fails WP:ORGIND. Similarly, this from Buzzfeed mention the crowdfunding campaign but don't add any information about the company, failing WP:ORGIND.
  • This from Innovate Manitoba eNews is a report on "Pitch Day 2015" where companies and founders pitch their ideas and doesn't mention this company. At the bottom of the page it has links to more news and one of the articles mentions Crik being featured as one of CNBC's 20 hottest startups of 2015 but the articles themselves have not survived. Based on what we see here, this source fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
  • This from the Global Entrepreneurship Network, this from CNBC's hottes startups (same article as this from MSN) are simply articles containing a company profile provided by the company. There is no Independent Content and these articles fail WP:ORGIND.
  • On page 50 of the Paleo Magazine it lists "Best 'Alternative' Protein" products and includes a photo and description of Crik Nutrition Powder. There is no information on the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH.

There is no doubt that this company received a lot of interest due to their unusual business but I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content. The test is not merely for "independent sources" that support a claim of notability about being "the first". The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content" is defined as content *about the company* which includes original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references meet the criteria, topic fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:55, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per HighKing's in-depth weapons-grade analysis of the sourcing. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:40, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, agree with HighKing's analysis: in summary WP:CORPDEPTH is not met. Would further point out that Forbes.com/sites (with "contributor" byline, which is the case here) is listed as non-RS at WP:RSPS. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:18, 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. I'll move it on my own accord. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:55, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Little Greek Restaurants[edit]

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

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

None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability, most are run-of-the-mill business announcements, fails WP:ORGIND and NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:36, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:46, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:47, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:47, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A chain of this size is quite substantial. It seems easy to find more sources such as this or that. Just needs more work, not deletion per WP:IMPERFECT. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • We need references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, not announcements and interviews. The Fox News reference is entirely based on an interview with the President of the Little Greek Fresh Grill (connected person) so fails WP:ORGIND. This from Tampa Bay Business and Wealth is also entirely based on an interview and fails WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:49, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Revert to this version. The current version of the article is overwhelmingly advertising, but the advertising aspects were only added in the last few days. It was a normal article before then. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the advertising content has already been removed, I am changing my recommendation to move to Little Greek Fresh Grill, the correct name of this restaurant chain. I don't rule out the possibility of a later AfD if we determine that there are insufficient sources to establish notability, but I would recommend dealing with that at a later date. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:37, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Revert to pre-spammed version. . . Mean as custard (talk) 08:57, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverting doesn't fix the lack of references that establish notability though. Can you provide any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability? HighKing⁺⁺ 11:49, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The subject lacks notability. A chain with 43 restaurants isn't that big to warrant an article. I see two sources mentioned in this discussion, both of which are passing mentions/PR fluff rather than something substantial. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 21:30, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Revert the current revision of the article is obviously problematic in its overt advertising, however the former version, despite having some flaws, could be greatly improved with cleanup and additional information. The previous revision does not lack notability, it meets the 4 criteria of WP:ORGCRITE, its sources discuss the food, growth plans for the business, and one even discusses the business owner's efforts to help students during the 2019-2020 coronavirus pandemic. some source information seems not to be used in the article, while other extraneous or non-encyclopedic information appears frequently, this can be changed.Grapefruit17 (talk) 15:34, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grapefruit17 Can you link to specific references that you believe meet the criteria for establishing notability as per WP:NCORP please? For example, in some of the sources you refer to above, the information is provided by company sources (usually the founder/CEO) in which case those references do not contain "Independent Content" (as per the definition in WP:ORGIND) and therefore fail WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:14, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • HighKing I see your concerns, however none of the citations are company-derived sources, the sources may include related individuals, but that does not render them invalid. I noticed that the company website is listed at the bottom so perhaps that's what you are referring to, however it isn't a reference. As for independent content, some of the sources do provide statements from various interested parties, however those are facets of the sources content, and never the entirety. When WP:ORGIND refers to content which is not independent it refers to the entirety of the source's material being derived of content from parties related with the subject matter. In the definition of independent content, the guideline reads: "Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject", something which many if not all of the sources demonstrate.Grapefruit17 (talk) 20:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Grapefruit17 which specific reference are you referring to? Please provide a link. You say some of the sources do provide statements from various interested parties, however those are facets of the sources content, and never the entirety but nothing in any of the sources that I can find matches your description. Please point to "Independent Content" in any article as you've described because nothing I've seen could be classed as Independent Content. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:12, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I didn't provide a link because I was making a general statement about all of the references. What I was saying is that none of the sources are entirely opinion nor statements from an interested party such as the owner, family members, or others related with the company. Since I established that the sources are not entirely opinion or statement from interested parties, and as a result include independent coverage within them, I then cited WP:NCORP in the following "Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject". In that guideline, it is established that if a reference is not solely made up of information from interested parties, and also includes substantial independent, reliable coverage, then it is not necessarily an invalid source. As for the references, since I will discuss them all, there is no point in linking them. The first Reference includes information from the owner, however the source also includes independent description, analysis, and opinion in a descriptive few paragraphs before quoting the owner, as well as in further independent content following information from the owner. The second reference doesn't include information of any kind from an interested party. The third reference, although short, includes independent information intermittent with quotations from the owner so it is still valid. The fourth reference follows a similar format to the third in terms of its distribution of independent and non independent content. The fifth includes a single block of text quoted form the owner, the rest is independent material. The sixth is practically identical to the third in format and independent material. The seventh source contains very little independent content so perhaps this reference is worth getting rid of, however other than this, every source meets the requirements of independent content as I described.Grapefruit17 (talk) 18:19, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thank you, so just the references within the article. For example, the first reference from QSR Magazine is PR in every sense and is it is clear the article was conducted by interview. My question would be "Where is the content in that article that is *clearly attributable* to a source *unaffiliated* to the subject, especially given that the article is littered with quotations and attributions"? Your answer implies a method of extracting all content which isn't contained in quotations or marked with "He says..." and saying this is "Independent Content". If this is correct, then this is where I disagree. Given the overall context of the article, nowhere does the writer state anything to be their own opinion or references other sources of information other that the person being interviewed - the article fails as a reference because nothing here is *clearly attributable* to an unaffiliated source - and on the face of it, the information has most likely and probably been provided by the company or by sources affiliated with the company. In my opinion. But I appreciate your opinion also. Thanks again for the explanation behind your !vote. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• comment the entire article has been created by a marketing company Mindspark under three different accounts, then an account under the business name made significant edits as well as an IP edit shortly before the account in business name was created. Graywalls (talk) 01:29, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first revision of the article was created by user Northamerica1000. In the article's current state, neither its entirety nor majority is of editing from the mentioned users with vested interest in the subject matter.Grapefruit17 (talk) 13:45, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, I did not create the article. It was created by a different user, initially on the article talk page as an AfC submission (link). I simply accepted the AfC submission, back in June 2012. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:32, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, could you perhaps kindly fix the history then, Northamerica1000, so that it shows who did actually create the page? I'm having trouble following the trail – you seem to have repeatedly moved it from one incorrect title to another, but that in itself should not have prevented the page history from being moved with the page, should it? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:36, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Justlettersandnumbers  Done. The history merge has been completed. Note that the origin of the article is now reflected in the oldest edits on the article page's Revision history. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:55, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I repaired it and added some updated info. Their web site shows 44 locations in six states, but I'm looking for a third party source to validate that. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:36, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Update - I found and added a substantiating source for the location count, along with coronavirus impact news to their history. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:22, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• weak delete QSR is an industry specific magazine with limited audience, so anything from there is reliable for facts but doesn't build anything for notability. In order to establish that a company has received wide general attention, or notable, under WP:NCORP criteria, it needs multiple, significant coverage in independent and reliable sources of wide audience. Organizations and companies have perhaps the highest notability requirements on Wikipedia, because, as you can see, they're most prone to public relations and advertisement purpose article creation. I don't feel this article quite meets the stringent requirements. Please see the article's talk page for involved editor names. Graywalls (talk) 06:04, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Leaning keep. There appears to be fairly decent coverage in Newspapers.com hits. For example, Linda Chion Kenney, "Little Greek restaurant chain eyes Lithia Crossing opening", The Tampa Tribune (August 13, 2014), The Brandon News, p. 6, giving three columns to discuss not only the expected opening of the 18th location of the franchise, but its "fast-casual" concept and its various specialties. BD2412 T 03:49, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both of those references are based on the company announcement of the opening of their 18th location in Valrico. The Brandon News is arguably not a large enough publication for significant coverage. Other publications also "covered" the announcement - for example this from Biz Journals mentions the planned Valrico opening in June as one of 4 projected openings and says agreement have been signed with four franchise groups and that construction had begun in Valrico. This from Business Observer also from June specifically refers to the Press Release but contains all the same information and quotations. Here's one from the Tampa Bay Times from September. Here's one from QSR magazine also in September. There is nothing in any of those references that meets the criteria of "Independent Content". HighKing⁺⁺ 15:52, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Looking at Newspapers.com, I see independent coverage:
  • "USF grad, restarateur, aims to build Greek-themed chain" by Ken Knight, Tampa Tribune (April 4, 2012): 16 paragraph article about the chain
  • "A Local Greek Revival" by Laura Reiley, Tampa Bay Times (May 30, 2012): 7 paragraph review
  • "Fast, casual dining with a Greek twist" by Richard Mullins, Tampa Tribune (July 15, 2012): 22 paragraph article
  • "New Greek eatery coming to Spring Hill" by Michael D. Bates, Tampa Tribune (June 6, 2014): 19 paragraphs

HighKing criticized a Tampa Tribune article above, saying that it was based on a press release. I don't think that restaurants have magic powers to get newspapers to print articles about every press release they issue. Newspapers regularly covered the growth of this chain over at least a 2-year period. The Tampa Bay Times review is definitely independent, because it gives Little Greek a pretty average review. — Toughpigs (talk) 01:27, 9 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 Evan McMullin. Black Kite (talk) 18:44, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mindy Finn[edit]

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

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

A big case of WP:BLP1E, not opposed to a redirect to Evan McMullin but she is not notable enough for a standalone article. She doesn't meet NPOL for being a running mate on a super failed campaign and the only mentions of her are related directly to the election, none of which are particularly substantial. This article has served little more than PR for her for several years. Praxidicae (talk) 20:59, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 22:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 22:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 22:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Even at the vice-presidential level, being a non-winning minor candidate is not an automatic notability freebie that guarantees the right to a Wikipedia article — to qualify for one, she would still have to pass WP:GNG on the depth and quality of her sourcing. However, this is far too dependent on primary sources and glancing namechecks of her existence in coverage that isn't about her, which are not support for notability — and while there are also a few sources that are about her, there aren't enough. Bearcat (talk) 15:30, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is nothing more than a promotional article. A failed VP campaign is not notable. Barrettsprivateers (talk) 05:09, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It seems like the criterion being used here is the success of the campaign, even though other VP candidates from independent/3rd party tickets maintain pages despite having done significantly worse and having nothing else of note to their name. Wikipedia in fact has a number of failed 3rd party VP articles, for example Ron Ehrenreich from 1980 to Lamont Lilly from the very same election as Finn's candidacy. Her notability also goes beyond her candidacy, Finn co-founded Engage with Patrick Ruffini (who has a page in his own right), founded a non-profit called Empowered Women, sits on the board of RepresentWomen and co-founded Stand Up Republic (which ought to have it's own page rather than redirecting). In short, she continues to be a public figure in the technology/politics/elections space, with work that includes several organizations which merit pages themselves. This article needs to be cleaned up and updated, but it merits keeping, given the historical significance and the ongoing work worth memorializing.Themanfromlamancha (talk) 16:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC) TheManFromLaMancha[reply]

No the criteria being used is WP:N and WP:NPOL. She has no sustained coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 16:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. An unsuccessful candidate might have attained notability for other reasons besides the candidacy per se, some unsuccessful candidates might clear WP:GNG because they got more substantial press coverage than other candidates did, and some of the articles about unsuccessful candidates that you've found might also be about non-notable people who should also just be deleted. There is no blanket notability for unsuccessful candidates per se: each candidate is evaluated strictly on the quality and depth and range of sourcing that he or she can personally show to support an article with, and not on any "if that one has an article then this one automatically has to have an article too" rule. So the fact that you're able to find other articles about other unsuccessful candidates does not prove in and of itself that this one needs to be kept. Bearcat (talk) 17:40, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't attempting to say merely that the article should stay because there are other such articles, but rather to point out more broadly that throughout the Wikipedia US Presidential election collection, running mates overwhelmingly have their own pages, even for independents and relatively small and unsuccessful 3rd parties. I've now looked back through the 1948 United States Presidential Election page to the 2016 United States Presidential Election page and the vast majority of VP candidates each election have pages, even when those candidates have done little else of notoriety. I provided the examples only to show that this is a consistent standard to have VP candidate pages, even for less well known parties and independents. But even aside from the candidacy, as I noted, there is plenty of other work ongoing worthy of inclusion.Themanfromlamancha (talk) 18:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The notability test for people is never just the things they did per se — it's the amount of media coverage they did or didn't get for doing the things they did. Bearcat (talk) 18:57, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Evan McMullin 2016 presidential campaign as McMullin's running mate and merge any relevant details about the subject/selection there. I am agreeing with Bearcat that there is just not enough sources supporting independent notability. --Enos733 (talk) 04:44, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:16, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IntSights[edit]

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

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

non-notable company--references show only existence and initial funding, so does not meet WP:NCORP DGG ( talk ) 20:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:49, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:49, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Launch PR does not indicate notability. Mccapra (talk) 03:08, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This is exactly why we have WP:ORGCRIT. There are plenty of references but they are press releases, brief mentions, or industry publications. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:13, 11 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 merge to Joe Biden sexual assault allegation. Once one discards the obvious one-edit SPAs, the comments that do not reference any policy at all, and the large number of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS comments, mostly about Christine Blasey Ford, there is a consensus that this should not exist as a stand alone article, but there is not consensus to delete it. Black Kite (talk) 18:50, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tara Reade[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)).

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

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

This article seems to run foul of WP:ONEEVENT. Ms. Reade's allegations are already detailed at length in the Joe Biden sexual assault allegation. There is no need to restate them here. This article should be deleted or merged into that article. This page was a redirect until today, that should be restored. Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:34, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:34, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Guideline page wp:SINGLEEVENT lists cases where sufficient independent coverage within reliable sources exists regarding individuals known mostly for one event, their thereby meriting treatment in their own biography. (Notes: Reade's biographical section was removed from the sexual assault allegation article due editors there's belief it's extraneous to event-article's focus. A merger discussion regarding Tara Reade and Joe Biden sexual assault allegation also has been initiated.)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:40, 8 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 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:49, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – This appears to be the sixth attempt or so to rename the Joe Biden sexual assault allegation article. Everything relevant about Reade is already included in the allegation article's background section. Also citing WP:ONEEVENT per Darryl Kerrigan. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 20:00, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:ONEEVENT and perhaps WP:SALT as well. She has no notability beyond the allegation. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 20:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge – No Notability beyond this one event. I checked the references section in the article, and this is what I found:
  • Ref 9 and Ref 15 – web archive of her own domain from April 2019; image-heavy CV-style page: "Non-Profit Consultant-Available for Projects"
  • Ref 16 – a 3-sentence bio at Women's Int'l Perspective from 2009, which mentions surviving domestic violence
  • Refs 1-8, 10-15, and 17-26 are about the sexual assault allegation.

Except for brief CV-like info, it is very difficult to find anything that is not about this event. Should be merged. Mathglot (talk) 20:24, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been noted on the Talk:Joe Biden sexual assault allegation page.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:BLP1E. Most of the content of this article duplicates the material in Joe Biden sexual assault allegation. The scant biographical information that is relevant to her sexual assault accusation and noteworthy can be merged back into that article, provided that there is consensus to do so on that article's talk page. - MrX 🖋 21:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as it stands, if you take out the "allegation of misconduct" section (which already has its own article), there's nothing notable about her. Classic case of WP:BLP1E. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 21:22, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Delete No notability outside Joe Biden sexual assault allegation. This page has been heavily discussed and there is not consensus to have a second article about Reade, duplicative of the allegation. Reywas92^Talk 21:23, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Reade was not notable before the allegation. Merge back to Joe Biden sexual assault allegation. petrarchan47คุก 21:24, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - changing because the delete arguments convinced me. 02:41, 9 May 2020 (UTC) Redirect - to Joe Biden sexual assault allegation - she is only notable because of the allegation. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:21, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and merge article Joe Biden sexual assault allegation into this article. I am reading "one event" and it tells: "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. The assassins of major political leaders, such as Gavrilo Princip, fit into this category...". Yes, indeed. To put it simple, is she famous? Yes, very much so. She claimed something outrageous (aka "notable) in spring of 2019. She did the same in 2020. Is it one event? I do not think so. A couple, at least. Saying that, probably the best solution would be to merge article Joe Biden sexual assault allegation into this article, not the other way around. My very best wishes (talk) 01:11, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saying a senator grabbed your junk 26 years ago is not as significant as killing a world leader, just a slow news month, cabin fever is rampant. Nothing she did in 2019 was notable, article arrived last month. Only noteworthy background to that one event, the rest. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:24, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, she is person notable for only one "event". However, this is not really an event, but just an accusation made by the person Therefore, I believe it is more appropriate to have this page about the person, rather that a page about notable, but questionable accusation by the person. My very best wishes (talk) 21:09, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Notable for one event. Article appears to be created in an attempt to rename or remove the Joe Biden sexual assault allegation article. Cjhard (talk) 01:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Article appears to be written to shift attention away from Joe Biden and towards Tara Reade. Reade is only notable for the allegation and is not notable otherwise. 2600:100C:B24F:7C9A:A082:6472:C500:175 (talk) 02:02, 9 May 2020 (UTC) — 2600:100C:B24F:7C9A:A082:6472:C500:175 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete - As I previously wrote at Talk:Joe Biden sexual assault allegation when not aware of the discussion here, "Tara Reade does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for biographies (see Wikipedia:Notability (people)), while the subject of the allegation does meet the general article criteria. That means we should stick to the subject and only discuss those parts of Reade's life that are related to the allegation by the body of reliable sources on the subject (see WP:BALASP). The rest of Reade's biography is not suitable for its own article." Zloyvolsheb (talk) 02:18, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per ONEEVENT, and per SPADE you can see from the talk pages of this article and Joe Biden that this is just a bad faith attempt to draw negative attention away from Joe Biden. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and merge article Joe Biden sexual assault allegation. Alternatively could go the other way (merge Tara Reade into Joe Biden sexual assault allegation). --The Cunctator (talk) 03:34, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. She is not notable enough to have her own article. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:40, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - (weak) It’s no longer ONEEVENT - there’s 2019 and then there’s 2020. Also, it seems like she’s made herself into a PUBLICFIGURE by seeking media reporting and giving interviews. The suggestion to merge the sexual assault article here makes sense, that one may be getting into BLP details. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:41, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - almost falls under the criteria for WP:ONEEVENT to the letter. Strip the allegations against Joe Biden out of the article and there's nothing left. Glen 10:39, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and merge to Joe Biden sexual assault allegation. -- Valjean (talk) 15:00, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and merge content from Joe Biden sexual assault allegation. The allegation article is full of content that exceeds any reasonable interpretation of its scope for that article title. This article Tara Reade can and should include all the surrounding information - background, her treatement by the media, the circumstances of the 2019 allegation and its reporting, and additional detail not related to the 2020 allegation. SPECIFICO talk 16:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural question to those !voting delete (tipp'dhat: "Wikipedia:Delete or merge") - Ought WP delete all unique content at this blp without merging any? – or ought it be anticipated that any of its unique content be merged?--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• See my comment above. I believe any content related to Reade in the Joe Biden sexual assault allegation article should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, with consideration of the body of reliable sources that focus on the allegation as per WP:BALASP. "Unique content" about Reade may be factual and verifiable but not suitable for inclusion. We can't just decide that we need to include paragraphs of her biography somewhere or other because we think it makes for good reading if Reade herself is not considered notable and if few, if any, sources about the allegation present that information. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 20:03, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Yet also, of course, per wp:SINGLEEVENT, it's possible for individuals to be considered notable for our purposes despite their primarily being so due to one event.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 20:16, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, as a practical matter, the choices before us include:

- A. - delete (eg/ Zapruder film [but no  Abraham Zapruder  blp]; [no  Rodney King  blp)

- B₁. - merge Joe Biden sexual assault allegation into Tara Reade (Cf.: Juanita Broaddrick; Karen_McDougal#Alleged_affair_with_Donald_Trump)

- B₂. - vice versa

- C. - keep (Clarence_Thomas_Supreme_Court_nomination#Allegations_about_sexual_comments & Anita Hill; Brett_Kavanaugh_Supreme_Court_nomination#Sexual_assault_allegations & Christine_Blasey_Ford#Sexual_assault_allegation_against_Brett_Kavanaugh)

--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 20:16, 9 May 2020 (UTC)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:14, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Per Mathglot, the only content unrelated to the allegation is essentially a brief CV. I do not believe that Reade's CV should be included in the allegation article, so I favor "delete" over "merge". userdude 20:14, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• You understand that means we remove the 2019 stuff, the story of her attempts to be heard, her off-topic discussions with people who did not mention assault when interviewed by journalists, and a lot of the "commentary" not related to assault. I think all that is significant encyclopedic content for a Tara Reade article. It's not on topic for the sexaul assault allegation. SPECIFICO talk 20:36, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• If by "2019 stuff" you mean her previous allegation of inappropriate touching, then it belongs in the Joe Biden sexual assault allegation article as background for the "2020 stuff" -- because it is discussed in relation to the sexual assault allegation by a lot of sources, it should go there. We should look to reliable sources for guidance on what to include. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 01:28, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that's greatly complicating the matter, however. Half of what's currently in the allegations article is really off-topic. In the Tara Reade article, all the circumstances and history would naturally come within the topic. SPECIFICO talk 02:34, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Reade's attempts to be heard and the "2019 stuff" belong in Joe_Biden_sexual_assault_allegation#Reade's_account and Joe_Biden_sexual_assault_allegation#Allegations_and_interviews_in_2019 respectively, and as far as I can tell it is already there. The "off-topic" content may be appropriate for a Tara Reade article, but per WP:BIO1E WP:BLP1E I do not believe having a Tara Reade article is appropriate. userdude 21:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC); edited 00:48, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm seeing a general trend towards keep in recent comments, so I feel the need to expand on my delete rationale. As other users have pointed out, this appears to be an example of WP:PSEUDOBIOGRAPHY. Applying the general test: the article appears to fail criterion 1; passes criterion 2; may pass criterion 3. The reason the article may pass criterion 3 is Reade's 2019 accusations; however, the 2019 accusations fall under the purview of Joe Biden sexual assault allegation. I am not dead-set on my delete !vote, but I have not seen evidence that the article passes criterion 1 of WP:PSEUDO: Do any reliable sources cover the individual themselves as a main or sole focus of coverage, or is the person mentioned only in connection with an event or organization?. The only example of coverage of Reade that is unrelated to Joe Biden sexual assault allegation is Mathglot's Ref 16. userdude 18:59, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep because I can only imagine the news articles after this article is deleted Red Slash 20:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL, or echoes of it. Mathglot (talk) 22:11, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not notable, and the one event for which she is covered already has an article. Einsof (talk) 22:48, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:ONEEVENT, as mentioned above Zoozaz1 (talk) 23:03, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. article effectively covered over at Joe Biden sexual assault allegation. Starzoner (talk) 23:16, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Guideline page wp:SINGLEEVENT lists cases where sufficient independent coverage within reliable sources exists regarding individuals known mostly for one event, their thereby meriting treatment in their own biography. There is ample precedent for this set, such as Christine_Blasey_Ford#Sexual_assault_allegation_against_Brett_Kavanaugh Barrettsprivateers (talk) 04:57, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:ONEEVENT and perhaps WP:SALT, until she gets her Fox “news” job. Gleeanon409 (talk) 05:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NPOV Your partisanship is not an argument to salt articles you find inconvenient 177.237.42.174 (talk) 16:49, 12 May 2020 (UTC)— 177.237.42.174 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Please don't make triggering comments about sexual assault victims. It's gross and makes wikipedia a hostile place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.168.189.62 (talk) 08:44, 12 May 2020 (UTC) — 67.168.189.62 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Moved to Keep and merge Joe Biden sexual assault allegation into this article, which has been transformed into a good biography. Gleeanon409 (talk) 20:38, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Merge per WP:ONEVENT. Volunteer Marek 08:53, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is essentially a redundant fork of Joe Biden sexual assault allegation. -- Netwalker3 (talk) 12:29, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify: this should be deleted without merging, because any merge attempt would inevitably overturn consensus on Joe Biden sexual assault allegation in multiple ways. -- Netwalker3 (talk) 04:44, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Consistent with WP:ONEEVENT and let's face it, allowing this article to remain is step one; step two will be merging the sexual assault article into this article which will divorce the name "Joe Biden" from the story. EdJF (talk) 15:25, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:ONEEVENT. Her role is very significant within the one significant event. Banana Republic (talk) 18:10, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm amazed by the double standard between this article and for example the article about Christine Blasey Ford, which was created at the time of Kavanaugh' sexual assault allegations. There's enough coverage within reliable sources to write a factual separate article. --Deansfa (talk) 18:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Christine Blasey Ford does not derive her notability from the accusation she made. To do so would belittle her professional accomplishments, being a notable person primarily for her work as a professor at a prestigious university. Mr Ernie (talk) 10:30, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Christine Blasey Ford absolutely derives all of her notability from the accusation she made, and the proof is that she didn't have her own article until she came out publicly with her allegations against Brett Kavanaugh. To keep her article but not Tara Reade's is a double standard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.237.42.174 (talk) 13:01, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would have been credible if the article was created before Kavanaugh's controversy. It wasn't. Christine Blasey Ford became a national figure because of Kavanaugh's controversy. --Deansfa (talk) 14:09, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you trying to imply that Ford is somehow objectively more important than Reade because of her social class? I think I am reading your comment wrong, but the argument I am hearing is as follows: even though Ford only became a public figure because of her Kavanaugh accusation (evidenced by her lack of page prior to then), because she is associated with a prestigious university she merits a page, unlike Reade who is a nobody and should not have one outside the allegations page. There are two things I see wrong here: first off, is the flagrant classism such an answer displays. It emphasizes that even though neither woman had a page prior to their accusations, the elite woman deserves to be acknowledged as a human outside of the case itself, while the non-elite woman does not. This leads to my second dispute with your post: the implicit idea that someone getting a page is a merit of some kind. It's not. You don't earn a wikipedia page. It's not "belittling" to not have a wikipedia page. The vast majority of people who do important work will never have a wikipedia page; it does not mean they are not important, it simply means that they are notable by wikipedia's technical definition. I'm a little disturbed by the implication that you think Ford doesn't deserve to be "belittled" yet Reade *does* deserve to be "belittled" because she is not important enough by your standards--which again, have nothing to do with notability, only social class.67.168.189.62 (talk) 08:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Though Reade may not have reached the level of national notability that Blasey-Ford has yet, it doesn't seem likely that media coverage of this allegation is going to slow down any time in the near future, and as such, details of Reade's personal life as well. I just don't see the point of deleting this article or redirecting it when it's very clear that there is becoming more and more to add to it with each passing day. Instead, what I suggest is that the article on the Biden assault allegation should be changed to an article about the various accusations of sexual misconduct he has received over the course of his political career, with the longest section being about Reade. 2600:1702:10A0:6DA0:D958:BA51:AC1A:8BAB (talk) 21:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC) — 2600:1702:10A0:6DA0:D958:BA51:AC1A:8BAB (talk) has made few edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Comment: I've previously !voted, but wanted to add that this article fits the definition of a pseudo-biography to a T. The brief #Biography section has 22 references (footnotes 8–29); have a look at them. Even for biographical detail apparently unrelated to the "one event", such as, say, "resides in Nevada County" (note 8), her mother's date of death ("2016" – note 16), or "testified as an expert witness" (notes 22 and 23) are all from sources about the Biden assault allegations. The only exceptions are SPSes, or CV-like mini-bios (e.g., "earned a law degree" – note 29, possibly also a SPS). Mathglot (talk) 22:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Absolutely Keep This is a story in current news and has been for a couple of months, particularly since April 8. To eliminate Reade's identification from wikipedia would do a great disservice to our readership, remember, the reason we are doing this. We should provide answers to questions like; "Who is this person?" Perhaps some Biden supporters would love to find excuses for this story to go away, at least until he can get elected. Step one, make the accuser / victim go away. Serving their politically based interests is not neutral. Blanking any content for political purposes is improper. Trackinfo (talk) 01:27, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The reader is already informed about who Reade is in the article on the Joe Biden sexual assault allegation. However, she is otherwise not a notable individual, and telling people about various unrelated elements of her private life, like where she lives now, is silly when Reade has complained about harassment and doxing. As Mathglot wrote above, we are looking at a "pseudo-biography" as per WP:PSEUDO. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 03:09, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• @Trackinfo: I assume you and everyone here votes based on their understanding of policy and guidelines. Did you really intend to spend the last four sentences of your Afd comment (starting, "Perhaps some Biden supporters...") ascribing partisan political motives to those who interpret the guidelines differently than you do? As someone who has 13 years and 100k edits, you're undoubtedly familiar with WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. And probably even WP:RUC. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 06:59, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• @Trackinfo: I have to agree an enormous amount of bad faith in your statement above. I assume following your logic that you're in favour of creating an article for every single Trump accuser? Assuming everyone here has a political motivation is contrary to WP:AGF. Glen 08:32, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, every Trump story should be told as best we can. That is our job. Personally, I don't like that these kinds of stories keep showing up about our politicians, but they do. We shouldn't report innuendo fabricated by bloggers. When it gets into major media, then we should report it. That is our policy. What I see is every time a legitimate story is durogetory to one faction or another faction, it is swarmed by partisans trying to hide it. Not just this article, most. Each time we give credence to these arguments, each time an article is deleted, we are allowing wikipedia to get censored. You encourage these political factions to hire operatives to do it more. Yes, 100K edits and 13 years, I have been fighting a long battle against censorship. Trackinfo (talk) 20:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• • Keep - For the reasons stated above (particuarly by Hodgdon's secret garden and DiamondRemley39). May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 14:37, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Further to my nomination above, I think this article may also run foul of WP:REDUNDANTFORK and that merging Joe Biden sexual assault allegation into this article would ignore discussions there and consensus against moving the article to include Tara Reade's name.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 03:35, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, she only known for this single event. Have article on event.--KasiaNL (talk) 07:51, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BLP1E. There has been no notability demonstrated outside of the allegation she made. Mr Ernie (talk) 10:30, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• cmt - For !voters unfamiliar with wp:ONEEVENT, please note that it reads "When an individual is significant for his or her role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both …. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified...If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Elizabeth Short is only notable for a single event, yet she has her own page. All the protests are being made in bad faith. Gruffbenji (talk) 01:40, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no article on Elizabeth Short, there is one on the Black Dahlia. And as that article notes, it is about BOTH "Elizabeth Short and her murder". Here we already have an article about Tara Reade's allegations, so it isn't really the same thing.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 02:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Shame on anybody who wants it deleted. That's right - I said SHAME. AllThatJazz2012 (talk) 01:52, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Gruffbenji:, @AllThatJazz2012: and Trackinfo. I would remind you all to WP:AGF. I would also invite you to reconsider your comments and have a look through the talk page and archives at Talk:Joe Biden sexual assault allegation to have some context about what is happening here. There have been numerous discussions there about starting a "Tara Reade" article, moving that article to a title which included her name (which was ultimately defeated) and the scope of that article. You are under no obligation to get involved there or to read the numerous and longwinded discussions there, but you might want to be careful throwing around allegations of "bad faith" and "shame" if you aren't prepared to do so.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 02:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Of course, re-naming the allegation article would only happen with a decision to merge it into this article. A merger the other way would not do so and neither would, per wp:ONEEVENT, keeping this biography as a companion article to it.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 16:43, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but as you well know there were also discussions about inclusion of information in a biographical section there which some editors cautioned could dox her or perpetuate a WP:POV, by including irrelevant details to suggest she was not being honest. That is one of the problems of a pseudo-biography whether a stand alone article or a section within another article. If this just becomes a place to talk about her different pen names (and suggest there is something sinister about that), engage in speculation about the meanings of her blog posts, air unverified cheque fraud claims, etc... well then this is really just a WP:POVFORK which might avoid some of the scrutiny that is taking place at Talk:Joe Biden sexual assault allegation. This is one of the reasons we are not supposed to make biographies for people who are only notable for one event particularly when there is already an article about that event. And probably why you were discouraged from doing this before you created the article.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:13, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - There is no point in deleting this page, None. Istandwiththesilent 04:56, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No point except for the fact that Wikipedia policy supports it. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:29, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - If Christine Blasey Ford has her own article so should Reade. Its well sourced and highly relevant today. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 10:59, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:ONEEVENT. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:31, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per TDKR Chicago 101 --Franz Brod (talk) 14:28, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note - There has been canvassing on Reddit here, as was previously noted by Zloyvolsheb in an edit summary.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 16:01, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also here: [6]. Ironically I'm a Chapo Trap House fan, and argued over a month ago to keep Reade's allegation from being disappeared from the relevant page, but a bunch of Chapo participants have come here to take up arms because we're all Biden supporters who make policy-based arguments in bad faith. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 16:12, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow Reading those threads I guess it explains all the random users and IPs that have come out of the woodwork with Keep votes and no actual reasoning beyond because. Glen 16:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Non-cogent arguments ought be discounted, including as well any !votes-for-deletion above inexplicably citing wp:ONEEVENT as a blanket proscription(!)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Joe Biden sexual assault allegation. None of her other life activities have been notable enough to warrant an individual article. Arbor to SJ (talk) 20:00, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - We have enough news coverage to make a good article on this person. In fact, this is a good place to keep material that was deleted from Joe Biden sexual assault allegation due to being peripheral to that topic. There is strong precedent on Wikipedia for including articles on alleged sexual misconduct victims with major media attention, such as Paula Jones, Juanita Broaddrick, Gennifer Flowers, etc...Worldlywise (talk) 22:05, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• In those cases we had no article dedicated to the event (each particular woman's allegation); instead biographical articles were created long after the accusations emerged. In Reade's case, this (pseudo-)biographical article was created after the article on the allegation, Joe Biden sexual assault allegation, was created based on the current news coverage and to avoid overwhelming the Joe Biden article. So, different situation. The Tara Reade article is essentially redundant, unlike the others. In addition to redundancy, that raises the issue of WP:POVFORK. If we had no article on the allegation, I would support a biographical article about Reade, but as we already have that article the appropriate step was to get consensus for a title change. That was suggested at several points but no consensus formed (see Talk:Joe Biden sexual assault allegation/Archive 5), so this additional article was created out of a redirect, bypassing the process that should have been used. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 22:45, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• By way of correction. Although to-date the present case involves solely inquiries of a journalistic nature, in the past when there have been some manner of formal Senate committee vettings (see Clarence_Thomas_Supreme_Court_nomination#Allegations_about_sexual_comments and Brett_Kavanaugh_Supreme_Court_nomination#Sexual_assault_allegations), WP includes both "event" entries along with companion BLPes of the accusers (see respectively those for Hill and Ford).--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:11, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Each biographical article is judged on its own merits in its own context. For example, Anita Hill is also notable for having been inducted into the Oklahoma Women's Hall of Fame; she has received multiple awards and an enduring prominence. So far Tara Reade's article is a pseudo-biography that repeats the information in the original article Joe Biden sexual assault allegation and adds some non-notable details that consensus has omitted from that article. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 17:33, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• user:Zloyvolsheb, consensus within each situation is determined independently of that within another. Citing wp:CONSISTENT, we see that inasmuch as other alleged victims-not-averse-to-their-becoming-public-figures (who've likewise received not just news but feature-article coverages by the Times, Post, New Yorker, Atlantic, and the like) have biographical articles, I agree with your "support of a biographical article about Reade," as well. Yet, citing wp:OTHERSTUFF, our support is able to be independent of whether editors at "Joe Biden sexual assault allegation" come finally to the consensus for basic biographical info about Reade's inclusion there.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:11, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Joe Biden sexual assault allegation. Not notable and only known for that article in question. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 00:08, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now per WP:BLP1E. It is sufficiently covered elsewhere and can be redirected. I don't agree with the WP:SALT suggestion. Depending on future events regarding the allegations, she may become more notable. Sundayclose (talk) 01:30, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• cmt Is the person notable per wp:N, wp:GNG? In only the case of her TV interview, according to The Hill[7]: .. [Megyn] Kelly's interview with Reade was picked up in 375 local U.S. news television markets and aired in 13 countries. It was shown by major outlets reaching a combined tens of millions of viewers including "NBC Nightly News," "CBS This Morning," NBC's "Today" show and Fox News Channel's "Special Report" and "The Five," as well as international outlets including BBC News in the U.K. and CNBC's "Asia Squawk Box." The interview was also covered in top publications including The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, USA Today, The Associated Press and The Guardian in the U.K. .. As for the contention that her biography "can be covered elsewhere," such essentially converts to !votes for the contents of the two articles' merger, inasmuch as that, at the present, there is no biographical section (nor mention of Reade's age, residence, education, history as domestic violence expert witness in court hearings, etc.) within "Joe Biden sexual assault allegation."--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:26, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per TDRK Chicago 101. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 21:53, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Christine Blasey Ford. cookie monster (2020) 755 04:34, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a policy-based argument. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:59, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rreagan007 I will strike my edit then, and come up with a better argument later cookie monster (2020) 755 18:55, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Joe Biden sexual assault allegation – my earlier argument was faulty. I do slightly agree with Worldlywise but after examining the Tara Reade article virtually most of it is about the allegation and not about who she is independent of the allegation. This leads me to believe this is WP:BLP1E which would better be served in the Joe Biden sexual allegation article. Though we have an article on Christine Blasey Ford, she is independent on her own for her academic work. cookie monster (2020) 755 18:59, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Joe Biden sexual assault allegation per WP:BLP1E. Only notable for that one event, no reason to have this seperate article that is essentially just a content fork. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:10, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge Reade is not notable per WP:SINGLEEVENT, though the Joe Biden sexual assault allegation is notable. KidAd (talk) 22:30, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. In my opinion, the intense coverage of Reade and her story merits an exception to 1E, per the multiple precedents mentioned above. The Joe Biden sexual assault allegation article is long (and presumably will only grow) even without Reade's biographical details, and readers are better served if this article is kept and improved, not deleted. Davey2116 (talk) 00:07, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This article allows us a proper space to explain items of Reade's biography that are critical to understanding who she is/might be, but which would have questionable relevance in an article solely dedicated to the sexual misconduct allegations she has made. This helpfully supplements the article about the sexual misconduct. People's understanding of these claims are better informed when they have information about who is making these claims. Therefore, it is of use to understanding the incident to provide a biography of the individual making the claims. Additionally, WP:ONEEVENT does not strictly rule against making articles about people associated with one notable event, it merely urges consideration and caution with doing so. SecretName101 (talk) 08:51, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the information truly is "critical to understanding who she is/might be", then it should be in the sexual assault article anyway, which would make this article redundant to that article and filled with non-critical info on a non-notable individual. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:10, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is my concern exactly. To understand the allegations one does not need to know that years afterwards she had a child, nor do you need to know about non-relevant/notable blog posts or essays she wrote. The long sections about the allegations here are already covered in the Joe Biden sexual assault allegation article. When you remove that whats left in this article is trivia about blog posts and details about her family, where she was born etc. If something is truely relevant to the allegations she has made, it should be in the allegations article. If it's not in that article, it is because rightly or wrongly consensus is currently against including it there. The solution to that is to raise it there, not to create a content fork.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 15:27, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the blp's summary of the subject's allegations are incorrect, the fix is to edit this part of the article. If items of her personal history are inappropriate, ditto. Blanket removal of biographical treatment from Wikipedia seems a roundabout way to address these issues. And if these type of things are content forks (dual treatments of an "identical" subject), WP will need to fix there being what's otherwise considered SUMMARY STYLE tree pairs, such as Zapruder film & Zapruder, Thomas hearings & Hill, Kavanaugh hearings & Ford, and the like throughout the project wherein companion articles either summarize or expand upon content within its partner upon a subject tree. Speaking of trees, a possible decision tree might go like this. Does wp:SINGLEEVENT preclude blp coverage of any individual notable primarily for one event, yes or no? If it does, then no matter what, there can be no blp. If it does not, then this question is no longer relevant. Does wp:PSEUDOBIOGRAPHY apply here? Same thing. If so, no go. If not, go to next question. Does the fact that there is a companion article on Wikipedia covering the event preclude there being a blp, yes or no? Same thing. Next question: Is she notable? Final question: Should there be two articles? (Zapruder/ Zapruder film.) Or, one? (Breonna Taylor's biogaphy being contained within the Death of Breonna Taylor and Neda Agha-Soltan's biography within Death of Neda Agha-Soltan; or else, the killing of Ahmaud Arbery's being contained within his biography and the beating of Rodney King within his, etc.)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:28, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I am not going to argue WP:OTHERSTUFF. Yes, I think she is only notable for one event which is covered elsewhere. Yes, I think this is a pseudo-biography. No, I am not going to try to argue about the irrelevant content at Talk:Tara Reade, because I don't wish to spend my time editing an article which should ultimately be deleted and restored to a redirect. If this article is deleted that would not have been a good use of my time.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:46, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Except, as I very clearly said Darryl Kerrigan, not all things important to understanding who the accuser is are directly relevant to the allegations themselves, which makes them inappropriate for the main article on the allegations, and thus the main article will inevitably provide an incomplete picture on who the person making the allegations is. SecretName101 (talk) 22:45, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

She is only notable for the one event. What information would be key to understanding a complete picture of the accuser and her allegations, but not be relevant to the allegations article itself? Do you think we need to know that she had a child after, that she has written some blogs? What information are we talking about here? Because I tend to think any information which is not relevant to the allegations (the only reason she is "notable") is a violation of her privacy per WP:AVOIDVICTIM and an attempt to bulk up a pseudo-biography.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:11, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete And merge with Joe Biden sexual assault allegation. She has no notability on her own. FollowTheSources (talk) 16:22, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge - Keep, or merge to Joe Biden sexual assault allegation. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:45, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable due to the amount of coverage. Also Wiki is supposed to be source of info for popular individuals and this person meets the notability guidelines. There is major interest in her at the moment as people trying to find out her background. Expertwikiguy (talk) 18:14, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: As others have noted, she meets the notability exception to the one event rule, and her biographic details don't really belong in the Biden allegations page. The fact that her biographic details have largely come from articles about the Biden allegations is irrelevant. I have written and contributed to several biographic articles on Wikipedia and have found many biographic details in news articles that weren't specifically about the subject of the biography. The tangential subject of the source doesn't make the biographic detail unusable. Tara Reade's notability is evolving with the extensive news coverage she has received, and more is expected up to the November election. Deletion discussions are premature at this time. After the election would be a good time to revisit keeping/merging/deleting. Websurfer2 (talk) 21:07, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep While Tara Reade has no notability on her own, she may have a impact on certain states in the upcoming 2020 United States Presidential Election. Besides, this has similarities to the Brett Kavanugh sexual assault allegations in 2018, and considering that Joe Biden is a major presidential candidate, and that Christine Blasey Ford, has her own page, it definitely makes sense to keep. For those of you using WP:SINGLEEVENT as an argument against, it was never ruled out, just needing extra caution. RedRiver660 (talk) 23:05, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• STRONG DELETE. (BLP violation removed). Napoleonjosephine2020 (talk) 04:37, 16 May 2020 (UTC)— Napoleonjosephine2020 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Merge to Joe Biden sexual assault allegation, zero notability of her own beyond the event that she came up with. What there is to say about her can be said at the allegation article, she is not notable as an individual. Zaathras (talk) 23:41, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Joe Biden sexual assault allegation, that is where all of the current notability of the article is coming from. Tara on her own doesn't meet WP:GNG Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 00:26, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BLP1E. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/what-74-former-biden-staffers-think-about-tara-reades-allegations Activist (talk) 17:00, 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. Tone 19:56, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Rae[edit]

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

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

Not enough sources exist to write an article of substance. I found one obituary. This article has been mostly unsourced since 2009. Vmavanti (talk) 19:23, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:55, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The article was probably created as a memorial in 2009. While a blog post and a brief mention in the Glasgow Herald obituary for George Kidd, who replaced him in the George Penman band, can be found, these are not enough to establish WP:MUSICBIO notability. AllyD (talk) 10:00, 9 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. Tone 19:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Buchanan[edit]

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

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

WP:BLP of a suburban mayor, not properly referenced as the subject of enough significant or substantial coverage to pass WP:NPOL #2. This is written like a campaign brochure, saying far more about the themes she campaigned on than it says about anything she did or didn't do about those issues once she was actually the mayor -- but mayoral notability hinges much more strongly on the ability to write about the latter than the former. And as for sourcing, other than one citation to the city's own self-published website about itself (a primary source which is not support for notability at all), this is otherwise referenced entirely to a community weekly hyperlocal, with no evidence whatsoever of any coverage in major media. As always, mayors are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist -- a mayor's notability depends on being able to write much more substance, and cite much better sourcing, than this. Bearcat (talk) 19:15, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:15, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:15, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. She is a non-notable mayor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:44, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:39, 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 redirect to Rat#Fiction. Tone 19:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wererat[edit]

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

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

Non-notable fantasy creature that fails WP:GNG. Mostly just a WP:OR example farm. Many of the examples given are not actually wererats, but anthropomorphic rats, such as the Skaven, as wererats would have to be therianthropes. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:40, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:40, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:40, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:40, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Ratmen, ratfolk, and wererats are very common in fantasy media but I'm not finding any reliable sources covering them. Dream Focus 13:43, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment At the very least, the article would need to be renamed and refocused, as the intro specifically talks about therianthropic creatures called wererats, where as many of the examples that then follows are just a collection of a bunch of random rat-related creatures that do not fit that definition at all, many of which are never actually referred to as "wererats". The current article is also mostly unsourced, and has quite a bit of WP:OR that should not be kept, regardless of the fate of the article. Perhaps this could be simply used as a Redirect to Rat#Fiction, with an added mention in that section of rat-like men being a common element in fiction, until some kind of general ratperson article can actually be developed with reliable sources. Rorshacma (talk) 15:30, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• REDIRECT to Rat#Fiction. I agree with Rorshacma's reasoning. Just redirect it for now and if anyone wants to use the information in the history of the article over there they can. Dream Focus 17:45, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete due to lack of sources. Bermicourt (talk) 19:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Better idea: move this to Rats in fiction (or perhaps Rats in popular culture), merge in the content from Rat#Fiction, and we will have more complete coverage of the general subject. BD2412 T 04:46, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Move: I wholeheartedly support BD2412's idea. I don't know how much there is to use in the cited book by Hall, but the thesis by Fusco features only one specific instance of a wererat in fiction, but talks about it as though a wererat should be well-known, without need for further explanation. That suggests to me we should have a definition on Wikipedia somehow. Daranios (talk) 09:04, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Rat#fiction. I don't see enough good secondary sources to support an independent article, but there's a good target there in context of a proper article. Jontesta (talk) 22:55, 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. Tone 19:58, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Darrell Mussatto[edit]

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

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

Suburban mayor without strong enough reliable source coverage to pass WP:NPOL #2. Although a prior discussion in 2014 closed as no consensus, Wikipedia's notability standards for mayors have evolved even further since then. The old idea that mayors are "inherently" notable, regardless of their sourceability, the moment the city's population was within striking distance of 50,000 (which was already on its way out in 2014, but still sometimes showed up at AFD anyway) has been fully deprecated -- and we're also now a lot clearer about testing the mayor's sources for their depth and type and geographic range, and not just counting their number.

There are nine footnotes here, but one of them is just a repetition of one of the others, so there are really only eight sources -- but of those, two are primary sources that are not support for notability at all, three are from a suburban community weekly hyperlocal, the reduplicated one is from an alt-weekly, and just two are from the market's main daily newspaper -- so only the two Vancouver Sun hits are even really relevant to whether he passes GNG or not, but one of them is just a piece of campaign coverage which mentions him without being about him to any non-trivial degree, and the other is just technical verification that he won the election. This is not enough coverage to make a suburban mayor notable enough for inclusion in an international encyclopedia. Bearcat (talk) 19:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable mayor of a place that is not even the most significant place in its metro area.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:36, 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. Tone 19:58, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confederate Hills, Maryland[edit]

Confederate Hills, Maryland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Per sources [8][9][10] this is a subdivision/housing development; they are not significant coverage to pass WP:GEOLAND2. Unclear what deprodder refers to as significant coverage because these certainly aren't. Reywas92^Talk 18:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 18:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 18:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• delete or possibly redirect to Sharpsburg. It's clearly just a housing development. Mangoe (talk) 17:45, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not pass WP:GEOLAND Lightburst (talk) 20:26, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Searches turned up a lot of real estate listings and not much else for this subdivision. Could not find anything beyond routine real estate listings and a brief mention in an article about development near historic battlefields; perhaps Magnolia677 can explain what they meant by "significant coverage". For what it's worth this seems to be a false positive. –dlthewave ☎ 12:28, 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 redirect to SGH Warsaw School of Economics. Sandstein 14:43, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Public Policy Studies[edit]

Journal of Public Policy Studies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Previous prodded by User:Randykitty. While I agree the journal is not notable and shouldn't have an article, I think it would be a lot better to merge to SGH Warsaw School of Economics than delete. Let's see if others disagree, if this should be deleted, merged, or kept. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:13, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:49, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:49, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• MergeRedirect to SGH Warsaw School of Economics. I agree that it doesn't look notable. Redirecting or merging to the publisher's website has been a successful alternative to deletion for non-notable journals in the past--basic facts, like existence, years of operations, etc., seem verifiable. But I advise being selective a redirect here. The section Journal_of_Public_Policy_Studies#Profile_of_the_journal looks like a possible copyvio of THE JOURNAL OF PUBLIC POLICY STUDIES publisher page. --((u|Mark viking)) {Talk} 19:21, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Update: XOR'easter has the right of it below--I should have thought of this before, but with a copyvio, this is an instance where it is better to delete and redirect. --((u|Mark viking)) {Talk} 20:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to SGH Warsaw School of Economics and provide a line or two of description there. The current version of this article does look rather copyvio. XOR'easter (talk) 19:25, 8 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 Deleted as G3 by Athaenara (non-admin closure) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:17, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Izana[edit]

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

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

WP:Teahouse#10 year old hoax?. I suspect this 10 year old article might be a hoax. Google searches don't turn up much and that seems unusual even after considering the obscurity of the topic. TryKid (talk) 18:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. TryKid (talk) 18:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. TryKid (talk) 18:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I could not find anything, even with a search of a large university library's database.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the only mention I could find is that this is related to a Mayan legend called Itzamna, not Incan. And the Mayan Itzamna is a god, not a creation myth. [[11]] Fails WP:GNG, and without any clearer cited connection, doesn't even warrant a redirect to Itzamna. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:09, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Assuming good faith (unlikely but possible) this isn't a hoax but a garbled misunderstanding of the Izanami and Izanagi creation myth (the Shinto equivalents to Adam and Eve), but that's a Japanese myth with no connection to South America, and we already have (for once, when it comes to a mythology topic) existing halfway-decent articles on the topic with actual sources. ‑ Iridescent 20:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No sources whatsoever mention this. Zoozaz1 22:35, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Subject qualifies as non-notable due to lack of sources/significant coverage. The only source is too unreliable to be used and I couldn't find anything else. Kori (@) 23:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I can see only one source--Vitalpantaryan (talk) 14:51, 10 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. Some opinion to drafting, but keep seems stronger. Fenix down (talk) 22:46, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Louie Barry[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:FOOTY, and was nominated WP:TOOSOON. No senior caps in professional football. If he doesn't get capped, the page won't have long-term significance. Ortizesp (talk) 17:18, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 17:44, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - meets GNG through sources such as this and this, and was subject of a disputed transfer between two big clubs, so has received additional coverage from that that separates/elevates him from other 'young prospects' who have had articles deleted. I also note nominator has not notified the article creator about this AFD, poor form. GiantSnowman 17:45, 8 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 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:05, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:06, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:06, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I agree with the above, several sources such as this one from Goal (one of the biggest sport websites worldwide) prove the article meets the GNG. The author also launched several proposed deletion without notifying any author... --Coco (talk) 18:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This player has received several pieces of significant coverage outside of routine match reports Seasider91 (talk) 19:22, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Draft I don't see it, feels kinda WP:ROUTINE and feel it should be returned to GS draft space. Govvy (talk) 22:19, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Draft per nom and Govvy --BlameRuiner (talk)
• Keep passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:57, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify I think this is a little bit WP:TOOSOON. Unlike the other prospect, I'm not entirely convinced Barry will be notable if he doesn't end up making the grade. The sources presented are either all related to transfers or are local to Birmingham. That being said, it's not far off. SportingFlyer T·C 18:32, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Birmingham is the second largest city in the UK - but sure, it's just local coverage... *shakes head* GiantSnowman 18:34, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Local coverage has nothing to do with city size. The article was written by someone who covers Aston Villa with regularity. If there's other non-routine, non-transfer coverage of him I'd probably change to keep. SportingFlyer T·C 18:38, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This source is clearly about the player as a whole, not only the transfer, IMHO. --Coco (talk) 20:00, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's mostly just covers the transaction IMO. Not every player who plays as a Barca youth is notable. SportingFlyer T·C 21:30, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are several paragraphs referring only to either his early life, his youth international career, his time at West Brom... --Coco (talk) 07:15, 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. Tone 19:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cem Bayoğlu[edit]

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

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

I was going to go through and remove all the unsourced fluff but that would leave the article with a single sentence and no claim to notability since it's all sourced to unreliable PR spam and black hat SEO sites. So tl;dr paid for pr spam. Praxidicae (talk) 17:04, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable photographer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete have a look at source #2, Gazette Vatan, which is indicative of the rest. One need not speak the language to understand the breadcrumb above the article headline: "Haberler » Advertorial Haberleri » CEM BAYOĞLU KİMDİR?", i.e. paid advertorial. examining the other sources, I suspect a large percentage of them are of the fake/paid variety.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:47, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I'm not finding that this photographer is notable. The sourcing is thin and does not constitute significant coverage. Netherzone (talk) 20:29, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Hello Praxidicae, John Pack Lambert and Netherzone... I created this page because I thought that artist had important works and was previously approved in another language on Wikipedia. I regret to read the comments about the article in question being advertisements. ThatMontrealIP Did you really check this artist, his works and what independent editors wrote about him? Sometime newspapers publish artist bios to increase their web site hits so, it doesn't mean that references are paid ad or whatever else. The person in question is an artist who photographs famous artists and his works are exhibited in many countries. Don't you think that people who produce permanent art works do deserve to be here instead of popular culture's celebrities who have took a role in a few TV series or movies and then suddenly disappeared? I hope you review this issue and your decision again because I really made an effort to write this article well. Respect & regards. Cerrenfly (talk) 01:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cerrenfly: republished artist bios and press releases do not count towards establishing notability, which is the measure we use to see if an article should be on Wikipedia. I did look very carefully at the sources. Not notable.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:26, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ThatMontrealIP: I don't agree with you but ok.

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. Tone 19:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Burdzy[edit]

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

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

I have sincere doubts that Miss Universe Great Britain is notable considering there are 0 reliable sources about her supposed 2017 win - in fact, all sources are blogs or otherwise unreliable sources (like black hat SEO) and as this is the only claim to notability, i can't see how she meets any inclusion criteria. Praxidicae (talk) 16:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete article lacks reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:29, 8 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. Sandstein 20:29, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

California 4th Grade Mission Project[edit]

California 4th Grade Mission Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The topic of the article does not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline. Iafisher (talk) 16:36, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Iafisher (talk) 16:36, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Iafisher (talk) 16:36, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not against a state-wide school project meeting GNG. But it seems like, with the present sourcing, this topic does not. I removed two truly irrelevant sources from the page: they did not even mention the project. The one remaining source https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/California-public-schools-mission-project-model-11953722.php is a local news site, which does not suffice. BenKuykendall (talk) 17:17, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge. I am not surprised that this may be deleted. But it does occur to me that it is a large bit of curriculum that millions of people have been exposed to, and the development of it, the controversies about it, and the way in which it was terminated would all be of interest to anyone interested in the development of school curriculum. Are there pages about curriculum development? Or about "Controversial topics in education"? For example, I am thinking of

• teaching about the genocide (or the "not a genocide") of Armenians in Turkey in the early 20th century
• teaching in the US about the Hindu religion (eg is it a non-theistic religion?)
• teaching of "pet projects", such as the requirement that one day of instruction in California schools include instruction on Portugese-Americans. This was sponsored by a Portugese-American legislator. And I am sure other states and countries have examples like this.
• curriculum not included in school, such as (in the US) how to vote.

Are there articles about the how the political or social guides or perhaps distorts curriculum development? RayKiddy (talk) 18:14, 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 speedy delete (G5, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Çelebicihan). MER-C 08:16, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Meet For Charity (auction)[edit]

Meet For Charity (auction) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Recently created article about a Russian charity which fundraisers by arranging paid meetings. The organisation was founded by a PR professional and all the sources are, well, PR. One source is a dead link and the rest are interviews and puff pieces. Notability is not shown and unless a Russian speaker can identify some RIS, I think this should be deleted. Mccapra (talk) 15:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 15:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 15:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I forgot to say it has already been PRODed and deprodded. Mccapra (talk) 15:57, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. Loksmythe (talk) 16:10, 8 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. Tone 20:00, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saahil Karmally[edit]

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

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

Non notable record producer & musician who falls short of WP:MUSICBIO & doesn’t satisfy GNG. A before search only shows announcement of his new music Celestina007 (talk) 15:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for those connected with music.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not a notable musician Spiderone 18:58, 9 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. WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Paradoxsociety 18:36, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Plandemic[edit]

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

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

This appears to be a trailer for an (as yet) unproduced film. One whose notoriety is due to recentism. I thus think this may violate wp:notnews and probably wp:crystal. Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (as substantial author) primarily because the level of coverage demands an in-depth analysis of this bollocks which is WP:UNDUE in the context of the WP:BLP on Mikovits, and in any case does not only involve her (though, to be fair, it is almost entirely her at this point, since we have no other content from the purported film). I'd rather delete the BLP, but that also has legs of its own due to a history of quite public anti-vax activism. Guy (help!) 15:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge to Judy Mikovits - the film is utter bilge, of course, but it has achieved enough significant coverage to be included in the encyclopedia, either as a standalone article or a component of the biographical article. Neutrality^talk 15:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't know. I hate Wikipedia to be on the cutting edge and this is the cutting edge. On the other hand, I think you'll have a hard time arguing that this truly is a case of WP:TOOSOON given the mammoth coverage that this thing is getting. jps (talk) 15:59, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It makes a change that a reasonably balanced article has been produced on an anti-vax subject ahead of the anti-vaxxers themselves creating a POV interpretation of it. -Roxy the effin dog . wooF 16:02, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Leaning keep - it's currently vaporware (so this is an entirely reasonable AFD), but it appears to be notable vaporware. Also a useful article for dealing with misinformation - I've already had well-meaning friends emailing about this shocking expose video that's only got BitChute left as a host because YouTube is in league with the forces of evil, etc. A merge into Judy Mikovits would also be fine - David Gerard (talk) 16:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  David Gerard, yes - Slatersteven is clearly on the side of the angels here. My problem is that this Mikovits is not a BLP1E candidate, but this amount of content (which seems to me to be proportionate given the amount of real-world commentary right now) would be excessive in that article. This is a - whatever the equivalent of BLP1E is for crank videos - "Videos that are notable for only one crank" - WP:V1C? - anyway, that. Guy (help!) 16:21, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  oh totally - David Gerard (talk) 16:46, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Reluctant keep is receiving media coverage (unfortunately) and agree with Guy merging with Judy Mikovits would be WP:UNDUE Glen 16:15, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's getting a lot of coverage right now. We can always revisit in a few months. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Whether or not to keep it as a standalone article can be addressed through regular editorial processes as the situation develops. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:25, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Bollocks, but notable bollocks. Alexbrn (talk) 16:25, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Alexbrn and Glen. Unfortunately, it being stupid and false doesn't mean it's not notable. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 16:35, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, yup, piling-on here, but it can't be stated strongly enough that this is notable conspiracy crackpottery. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:58, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Not only is this notable now, there is every reason to believe this will remain notable for a long time to come because it was released in the wake of YouTube announcing their new policy of taking down content which does not comply with WHO information. Someone clearly saw this as an opportunity to gain maximum publicity and it's worked. The media surrounding this is secondary sources, things like Decider.com, not just Facebook and YouTube. It's way beyond primary. It's not reasonable to merge with the PhD, as she won't be the only subject of the film, according to RS. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 17:05, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets the standard of The general notability guideline with substantial secondary coverage by multiple reliable sources.. Tutelary (talk) 17:11, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep sufficient independent coverage from independent reliable sources cited in the article itself. I sympathize with the nominators sentiments, but they are no reason to delete. Kleuske (talk) 17:18, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep snow falling. Subject of widespread coverage that included Washington Post today and lots more. Maybe just another Youtube controversy movie, but clearly meets WP:GNG. Someone should snowclose this. As noted above it is also encyclopedic as a notable example of youtube/facebook censorship during the COVID pandemic and useful to cross link articles. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep it was mentioned in the Washington Post, therefore it must be notable by the undeniable logic of Wikipedia's policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eternal Father (talk • contribs) 18:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Washington Post coverage means that this is at least immediately notable. Readers will be looking for more information about this, and we should provide it. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:24, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: There is coverage in the Washington Post, CNBC, Politico. Other sources can be added. There is coverage by Politifact, and Chicago Tribune. MonsieurD (talk) 18:32, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a snow keep, I myself doubt this will have any long term notability, but the community has spoken.Slatersteven (talk) 18:28, 8 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 merge to Reinado Internacional del Café. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:31, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reinado Internacional del Café 2014[edit]

Reinado Internacional del Café 2014 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

There is a terrible lack of sources for this article. Perhaps, we should have Reinado Internacional del Café, but not on every individual edition of the pageant. I was editing the article of one of the participants, and tried finding a reliable source to say she participated, and I couldn't find a single one. Rob (talk) 15:25, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Rob (talk) 15:25, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I'd probably be in favour of turning all the individual year articles into a single list article, featuring the winners and runners-up from each year. Most of the years simply have one reference announcing the winners, and that's it, or no references at all. A list would then at least combine the references. Richard3120 (talk) 15:47, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:32, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge all individual yearly articles into Reinado Internacional del Café. None of the current yearly articles demonstrate enough coverage of those particular events to justify their own articles but the series does. Merging would also bolster the notability of the overall pageant series by putting the sources in one place. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:01, 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.