Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 July 3

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 2 July	4 July >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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. There appears to be a clear consensus that, with the addition of the new sources, the article should be kept. (non-admin closure) Jack Frost (talk) 03:09, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fishdom

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

All references come from one website, the links to which are only accessible through Web Archive and appear to be press releases (see [1]). Other articles I found online are about Playrix as a company and only mention Fishdom tangentially. Since May 2020, there is a tag saying the article may have been the subject of undisclosed paid editing (diff [2]), but I cannot find any context for this. Overall, doesn't meet WP:GNG. Nanophosis (talk) 23:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Nanophosis (talk) 23:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Nanophosis (talk) 23:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ to Playrix. Agree on the non-notable assessment of the game, but it is one of their larger titles and is thus a reasonable search term. --Masem (t) 15:30, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep with the additional sources, but this still is borderline notability. --Masem (t) 21:21, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge as above. The context of upe editing is simple - it has been edited by blocked sockpuppets of blocked suspected undisclosed paid editors but you won't get any details as that would be outing, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:42, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well, I have found coverage at AdWeek [3], Nintendo Life [4] and Gamezebo [5]. I feel that in the worst case, this article could be tweaked to cover the whole series rather than one/first game, but with WP:THREE reliable sources that cover the subject more than enough... I can't say it's not notable. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:15, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have added all 3 sources into the article. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:36, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep changing to keep in view of the reliable sources above which have been added to the article so that deletion is no longer necessary, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 18:39, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:07, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ph1LzA

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

Contested PROD. The article lists two sources about the same event, one from the BBC and another from Mincraft.net. I managed to find two additional sources; one recently from PC Mag and another from Gamepur which lists him as one of the top 10 minecraft twitch streamers but only gives about a paragraph of treatment. I can't find any other sources, and they all seem to be about one particular event. I'm not particularly familiar with how the GNG applies to Twitch streamers, but it seems the subject may not be notable. — Wug·a·po·des 23:28, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article meets the GNG as far as I'm aware. Ph1LzA is quite well known in the entire Minecraft commmunity and competes in Minecraft tournaments with his associated acts, and they often have high profiled YouTubers and Streamers included in there as well. (MineCraft Championship) This page does NOT need deletion from what I can see about the guidelines, there are reliable sources posted, most of his own social media pages. Two articles from two high profiled media/game platforms. It has been peer reviewed by IanBealio (Wikipedia page made, told to Ph1LzA Ian confirming it's accurate and true.), who edited my grammar and is a close friend of Ph1LzA, which is hard to prove but people in Ph1LzA's community know that he is. I do not see why this page needs to be deleted when he is a note-worthy person. Ian edited my spelling mistakes/improved on the general grammar.— User:Muted Oreo 10:07, 4 July 2020 (CEST)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Wug·a·po·des 23:28, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. — Wug·a·po·des 23:28, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable person failing WP:GNG/WP:NCREATIVE with insufficient reliable independent in-depth sources. The BBC source is focused on WP:1EVENT and most content is by the person themselves. PC Mag source is better and less reliant on the single event, although there's a lot of reliance on person's quotes. The listicle article isn't in-depth. That gives marginal 2 sources that came about from one event, which is not enough for GNG. Being known or famous is not notability criteria. Article being factual or accurate is not notability criteria either. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 12:43, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Hellknowz said it best. Poor sourcing and doesn't meet notability by any means. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 04:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Weak sourcing at best, not much notability either. Only sources I found were just mainly single events. Eternal Shadow Talk 16:04, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable --Devokewater (talk) 21:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and we might want to offer a guideline for editorial clarity. There's a lot of these types of articles that are created when a YouTuber is mentioned in a longer article about the YouTube gamer scene, with one or two brief mentions. Then a bunch of WP:OR is added that is sourced to YouTube itself, effectively using Wikipedia articles as a type of promotion. This is a textbook example of someone leveraging the barest of coverage into an encyclopedia article for their promotion. Jontesta (talk) 19:16, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:26, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Darkwind (talk) 07:08, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edu Horton

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources, does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. The provided sources do not even confirm the listed filmography; if Horton had roles in them, they were apparently quite minor. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:53, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:53, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:53, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. my BEFORE also has shown no reliable significant mentions. The subject fails WP:GNG.Less Unless (talk) 13:08, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:27, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all and redirect.

Redirect Video Production Company to Video_production (too generic)
Redirect Cursed (Freelancers) to Freelancers_(TV_series)
Redirect Karate! to Karate (too generic)
Redirect Love Match Supreme to Freelancers_(TV_series)
Redirect Love Match Supreme Part 2 to Freelancers_(TV_series)
Redirect Circus Berserkus to Freelancers_(TV_series)
Redirect Power Outage (Freelancers) to Freelancers_(TV_series)
Redirect CrossFit (Freelancers) to Freelancers_(TV_series)

–Darkwind (talk) 07:14, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Video Production Company

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

This is not notable as the is not significant or reliable coverage. Fails WP:NTV and WP:GNG. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 22:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 22:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 22:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because because the following articles are of similar quality, subject, and authorship (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The News (The Amazing World of Gumball)):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete all Show is not notable enough to have a page for each episode. All the information needed for each ep is included already in the show's main page. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:14, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Redirect all to Freelancers (TV series). Redirects are cheap. CBS527^Talk 23:26, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would not recommend using a redirect in the case given the name of some of these articles. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 15:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No comment. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 00:42, 4 July 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Some Dude From North Carolina (talk • contribs) [reply]
Delete per nominator. I am generally fine with redirects but these articles should be recreated if they ever become notable. Pratyush (talk) 07:48, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect all to Freelancers (TV series) except for Video Production Company, which is too generic for any target other than Video production. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 00:33, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to Freelancers (TV series)#Episodes: The episodes are not notable enough to have their own page. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Freelancers (TV series)#Episodes; also do the same for the rest of the episodes. Each episode doesn’t have notability on its own. Eternal Shadow Talk 16:12, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Darkwind (talk) 07:28, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Homes Realty

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

Non-notable real estate company. Even assuming that their claim to be "nation's largest lake-focused real estate brokerage" is accurate, being "largest" (size? coverage? profits? I don't know) in a niche of real estate isn't notable. The co-owners have received a bit of local recognition. I was unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources. As for the sources in the article, they consist of:

the firm's official website
Underdog, which is a dubious site; their terms of use imply it's user-generated content, while their About says author Jason Navallo conducts interviews for research purposes, and looking at his books, my best guess is it's a marketing quid pro quo: businesses get an "interview" posted and Navallo compiles and resells them as ebooks
Mashable, STL News, and Boston.com are just general real estate articles with brief mention/quote from Phillips
Inc.com verifies on list of "top 5000" (not very selective or notable) (I added the ref to Inc.com, to replace the previous source, a press release)
Local recognition from Birmingham Business Journal Schazjmd (talk) 22:35, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Schazjmd (talk) 22:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT, WP:SPAM, WP:NOTWEBHOST, WP:MILL, and WP:NCORP. What a mess. "It says" is not a source - it is not even wrong. The turgid writing goes downhill into the lake from there. This is obvious spam, which might have been excused in 2003, but in 2020, everybody knows we are a charity and not a free web host for profit real estate companies. Claims that it's the biggest in a small market just show how run of the mill it is, and how it is not really a notable company. It reminds me of my Realtor who claims it has "the most exclusives in Cherry Grove". Bearian (talk) 22:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:55, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The CEO mentioned in the bottom of the article seems more notable then the firm itself, operating in a part of Alabama isn't notable. Oaktree b (talk) 02:24, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MER-C 10:00, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Erkin Sidick

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

The subject fails WP:GNG, with the only reliable source coverage consisting of brief passing mentions. The subject is a successful engineer, but falls short of the WP:NACADEMIC criteria with relatively low citation stats for his optics publications (eight with 30-131 Google Scholar citations, remainder in the 0-30 range) and an absence of evidence for satisfying the other NACADEMIC criteria, e.g. no major awards or positions (there are thousands of senior engineers at NASA).

Article recently had a contested PROD, and notability tags since 2014 placed by Discospinster. — MarkH₂₁^talk 09:18, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — MarkH₂₁^talk 09:18, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — MarkH₂₁^talk 09:18, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. — MarkH₂₁^talk 09:18, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Central Asia-related deletion discussions. — MarkH₂₁^talk 09:18, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:56, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Citation record is a little below the threshold for WP:PROF#C1 for me. Being an Uyghur engineer in the US is unusual and mildly intriguing but in-depth media coverage (more than just a brief quote in a wider story) would be needed for actual notability that way. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:13, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is better known as an activist for Uyghur causes rather than as an academic, so WP:NACADEMIC is the wrong criteria here. Sources in Chinese - [6] (in a substantial section that describes him as a dangerous separatist), Uyghur [7] (biography), and English [8]. Most of the other sources in various languages give short but sometimes more substantial quotes from him - [9][10][11][12][13], which collectively indicate some worldwide interest in his activity and therefore some degree of notability. Worth keeping as a voice for a victimised minority. Hzh (talk) 11:51, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if a Sina article (sourced from state-owned news media) nor Meripet exactly count as independent reliable sources for WP:GNG. The LAist interview is also on the edge of being a secondary source, since it is a "Meet __" type of radio interview. The other passing mentions and quotes shouldn’t count towards GNG. — MarkH₂₁^talk 12:08, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All Chinese news sources are controlled in some way by the Chinese government, so unless you want to remove all Chinese news sources, then the point is moot. In any case the independence in GNG refers to independence from the subject, which the Chinese government is. The point is still that Chinese news sources considered him significant enough to write about him. Some of the news sources rely on what he said, therefore they are not just simple quotes, but independent articles where the information he provided becomes the subject of the article. Hzh (talk) 13:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that it’s not exactly reliable, not that it’s not independent. News article coverage about the subject of his quotes still don’t constitute significant coverage about Sidick himself. — MarkH₂₁^talk 18:55, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is not in a list of WP:DEPRECATED sources. As far as reliability goes, it would be the same as any other news outlet in China. I have already given sources in Chinese and English, there are sure to be sources in Uyghur, e.g. [14] (a search at that one site turns up plenty of hits - [15]). I'm also pretty sure you can find it in other languages like other Turkic languages if you know how to search for his name. It is enough for GNG. The other articles on his quotes are simply additions, just showing that the wider world has taken notice of him. Hzh (talk) 21:02, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only a trivial mention and a primary source. This is a recipe for deletion (see WP:GNG)! P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 23:24, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How does WP:GNG, which includes this section, say that this is a recipe for deletion? Phil Bridger (talk) 10:40, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have added three more sources (one in English, one in Chinese, one in Uyghur) that are non-primary and with good coverage of the person. There are a few hundred sources in the Uyghur language, most of them just trivial mentions, but others are more substantial, and it requires time and effort to go through all of them, but there should be a few dozens of them that focus on him. Hzh (talk) 10:58, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Darkwind (talk) 07:29, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Gaffar Rony

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

The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. The sources used, including a book seller website, do not demonstrate notability. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 09:38, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 09:38, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 09:38, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 09:38, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've just blocked the article author on bnwiki for COI. User:Abdul Gaffar Rony tried to create this article multiple times back in 2012. I'd say delete and salt. ~ Nahid ^Talk 10:43, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:28, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Searched in English and Bengali and found no RIS. Mccapra (talk) 02:52, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Darkwind (talk) 07:30, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Libsys

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

Usage of Predatory journal, dummy 'Economic Times' (returns 404 error) references and serves WP:PROMOTION WP:ADVERTISEMENT only ~ Amkgp 💬 09:38, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 09:38, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Google News turns up nothing but blogs, name-drops, and blogs that name-drop the company (string: libsys), and the only references in the article are the company's own website and two whitepapers, of which I presume at least one of them is the mentioned predatory journal. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{2020's a bust; thanks SARS-CoV-2} 04:33, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:28, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, while the journal articles were promising, they are not available, so they can't be checked. The other sources are unreliable. --Ysangkok (talk) 23:04, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Darkwind (talk) 07:33, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SmartClient

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

Contested PROD: "No credible indication of importance; likely COI in creation of article, completely unsourced apart from to the company's own website."

Since the PROD, additional sources have been added; however, they are partner companies and UGC. None of the sources added are independent, and after conducting BEFORE, I can't find any reliable independent non-UGC sources that have significant coverage of the software. There's a couple of bits on "DZone News", but I think that's UGC (and I don't think it's SIGCOV either), and the only other significant mention I can find is two sentences in a book describing it as "a bit slow". Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 08:18, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 08:18, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 08:18, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 08:18, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, not significant and reliable coverage - too much UGC. --Micky (talk) 17:28, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:31, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 09:47, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no mainstream news coverage that I could find, and the name is very generic, making it harder. I don't think industry media like InfoQ counts. I like InfoQ a lot, but they cover a lot of stuff, Wikipedia shouldn't have articles for all those obscure libraries. --Ysangkok (talk) 03:54, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:28, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:31, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 23:28, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aggie Zed

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

Fails WP:NARTIST. Non-notable person. Graywalls (talk) 22:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 22:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 22:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 22:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet NARTIST guidelines for notability. Netherzone (talk) 22:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we have notability guidelines for artists. She does not meet them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:26, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Johnpacklambert, already said it. We have clear precise notability guidelines for artists & subject of our discussion doesn’t meet those notability criteria. Celestina007 (talk) 20:44, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - May not meet WP:NARTIST, but seems to meet WP:BASIC/WP:GNG. Multiple independant reliable sources, consituting in-depth coverage: Charleston City Paper, Our Coast, Art Mag Profile, Nashville Arts Magazine, and The News & Advance (VA). Samsmachado (talk) 04:42, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Per WP:BASIC "People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below". So not meeting WP:NARTIST is irrelevant if Zed meets WP:BASIC. Samsmachado (talk) 23:59, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss Samsmachado's sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:57, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:16, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"maybe" and not "is". It's not unusual for local papers to have detailed profile of exhibitors. The Cannon Beach source is a local paper talking in-depth about then upcoming local event. Same with Charleston. These routine coverage discussing exhibits for a traveling artist does not, in my opinion support notability. Graywalls (talk) 09:01, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GEOSCOPE and WP:ROUTINE are sub policies of WP:EVENT and not WP:BIO therefore have no bearing on BIO criteria or GNG outside of events. So "routine coverage discussing exhibits for a travelling artist" only doesn't support notability "in [your] opinion". Whenever possible support your opinions with actual policies/guidelines in order to have constructive AfD discussions. Bearing that in mind, the article plenty cites more than Charleston and Cannon beach (see my rational in previous !vote for some examples, see article itself for more), so should meet GNG regardless. Samsmachado (talk) 04:10, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, by opinion I have meant by my reading of the policies and guidelines. In WP:PERSON, it reads that trivial coverage "may not be enough" and whenever something is a "may" there's room for interpretation. The foot notes in the WP:PERSON gets into what's trivial. I would say announcement pages, or artist profile pages in magazines fit in the trivial category. Graywalls (talk) 17:46, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To quote WP:PERSON footnote 7: "Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry or a mention in passing ("John Smith at Big Company said..." or "Mary Jones was hired by My University") that does not discuss the subject in detail. A credible 200-page independent biography of a person that covers that person's life in detail is non-trivial, whereas a birth certificate or a 1-line listing on an election ballot form is not." Which of the sources are you questioning the credibility of? Because a profile (as in a written portrait of a person compiled by a party that is not Zed - ie. Art Mag or NewsAdvance or Nashville Arts or Charleston City) is clearly in-depth (ie. non-trivial). Samsmachado (talk) 18:12, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that those things are not trivial. They're just routine biography of the presenter that's about to host a show... in show announcements. It's not something written by unrelated people. They're written for the purpose of advertising the show as done for all the exhibitors/presenters. Graywalls (talk) 14:52, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Graywalls. That is literally not the definition of triviality (see my above quote and/or a dictionary). Triviality has to do with significance in terms of how much substance there is directly about the subject. It is literally a matter of quantity. You are taking issue with whether the sources are independant of the subject. (perhaps you are thinking these sources are alike to press releases?) I think your issue with the independence of the sources is semi-unfounded as plenty of the sources I have pointed out are from city papers, ie. not directly affiliated with galleries and thereby not even secondarily related to Zed. Also, re: the "may"/"maybe" qualm, almost every policy on Wikipedia is written in that form because the policies are meant to always have exceptions and encourage discussion. Hope this clarified things! (and sorry for not getting back to this for days) Samsmachado (talk) 04:36, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unfortunately does not meet WP:Artist or WP:Basic. The BLP has been mentioned on the Women in Red talk page. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:08, 7 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]

@Xxanthippe Per WP:JUSTA, could you explain why Zed does not meet WP:BASIC (ie. explain that there is not "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject"). Just trying to make sure this discussion is indeed a discussion and not just listing of policies, especially given that the first relisting was to "discuss" the sources I previously pointed out. (in the interest of transparency, yes, I did list this AfD at WiR because the double relisting hadn't garnered any discussion from editors not previously involved. as I said there, I don't particularly care which way people vote; I would be asking for more of a discussion from a keep vote too.) Samsmachado (talk) 17:29, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Advice sometimes given to newish editors of BLPs is go for the low-hanging fruit: i.e. avoid the border-line cases and write about people whose notability is so well established that there is no possibility of blowback as here. The border-line cases waste the time of editors and sometimes do harm to the subject of them. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:39, 8 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]

@Xxanthippe. Thanks for the advice. (I did not write the Zed article but I'm sure that editor would be happy to hear your thoughts. I myself am newish in terms of time on Wiki, but I have logged over 1000 edits mostly working on BLPs with WiR so I am well educated on policies. My advice: in the future, save advice for user talk pages unless it is explicitly relevant to the deletion discussion so as to not clog the AfD.) Could you please clarify your !vote as I asked before. Per WP:JUSTA and WP:ATA, deletions are discussions and you should contribute to them as such. Therefore avoid citing policies without justification and explanation. Apologies if you feel as though contributing to AfD discussions is a waste of time. Samsmachado (talk) 02:57, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons for deletion are given above. Please stop badgering editors and leave it to the closing administrator to assess contributions to the AfD. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:55, 8 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Keep Of all the artist listed here, I feel Aggie Zed has the most reliable secondary sources and meets WP:BASIC guidelines. I was impressed with her artwork, souces, and bio. I think the article could be improved with a photo and fix broken links. If I was looking for ceramic sculpture artists, I would learn something from this article. --Greg Henderson (talk) 17:37, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

requesting clarification I noticed the discussion on COI/N and I am wondering, do you personally know Aggie Zed or have any personal or professional relation connection with her? Graywalls (talk) 16:34, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Graywalls I do not know Aggie Zed but came accross her when reading this Articles for deletion page. --Greg Henderson (talk) 16:37, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Graywalls (talk) 16:39, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as non-notable, like many other Mitzi Humphrey creations. --Lockley (talk) 02:11, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 22:32, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

King Cup

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

I can't seem to find any source online regarding this competition. It seems that out of the 5 incoming links, 4 are for a different competition (Kings Cup (Saudi Arabia)) and one is just a general list article (Index of Cambodia-related articles). It also doesn't help that the editor who created this article and was basically the only one who worked on it edited only this and another page and was blocked a few months later. Unless someone can find any source for this, it seems like this is a fake article. Gonnym (talk) 22:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Gonnym (talk) 22:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. Gonnym (talk) 22:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't like deleting these types of articles but I cannot find any information on the event nowhere. SportingFlyer T·C 22:53, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:02, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of existence, let alone notability. Giant Snowman 12:06, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment could not find anything the Football cup compettion in Cambodia is called Hun Sen Cup as per RSSSF here.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:30, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You know what, the description in the article matches the end of season championship playoffs seen here. It's not a reason to keep or even merge, but it probably existed. SportingFlyer T·C 22:36, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of independent coverage Spiderone 07:46, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There seems to be issues towards GNG, there isn't even an article on the Cambodian wiki, so I am not sure how it helps on the English one. Govvy (talk) 13:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MER-C 09:55, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

V. Jayashankarr

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

Actor who only directed one film. Seems way too early for a wiki page. TamilMirchi (talk) 21:35, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 21:35, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 21:35, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 21:35, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable film director.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:42, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm seeing a couple of substantial pieces about the subject 1 and 2, and then there's reference to film he has directed. I don't think, however, those are enough for him to be notable enough for Wikipedia:FILMMAKER — Infogapp1 (talk) 11:22, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:10, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:DIRECTOR as notability of the only film directed by him Paper Boy is questionable (only trivial coverage by reliable sources) -- Ab207 (talk) 19:15, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:DIRECTOR and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:29, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MER-C 10:03, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vaania Kapoor Achuthan

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

Fails WP:GNG, and is clearly not a notable swimmer. Has never been named to a national team. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG; could well be notable in the future but WP:TOOSOON for an article Spiderone 09:08, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:09, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:09, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this 19-year-old is not yet a notable swimmer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:06, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She's good, but it's too early in her career yet to establish notability. Sub-national winner isn't important enough. Oaktree b (talk) 02:28, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:13, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeshiva Tiferes Yisroel

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

I haven't been able to find anything in the way of WP:RS, and I'm not ecstatic about having matzav.com as the primary source. Unless schools are automatically considered notable, I don't really see this article as conforming to WP:GNG. There was a similar AFD in the past about Yeshiva Torah Temimah, but I think the consensus there to keep was largely motivated by the controversy surrounding the institution. In the absence of that, I don't think there is reason to keep. Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 15:59, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 15:59, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 15:59, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 15:59, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - what little remains of any presumption of notability for secondary schools is based on assumptions about sourcing that focus on a school's position in the wider community. Yeshiva are very different than most parochial schools in that they have no interest in being part of the wider community. Article fails NORG, and it's very doubtful that will ever change. John from Idegon (talk) 20:38, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Noting that we don’t ordinarily merge unsourced content to another article. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:13, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Baugh

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

Not notable. This article was supposed to be merged a little while ago, but I guess that never happened. No refs. Subject does not deserve an article. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 22:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 22:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 22:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 22:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can’t see anything notable about this. Mccapra (talk) 02:55, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Republic of Molossia, should still be merged with the micronation's article. Bingobro (Chat) 10:51, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Just because someone engages in antics to claim their house is an independent nation does not make it so. All the more so when they still pay property taxes and continue to recognize the local authority, and have not even gotten a small modicum of coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:58, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Totally non notable. --Devokewater (talk) 21:51, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Possible cross-wiki spam. I recall someone tried to create an article about the subject on SW and the consensus was to have it merged with the nation. — Infogapp1 (talk) 23:41, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:15, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Cope

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

I failed to find significant coverage in RS. The subject fails WP:GNG Less Unless (talk) 13:55, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 13:55, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 13:55, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Poor references -- may not be notable. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contributions) 16:04, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Added more refs. Meets wp:bio 1.The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times. Redhouse Children book of the Year is a notable award. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 17:31, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, the Red House Children's Book Award is a notable award, but the article on the award is very badly sourced. Someone had even vandalized the title of Cope's award-winning book. Nonetheless, I am not sure that winning that award (in a sub-category, not overall) is sufficient for notability, absent some decent coverage of Andy Cope. I have found passing mentions of him as a best-selling author and as the founder of "The Art of Being Brilliant", but no independent significant coverage. If that cannot be found, I do not believe he meets minimum standards. --Bejnar (talk) 22:43, 27 June 2020 (UTC) --Bejnar (talk)[reply]

Comment The award is the only major children's book award in the UK, is reported on by most newspapers and is awarded at the Hay Festival. There is no overall prize, but three prizes for each category of reader.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 07:00, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidstewartharvey: That is odd as the article. under Winners, lists an overall award each year, the book winning overall seems to come from any one of the three categories. --Bejnar (talk) 22:13, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of significant coverage, and because the "Red House" award in a subcategory is not a significant award such as to convey notability by itself. I did some more research, and contrary to what was stated above, the premier British children's book award is the Carnegie Medal (aka "the Booker of the Playground", q.v.) awarded annually recognising one outstanding, new, English-language book for children or young adults. --Bejnar (talk) 23:51, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have worked in the education sector for over 16 years in the UK and I can tell you that education take the Redhouse award as a higher recommendation than the Carnagie Award.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 06:08, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not to judge, but we generally do not consider personal testimony, but only reliable sources. I am glad that you have heard of the Carnegie Medal, the first children's book award in the UK; and according the The Guardian, and others, it is the UK’s most prestigious children’s books award. --Bejnar (talk) 18:44, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:00, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's plenty of coverage of the subject (and his dog) which clearly indicates that he's a prominent and successful author. For example, see BBC. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:59, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that story does not indicate that he is a prominent and successful author, it is a human interest story, and indicates that he has sold 20,000 children's books. I have found no indication, in reliable, independent sources, that he works have ever appeared on a best-sellers' list. (I have found vendor claims that he is a "best selling author", but his Spy Dog seems to have sold the most copies, and it is ranked by Amazon.co.uk as "Amazon Bestsellers Rank: 76,176 in Books, and #3762 in Action & Adventure for Children (Books)". According to the Society of Children's Book Writers and Illustrators, here, the average children's book sells between 5,000 to 10,000 copies, which makes Cope above average, but with several books in print, nothing notable. --Bejnar (talk) 18:44, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Fenix down (talk) 19:18, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Ryutin

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

Not a professional footballer. Geschichte (talk) 21:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:01, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - might fail NFOOTBALL but there are enough sources present to indicate GNG. Giant Snowman 12:05, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Despite not to be in a high level of notability, but (I think) it can be located at the minimum but acceptable (edge) level of notability -- to have a page. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 15:42, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep scrapes though WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:23, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. A discussion to redirect / merge can happen outside this debate. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:15, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Chapman

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

2009 AfD found no consensus, but dodn't have a huge number of participants. After more than 11 years in CAT:NN hopefully we can now get a consensus. I don't think there's anything on her to meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 21:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There might be something in Something about the Author, according to Google books Up Uranus (talk) 21:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or move to Marmaduke the Lorry. Author of a notable series of books reviewed in Intent Upon Reading: A Critical Appraisal of Modern Fiction for Children, The Junior Bookshelf, and Growing Point; adapted for radio (Radio Times); recorded by Kenneth Williams (The Times, Discogs); and translated into Swedish by sv:Gunvor Håkansson. pburka (talk) 15:19, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:07, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:07, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:07, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Googling on "Elizabeth Chapman Marmaduke" and restricting to "books" finds several tantalising snippets such as "No child who enjoys bustle and change can do better than to start solo reading on Elizabeth Chapman's series about Marmaduke the lorry and his adventures with Joe, his cheery driver, Archibald the engine, and all the men, women, animals ...", though I don't have access to hard copy sources about children's lit of the 1950s. PamD 09:35, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, looks as if we need to disambiguate her from the Elizabeth Chapman MBE who retired in 2015 and has this linkedIn page, whose photo I suspect we have in the article (and probably a Wikidata muddle too). PamD 09:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The full quote from Intent upon Reading is ""No child who enjoys bustle and change can do better than to start solo reading on Elizabeth Chapman's series about Marmaduke the lorry and his adventures with Joe, his cheery driver, Archibald the engine, and all the men, women, animals and vehicles he hobnobs with on his trips in the hills around Manchester. Simple and direct, these stories give great pleasure for their gay common-sense, and because Marmaduke trundles through a world not so very different from the world of everyday. And a child's world. Marmaduke is as unpredictable as any small boy. We are not expected to read too much into these airy fables; like the drawings that accompany them, they are spun out of simple things." (p41 of the 1964 edition). Fisher includes one of the Marmaduke illustrations. There are two other refs to Chapman in the index, but they are to the reading lists Fisher includes. Tacyarg (talk) 10:23, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep* or redirect to Marmaduke. Apparently the books were popular enough to be translated into Swedish (and probably other languages as well), where Marmaduke the Lorry became "Lastbilen Teodor". HouseOfChange (talk) 13:26, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, prefer a redirect to Marmaduke. Poor sources used, not enough to establish notability. Oaktree b (talk) 02:31, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. No arguments for deletion. (non-admin closure) gobonobo ⁺ ^c 09:58, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Celempungan

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

This has existed for 17 years with no sources, and tagged in CAT:NN for over 11 years. I couldn't find evidence it does meet WP:NOTABILITY but am aware of the cultural/linguistic barrier - can anyone prove it is notable? Boleyn (talk) 21:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:15, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:15, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep See 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and others. Mccapra (talk) 21:35, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources identified by Mccapra. — Toughpigs (talk) 22:44, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination per above and I've made some improvements to the article. Boleyn (talk) 12:54, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:13, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Beebe Caywood

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

Successful and some coverage, but doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Boleyn (talk) 21:06, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Can you describe the "some coverage" that you found in your WP:BEFORE search? They Led the Way: Members of Canada's Aviation Hall of Fame, currently cited in the article, is a reliable published source. What else did you find? — Toughpigs (talk) 22:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep The subject set several records as well as is a member of Canada's Aviation Hall of Fame. I have added 2 more refs, hope it can save the article.Less Unless (talk) 17:14, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, user:Less Unless, thanks for adding to this. Do you have any references for these records or information on what the records were? Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 19:08, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Boleyn.Information about the records is available here. I have tried to find more about it, but i couldn't. But I think Canadian Aviation Hall of Fame can be considered a reliable source. And per WP:NPOSSIBLE I believe the article can be saved. Best, Less Unless (talk) 08:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This link at the Aviation Hall of Fame tells his story, which is significant if only for his introduction of the DC-3 into Canadian bush service. --Lockley (talk) 00:39, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MER-C 10:05, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Capoeira Legends

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

It exists, it had a little coverage but I couldn't establish that it meets WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 21:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Can you describe the "little coverage" that you discovered in your WP:BEFORE search? — Toughpigs (talk) 22:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not a sign of notability beyond a Brazilian video-game award, which is not enough. --Lockley (talk) 18:55, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 22:32, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus seems to precise (non-admin closure) Celestina007 (talk) 22:54, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Betty Ann Wong

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

Subject of article is a composer, author & musician who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources hence doesn’t satisfy our general notability criteria. A before search further reveals no indication nor evidence of notability. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Celestina007 (talk) 20:52, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:52, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:52, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:52, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:52, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:52, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources" is a bold statement since the article's sources include the International Encyclopedia of Women Composers, Women in World History and Women in music : an encyclopedic biobibliography. Three reputable reference works; there's your WP:THREE. I don't have access to An encyclopedic biobibliography so it's possible that it might not have SIGCOV, but you can see that she has a full entry in the other two books on the Internet Archive (p. 508), (p. 748). Having a full entry in at least one major reference work is usually an indicator that a person is encyclopedically notable (since they are included in an encyclopedia and all) and that sufficient secondary sourcing exists to pass WP:GNG. Spicy (talk) 21:14, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Spicy, I think you may be hinting at #6 of WP:COMPOSER but I don’t think anything you have said meets the criterion listed therein. Furthermore she definitely doesn’t scale our general notability criteria & like you rightfully said above (which nullifies #6 of Composer) I also cannot see her discussed with significant hence she truly definitely doesn’t satisfy WP:GNG. She is also supposed to be a singer but also I’m unable to see any criterion from WP:SINGER being met. Lastly a before search only links me to sites like LINKEDIN & other non imperative sources. If you can provide in this AFD, any source(s) that discusses subject of our discussion with in-depth significant coverage i’d analyze the sources & if they are plausible I’d close the AFD as there wil be no reason to further stretch the AFD. Celestina007 (talk) 22:07, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I provided links to two reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject in the comment that you are replying to. Spicy (talk) 22:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I saw those and they aren’t significant coverage. That’s why I told you to provide additional links to more reliable sources which can be easily verified. Celestina007 (talk) 22:30, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An entry in an encyclopedia is most certainly significant coverage. To argue otherwise is to misunderstand what an encyclopedia is for. Not interested in debating this any further. Spicy (talk) 22:36, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spicy, I see you have a point & I’d have to agree to consensus, like I said earlier if a valid reason was brought forward I was going to withdraw the AFD the second !voter seems to be echoing your point so I’d withdraw this one.

Keep. She's the subject of articles in other encyclopedias, which is de facto evidence of notability. pburka (talk) 22:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:56, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Boyd Vigil

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

Doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Successful, but doesn't meet any part of the criteria. Boleyn (talk) 20:50, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have found no significant coverage in the independent reliable sources. There is a bunch of hits on user generated platforms, but that's all. Fails WP:GNG.Less Unless (talk) 20:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sourcing does not come even remotely close to passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:10, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:11, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Not related to the very well known music producer Joe Boyd, despite sharing the name and both coming from Boston, which makes searching more complicated, but there's no evidence of this subject being mentioned outside of music-sharing platforms and social media. Richard3120 (talk) 15:44, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:32, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:58, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Boots and Saddles (bugle call)

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

~~Some minor mentions in niche publications, but I couldn't establish that it meets WP:NSONG or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 20:43, 3 July 2020 (UTC)~~[reply]

Comment: Can you describe the "niche publications" that you discovered in your WP:BEFORE search? If you're referring to The Encyclopedia of Nineteenth-century Land Warfare: An Illustrated World View and Transactions of the Philological Society currently cited in the article, then I don't think it's appropriate to dismiss reliable published sources as "niche publications", simply because you're not familiar with them. — Toughpigs (talk) 22:58, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, user:Toughpigs. There were a few, including those you've mentioned and others like Soldier Life in the Union and Confederate Armies which weren't mentioned in the article. I don't mean anything negative by niche, and I did not mean that I was unfamiliar with the books, just that they 'appeal to a small, specialized section of the population' and a small mention in a publication like this may make a topic appear more noteworthy than it is, as the book is highly specialised. Boleyn (talk) 07:32, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I added a number of other sources that clearly demonstrate notability. It is a famous bugle call that has been used for hundreds of years. I suspect that a proper BEFORE search was not performed. — Toughpigs (talk) 04:34, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – notability and encyclopedic relevance are demonstrated in the article. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:46, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination happy to go with the developing consensus above. Boleyn (talk) 07:33, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:17, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bodo Brahma Dharma

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

Exists, but doesn't meet the standards for WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 20:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 23:31, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chandon, California

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

More accurately described in Gudde as "named in 1906 by the Northern Electric Railroad." Which is to say, it's yet another rail location (on a long-gone line), not a town. Mangoe (talk) 20:26, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:36, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:36, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unable to locate any sources supporting this was ever a populated place. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:43, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. nomination withdrawn, no other delete rationales. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:39, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

W34EY-D

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

Non-notable LPTV station. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 20:06, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 20:06, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 20:06, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:BROADCAST and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Broadcast media. This is an affiliated station, not just a translator.Scoty6776 (talk)

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. withdrawn by nominator 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:38, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KITM-LD

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

Non-notable LPTV station Mvcg66b3r (talk) 20:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 20:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 20:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this, or any TV broadcasting station, being marked as Non-notable? It's very notable if it serves your area. It is an active station, with an active signal and affiliation. I will never understand those who want to delete things from wikipedia! Scoty6776 (talk)

@Scoty6776: The topic has to meet Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 20:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:BROADCAST and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Broadcast media Scoty6776 (talk)

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 Abrar-ul-Haq. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 09:23, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bay Ja Cycle Tay

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

I couldn't establish that this album meets WP:NALBUM or WP:GNG. I could find nothing showing it charted in a national chart, or had long-term significance or extensive coverage. I considered a redirect to artist, but that would be a unilateral deletion and I felt uncomfortable doing that without a consensus, as I don't read Urdu. Boleyn (talk) 19:31, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: to the artist. Likewise, I couldn't find any evidence of independent notability, and anyone who thinks there is any has already had over a decade to add it. Ravenswing 11:28, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:35, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:35, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 19:18, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bangkok Soccer League

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

A worthy amateur organisation with some coverage, but not sufficient to meet notability. I'm aware I may be missing something as someone who doesn't read Thai, although it doesn't seem to have a Thai WP article. Boleyn (talk) 19:19, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:01, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 12:05, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Since it caters to the international school community, I'd expect coverage about the subject to be in English. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:57, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are issues here and I don't see GNG met at all. Govvy (talk) 13:01, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete all. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:09, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whiskey (cat)

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

The only claim to "fame" Whiskey has is being the world's oldest cat for a brief period of time. Does not pass WP:BIO (which is the closest Wikipedia has to notability guidelines for specific animals) and is only remotely notable for WP:1E which isn't even a particularly notable one (the cat who held the title before Whiskey doesn't have a page.) I am also nominating the following related pages because they are non-notable for the same reasons as Whiskey. Depending on the source, Tiffany Two didn't even hold the title of oldest cat, but rather second oldest. (Google information on her says that she was the oldest cat, but her page says second oldest and the dates on the List of oldest cats page reinforce this)

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

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

HAWTH OFF HEAD TALK 19:00, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all None of these cats are notable on their own, and are already included on the list of List of oldest cats.Donaldd23 (talk) 19:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to List of oldest cats, where mentioned. Not notable. Hog Farm _Bacon 19:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think, it doesn't seem to be notable enough to have an independent article; and its better to be deleted; at most to be merged. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 15:35, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, per nom.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 14:40, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom Spiderone 17:42, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Wikipedia is not the Guiness Book of World Reccords.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:08, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:17, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Microprocessor development board#DSP evaluation boards. It's up to editors whether to merge anything from the article's history. Sandstein 15:30, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TI DSK 6416

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

Per original nominator: "Non-notable engineering sample and test platform. No references to confer notability, and only a small possibility of temporal interest". Currently it has very little useful information and some of it reads as an advertisement. Very little improvement have been done since the first AfD nomination, and as time passes the subject becomes even less relevant. Alan Islas (talk) 17:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are very similar and created by the same user:

--Alan Islas (talk) 17:46, 3 July 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 July 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Looks like there's two conversations about this article: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TI DSK 6416 (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TI DSK 6416 (TI DSK 6713 (2nd nomination) nomination).-- Mikeblas (talk) 20:30, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was the previous nom. Same reasoning; WP:NCATALOG, too. -- Mikeblas (talk) 20:31, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a sentence into Microprocessor_development_board#DSP_evaluation_boards. There is a book devoted to this and the TI DSK 6713 DSP starter kits.Digital Signal Processing and Applications with the C6713 and C6416 DSK, updated revision. Hence basic facts are verifiable and the two kits are worth a mention as examples of DSKs at Microprocessor_development_board#DSP_evaluation_boards. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 21:17, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No objections to the proposed merger. For me it is an acceptable alternative instead of deletion. Alan Islas (talk) 19:55, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:54, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ranked list of Norwegian counties

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

Indiscriminate list, unlikely search term, at best an unneeded duplicate of counties of Norway#Fylke (2nd period) (which has sortable i.e. "ranked" tables). Geschichte (talk) 17:38, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 18:28, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 18:28, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 18:28, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems a little WP:LISTCRUFT to me Seasider91 (talk) 19:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTSTATS and outdated source. Ajf773 (talk) 09:57, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads like a trivia and listcruft. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 13:59, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW and WP:LIST. Bearian (talk) 22:15, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Definitely agree with Sahil, it's basically trivia KB11001 (talk) 08:12, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Aveva. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 09:24, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tribon

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

I prodded this unreferenced article with " Unreferenced software, no indication of passing GNG/WP:NSOFT, BEFORE does not show any reliable sources, no valid redirect/merge target.". User:Kvng deprodded with a note about [16] and hits in Google Schholar. Unfortunately, my GS results are swamped by hits in Chinese which I am having trouble analyze, but the few I looked with Google Translate seem to be passing mentions and/or of dubious reliability. As for the coverage in the Offshore (magazine), it is interesting (1995, so a bit less spamy than some random new website). There are few paragraphs about it, and I would be even willing to accept it as borderline reliable and in-depth, but I am having trouble locating anything else to back it up. Can anyone see if they can find more good sources and rescue this? Kvng's source suggests this could be improved beyond the current terrible, unreferenced stub that hasn't seen much improvement in 15 years... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:11, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:11, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Here are some Scholar hits for papers with Tribon in the title: [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]. ~Kvng (talk) 16:44, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting find, but can anyone access the text of those articles to verify they contain in-depth discussion of the program? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:47, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - To me, it is clear from abstracts that they contain in-depth discussion. ~Kvng (talk) 15:54, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Plausuble, but I have seen papers which mention a term in the title/abstract and totally fail to discuss it in the article's body. You found enough sources that some probably contain in-depth discussion, but we are also dealing with a Chinese journal, and those, internationally, have a pretty bad reputation. Whether this journal is RS or not, I am unsure, I am leaning towards yes, but further opinions would be nice. Ping User:Randykitty re journal reliability? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:49, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To enable further discussion of the sources identified by Kvng and the article's overall notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 17:38, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Aveva which bought Tribon over 15 years ago. It does not need separate article if there is so little available source material about its history. LizardJr8 (talk) 20:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The source in the Aveva article as well as several from other sources do say that Tribon was bought out (or to be bought out), but I'm just wondering what this first Google Search hit means, as it makes a comparison between Tribon and Aveva arguing that Aveva is better, and its copyright date is 2013, which Wayback Machine supports. Just curious as to what the explanation could be, since it's a live webpage. KB11001 (talk) 08:37, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (preferred) or delete, I agree with LizardJr8. --Ysangkok (talk) 22:48, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Kellyanne Conway. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:20, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Claudia Conway

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

Delete as nominator Completely non-notable social media person has received coverage because of her famous parents. Clear example of WP:NOTINHERITED. And with sources including her own social media page, People Magazine, and Elle.com, she also doesn't meet WP:GNG. KidAd (talk) 17:18, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, then restore and protect the redirect. this is quite weird to make a page about somebody who hasn't done anything with his or her career yet and is famous for being someone's famous relative only.- Akhiljaxxn (talk) 17:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per WP:ATD-M and WP:ATD-R. It's a viable and useful redirect. None of the sources mention the subject independently from her mother. TJMSmith (talk) 17:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 17:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 17:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 17:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 17:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Kellyanne Conway as per WP:1E Tahadharamsi - (talk) 23:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and it's disingenuous to say her social media page and People are the sources when she was given exclusive interviews by USA Today and Business Insider, and covered as the primary subject (not a "trivial mention" per WP:GNG) of articles by Newsweek and Forbes. As her mother was not involved in these interviews, WP:NOTINHERITED is not relevant here and there is established notability with sources about her social media prowess, not about her parents'. Omnibus (talk) 23:27, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Out of the seven total sources, three are non-trivial. But she still fails WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTINHERITED. KidAd (talk) 23:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - As I said above, she definitely does not "fail" WP:NOTINHERITED as the source material is about her and not her mother. WP:BLP1E, which you didn't mention by the way, I'm not sure I'd call becoming a viral sensation a one-time "event" per se... that's much like saying A-ha is not notable because they were a one-hit wonder. Omnibus (talk) 23:38, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is not one source about her that doesn't include a mention of her parents. There are thousands (millions?) of teenagers using TikTok, and some of them are pretty popular. This one is only special because she has notable parents. The WP:OTHERSTUFF argument isn't worth much, but I would reconsider her notability if she had written Take on Me. KidAd (talk) 23:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not planning to vote on this. On the one hand, I generally think it's most fair and sensitive not to include Wikipedia articles on children; on the other hand, I'm finding it hard to stop laughing right now reading her opinions on her family's associates. But I'd note that most profiles of people do mention famous family if they have any. Nicholas Soames is very notable in his own right but you try finding a profile of him (especially for an international audience) that doesn't mention that he's Winston Churchill's grandson. Blythwood (talk) 03:32, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has never had a policy against making articles for notable people just because they were minors. That would be ridiculously insensitive, unfair, insulting, and unencyclopedic. (And this person is fifteen by the way). All that said, I have seen people put up legitimate reasons for not having an article, which aren't grounded in agism. So I think they made the right choice to delete it. Nikki Lee 1999 (talk) 10:16, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is important to note that Nicholas Soames became independently notable when he was elected a Member of Parliament. He was not notable when he was 15. KidAd (talk) 03:36, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KidAd, oh, completely agreed. I don't think this is in the same league, which is why I'm not voting. But Claudia Conway is getting profiled in articles in which the focus is very clearly on her, not her parents-it's just that it would be a complete failure of journalistic writing if the article didn't mention who they are. Further, she's the one getting interviewed by national newspapers, not her parents. It's not like the article from when she was 12 in which she's mentioned but clearly not the primary focus. Blythwood (talk) 03:40, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we need truly abundant sources to justify creating an article on a minor and we are lacking such here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:48, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, for reasons outlined above, and I would contest the notion that interviews in Business Insider and USA Today are GNG-supporting sources. Being interviewed by a major publication is enough of a claim of significance to pass A7, but interviews are not considered independent sources unless there is substantial critical analysis--which there certainly isn't here--so they do not contribute to GNG. There is little independent, significant coverage of her, and what exists is very lightweight stuff, which is probably why this pseudobiography has been padded out with trivial unencyclopedic nonsense about how this 15 year old "supported Mental Health Awareness Month with her social media posts" and complained about her parents on TikTok. Spicy (talk) 22:22, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kellyanne Conway: Per reasons above. Barely found independent news about her. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:18, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect with/to Kellyanne Conway. All the sources cited are from the past week and have to do exclusively with her social media 'feud' with her parents over her left-leaning politics. I would call that 'one event' so am suggesting a merge per WP:BLP1E. For those who may disagree with that being 'one event', I would recommend reading WP:WI1E. Samsmachado (talk) 18:00, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I find it difficult to believe that the first time anyone really noticed this page was the same day that her parents tried to censor her internet communication. She isn't a notable figure, but her status is currently in limbo. We don't know what her parents will do to censor her, and frankly if she disappears off the internet, this entry should stay. Something worthy of note will happen in this situation, and we do not have the full story to say we should not keep this information available, no matter how inconsequential it may be. Lolbster (talk) 22:50, 7 July 2020 (UTC) — Lolbster (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. There is a lot of people fawning over her and comparing her to Greta Thunberg and Parkland activists (Emma Gonzalez for example). These people has media giving them a lot of attention for some time. Since these people have their own articles, Claudia Conway deserves her own article in Wikipedia as well as with these people i have mentioned. By the way, coverage of her could evolve as these people has experienced over time. SMB99thx Email! 03:01, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would gladly ask administrators that this AfD should be Relisted. I have a feeling this AfD needs a clear consensus (Redirect or merge? Redirect does not mean merging) and participation of this AfD is pretty low. SMB99thx Email! 00:58, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a solid idea. Some of the sources aren't good, but others are strong, and I would definitely expect the situation to develop. I may lean toward merging until significant separation from her parents is deemed, but I agree there should be more of a consensus. KB11001 (talk) 10:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recently, her Twitter account is now public again. SMB99thx Email! 13:13, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources in the article and available elsewhere about her meet and exceed the notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 02:09, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well-sourced article on a subject with a large social media following. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 14:57, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A Tik-tok and Instagram influencer isn't enough for notability, she isn't Greta Thunberg. Oaktree b (talk) 02:35, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the parent article to the extent appropriate, this is a teenager going through a rebellious phase with some spikes of attention on some adolescent social media. – Athaenara ✉ 10:08, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 23:38, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seva in Tirumala

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

List of daily and weekly rituals in one temple. Wikipedia is not a calendar for individual temples Staszek Lem (talk) 21:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:56, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:57, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Summarize and Merge into Venkateswara Temple, Tirumala.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 09:05, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as applicable, and then Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory nor a calendar for individual temples. Seva (aka sewa) is the Sanskrit word meaning "selfless service", but it has come to refer to certain types of rituals that are said to show "selfless service". While it is appropriate to have articles on Hindu, Jain, Buddhist and Sikh rituals, rituals specific to a single temple are best summarized, if at all, in the temple's article. I do note in passing that Sikhs generally abhor blind ritual. This title is not appropriate for a redirect, especially as Tirumala primarily refers to the town, while "Venkateswara" ("Lord of Venkata") would more appropriately be applied as an adjective to the temple which is his abode. --Bejnar (talk) 20:00, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In studying the Venkateswara Temple, Tirumala article itself, which has an extensive section on "worship", I don't find anything more to merge. Do do so would be too much detail. --Bejnar (talk) 23:38, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:57, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 17:14, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It seems like just another temple, or a tourist attraction. Agree with Bejnar about Wiki not being a directory of temples. It may have a chance at applying under this Notability proposal, but it failed, and I can't find any notability measure it would meet satisfactorily (on its own - summary in other articles would be best, but there isn't all that much content as it is). KB11001 (talk) 10:25, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't see any evidence of notability and nothing worthy of merging into another article Spiderone 08:47, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. After two relists, no challenge was made to the new RS provided; no prejudice to a future relist. (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 20:03, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Markus U. Diethelm

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

Prod was contested by self-described COI-editor. Claim to fame is general counsel for UBS. Subject has about three sentences of coverage in this Reuters article; I don't see any secondary WP:RS coverage beyond that. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:23, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 16:25, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 16:25, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-06 ↻ restored, 2020-05 ✗ PROD

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:44, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman with no signs of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (I am the COI Editor) Markus Diethelm is a notable lawyer, Chairman of the Swiss-American Change of Commerce Legal Committee and of the Swiss Advisory Council, he's also a member of various institutions including a Human Rights Watch Council. Due to his Swiss-origin majority of the available content is in German, a few not yet used in the article: https://heft.manager-magazin.de/MM/2014/8/128167434/index.html, https://www.plaedoyer.ch/artikel/artikeldetail/markus-u-diethelm-ubs-chefjurist-diesen-job-will-ich/, https://www.marketscreener.com/business-leaders/Markus-U-Diethelm-00BVZP-E/biography/, https://www.handelsblatt.com/finanzen/banken-versicherungen/schadenssumme-swiss-re-gewinnt-rechtsstreit-um-world-trade-center/2721190.html?ticket=ST-4209499-G5rg7g45so7jFs6E9Ukd-ap4, https://www.swissinfo.ch/ger/swiss-re-gewinnt-prozess-um-world-trade-center/576122

Best, WROanna1862 (talk) 16:35, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:17, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Requires further discussion regarding sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 17:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:56, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Romy Johnson

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

WP:PROD removed without explanation, so over here to do this the long way. Obvious vanity page, which appears to be sourced entirely to fake news websites and reprinted press releases. Although the SPA that removed the prod notice claims that reliable sources exist I can find no evidence of them. While I can't say for sure and WP:AGF and all that, this looks like an absolutely straightforward case of undeclared paid editing using reprinted press releases on assorted churnalism sites to manufacture pseudonotability. ‑ Iridescent 17:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ‑ Iridescent 17:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ‑ Iridescent 17:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ‑ Iridescent 17:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - I couldn't even find a mention in a Proquest of many Canadian sources. Possible scam? Nfitz (talk) 03:47, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No WP:SIGCOV on the 22-year old subject by any proper RS. There are bits from low-grade online blogs like London Daily Post [23] (not an RS), but little else. Seems like Wikipedia is part of his promotional platform, and an important plank in establishing his notability – it should be the other way around. Britishfinance (talk) 14:15, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per all of the above Spiderone 06:24, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There is consensus that this is not a notable topic. The question is what is the appropriate way to handle this non-notable topic. Alternatives to deletion need to be considered and given preference and so my bar to closing these kinds of discussions as redirects rather than delete is low. However, concerns have been brought up about each potential redirect target and so I don't find any consensus to redirect and thus find a consensus to delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:11, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OKbridge 2/1

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

essentially a how-to guide; sole reference goes to main page of website and doesn't mention specific subject; no evidence of notability Tdslk (talk) 05:07, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:11, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, have informed the contract bridge wikiproject with a message on their talkpage. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:17, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While in poor condition with the wrong emphasis, this article (or a more properly named 'OKbridge') has significant potential for improvement. It's emphasis should not be on how to play but an overview of OKbridge as one of the first influential internet platforms for playing contract bridge. Newwhist (talk) 12:35, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to an article about just OKbridge (maybe including mention of the bidding system), but I see it as a separate question from whether to delete this article. Tdslk (talk) 19:35, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Duplicate bridge to preserve the article history. In its present state, it violates WP:NOTHOWTO and doesn't meet WP:V or the GNG. Miniapolis 02:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 17:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Miniapolis and WP:ATD. Article is mostly what wikipedia is not (WP:HOWTO, WP:GAMEGUIDE). People can expand this with encyclopedic sources and information at the redirect target. Jontesta (talk) 20:17, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to close this a redirect, but there's no mention on the target article. Recommend a selective merge instead. (t · c) buidhe 09:26, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Buidhe, a tag on the target article is recommended for a proposed merge but I don't think it's necessary for a redirect. Miniapolis 13:42, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Miniapolis, per WP:R#DELETE it is discouraged to redirect somewhere where the term (in this case "OKbridge 2/1") is not mentioned or discussed. (t · c) buidhe 13:45, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Buidhe, that guideline is for pages at WP:RfD. In this case, the target would be in the article history as part of an edit summary. Miniapolis 13:50, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Redirecting to Duplicate bridge makes no sense. Not only does that page not even mention this system, it does not discuss bidding systems at all. Merging there, even with the briefest of mentions, would be WP:UNDUE unless a whole new section on bidding systems was written. A more natural target would be bidding system, but it is not mentioned there either. I would like to be at keep on this, but where are the sources? All I can see out there are copies of the system description from the OKBridge website and copies of this Wikipedia article. Even one half decent source would convince me to keep. I'm not bothered by HOWTO, that's a fixable problem, but the topic still needs to be notable. Newwhist might be right that we should have an article on OKBridge, but that's irrelevant to whether this article should be kept. SpinningSpark 14:54, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spinningspark, I'd be fine with a redirect to Bidding system (to preserve the article history in case better sourcing is eventually found) but—as I mentioned above—don't think that this subject meets the GNG. Miniapolis 20:23, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not fine to redirect to a page that has no information. That is worse than useless as the reader will waste time and expend frustration looking for something that doesn't exist. Better to have a redlink and tell readers upfront that we have no information on that topic. It is explicitly against guidelines to do this per WP:R#DELETE bullet #10. SpinningSpark 21:13, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. SpinningSpark 21:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as this article doesn't explain why it's notable beyond saying it's popular with internet bridge players. It also fails WP:VERIFY as the sole reference is the game site. Wikipedia is not an instruction guide. Blue Riband► 02:05, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to John E. Lisman. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 09:28, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John E. Lisman Memorial Lecture in Vision Science

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

Article topic is an annual lecture. All sources provided are internal to Brandeis and a search shows up nothing in independent sources. Mccapra (talk) 20:43, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:43, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:43, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:43, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:43, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not even close to notable. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:48, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is a major award in vision sciences. Many recipients have the fact that they won this award in their biographies and it is included on several of their Wikipedia pages. I have added valid references from outside Brandeis University. I have also made it clearer in the text that it is an award, coupled with a lecture. The title of the award, by donor decree, is "John E. Lisman Memorial Lecture in Vision Science" but it is an award. The award changed names on the death of John Lisman to honor him, but this was only 3 years ago, and the 2020 award delivery was impacted by COVID-19; you may google "Pepose Award in Vision Sciences" for a longer history. The change of name is noted in the article. Stevevanhooser (talk) 00:12, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sourcing is decent for a specialist award. Alternatively, it looks like John Lisman himself would be notable by WP:PROF (strong citation record, holder of a named chair, an obituary in Nature). The article could be repurposed into a biography of Lisman, with the current material becoming part of a "Legacy" section. XOR'easter (talk) 01:01, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment John Lisman would be a good subject for an article IMHO. However, merging this award with a personal page on Lisman might be suboptimal because the award had a history before it was named for Lisman (Pepose Award in Vision Sciences). Stevevanhooser (talk) 20:44, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into John E. Lisman. ~~It may be a redlink now but I will work on it.~~ Stevevanhooser is right, I believe the subject meets WP:ACADEMIC and that this award should be merged into that article, which I have just started. Ifnord (talk) 16:59, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:05, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 17:10, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect. As said before, referencing looks okay. If the subject person alone didn't warrant a separate article I'd be saying keep this one. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:38, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:20, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Honey Bafna

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

Non notable actor that doesn’t seem to satisfy any criterion from WP:NACTOR. A before search I conducted shows him mentioned in blogs & unreliable sources. The only promising source seems to be a Q & A & that isn’t independent of him, so in general he doesn’t satisfy GNG as well. Celestina007 (talk) 18:48, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 18:48, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 18:48, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 18:48, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 18:48, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Celestina007 (talk), Thank you for the due diligence. Since the actor appears in regional work, there are references in digital version of regional newspaper. I will keep on working on the article for its improvement till a consensus is reached. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sohinimoitra84 (talk • contribs) 11:20, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - Hatchens (talk) 12:41, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Only one votes
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BEAMALEXANDER!, talk 04:12, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - no assertion of notability Spiderone 08:27, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Additional citation about his latest work assignment has been added.Sohinimoitra84 (talk) 08:46, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Several new refs added, needs reevaluation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:44, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notability now demonstrated Spiderone 19:41, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To allow further discussion and assessment of the recently added references.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 17:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Additional citation from regional newspapers added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sohinimoitra84 (talk • contribs) 08:21, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, according to the article, Bafna appears in one significant role only, Bokul Kotha, the other roles seem to be minor, so more is required to meet WP:NACTOR. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:08, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Hi Coolabahapple. Bafna is currently appearing in a significant role in a new project Prothoma Kadambini. Regional and english references have been attached as citation(items 5 6 7 and 9 in ref section). Bokul Kotha was his previous significant role. Request you to kindly revisit and advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sohinimoitra84 (talk • contribs) 08:00, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MER-C 10:11, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Autodesk Alias Surface

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

I couldn't establish that this is significant enough to meet WP:NOTABILITY. Possibly worth a redirect to Autodesk. Boleyn (talk) 16:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 18:18, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPRODUCT. The article is promotional, and I was not able to find any significant coverage in independent sources through my online search. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 18:26, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as there are no proper sourcing covering this, and per WP:BURDEN, they should already be there or be easier to find. --Ysangkok (talk) 22:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Per coverage provided by Soman. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 09:30, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andhra Mahasabha

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

Difficult to assess, hence it remaining in CAT:NN for 11 years. I couldn't find evidence it had the significance or influence to meet WP:ORG or the coverage to meet WP:GNG. Possibly worth a merge/redirect to Telangana movement. Boleyn (talk) 16:49, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All you have to do to find the evidence that you claim you couldn't find is to click on the word "books" or "scholar" above. You are not helping to build an encyclopedia by simply copying articles from the "may not be notable" category to AfD without checking such basic search results first. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:32, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
user:Phil Bridger, I did check these first. Google Books has many mentions on this party, but I didn't judge it to meet the level of 'significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject' that GNG wants, and as a political organisation they are not inherently notable. It is borderline (imo) but I don't think it is right for a standalone article. I respect anyone coming to a different conclusion though, on this or any other article.

I am at the moment going through the most challenging articles in CAT:NN, removing the notability tags for many which I can establish are notable, and looking at AfD if I am not convinced it goes over the threshold, hoping that AfD can help establish a consensus, and in the case of non-English language topics, that AfD will help counteract any systemic bias there may be on my part if I redirect or prod unilaterally. Thanks for your comments here, and across AfD, which I always find well-thought-out and helpful. Boleyn (talk) 13:02, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:23, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:23, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:23, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:23, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The said article can be expanded based on books and newspapers and I don't think the converge is trivial, hence deleting or merging may not be the way to go. This can be brought under the scope of Wiki Porject Telangana and Andhra Pradesh for expansion -- Ab207 (talk) 17:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Andhra Mahasabha was a mass movement, which brought down the Hyderabad state. "It was through the Andhra Mahasabha that the Communists, in 1948-1950, had organized the agrarian revolt in Telengana which, in some areas, succeeded in replacing governmental authority with peasant soviets."^[1], "The Communists counter-attacked by reducing the enrolment fee to the Andhra Mahasaha from 4 annas to 1 anna. They encouraged the participation of the poor and the landless, and by early 1945 claimed that the membership rose from twenty to 'about 90,000'."^[2], "The third major element in the Telengana rebellion was the Communist party of India (CPI), members of which had taken an increasingly important part in cultural-cum-political organizations such as the Andhra Mahasabha."^[3], "The Andhra Maha Sabha was organised in 1928 to articulate , the demands of the Telugu - speaking population of Hyderabad State . It organised its first conference at Jogipet in 1930 . The Andhra Maha Sabha was the forum for all shades of political opinion in its initial stages."^[4] "The main task of the Communist Andhra Maha Sabha in its incipient stages was to bring relief to people affected with famine . Mostly due to the efforts of the Communist Andhra Maha Sabha , the government woke up to enquire about the famine conditions and remove the discontentment among peasantry to some extent."^[5] "They also began to infiltrate the Andhra Maha Sabha . They built up a peasants ' movement through the Sabha and laid foundations to make it a popular movement . They took up the problems of tenancy , forced labour and of small and..."^[6] "They transformed the Andhra Maha Sabha into a militant mass political organisation."^[7] --Soman (talk) 11:41, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Clear consensus that this group passes GNG. Article can be improved outside of AfD. (non-admin closure) Devonian Wombat (talk) 09:39, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BreadTube

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

A wikipedia page about a subreddit (https://www.reddit.com/r/BreadTube/) that has very little notable coverage. James Richards (talk) 16:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. James Richards (talk) 16:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. James Richards (talk) 16:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. James Richards (talk) 16:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. James Richards (talk) 16:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It doesn't seem to be about the subreddit, but about a (loosely-defined) community of leftist YouTubers — ContraPoints, Hbomberguy, Lindsay Ellis, Philosophy Tube and company. The community has a subreddit, because (for whatever damn reason) that's how online communities operate these days. The original sources weren't great, but better documentation was available; I have included some more reliable sources and tried to clean up the prose a bit. (A Google Scholar search finds additional potential sources, but they might fall into a preprint/thesis gray area and would need to be evaluated more carefully for reliability; e.g., [24][25][26][27].) XOR'easter (talk) 20:00, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think there is strictly a notability problem here, per XOR'easter - just as the YouTube creators mentioned are notable, so too does the community itself have coverage in external sources. It needs a rewrite, though - I would note that the article as it is seems to be mostly rehashing content from other articles on left-wing YouTube creators, the community is often rather vaguely defined, and the article should be focused around the community itself rather than its constituent creators. However, its quality does not make it a suitable for deletion (see WP:RUBBISH). Sparkledriver (talk) 16:08, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per XOR'easter & Sparkledriver. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 19:33, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If kept, it could use some statement of its active dates and its audience size in the top paragraph. --Lockley (talk) 22:50, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MER-C 10:09, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Naag Jyoti

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

An article about a Bollywood film, sourced only to (non-WP:RS) IMDb since its creation in 2016. A WP:BEFORE search turned up neither plot nor reviews. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 16:38, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is way past time being sourced only to IMDb became a proposed deletion criteria that could only be stopped if a non-IMDb source was added to the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:30, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:07, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:07, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Spiderone 14:32, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 03:12, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WHOOP-Szo

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

Very little coverage about this band, likely a promotional article. James Richards (talk) 16:40, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. James Richards (talk) 16:40, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. James Richards (talk) 16:40, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. James Richards (talk) 16:40, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have found some sources on reliable sites: Exclaim, Vice, CBC. And this looks reliable too. Other than these the rest of the results are the basic social media pages, streaming service links, concert sites, the sites of their record labels, trivial mentions and blog-like sites. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:19, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is possibly a little too soon for an article, as the band is early in its history, but since someone made the attempt the band should be judged on its merits. The sources found by GhostDestroyer above help with notability, and they were nominated for a Polaris award, which is a big deal in Canada. The creator of this article should have put in far more effort, beyond merely announcing the band's existence, but I volunteer to expand it if it survives this process. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:40, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per GhostDestroyer's sources and WP:NEXIST. The current state of the article means nothing for notability. (though I did do the smallest of expansions just in case anyone comes along saying that the sources aren't there. still probably needs a deal of work from Doomsdayer but at least there's more than one source) Samsmachado (talk) 04:46, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. To be fair, the article was in very poor form at the time of nomination, basically just stating that the band exists and using a self-published primary source to support the fact — which is not how you make a band notable enough for a Wikipedia article. But the article has been significantly improved since Friday — it is now citing much better sources, and making a strong notability claim (Polaris nomination) that constitutes a straight pass of NMUSIC #8. Bearcat (talk) 22:53, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the article subject now clearly passes bith WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:22, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MER-C 10:08, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ded Buddy

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

Information about this singer is only available in non-significant industry promotions and reprinted press releases. I found one more moderately robust interview at [28], but otherwise the singer is only present in typical promotional, streaming, and social media sites. (Of interest: The article says he was born in 1987 and it is dependent on an interview published at a site called Yen. That publication says he entered music in 1990 and performed with Stevie Wonder in 1994, when he would have been age 3 and 7 respectively. This is possibly the result of innocent typos but it is unprofessional regardless.) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:27, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:27, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:27, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough sources to pass GNG. Nor is there any indication he passes any of our musician specific guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:50, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough references, no importance to be in an encyclopedia, and SEO attempt. →Enock4seth ^(talk) 16:06, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:35, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Daylight Fades

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

Non notable film with no independent reviews. References listed seem more like blogs Donaldd23 (talk) 16:26, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 16:26, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:26, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clancy's Kitchen

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

Non notable film with no independent reviews Donaldd23 (talk) 16:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 16:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notability is never established with just IMDb.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:46, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural closure. Redundant to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TI DSK 6416 (TI DSK 6713 (2nd nomination) nomination). Sandstein 15:28, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TI DSK 6416

AfDs for this article:

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

Why the page should be deleted Per original nominator: "Non-notable engineering sample and test platform. No references to confer notability, and only a small possibility of temporal interest". Currently it has very little useful information and some of it reads as an advertisement. No substantial improvement since the first AfD nomination, and as time passes the subject becomes even less relevant Alan Islas (talk) 17:26, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are very similar and created by the same user:

--Alan Islas (talk) 17:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Looks like there's two conversations about this article: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TI DSK 6416 (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TI DSK 6416 (TI DSK 6713 (2nd nomination) nomination). -- Mikeblas (talk) 20:28, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:37, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:37, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No objections to the proposed merger as an alternative to deletion. Alan Islas (talk) 19:53, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Fenix down (talk) 18:02, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpool F.C.–Manchester City F.C. rivalry

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

No evidence that this is a notable rivalry over it being a couple of teams who have been challenging for honours at the same time in the recent past. Spike 'em (talk) 15:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Spike 'em (talk) 15:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spike 'em (talk) 15:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Was expecting to find little on this as had heard of the rivalries of both clubs with Manchester United but didn't consider there to be a notable rivalry between the clubs themselves. However, from a google search think there is enough to pass WP:GNG. The Manchester Evening News dedicates a whole page to documenting this as a rivalry^[8] the New York Times mentions it as "the rivalry that, it seems likely, will define the early 2020s in English soccer"^[9]. The guardian mentions this being a significant football rivvalty (albeit states that there are bigger rivalries)^[10] Forbes^[11], BBC^[12], The Telegraph^[13]. Somebody has even gone to the effort of writing a whole book on it according to Amazon (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Fine-Margins-Manchester-Liverpool-Footballs/dp/1785316699). So my conclusion is there is enough coverage to support a keep on this.Tracland (talk) 15:49, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Marshall Windmiller (2011). Communism in India. University of California Press. p. 439. GGKEY:NSY99CAKNFU.
^ Lucien D. Benichou (2000). From Autocracy to Integration: Political Developments in Hyderabad State, 1938-1948. Orient Blackswan. p. 148. ISBN 978-81-250-1847-6.
^ Claude Emerson Welch (1 January 1980). Anatomy of Rebellion. SUNY Press. p. 183. ISBN 978-0-87395-441-9.
^ State Government & Politics, Andhra Pradesh. Sterling. 1979. p. 290.
^ K. Narotham Reddy (1991). Freedom Struggle in Erstwhile Nizam State: With Special Reference to Karimnagar District, 1920-1948 A.D. Copies can be had from K. Ganga Devi. p. 7.
^ K. V. Narayana Rao (1972). Telangana: A Study in the Regional Committees in India. Minerva Associates. p. 63.
^ Link: Indian Newsmagazine. September 1972. p. 13.
^ "Five flashpoints that have fuelled the recent Man City and Liverpool FC rivalry". Manchester Evening News.
^ "City Runs Past Liverpool in a Race That Ended Months Ago". The New York Times.
^ "Can Liverpool v Manchester City be accepted as England's biggest game?". The Guardian.
^ "Liverpool Versus Manchester City: A Rivalry Renewed Sets Tone For New Season". Forbes.
^ "Liverpool v Man City: 'A gripping chapter in a great new rivalry - and a defining moment'". BBC.
^ "Liverpool v Man City belongs to a different class of rivalry, one consumed by wealth, history and reputation". the Telegraph.

Comment I personally don't agree that this is an actual "rivalry" but the fact a journo wrote a book on it (which doesn't appear to be selling well if Amazon rankings are to be believed) and the BBC has said there's been an edge since 2018, so there's at least more there for GNG purposes than something fictional. I just have no idea if it's lasting. SportingFlyer T·C 17:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:01, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - enough sources to justify notability. Giant Snowman 12:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per Tracland. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 17:17, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - enough sources exist for this one Spiderone 12:33, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am a bit myth'ed but the nomination, there are plenty of sources describing a recent rivalry over the last two decades. Govvy (talk) 12:57, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tracland.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:42, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As a Liverpool fan, the idea this has been a rivalry which developed over the last two decades is laughable. It's developed since 2016, when Gurdiola joined City. There might be a lot of sources indicating a rivalry, but it's a sign of recentism. Whether these sources constitute the creation of such an article is up for debate. If they do, then an equivalent one should be made for Chelsea v Liverpool. That rivalry was just as big in the early 2000s, has a greater longevity than the City one and is still relevant today. NapHit (talk) 11:08, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there's enough sources that say there is a rivalry but in addition to recentism, the quality of the article at present is poor. Much of the content is taken up by the relationship between the cities (which already has its own article, and in football is manifested in Liverpool v Man U) and a history of the clubs' managers - but no mention of any relationship between them until the arrival of Klopp and Pep. And a list of all matches is all very nice but you could produce that list about any two opponents frequently in the same division. If anything, until the events of the past couple of years I would have thought the two sets of fans had a decent relationship due to having mutual hatred for the same club. Obviously there is very high level competition between them just now, it's definitely a rivalry currently and that may continue, but only if both stay battling for the titles for years to come. The point is that the article on the subject should leave the reader in no doubt as to its nature, and I don't think it does so at present, possibly because historically there wasn't much to go on. Crowsus (talk) 08:37, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/ keep - This is certainly a more recent rivalry than (say) the traditional inter-city derbies or things like Man Utd-Liverpool or Man Utd-Arsenal where they've been fighting for longer. However, it is quickly becoming the main rivalry in the Premier League. So if you're saying it's not been around long enough, then how long does it need to be a rivalry for?

The first game between them this season (19-20) in November was suggested at the time by the BBC (link) as being a title deciding moment. that's how important these games are viewed. I think it's clear that this is now a significant rivalry, and should be included. 141.92.129.42 (talk) 14:40, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Smacks of WP:recentism. A few big games over the last couple of seasons does not warrant creating an article on a “rivalry” that has no historical foundation. Exactly the same “rivalry” occurred between Liverpool and Chelsea in the mid 2000s—few high profile Champions League games—and no article was created for it. The Liverpool and Chelsea game has now gone back to what they were before their brief beef with each other, just another fixture. You have to give it much more time than a couple of seasons before a rivalry has substance. Much of the material of this article has been copied from the Liverpool vs Man U article, an actual rivalry over at least half a century. It’s WP:undue weight to give the Liverpool vs Man City game similar status. Cranberry Wood (talk) 02:04, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep - To be brutally honest, it's very difficult to actually take this deletion proposal seriously without laughing when we have other 'rivalry' articles such as Leeds United F.C.–Manchester United F.C. rivalry, Leeds United F.C.–Millwall F.C. rivalry and Brighton & Hove Albion F.C.–Crystal Palace F.C. rivalry. None of these 'rivalries' are based on geography (i.e in the same city) nor have they really consistently 'competed' at the same level to count as true sporting rivals. They appear to simply exist on the basis of a couple of anecdotal stories of a few opposition fans kicking lumps out of one another and trash talk on club forums. It's quite apparent that Liverpool and Manchester City have a clear sporting rivalry that is borne out of perhaps the two exceptional teams of the Premier League era under Jurgen Klopp and Pep Guardiola assuming they will both get 100 points. I'd say that it is not exactly like the Arsenal F.C.–Manchester United F.C. rivalry as there was a great deal of antipathy, but they were certainly the two clear 'stand-out' teams consistently competing for the Premier League in the early 2000s and were head and shoulders above everyone else in a similar vein to how Liverpool and Manchester City are now. Stevo1000 (talk) 23:50, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not sure I need to give a reason for this one.... REDMAN 2019 (talk) 14:08, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Finneas O'Connell. Consensus is that this song fails NSONGS, redirecting per WP:ATD. (non-admin closure) Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:41, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Heaven (Finneas song)

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

The article fails the Notability guidelines for songs in Wikipedia as not only none of the three bullet points in the guidelines are met, but also there is not a single "subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label." Furthermore, in the links, there is one interview with the artist "This excludes media reprints of press releases or other publications where the artist, its record label, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the work", which is the case of Atwood Magazine as it an interview. The "One to watch" source is under a discussion for being unreliable, See here as it published under Live Nation umbrella, so it is biased. There is only one source that is reliable "Alternative Addiction", however, it should be multiple according to the guidelines above, which is not the case. There is also another source, Pure M Magazine, which I have raised concerns about on the talk page of the albums and sources, and it doesn't strike to anyone as a very reliable source, see 1, it was also barely discussed. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 15:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 15:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 15:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nomination this release is pretty unremarkable. ≫ (Lil-Unique1) -{ Talk }- 15:28, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (my preference) or Redirect to Finneas O'Connell - For the exact same reasons as all the other recent articles on Finneas songs: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Landmine (song), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Life Moves On, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Girl (Finneas song), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I'm in Love Without You. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:31, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Finneas O'Connell: Same thoughts with Finneas' songs nominated for deletion. Barely found anything about the song. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Since it obviously meets none of the notability criteria. These Finneas stubs seem to be a problem stemming from one particular user, if it doesn't stop then perhaps admin help may need to be involved.--N Ø 09:36, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:24, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joan Kennedy (racquetball)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:51, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:51, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:51, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:GNG. Lack of depth of coverage.Knox490 (talk) 15:48, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete inadequate coverage to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:09, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not notable. Spleodrach (talk) 07:56, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:33, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Top Google hits are informal wikis copy-pasted from this page's summary, which doesn't have the sources to support. KB11001 (talk) 15:22, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MER-C 10:08, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Majella Haverty

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

Fails WP:GNG. Although there is no notability standards for racquetball, competing in junior events is not notable for all other sports with criteria. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:50, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:50, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:50, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete inadequate sourcing to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not notable. Spleodrach (talk) 07:57, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:33, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MER-C 10:06, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sathwik Rai

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sources listed are not in-depth coverage of the subject. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable raquetball player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:01, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a notable sportsperson Spiderone 06:26, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ashish Chanchlani

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

The subject of article lacks WP:NN. Being merely a YouTuber doesn't prove his notability. The article does not cite any independent coverage in reliable sources Neurofreak (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:29, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:29, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources seem to give only trivial coverage -- Ab207 (talk) 16:41, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:31, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Has a large following on youtube, passing coverage in newspapers of record. Oaktree b (talk) 02:39, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – articles about YouTubers are often created with very flimsy sourcing and quite a bit of fluff added by fans (or by the individual's marketing people). Here, the sourcing consists of trivial mentions and press releases (I have just removed four non-RS sources which were added a couple of days ago; they actually made it more clear that he is not notable.) --bonadea contributions talk 11:11, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG. Bmf 051 (talk) 12:31, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:GNG. All mentions within the article's sources are trivial. Aguy777 (talk) 20:07, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: subject fails to meet WP:GNG at this time. Jokolis (talk) 12:24, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Large following but no significant coverage. Delete for now. - Harsh (talk) 14:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jack Frost (talk) 03:18, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amit Bhadana

AfDs for this article:

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

The subject of article lacks WP:NN. Being merely a YouTuber doesn't prove his notability. The article does not cite any independent coverage in reliable sources. Neurofreak (talk) 14:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The problem is partly that it needs a better article, and partly that search engines are intent on showing crap like Youtube (because adverts there make money) instead of showing articles in Indian/Pakistan newspapers. If you try the name of a publication and the guy's name, you get some good hits,[29] and some mentions in passing.[30][31] Though you need to be careful, this hit[32] is to another guy of the same name.-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has coverage in multiple reliable sources as shown above so he should be included in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:24, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Republic TV is extensively writing about YouTubers contradict to WP:NOT and WP:GUIDELINE. I fear about the subject's media coverage as the said TV channel is the first English-language website that wrote about the subject. It was later circulated/distributed by the other news sources. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 18:43, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Information in multiple sources is available for Amit Bhadana and according to me it meets all Wikipedia guildelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IRoyalYadav (talk • contribs) 06:31, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:29, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:29, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:SUSTAINED coverage in four national newspapers / TV channels over an 18-month period. Meets #2 of WP:ENT: 'has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following'. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 10:39, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: With sources indicated by Toddy1, the article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Microprocessor development board#DSP evaluation boards. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:24, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TI DSK 6713

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was previously nominated for AfD on 26 June 2013 with a "no consensus" result. I agree with previous nominator reason: "Non-notable engineering sample and test platform. No references to confer notability, and only a small possibility of temporal interest." Furthermore, this article also reads as advertisement. No substantial improvements added since the first AfD process. Alan Islas (talk) 14:10, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it is a very similar article created by the same user, and also was nominated for AfD before:

--Alan Islas (talk) 14:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the article doesn't provide good sources and I agree that it is not notable enough. CupcakePerson13 (talk) 14:26, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was the previous nom. Same reasoning; WP:NCATALOG, too. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:07, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge a sentence into Microprocessor_development_board#DSP_evaluation_boards. There is a book devoted to this and the TI DSK 6416 DSP starter kits.Digital Signal Processing and Applications with the C6713 and C6416 DSK, updated revision. Hence basic facts are verifiable and the two kits are worth a mention as examples of DSKs at Microprocessor_development_board#DSP_evaluation_boards. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 21:20, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I would also be ok with the proposed merger. Alan Islas (talk) 19:51, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:26, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Spiegel

AfDs for this article:

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

No evidence she is more notable than at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karen Spiegel Doug Weller talk 13:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Doug Weller talk 13:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable politician. Ealuscerwen (talk) 14:17, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable, and there isn't enough info online to create a full article CupcakePerson13 (talk) 14:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Spiegel is now supervisor over several cities and communities with over 680,000 residents, including:

Corona
Norco
Jurupa Valley
Eastvale
Riverside (partial)
Home Gardens
El Cerrito
Coronita
Highgrove — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2bre99 (talk • contribs) 22:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @2bre99: that's not how we determine notability. Our guideline at WP:POLITICIAN says

The following are presumed to be notable:

Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels. This also applies to people who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them.
Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.

Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline.

How does she meet these? Doug Weller talk 09:31, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not a notable politician. SportingFlyer T·C 16:52, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete county board members are not default notable, no matter how populous the county is. No other clear claim to notability and the sources are way below adequate for establishing notability. I know that our notability guidelines create way more notable politicians in New Hampshire than California because New Hampshire has a bigger state legislature. However we have to follow the rules of who is actually notable. So no, we do not allow special pleading based on district size.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails the requirements of WP:NPOLITICIAN. Agree with John Pack Lambert's comments above. Dan arndt (talk) 08:21, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:43, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:43, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:NPOLITICIAN or WP:ANYBIO, members of a county board does not cut it, gsearch hits on Spiegel bring up her work as a part of the board only. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:00, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:27, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ajit Arora

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

Seems a GNG fail and TOO SOON. Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 13:51, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 13:51, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable film producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:36, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not reliable sources and a non notable film producer. ArticleBaker (talk) 06:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC) —Preceding undated comment added 18:47, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — doesn’t satisfy basic criteria to establish notability. Celestina007 (talk) 03:16, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable film producer as well as un-reliable sources. Adnanjavidkhan1 (talk) 11:31, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There were strongly argued cases on both sides, but I find that the delete side is better based in guidelines, and had a better understanding of those guidelines. However, this is a marginal case and the person is quite likely to meet our notability guidelines in the future. I will happily restore the page to draft space on request.

This discussion suffered greatly from outside canvassing. This always makes the task difficult for a closer, but rarely has the desired effect. Those with little or no experience of editing Wikipedia usually do not have a deep understanding of our guidelines and I'm obliged to weight arguments according to how strongly they are policy based.

The basis of the canvassing seems to be that institutional bias on Wikipedia needs to be countered. On that you are right; there is institutional bias and we recognise that. However, it is still necessary to meet the criteria before an article can be kept. It may well be true that there are many articles on white male academics who are a lot less notable than this person. That has no bearing on how we assess the notability of this article per WP:OTHERSTUFF. Anyone may nominate all those non-notable white professors for deletion, and they too will be assessed on the same basis. SpinningSpark 09:50, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ayana Jordan

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

Assistant professor (MD/PHD in 2011, completed residency in 2015) who does not meet the notability standard for academics or GNG. The article itself is promotional and CV like, which reflects use of sources promoting Jordan such as https://votejordan.squarespace.com/. Eostrix (🦉hoot hoot🦉) 08:22, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:25, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:25, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:25, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I am so sorry, the links to the page you mention have been removed as have the associated sentences. Other than this, she meets the notbaility criteria by a wide margin as she is the winner of many national awards (from the APA and the AMA) and she is the director of global health at yale and her research has been highly cited, and she is known in the media for her efforts to prevent a refugee from being deported from America based on mental health status and her research on Sierra leone. Please let me know if this conflicts with your ideas of notability and I am happy to discuss further. 08:38, 25 June 2020 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added byMicroglia145 (talk • contribs)

The awards are early career awards, I don't see how she meets any of the eight criteria in WP:NACADEMIC. Media coverage of Jordan is insufficient for WP:GNG. She certainly fits the profile of an outstanding young scientist, however that is insufficient for Wikipedia notability.--Eostrix (🦉hoot hoot🦉) 08:43, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are early career awards explicitly excluded from awards considered for merit in Wikipedia? If not I do not see how an award being early career is not notable. Many early career awards are extremely prestigious and notable. These awards are not made to students, but to young excellent scientist who already hold PhDs or equivalent degrees. Npadilla5 (talk) 18:05, 25 June 2020 (UTC) — Npadilla5 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

@Eostrix: AfD is not for cleanup, if articles are promotional and CV like, that is not a reason for deletion. Also, please see the references provided below that demonstrate why this definitely meets GNG. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 07:27, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The sources provided do no establish GNG, and are mostly short interview blurbs within a larger topic.--Eostrix (🦉hoot hoot🦉) 08:00, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment With a GS h-index of only 5 (30-40 would be expected for a high-cited field like this), there does not appear to be a pass of WP:Prof#C1. Looks like WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:16, 25 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, that makes sense, but this is not the only criteria. There are many other ways she is notable. Can you speak to how she does not meet the other criteria? There are plenty of autobiographies on Wiki with lower H-indexes but the people are notable for other reasons. Let me know.

Microglia145 (talk) 15:57, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

it actually looks like she meets the criteria for notable physicians! Why don't we just go with that. Though she is more notable than most academics on Wikipedia, if we categorize her as notable physician (mostly for the awards and honors she has won) then this will be great. Let me know what I can do to remove the deletion tag and change her category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Microglia145 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware of a notability guideline for physicians, it is not listed in Wikipedia:Notability (people). Her awards are early career awards and do not confer notability. She does not meet GNG.--Eostrix (🦉hoot hoot🦉) 16:26, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

here is the link for doctors notability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(doctors) and her honor of being elected to the APA is literally one of the notability criteria for academics "The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers)." I realized that you do not study psychology or neuroscience, so I thought I would point out that the American Psychiatry Association (APA) is a prestigious scholarly society. I think this concludes that she meets both the basic notability criteria for a person as well as for the academic category and for this doctor category that I found. Also, she was appointed to the director of the Global Mental Health Program at Yale, this is the highest position you can have at Yale in this program. This also meets the criteria. I hope this clarifies things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Microglia145 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Microglia145, the page you linked to for Notability of doctors (physicians outside the USA) starts with a notice that this page, and presumably the criteria included, have been retired. That's probably why it's not listed as a subject specific set of criteria under Notability_(People). MoneciousTriffid (talk) 20:55, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

in addition, she meets this criteria as well "The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity". based on her research on mental health stigma, she was covered in The New Yorker for her court testimony to prevent the deportation of a Sierra Leone refugee. The fact that this was covered in high impact news and that she is able to use her research on mental health stigma in Sierra Leone to impact the community and prevent deportation in this way is making a substantial impact outside of Academia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Microglia145 (talk • contribs) 17:07, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet any of the existing academic notability criteria. The awards are not of the type that confer notability. The media coverage is not enough to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:32, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This statement seems quite unsupported since you have not listed the types of awards that pass the criteria. She has won awards and recognition from the APA, ASCP and is was an International AWP Fellow... this is an internationally recognized honor. I am confused why these national and international awards and honors are not notable? There is nothing on Wikipedia that says they are not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Microglia145 (talk • contribs) 20:28, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Think it might be WP:Too soon as per Xxanthippe. Wp.Nprof isn't matched, though nearly there. If the Global Mental Health Program wasn't at Yale she would be accepted, that she has been invited to be a member of the advisory board of The Lancet does not count against nprof but is pretty notable outside of wikipedia rules. Apa is not an elected membership so does not meet this rule.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 19:37, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Her APA membership was elected though as per this APA link https://www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/awards-leadership-opportunities/leadership-opportunities/elections/2018-apa-election-results — Preceding unsigned comment added by Microglia145 (talk • contribs) 20:23, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But its the organisation she belongs too. To be a member of a royal society you are nominated by a member and then voted by the membership to allow entry, which meets the rules. APA is not a such organisation, all you have to do is pass a residency test as per their own website.if she was voted to chair she would be notable. That's why I have not voted as I think she is close to notability. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 20:37, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is a very low h-index and insufficient individually cited article to support keep. I don't see much else. I've posted another women in a similar position, low h-index and barely any citations. There is not much else. scope_creep^Talk 20:39, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is H-index a necessity for an academic? If not for the H-index, she would meet the criteria, right due to her APA election and Lancet Editor position and being awarded an International Fellow of the AWP? It seems that she would meet the "General" notability criteria as well as the "Physician" notability criteria (which I just found recently, not sure if this is new?). Is there a way to change the "identity" of the article such that it is a general biography or a physician biography? It feels flawed that someone might be notable enough in other regards (excluding H-index) but then not be able to have a page?

Microglia145 (talk) 21:20, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:Too soon. Does not meet WP:Prof#C1 or any other category or WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:38, 25 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Insufficient evidence of the impact for her research that would be needed to pass WP:PROF#C1. Early-career awards insufficient for #C2. No other evidence of notability. (Incidentally, Microglia145 should be advised to pay attention to WP:BLUDGEON.) —David Eppstein (talk) 22:53, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep .Despite having a low h-index I agree with the page writer here in that the impact of her research in society and awards should be weighted for notability. Npadilla5 (talk) 04:30, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All the h-index hand wringing above completely ignores the fact that the subject most assuredly meets WP:BASIC. A google search shows that this Yale professor has had loads of significant coverage related to her substance abuse work (NBC News, WBUR), on her methadone patients (Vice) and the role of telemedicine during the pandemic (MedPage Today), methadone precriptions (Lancet), the effect of cannabis on the brain [33], and whether people are getting high on wasp spray. (Inverse) She sits on the board of trustees of the American Psychiatry Assocation [34], studied mental health in Sierra Leone (The New Yorker), is medical director of one of Yale's training programs [35], and is principal investigator for Imani Breakthrough Recovery. ([36]) She also recently received media coverage for her role in SharetheMic (NBC News, Shape) and her opinion on the George Floyd protests. (Newsweek) All together, these multiple independent sources demonstrate notability. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 07:19, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Those links do not establish GNG, they are mostly just short interview blurbs within a larger piece and are not about Jordan. Throwing every single link, as you have, in which Jordan is devoted a one or two paragraph quote among quotes by other experts, is not GNG. The only link there of any depth is by her employer announcing an Special Instagram Live Session.--Eostrix (🦉hoot hoot🦉) 07:58, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's twice that you've cherry-picked the weakest source then claimed it represented the whole. These sources establish GNG, and even if they didn't , per BASIC, If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 22:46, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at the guidelines for notability in academics and it does seem to me that the subject does meet both (3) "The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor..." as well as (7) "The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity" based on the information shared above by Gobonobo.SevennRosess (talk) 05:52, 27 June 2020 (UTC) — SevennRosess (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Just to be clear, the sourcing listed above also demonstrates "substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity" (WP:NACADEMIC#7). As an elected member of the APA board I think she also likely meets WP:NACADEMIC#3. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 19:52, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am confused why h-index is being brought up so much in this discussion, when the guidelines in WP:PROF clearly state that citation measures such as the h-index are of limited use in determining whether someone meets the notability criteria. I am in agreement with the above users who believe this subject meets notability criteria, for the reasons they have articulated. DK.Sci (talk) 04:31, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The h-index is a standard and frequent way for us to measure academic impact and passage of WP:PROF#C1. What the guidelines should say to more accurately reflect our practice is that even though we often use the h-index we should use it with great care, because the standards vary from field to field and because it doesn't work well in some fields. In this case the field is psychiatry, it is a field where citations are relevant, and in it citation numbers tend to be large. So we can factor that in when judging that her citation numbers are relevant and are not large enough to pass WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:34, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

H-index doesn't seem like the best indicator in this case, since the subject is having impact on the field at an earlier career stage than usual (see: https://publons.com/blog/5-things-the-h-index-cant-tell-you/). There are more leadership roles than I would expect for an asst prof, particularly heading the global public health program and the APA leadership role. Unusual for early stage, and speaks to reputation and impact. The topic also doesn't usually get as many citations as other fields, so H-index seems to be a less accurate measure of impact than usual. Nicotinian (talk) 19:12, 26 June 2020 (UTC) — Nicotinian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Well, saying that h-index isn't a good indicator in this case is one thing, but saying that her citations are impactful is another, and that needs evidence. Early-career leadership roles are not evidence of impact. Working in a subtopic that gets fewer citations is not evidence of impact. All the talk of h-index here amounts to the fact that the standard ways of providing evidence of impact do not show it in her case. We can interpret that as meaning that she does not have impact, or we can interpret it as meaning that the impact exists but is not measured by those standard ways, but the outcome is the same: without evidence we can't keep the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:29, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone is trying to say she is notable because of her high citation rate. The question is whether she meets WP:NACADEMIC#7 or the basic criteria of WP:BIO, which I would argue she does with the national news coverage and as a boardmember of the APA. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 08:08, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep . Because Jordan has been quoted in many national news sources, including (NBC News, NBC News, Newsweek), to name a few, she meets WP:PROF criteria 7: The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. --Gggg2123 (talk) 20:53, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep . I added the citation on her contributions to the COVID-19 pandemic telemedicine efforts. Her coverage on MedPage Today is another indication of her notability. ([37]), she meets WP:PROF criteria 7: Lihao881230 (talk) 22:17, 26 June 2020 (UTC) — Lihao881230 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep . I would like to add that Jordan is featured in ShapeNews^[1] for her contributions to the #ShareTheMicNowMed campaign to address race-related issues in medicine and she used this platform to disseminate her research and clinical work on de-stigmatizing substance use disorders. KrispyKreme90 (talk) 23:07, 26 June 2020 (UTC) — KrispyKreme90 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep . Jordan has been quoted in a variety of national new sources listed above. Most notably, her work in Sierra Leonne and advocacy referenced in the New Yorker, as well as being director of various outreach and rehabilitation initiatives would fall under WP:PROF criteria 7. Professor Jordan is a highly respected member within academic circles both within Yale and at an international level. Additionally, her awards seem to suggest they would be prestigious enough to meet criteria 2 of WP:PROF as well. Myliobatiforme (talk) 23:47, 26 June 2020 (UTC) — Myliobatiforme (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment. Because of several keep votes with slender edit records this AfD should be closed by an experienced administrator. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:24, 27 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]
- @Xxanthippe: It's probably happening due to external interference (e.g. 1 and 2).thisbugisonfire (talk) 16:40, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I want to stress that those !@##$ who make these proposals should be ashamed. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 05:10, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @GerardM: unlike some others here, yours is not a new account. So you should need no reminding that personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith are forbidden here. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:40, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @David Eppstein: I did not use any swear words, I did express my opinion of the people who are so detrimental to what Wikipedia should stand for. That is not bad faith that is not a personal attack that is expressing revulsion. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 06:01, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Taking it to your talk since this is off-topic here. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:50, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – if/how relevant a person is, is not up for us to judge, but should be judged by the reader, in a neutral enclopeadia. Asking to close the AFD because you don't like the results till now, is not what should happen in a neutral encyclopedia. Edoderoo (talk) 13:57, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Edoderoo: I'm sorry, but it is up to debate. Under current community guidelines, we can't have pages about every single living person. thisbugisonfire (talk) 16:31, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Having said that, I'm leaning towards keep right now thisbugisonfire (talk) 16:34, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is significant media coverage https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Ayana+Jordan%22&safe=off&client=firefox-b-1-d&tbm=nws&sxsrf=ALeKk00aLd3dxBme-x4ju-2UmpVeV95EBQ:1593518862073&ei=Div7Xq-KBMGvkwXG6pvwDQ&start=0&sa=N&ved=0ahUKEwivyd2twKnqAhXB16QKHUb1Bt44FBDy0wMIPQ&biw=1408&bih=688&dpr=1.36 Lainx (talk) 12:10, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per above and her coverage in various national news outlets. However, I am concerned about that Twitter thread previously posted, one user wrote: "A great way to make change is to establish a Wikipedia account and begin contributing yourself. My DMs are open for those who want to learn how!" That cannot lead to anything good given our WP:MEAT policies with respect to this article and its AfD. Donna Spencer^{talk-to-me⛅} 18:28, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- We should be encouraging new editors, not biting them. But we should be encouraging them to work on articles about clearly-notable underrepresented people, not borderline cases like this one. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.shape.com/lifestyle/mind-and-body/share-the-mic-now-med-campaign-black-female-doctors. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

Weak keep I think there's just enough to make the argument for WP:PROF#C7 (impact outside academia in an academic capacity). There's more than just brief quotations from a local talking head; they describe substantial work, though not in as much detail as I'd like to see. XOR'easter (talk) 23:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per comments by Gobonobo and DK.Sci, I think she clearly meets WP:BASIC. That's the question at hand here. Cheers! Coffeespoons (talk) 17:52, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: When considering the strength of the arguments that have been presented, this appears to be a close call. Allow for more participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, feminist; you can't silence us 13:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep . Subject has been quoted in many US national news sources. Meets WP:PROF criteria 7: The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkoala (talk • contribs) 22:56, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep . Subject is cited and interviewed in multiple national media outlets. Cursory search of her name in Google yields multiple recent interviews and quotes in NBC news, Shape, and Newsweek. Meets WP:PROF criteria 7: The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. She also may meet criteria 3 due to her position on the board of trustees of the American Psychiatric Association, and she sits on the editorial board for the Lancet Psychiatry.Saxophone4 (talk) 17:36, 10 July 2020 (UTC) — Saxophone4 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep She seems to have received significantly more coverage than an average academic, enough for an article. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 18:04, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The number of WP:SPA here is alarming, could this discussion be cleaned of the clutter or restarted? thisbugisonfire (talk) 18:45, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no sign of WP:NPROF C1, although it's a solid start for this assistant professor. The awards are strictly early career, given more for promise than for achievement, so no WP:NPROF C2. No signs of C3-C6, and C8 is only for chief editors. C7 essentially says that GNG applies to professors (and their work). As far as GNG goes, I'm not seeing significant coverage in reliable sources here, although there are several passing mentions. I expect that the subject will eventually become notable, but it's WP:TOOSOON for now. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:37, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for not meeting any of the eight criteria for WP:NACADEMIC. No doubt that Jordan has an active commitment to social crises but the article does not present academic accomplishments such as chairing a department, authorship of peer reviewed publications, or having a significant and notable impact outside of the academic setting. No awards or election to membership in a scholarly society. Blue Riband► 01:59, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since the person fails the criteria for WP:NACADEMIC. While there are mentions of the person in a lot of places, but my scanning over of them, and the rigorous discussion about it, lead me to believe everything on them is merely brief mentions. It seems to soon to say what impact if any the person will have in academic circles also. As a disclaimer, I'd say the same for any "over privileged white male" if everything was the same. While I agree with some people here that there is an inherent bias in how notable women are discussed in sources, I don't feel that it's on us to bend the notability guidelines because of it. It's unfortunate, but it's not like the article can't be recreated once the systemic issues are dealt with if they ever are and there is enough sourcing on her to pass WP:NACADEMIC. In the time though, I'm not voting keep based on some hackneyed reasoning like "if it wasn't for sexism this person would totally be notable" or "People who vote delete are doing it because they are sexist. So she be kept because of sexism. Anyone that disagrees with me is a sexist over privileged white male and that's all there is on Wikipedia. i'LL SHOW YOU BY POSTING ABOUT IT ON MY BLOG SCREEEEEEE!!" Christ, seriously. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:38, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She seems to have enough coverage, and appears to be attaining more over time. I don't think this is a case of WP:TOOSOON, she's won a fair bit of reputable awards and has attracted significant coverage in reputable, recent sources in her work. She meets the WP:PROF criteria as well as WP:NACADEMIC#7 and the basic criteria of WP:BIO. The H-index measure doesn't really tell the full story here; she passes the WP policies and characteristics needed as well as retaining significant coverage in reputable sources. Heyoostorm (talk) 14:24, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say, this is an incredible level of canvassing. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:55, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 18:01, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Petros

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

Doesn't pass either WP:NFOOTY or WP:GNG Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 13:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 13:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 13:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 13:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete like I said at WT:FOOTY, he doesn't pass WP:NFOOTY as he's played international futsal not (association) football. And doesn't look to pass WP:GNG either. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:43, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom. Google search brings up no meaningful results. No debate here. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 13:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:36, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:40, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was trying to work this article out earlier, unfortunately I couldn't see GNG for the English wikipedia. Govvy (talk) 16:00, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Michael Petros is a professional futsal player and coach in Iran. He has previously been a member of the Iranian national futsal team. So this person is famous. Sufficient sources in Persian are also mentioned for the article. Don't delete articles for no apparent reason because it will reduce the credibility of Wikipedia and discourage editors! pournia (talk) 18:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It maybe notable on the Farsi wikipedia, but it doesn't seem to be on English. Govvy (talk) 18:31, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Govvy: I don't think that's how it works – per WP:GNG: "Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language." Macosal (talk) 13:16, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone who has said this fails WP:GNG actually done any source analysis on the Farsi language references or bothered to do a before search in Farsi? The articles I saw were a bit short or were game coverage but if there's other similar coverage then he's clearly been covered significantly in the role. SportingFlyer T·C 22:58, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SportingFlyer I assume what they meant was that the notability requirements will be different (probably lower) on Farsi Wikipedia, so it may be notable there but not on English Wikipedia. That was my interpretation of their comment. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:46, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- I have, and they are all trivial mentions. There aren't enough non-trivial mentions in reliable sources for him to pass GNG, in my opinion. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 23:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you. There were a couple references which I thought were more than trivial, but I'm not going to fight too hard for it - just noting there are seven references in the article, and that we don't always do a great job of evaluating these types of articles. SportingFlyer T·C 23:43, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Of the 7 sources provided in the article, only one seems to be non-trivial. But even then, it's just an interview where he speaks about the national team and the futsal goalkeepers in Iran. Only one question is borderline, where he states where and when he was born, and where he studied (a couple of sentences). It's clear that Petros is an important figure in Iranian futsal, but I don't think that he's notable enough to be included on Wikipedia. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 23:54, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - As a player, Petros has a history of winning the Iranian Futsal Premier League. Iran Futsal Super League is one of the five most prestigious futsal leagues in the world. pournia (talk) 11:33, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Keep comment does not present a policy-based argument; being interesting is not part of the notability criteria. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:34, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Future Society

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

Promotional article created on the same day as the article of its founder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Miailhe . Very little coverage about this organization online. James Richards (talk) 12:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. James Richards (talk) 12:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. James Richards (talk) 12:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. James Richards (talk) 12:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. James Richards (talk) 12:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. James Richards (talk) 12:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Likewise, could find no substantive coverage, and even if there was, the article would need to be completely rewritten to wipe out the back-of-the-brochure promotional babble. Ravenswing 02:21, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: interesting a.i. think tank, registered non-profit organization Kroger4 (talk) 13:11, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There seems to be an even divide about whether the available sources are sufficient or not to meet out notability guidelines and since there has been good participation and extensive discussion I don't see that relisting will make consensus more likely to form. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:23, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LeafyIsHere

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

Declined speedy, as there are credible indications of significance and RS. Procedural nomination. decltype (talk) 12:40, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. decltype (talk) 12:40, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. decltype (talk) 12:40, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG: [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 14:19, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Metro is an awfully unreliable source that will report on anyone, and is unreliable per WP:RS/PS. Hollywoodlife speaks for itself, Dexerto is unreliable per this RSN discussion and is used 3 times, so that leaves Insider and HITC. The insider article is garbage gossip "controversial YouTuber returned to the platform after two years of inactivity to make fun his online nemesis after his girlfriend made an OnlyFans" and Insider isn't a listed RS, not sure of discussions surrounding it on RSN but will check. HITC is garbage gossip along the lines of The Sun or The Metro. So if these sources are all we've got, then this AfD is a hopeless delete. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:24, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Without meaning to spam links, here are a few more including Gizmodo and Monsters and Critics: [45] [46] [47] [48]. I think that this person has had a siginifcant impact on online culture (the level of coverage prooves this), and therefore should have a place in an encyclopedia, whatever they are famous for. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 22:54, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[8] is okay-ish (though not "extensive" as you say, 4 paragraphs + 2 short sentences), [9] and [10] are not good sources, [11] is fine. Overall, you've linked 11 sources, of these only 2 are possibly decent, others are gossip and/or listed at WP:RS/PS or WP:VG/RS as being unreliable. The question is: is this substantial coverage that gives rise to notability warranting an article?

His only notable trait is generating controversy back in 2016-17 by bullying people with disabilities, and hence gaining some coverage in tabloids / gossip media, but he has no substantial, significant or persistent/continued coverage in reliable sources. If we gave every bloke who decides to be insulting and get featured in tabloids an audience, the wiki would be packed. I'm not saying everyone obnoxious shouldn't be on Wikipedia, but you should at least be notable for it, rather than have 15 minutes of fame (in non-RS) in 2016 then disappear. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:48, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ProcrastinatingReader, I know this is separate to any guideline, but this person has 5 million subscribers and prior to it being taken down there was a video on the topic of him with 37 million views. This is not some troll that was popular in small circles for 15 minutes then disappeared. If you ask any 15-25 year-old guy in the English speaking world I guarantee they would have at least heard of him. I at least used to talk about his antics with my friends in 2016-17. This explains why online tabloids are still writing about him 4 years after he came to prominence. I think that the issue with people like this is that everything about them is on social media, in this case YouTube, so it can't be sourced on here. But I think if we do have some sources to write an encyclopedia entry for someone we should have an article on them. Because I think that a person that has had his level of impact and interest should have an article in an encyclopedia. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 02:01, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty of popular people, household names in fact, get deleted on here, with better sources than this. SSSniperWolf was deleted a few months ago. We regularly chuck out YouTubers who don't meet notability policy. Far more popular household names than this guy have been deleted. Just last week we discussed a DRV about an actress ranked top of her industry with hundreds of millions of annual views, yet 3 AfDs went for delete. This individual may be 'popular', but it doesn't make him notable in the Wikipedia sense of the word, and it doesn't make these sources reliable. We may have a difference of opinion, but I appreciate that we've at least discussed reasons for our respective viewpoints.

As for the other arguments made here, they're objectively weak. In theory, per !vote, I'd hope the closing admin dismisses arguments that simply state "meets GNG" without even attempting to discuss the reliability (or lack thereof) of the sources presented. Much of the arguments here are "is popular", "is notable due to YouTube drama", etc., without any reference to actually discussing reliable sources supporting their statements, and such comments appear to show unfamiliarity with what "notability" means on Wikipedia. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:29, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is my last comment, but I just found this: [49] Vice source. This one is in depth and I think is a slam dunk for notability. He was also mentioned in this book [50]. I think he is notable and passes WP:GNG. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 10:57, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely Keep, the subject here qualifies WP:GNG by virtue of being the issue of many reliable news articles, as mentioned above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Levixius (talk • contribs) 21:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 14:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Delete non-notable YouTuber, doesn't pass WP:GNG. My rebuttal to presented sources is above. They aren't reliable, and we consistently delete articles from people who have coverage in these kinds of sources but not wider, actually reliable coverage. If we gave everyone an article who gets featured on The Metro or other celebrity gossip sites, well, this encyclopaedia would be a dump. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:36, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say the sources were wholely that, he did get a pretty extensive article from Gizmodo which is considered a pretty reliable source and a bit of coverage from local news. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 23:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Also side-note, while it doesn't pertain to Wikipedia much, but Leafy is definitely notable at the moment due to YouTube drama. Captain Galaxy (talk) 09:42, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A notable, but controversial YouTuber who, IMO, loves lashing out at anyone while playing video games. Anyway. With sources indicated by AlessandroTiandelli333, the article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:36, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — although the sources provided here should be used within the article. Passes GNG. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 10:45, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Sadly another case of a person becoming mildly notable for their online shenanigans.★Trekker (talk) 22:43, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, This person definitely passes GNG. I for one am tired of the ridiculous superiority complex Wikipedia has for stuff like this. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:41, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Leaving out the fact that I find Leafy to be among the bottom-of-the-barrel content creators with no actual talent, I fail to see how this article is worth keeping. Two sources does not and should not make something automatically notable - give me significant coverage from several reliable publications. Most of the sources that have been provided above are of abysmal quality and shouldn't be anywhere near the article. This is easily something that fails the notability policy. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 04:08, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just found this Vice source. [51] That put together with the Gizmodo and local news is enough to pass WP:GNG. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 10:57, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Namcokid47 is just a person who wants everything to be deleted as a clean-up by the look of his history. 176.218.42.235 (talk) 10:43, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why was I pinged for this? Just to waste my time? Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 21:18, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Notable Youtuber, plenty of sources are available. 176.218.42.235 (talk) 10:43, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draft - I never wanted to remove this page in the first place, i added the deletion template just to see out what others think of it. My personal takeaway originally and still is to move this page into a Draft. Yes i can see LeafyIsHere having potential for existing on Wikipedia, but the article only has 3 references, and it barely has any text on it. I'd recommend moving this article into a Draft, and then when the page gets more References, and gets more expanded, then it can have it's article, now i think it's missing qualification when it comes to info on the page.PolePoz (talk) 23:12, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, unless someone improves to article very quickly, this is really the best case scenario any of the “Keep” arguments can hope for. It’s a poorly sourced WP:BLP focused largely around controversy. It’s not appropriate for it to be in the main space as is. We handle BLPs differently than we do old 90s video games, - We don’t just keep it and hope someone cleans it up someday. Hopefully the closing admin is more familiar with BLP policy than much of the participants here so far... Sergecross73 msg me 15:46, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While notability can be of the good or bad variety, I am of the opinion that the sources shown violate WP:SUSTAINED in that they are all flash in the pan publicity stunts that are not indicative of lasting notability as is the case with many articles of viral internet personalities. Wikipedia shouldn't fall for the same tactics that made them go viral in the first place._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:50, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:41, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hack Job

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

Non notable independent film with no verifiable reviews. Donaldd23 (talk) 12:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 12:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article totally lacks adequate sourcing to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:55, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Noting that educational institutions are not eligible for CSD A7. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:33, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kindergarten Playway

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

Incomplete article, blatant advertising, fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 12:27, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article may fall under WP:A7 criteria. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 16:54, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete schools that are at least at the secondary level are always deleted unless we have a truely high number of sources that show unquestioned notability which we do not have here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:21, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no assertion of notability let alone evidence of it Spiderone 06:25, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:32, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:34, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Enter Another Dragon

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

Uncompleted/unreleased film with no indication that it is noteworthy enough for its own article. Other uncompleted films with articles go into detail about why they are notable...this film's article says "not much is known about the film", thereby establishing it's non-notability. Donaldd23 (talk) 12:17, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 12:17, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 12:17, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 12:17, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete IMDb is not a reliable source, we should have no articles sourced only to it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:53, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A quick Google search returns 10,700 results only. It's hard to prove its notability with such results. The News section of Google returns only 2 results. None of them appear to be reliable. HiwilmsTalk 19:05, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about the movie. It was mentioned in a couple of articles, but was barely discussed. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)}

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) 05:28, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Islamia Model School Akingam

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

Fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 12:15, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article may fall under WP:A7 Criteria. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 16:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article lacks any sources not directly under the control of the institution.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:19, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no independent sources Spiderone 06:27, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:26, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Evil Behind You

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

Non notable independent film with no verifiable reviews. Donaldd23 (talk) 12:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 12:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is way past time we stopped allowing articles sourced only to IMDb. It is not a reliable source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:54, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Primefac (talk) 14:00, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tommaso A. Dragani

AfDs for this article:

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

Apologies for a second AfD so soon after the first. A previous AfD seems to have touched only on (now-fixed) copyright issues. I think the subject may not be notable per Wikipedia:Notability (academics). At first blush, the author appears to have many citations, but on closer examination most of those citations come from a single highly-cited paper led by a large consortium, of which the author was just a part. According to Scopus, the most cited papers on which the subject is the senior author (i.e. his laboratory did the work) have been cited 130 times, 115 times, and 95 times. Each of these papers is in cancer genetics (a very highly cited field) and is from the mid-1990s (so lots of time to garner citations if they were highly influential papers). Given the field and the passage of time, I don't think the citation counts here demonstrate "significant impact in their scholarly discipline" as WP:NPROF's first criterion intends. Ajpolino (talk) 23:37, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ajpolino (talk) 23:37, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Ajpolino (talk) 23:37, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:47, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just for clarity, the six most-cited papers from the subject's laboratory group are [52] (1993, 130 citations), [53] (1995, 115 citations), [54] (1993, 95 citations), [55] (2005, 85 citations), [56] (1996, 68 citations), [57] (2009, 65 citations). He's also authored a couple of reviews with somewhat high citation count: [58] (2010, 131 citations) and [59] (2010, 100 citations), but these are reviews of the literature, not research themselves, so I think they're outside of NPROF's first criterion. Also reviews are typically more cited than primary literature, so I don't think these are unusually high citation counts for a review in molecular biology. Ajpolino (talk) 23:48, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - citation count is average, but the quality of publications is good with many of them (many in high impact journals including nature genetics and cancer research, and many are last author). I think also he was the first to use microsatellite mapping in mice to discover cancer loci which ultimately led to the discovery of many cancer genes per his 1993 study. As a note his current position appears to be equivalent to an English endowed professor. 1990s publications do have fewer citations as a consequence of them not being fully coded, and I note he started out in the 1980s. Partly because this technique was superseded. PainProf (talk) 05:26, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 11:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Benefit of the doubt on meeting WP:Prof - a large body of cited work.PainProf (talk) 05:01, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per PainProf, article needs to be improved, but the quantum of cited work is material. Britishfinance (talk) 11:41, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Aero Chord. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 09:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Resistance (Aero Chord song)

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

No reliable sources presented. Song did not chart. Fails WP:NSONG. Jalen Folf (talk) 06:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 06:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only has 7 references, 1 of which is from iTunes and another is of a compilation it was featured on, not the actual song itself. Micro (Talk) 06:50, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Aero Chord: The song is mentioned in a number of articles, but was barely discussed. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 11:50, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 11:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Aero Chord. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 09:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Surface (Aero Chord song)

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

No reliable sources presented. Song did not perform on a major chart. Fails WP:NSONG. Jalen Folf (talk) 06:24, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 06:24, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only has 6 sources, 1 of which isn't reliable and 2 are about a soundtrack it was featured on, not the song itself. In short, it doesn't have enough reliable sources about it to exist. Micro (Talk) 06:35, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Aero Chord: The song is mentioned in a number of articles, but was barely discussed. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 11:50, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 11:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:16, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Cash (YouTuber)

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

Not meeting WP:ENT or WP:GNG. All of the available coverage in reliable sources are related to his death. Hitro talk 06:50, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 06:50, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 06:50, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 06:50, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominaton.ScottHastie (talk) 08:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep :the subject is notable but the article does not have enough sources. Though he received more media coverage in death, if he were not popular while alive the media would not give him such coverage in death. A number of reliable sources can be found from Google search and I will now go ahead to add those sources. Cryforjustice (talk) 12:42, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:55, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 14:32, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 11:39, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The sources, added by Cryforjustice, do not address the issue that I raised in my nomination. Those sources are still the news about his untimely death. Still not meeting WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Hitro talk 10:02, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about him aside from his death, an indication of WP:BLP1E. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
He's Dead.--Ethan Wood Snr (talk) 23:47, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:43, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Al-eetisam Foundation

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

WP:N Ladsgroup^overleg 11:38, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:06, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:06, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant where this is already covered. Mccapra (talk) 14:17, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. scope_creep^Talk 15:15, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 09:33, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Fatihin Magazine

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

WP:N Ladsgroup^overleg 11:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:38, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:38, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:38, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Have added references passes WP:GNG. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:49, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]

References

^ "ISIS Has Launched a Newspaper to Recruit Southeast Asian Fighters". Yenni Knok. Time. 11 July 2016. Retrieved 5 July 2020.
^ "New Al-Fatihin: IS Continued Ideological Threat to Southeast Asia". Syed Huzaifah Bin Othman Alkaff, Jasminder Singh. RSIS. 4 May 2018. Retrieved 5 July 2020.
^ "ISIS launches first Malay language newspaper in South-east Asia; distribution includes Singapore: Report". The Straits Times. 12 July 2016. Retrieved 5 July 2020.
^ "IS trying to expand foothold in Southeast Asia: Report". The Economic Times. 11 July 2016. Retrieved 5 July 2020.

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

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:11, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gualtiero Galmanini

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

Procedural nomination on behalf of an IP editor. Their rationale, copied from the article's talk page, is:

Not notable enough. Despite the existence of many interwiki, everywhere the same. There is not even a source of birthplace. --212.178.219.27 (talk) 11:18, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have no personal opinion, but obviously reserve the right to put in a !vote later if I want to. Reyk _YO! 11:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The statement that he was one of the central figures in the architectural revival of Italy in the 20th century is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary sourcing. I find it extremely unlikely, given that a Google books search for his name finds only a handful of mentions and he is not mentioned in our articles Architecture of Italy and Italian modern and contemporary architecture. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:52, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sourcing. We should not have articles claiming impact for someones works without the sourcing to back up the impact claims.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's flattering to have my statements repeated, but it would be better if you based your comments on your own research into sources rather than rely on what's in the article or what I have said. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:10, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:40, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CloudSEK

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

No notability, statement of notability etc, the sources are quite whispy   Kadzi   (talk) 10:57, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.   Kadzi   (talk) 10:57, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-07 ✍️ create, 2020-01 ✗ G11

Delete fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:30, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. If having played in a fully professional league doesn't count and WP:GNG is the only guideline that matters, then WP:NFOOTY is totally worthless and should be removed. Feel free to start an RfC on the matter. Until then, NFOOTY has to mean something in the face of whether GNG is met or not. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:47, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Jones (footballer, born 1980)

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

While the subject meets, WP:NFOOTY by virtue of having played in a fully-professional league, he fails WP:GNG. I attempted to search with various terms, but found nothing at all that was about this Matthew Jones from Shrewsbury. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:54, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:54, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:54, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now, problems with thousands of non-GNG'y Football League player articles should be handled in another manner than singling some out every once in a while. At least in the cases where the player played more than a few minutes of one game. Geschichte (talk) 18:17, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:01, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets NFOOTBALL; needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 12:03, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per NFOOTY. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 17:49, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above arguments are solely based on NFOOTY and are invalid, per the FAQ for NSPORTS, which reads:

Q1: How is this guideline related to the general notability guideline?

A1: The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline. They are intended only to stop an article from being quickly deleted when there is very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from multiple reliable sources is available, given sufficient time to locate it. Wikipedia's standard for including an article about a given person is not based on whether or not he/she has attained certain achievements, but on whether or not the person has received appropriate coverage in reliable sources, in accordance with the general notability guideline. Also refer to Wikipedia's basic guidance on the notability of people for additional information on evaluating notability.

I've bolded for emphasis. NFOOTY is a presumption of notability that guards against speedy deletion and arguably PROD. It does not mandate the keeping of an article about which no in-depth sources have been located. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:37, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I tried looking for some sources to improve the article, but I am not seeing them. This article is very weak and currently fails GNG. Unless there is an improvement, I would agree with PMC's assessment. Govvy (talk) 12:53, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nom even admits he meets WP:NFOOTY! Daft nomination. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:04, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Necrothesp, I appreciate that you took into studied consideration my comment regarding GNG and NSPORTS and did not simply resort to childish name-calling. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:04, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The challenge here is that the subject does not meet WP:GNG. It is the consensus of the community that: There is clear consensus that no subject-specific notability guideline, including Notability (sports) is a replacement for or supercedes the General Notability Guideline. Arguments must be more refined than simply citing compliance with a subguideline of WP:NSPORTS in the context of an Articles for Deletion discussion. (Per RFC The criteria of WP:NSPORT here are too inclusive). The closing admin will need to evaluate the NFOOTY/NFOOTBALL arguments given above in the context of community consensus. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:21, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Manokamana academy biratnagar

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

Unverifiable. No sources found that aren't social media or WP mirrors. No name given in Nepalese to search, which is unhelpful. Searching for the book title just spits out Wikipedia mirrors of this article, so again, not helpful. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete couldn't verify even with nepali name (मनोकामना एकेडेमी विराटनगर) nirmal (talk) 15:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V - small school that might not exist anymore. Bearian (talk) 22:17, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Delta Goodrem. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:42, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Goodrem unreleased tapes dispute

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

Per WP:NALBUMS and WP:GNG, unreleased albums don't generally have their own article, particularly where so much of the information is speculated (recorded songs aren't even sourced). Similar articles e.g. Her Name is Nicole by Nicole Scherzinger were deleted even though they had a tracklist, confirmed release dates etc. Much of the information in this article is already written at the artists page and the title of the article is ambiguous. ≫ (Lil-Unique1) -{ Talk }- 09:59, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ≫ (Lil-Unique1) -{ Talk }- 09:59, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - to Delta Goodrem. It’s good info to document somewhere, but more in the context of her career than the material itself (which it’s already sort of written like to begin with.) Sergecross73 msg me 12:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Delta Goodrem - This is useful information about her career and history, but it is incorrectly presented as an album article. The fact that she recorded some early unreleased songs can appear in the "1984–2000" section of her article, and the later dispute and lawsuit can be described in the "2004–2006" section. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:02, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Delta Goodrem: It's best to talk about her unreleased material in the "1984–2000" section of the target article. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:06, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:35, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sabhagriha Chowk

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

Clearly fails WP:GEOROAD Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 09:39, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 09:39, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 09:39, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is clearly not notable. It's just an average tri-junction with little to no coverage. Bingobro (Chat) 10:48, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:30, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:37, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Action on Disability and Development

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

I can't establish that this meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Please see Talk:Action on Disability and Development for a previous discussion around notability and coi that I was not a part of. Doesn't have in-depth coverage or particular significance. Possibly worth a redirect or merge/redirect to Chris Underhill or CAFOD. Boleyn (talk) 09:27, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:21, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jhyap

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

It is a card game, it exists, but I cannot find anything to suggest it has significance historically, or has extensive coverage. Boleyn (talk) 09:19, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:24, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:24, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article was started on 2009. Its tough to find notablity references. There is mention of Android app for this game which should add for notability. Dose not make sense to delete old articles based on new policies.nirmal (talk) 10:54, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- It's a card game, it exists, it is played widely in the region (meaning it's not a game someone just invented and tried to promote here). No opinion on whether it should be kept. Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:36, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. To address other comments: (1) the age of the article is part of no notability criteria -- indeed, for an article to go so long unsourced is a contraindicator to genuine notability;
(2) That it is tough to find notability references does not mean that Wikipedia's notability policies and guidelines are waived. To quote WP:N - "The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability." The answer to "But I can't find reliable sources" -- and has Nirmal tried? -- is not "keep it anyway." It's that the article should be deleted;
(3) There is no notability criteria stipulating that the existence of an Android app makes a subject presumptively notable;
(4) "Dose not make sense to delete old articles based on new policies." The hell? Even if this was a valid reason under Deletion policy to keep an article (it is not), the first iterations of the GNG predate this article's creation. By a couple years, as to that;
(5) "it is played widely in the region ..." And I would be interested in reliable sources saying so.
I hope and trust the closing admin will take all this into account. Ravenswing 12:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:41, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Palmer

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

the sources do not prove any notability of the subject. 1)IMDb is not reliable, 2)it's to short to be considered a cover or anything, 3) it's an interview and 4) is a short mention. hence, speaking of notability, there is really nothing relevant in the sources. I tried to look for better sources myself but i couldn't find any significant source. AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 09:14, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:28, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:28, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:28, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Shellwood (talk) 09:30, 3 July 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable pornographic performer with an inadequately sourced article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:08, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as does not pass WP:GNG, there are also some WP:MEDRS issues here, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:24, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MER-C 10:07, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Henri Jean-Louis

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

Notability not even asserted in this, and I couldn't find any sources to suggest he meets WP:ARTIST or WP:GNG from a Google search or the articles he has in other Wikipedias. I'm very aware that I may be missing something though as he is Haitian, and so it was harder for me to find information, and that WP has a systemic bias. Boleyn (talk) 09:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Haiti-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found and added a source for him being in the US Department of State's collection. But that's it.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I found this from the Smithsonian Institution: [60] but nothing else so far other than auction sites, and a couple gallery listings. Netherzone (talk) 19:00, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet our notability guidelines for artists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Consensus that the improvements made prove that the film is notable. (non-admin closure) Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:39, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apradhi (1974 film)

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

An article about a Bollywood film, sourced only to (non-WP:RS) IMDb since 2009. A WP:BEFORE search turned up neither a plot summary nor any reviews. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 09:03, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou Narky Blert for WP:Before, a rareity these days it seems. I agree there's not a great abundance of sources on the web, a common problem with old Indian films. The issue is that it stars multiple notable actors of the period and is typically the sort of article we'd have. I've asked a few Indian editors to see if they can find anything.† Encyclopædius 11:00, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've expanded it. Given the actors it stars and the soundtrack being released on EMI Records I see no reason to believe this is anything other than a mainstream Bollywood film of the period. I would imagine that there would be newspaper film reviews and coverage offline somewhere. Ideally it should have better coverage in books I agree though.† Encyclopædius 11:40, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems notable enough with the sources added. A search on अपराधी 1974 फ़िल्म gives many results. A lot are just about crime in 1974, but several refer to this film. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:50, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable - has had decent views for years. Yes, better sourcing needed. Johnbod (talk) 03:49, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable film. Article bein in poor shape is not reason for deletion.★Trekker (talk) 22:59, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:24, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural production and nationalism

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

This unsourced (except for one dictionary definition) essay has been around since 2001, some of the text remaining from that earliest version (eg "This relationship between ideology and serious work is particularly ambiguous in the academic fields of historical importance. Much as 19th century science is often treated as the inventor of illegitimate racist conceptions of evolution and anthropology, many 19th century historians pursued what they intended as reasonably objective research projects in the history of their own and other regions either to end by themselves using the results to support nationalistic goals or to see their work used that way by others"). It came to my attention because it was recently tagged as a Stub, which I don't reckon it is, but it doesn't seem a useful addition to the encyclopedia. PamD 08:45, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. PamD 08:45, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. PamD 08:45, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. PamD 08:45, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found this article that says in the abstract Although cultural and political nationalism have often been treated as separate, recent studies argue that they are linked because the state produces policies such as promotion of cultural heritage to further nation building.Nationalism and Cultural Production in Iran, 1848-1906 (thesis), Contemporary Re-Emergence of the Qipao: Political Nationalism, Cultural Production and Popular Consumption of a Traditional Chinese Dress, Nationalism and Cultural Practice in the Postcolonial World. There are likely others, see this search. However, I'm not convinced that these articles clearly define "Cultural production and nationalism" as a topic, a google search for the exact term returns mostly passing mentions. The topic currently seems to be better covered in Romantic nationalism (homogenous culture allows nationalism to develop) and Cultural nationalism (which has almost as many problems as this article). The article is currently an essay and there's almost nothing worth keeping even if it was a more clearly defined and analyzed topic. I'm currently leaning towards a delete and redirect to cultural nationalism, but will think on the matter a bit further before voting. Best, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:57, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under G1, patent nonsense category, academic gas subdivision. The title stakes out an academic territory so broad it's unworkable. In an article with one lousy source -- which is itself a definition of "cultural production" -- there's not one sentence that's clearly stated with a sensible provable meaning. We might as well be playing Mad-Libs. --Lockley (talk) 05:13, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I regard Cultural production as an obscure academic term, whose meaning I do not know, though the sources others have found show this is not quite a neologism. If we are to have an article on this subject, we first need a good article on Cultural production, before we can even think of having one on its interaction with nationalism. The present article is a very bad ESSAY. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:00, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The content in question can be essentially covered elsewhere if needed. desmay (talk) 09:25, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's nothing worth keeping in the article and the topic isn't clearly defined in enough secondary sourcing to merit its own article. A redirect doesn't particularly make sense because this topic seems to be an unsourced essay with possible original research mixed in, and there isn't a great target. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:01, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SYNTH and WP:LIST. It's just a random collection of ... what? Bearian (talk) 22:18, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No further comments after the article was improved. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:39, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Meadowbrook Country Club (Chesterfield County, Virginia)

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

Subject fails WP:GNG. This is another of Mitzi.humphrey's creations where she almost certainly has a CoI but failed to disclose it. Most of the citations listed are duplicates, so there's only one article from the Richmond Times-Dispatch. A ROUTINE citation from a golfing website doesn't lend notability. There are also two WP:SPS citations. In all, the subject isn't notable. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:42, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:42, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:42, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 02:26, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete because, Wikipedia is not a directory and existence is not notability. Graywalls (talk) 12:02, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~100 year old club.~~ I have perhaps confused the age of this club with one of the same name in Michigan. I have begun cleanup of the article and I have added a few sources. There is more work to be done searching ~~through 100 years of news clippings,~~ however we do have WP:RSs and WP:V to show that this club passes WP:N Lightburst (talk) 22:22, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Over a hundred years old. The famous landscape architect Charles F. Gillette did some work out there. Surely this got coverage back then. Most news sources from that long ago can not be found with a Google search. https://www.richmond.com/life/bill-lohmann/lohmann-after-years-women-of-meadowbrook-country-club-still-making/article_716d4b2b-0399-52b9-8190-283d5d487ab8.html is significant coverage in a reliable source, and this isn't just minor coverage or some small town newspaper. Dream Focus 00:28, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unclear where this fake news of being 100 years old is from. Both DF's source and official website say the club was founded in 1957, and I have removed that claim from the article sourced to that page (not that WP:ITSOLD is a valid argument). Appears to be a pretty generic private golf course, and local-interest WP:AUD article does not establish notability alone. Hand-wave of what "surely" happened is not satisfactory. Newspapers.com which includes the Richmond Times-Dispatch does not have results about this and Gillette, or other significant coverage. Reywas92^Talk 03:31, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The part about the 100 year history is from the YouTube video [61], and the guy tells the history of when it was founded and whatnot. 1916 incorporated, etc. Mentions what holes were done by what designers when and when they were redone and whatnot. Perhaps the current club is not as old as the golf course. Dream Focus 04:27, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

About us by this Meadowbrook Country Club says 1957 establishment for the Virginia club. I note the Meadowbrook Country Club in Northville, Michigan is 100 years old.^[1] Maybe there was an admixture of data and a good faith confusion and conflation because of the common name? I haven't got 39 minutes that I want to devote to watching that video. Indeed, I couldn't tell in the first minute which club the video was from. But when I went to the link that was erroneously posted in the Virginia wikipedia article, it became apparent that it was from the Michigan club. So I removed it. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:56, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As the note in the article verifies, the name "Meadowbrook Golf Course" is a public domain commonality. Lots of courses so-named all over the country. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:27, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable golf course....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:36, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is enough there. Meets WP:GNG. Not the article it was when we started this AFD. See WP:Before. Further, the alleged WP:COI of the article's creator is an irrelevant fallacy; Argumentum ad hominem. The question of notability is independent of this attack. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:45, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 15:16, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:15, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Binghamton, New York#Neighborhoods. Obvious WP:ATD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:24, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First Ward, Binghamton

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

Neighbourhoods aren't inherently notable, they need to meet WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG. I cannot find the depth of coverage needed for this. Boleyn (talk) 08:07, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:18, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:32, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Binghamton,_New_York#Neighborhoods. Small cities generally do not need separate articles for their neighborhoods to tell us that a commercial street has (surprise!) bars, restaurants, banks, and shops. Main article already mentions antique shops and other information. Reywas92^Talk 18:24, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 05:34, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Belarusian football transfers winter 2013–14

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

I add the article for deletion for the first time, if something has not been added, I apologize.

Briefly about the reasons for adding to delete:

This is the only list of transfers of players in Belarusian clubs for 30 years of the Belarusian Football Championship.
The list is incomplete, only four teams are indicated.
The list is not significant for the public, it is in no way connected with many other articles and lists.
On May 18, in discussions, I wrote a proposal to continue working with this article for those who wish, but no one answered. --Football Beetle (talk) 07:45, 3 July 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 July 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:07, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:35, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - potentially notable, but not in current state. Giant Snowman 15:39, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In this current form with no citations, fails GNG and WP:NSPORT. Govvy (talk) 15:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above Spiderone 07:43, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 05:34, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Faruk Statovci

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. National cap earned years before Kosovo was recognized by FIFA. Coaching career limited to Kosovo Second Division clubs --BlameRuiner (talk) 07:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:15, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:15, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:15, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 10:27, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:35, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:40, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment seems to get ongoing coverage in Albanian-language Kosvar media. What's the concern here? Nfitz (talk) 03:51, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The concern is that coverage is pure WP:ROUTINE. He has left the club X, he has joined the club Y. Not even close to meeting GNG. --BlameRuiner (talk) 10:36, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I didn't see stuff like that. It was quotes related to upcoming games ... and Covid-related issues. Nfitz (talk) 12:51, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet our insanely broad inclusion criteria for footballers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:26, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

~~The result was delete. Sandstein 07:44, 3 July 2020 (UTC)~~[reply]

Reclosed as soft delete per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 July 14. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:17, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of UK Dance Singles Chart number ones of 1988

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

As Technohead1980 stated a few years ago on this page's Talk section: "I am unconvinced that the list of number ones posted here is that of the Official UK Dance Singles Chart. According to the Official Charts website, the chart began in 1994. Furthermore, the references here refer to the Network chart, which was not the compiler of the official chart." TapLover (talk) 20:49, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 June 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:10, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 21:28, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 21:28, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 21:28, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:ChartMaster8698 created a number of these charts sourcing Network charts back in 2013. If that was never an official chart provider, this and all of their creations should be deleted. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:26, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is an emerging consensus that since the subject has now had a book professionally published during the debate, earlier arguments carry less weight. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:44, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Erica C. Barnett

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was previously deleted on the consensus view that prodigious references amounted to WP:REFBOMBing. It was observed that this person, being a working journalist, has generated a great many bylines which - for a journalist - amount to WP:ROUTINE coverage that doesn't pass the biographical depth needed for WP:ANYBIO. The article was recreated with the rationale that a "full-length interview" now exists. That interview is a Q&A style interview on something called "bythesound.net. [62]" It The interview is not WP:INDEPENDENT and the source is not WP:RS.
Note to closer: during the last AfD, the subject of this article aggressively lobbied her Twitter followers to aid her efforts on Wikipedia by confronting the "assholes" [sic] who had nominated it for deletion. This resulted in a large influx of SPAs and long-term sleeper accounts. Chetsford (talk) 13:40, 15 June 2020 (UTC); edited 06:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 14:25, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 14:25, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chetsford, given your summary, I have to ask: is all this because you feel that Ms Barnett called you an asshole? If so, perhaps an apology can be arranged. Otherwise, there seems to be a conflation of two things: (1) the procedural errors Ms Barnett made when the page was first generated and she overreacted to BLP-inappropriate edits, and (2) the question of whether she is notable enough to merit an entry in the Wikipedia database.

These shouldn't have bearing on each other. For readers not familiar with (1), the procedural situation, a Wikipedian wrote up the entire incident in a blog post: http://coldfusioncommunity.net/erica-c-barnett-and-wikipedia-done-poorly-and-well/ . Since November 2019, it seems Ms Barnett has held back from further commissions of COI edits. I'm unclear on the extent to which Wikipedia policy is to remove pages of public figures who violate Wikipedia rules.

Regarding (2), I had to look up the term "REFBOMB" (a term which doesn't explicitly appear on the deletion discussion page): "a journalist might try to document every individual piece of work they ever produced for their employer, often citing that work's existence to itself". That's not what the happening here: most if not all of the articles linked are directly about Ms Barnett or some means by which she herself had an impact. Ms Barnett's page as it currently stands documents founding a media organization, instigating a small reform in the Seattle PD, a public confrontation with radio personalities, and a few other public events of note to at least some. All of these are far beyond mere mention of a byline.

In the previous discussion, one advocate for deletion wrote "There has to be multiple (two minimum; three is better), at length biographical essays or reportings about her life from cradle (or near cradle) to current".

There's something wrong here if this is the standard only for Ms Barnett. For example, Chetsford wrote a page on Raymond P. Ayres, whose highest achievement listed in his five-sentence Wikipedia page seems to be executive officer of the US Marine Band for some period beginning in the late 1960s. This is great! He should have a Wikipedia page! But if he should, then it is respectful to apply a similar standard of notability to others.

I recognize that there is no objective notability standard, but that is perhaps the point of a broad-interest site that covers both the history of the US Marine Band and figures in Seattle politics. But I do get the sense that the notability standard is being ratcheted up beyond the level of other pages because of the procedural issues or name-calling in (1), and I don't see how Wikipedia guidelines indicate that this is appropriate. B k (talk) 17:32, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"is all this because you feel that Ms Barnett called you an asshole" - Yikes, I didn't realize she did! I thought it was directed towards another editor. Anyway, no hard feelings on my part. I've been semi-active AFD'ing autobiographies and have been called worse. It comes with the territory in WP:COI article reviewing. Not a big deal.

"There's something wrong here if this is the standard only for Ms Barnett. For example, Chetsford wrote a page on Raymond P. Ayres," - We have a general precedent (WP:MILPEOPLE), albeit not a guideline, that presumes inherent notability for any person who has held flag rank in any nation is notable. If you have an issue with that you should nominate the article in question for deletion. This isn't really the correct forum to discuss the merits of Raymond Ayres, though. Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Chetsford (talk) 17:47, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If (1), the early procedural mess, is not an issue, then I suggest that it not be mentioned. If it is an issue, I suggest explaining exactly how the events from last year discussed in the above blog affect the deletion discussion.

Regarding (2), notability: Chetsford, I was unaware of the military guideline, though even without that, I stand by my stated opinion that it's a great page and should stand. The WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS guidance you point to indicates that the existence of other pages can be relevant to a deletion question:

"identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into the general concept of notability, levels of notability (what's notable: international, national, regional, state, provincial?), and whether or not a level and type of article should be on Wikipedia."

My read is that this is because GNG is fundamentally subjective, and comparison to other pages can help to calibrate it and break a "yes it is"/"no it isn't" deadlock. In the previous deletion discussion, I had pointed to Armenian journalists such as Levon Ananyan, whose page is more sparse than the one we are discussing, and which none of the readers of that thread flagged as not notable.

Besides the list already presented, it is easy to find journalists whose pages, unlike the one under discussion here, only discuss their reporting career, have been stable for years, and have never been flagged for deletion. I took a few minutes and found Geeta Guru-Murthy, Holly Williams (Australian journalist), Elizabeth Jackson (radio journalist), Kristian Foden-Vencil, Brian Lanker, and I could keep going—this is not a difficult exercise. Are these sufficient to establish a standard for what is currently treated as notability? If these pages are not notable, does the treatment of Ms Barnett indicate that it's time for a cleaning-of-house for journalist pages throughout the site?

The standard that a journalist must have several full biographies written about them before being notable is prima facie beyond what Wikipedia requires. I'm hoping that comparison with other pages that are stable and have never been marked for deletion may give us some way to more objectively handle the subjective question of notability. B k (talk) 19:37, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG based on [63][64][65] etc, and besides that, meets WP:ANYBIO, given that Barnett has made a unique contribution to her field, pioneering independent local journalism in the wake of mass layoffs in the newspaper industry. Numerous credits for scoops by major newspapers, TV, and other news media in Seattle verify this. See [66] [67][68][69][70] Barnett also has a book which has been reviewed by Publishers Weekly and Kirkus [71][72], meeting Wikipedia:Notability (books). We don't want separate stub articles about both Barnett and her memoir; it's usually best to gather someone's bio and their works in a single umbrella article and spawn sub-articles judiciously (per WP:Summary style), as with Caitlin Doughty, for example.
It's false to say bythesound.net is not independent. It's not owned, controlled by, or beholden to Barnett. Interviews definitely contribute weight to a bio's notability. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:37, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, to clarify, bythesound.net, while not RS, is indeed Independent. My reference to the interview not being independent is on the basis of our longstanding consensus (described here and elsewhere) that the content of a Q&A style interview is not independent, regardless of the source in which it's published. I apologize for any confusion my wording caused.

Barnett has made a unique contribution to her field, pioneering independent local journalism in the wake of mass layoffs in the newspaper industry ... Numerous credits for scoops by major newspapers, TV, and other news media in Seattle verify this - As I said in the original discussion, the fact she has "numerous credits (i.e. bylines)" and that she "pioneered independent local journalism" need to be connected by reliable sources making this unambiguous assertion. It is WP:OR for us to say "if A, then B". No quantity of bylines by themselves is proof she "pioneered independent local journalism". This is where the WP:REFBOMBing on which this article is based comes in ---- hundreds of bylines in which she's simply reporting on some thing or another but which don't report on her are crammed into the article to create the appearance of WP:SIGCOV. Chetsford (talk) 00:52, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, that's false. I didn't cite Barnett's bylines on that point. I cite articles by *other journalists*, where they call out Barnett by name to credit her with breaking a story that the other large organizations, major TV, newspaper, and internet media, missed.

Citation overkill is entirely beside the point here. Refbombing is a style issue, where the average reader isn't helped by seeing 4 or more footnotes after each sentence. If this were a WP:GA nomination discussion, refbombing could be a legitimate style problem. We don't delete articles because "too many citations". That's absurd.

It is true that the number of times *other journalist* have given Barnett credit is quite large. It wouldn't be necessary to have to enumerate them all here if we didn't have editors denying her unique contribution. Denying that she is unique in Seattle media, that there are no other independent journalists who are so frequently credited with scoops by major organizations. You could find people of similar stature in other cities, I suppose, but I would expect such independent journalists who get credited with scoops as often as Barnett also meet the notability criteria.

Anyway, please cite which of the, in your words, "large influx of SPAs and long-term sleeper accounts" were identified as sockpuppets, meatpuppets, or otherwise had the !votes struck as invalid or canvassed. I can't find any evidence that anybody's contribution to the previous AfD was deemed invalid, or blocked for multiple accounts, or canvassing. Casting aspersions in this way without evidence is misleading. Most editors will read your accusation and accept it on good faith, but they shouldn't. You have cited no evidence. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I think we'll have to agree to disagree. Chetsford (talk) 06:28, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:36, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:36, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable journalist and blogger. Q&A interviews do not passing GNG make.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:03, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This looks no different than the last time. She has some bylines and is mentioned in a few stories, but nothing that clears any notability hurdle in my opinion. The cited reviews of her book strike me as fairly trivial and i disagree that her reporting is in any way a "unique contribution to her field". What exactly is unique about a reporter doing their job? Bonewah (talk) 14:24, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- As with last time, if the list of scoops she is credit with by other major media are not unique, then why can no one cite examples of any other Seattle reporters who have similar credits? The examples are there in the article, and the last AfD. The article cites expert reliable sources who call out Barnett unique contribution. No reliable sources dispute it. If all reporters doing their job get just as many credits for scoops from other journalists, then it would be easy to cite them and show that Barnett is not unique. How many independent journalists who rely on crowdfunding after the waves of newspaper layoffs regularly get credits for breaking stories that the major media missed? Citing examples of them would prove Barnett is not notable. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:33, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Pack Lambert, Bonewah, do you have anything beyond personal opinion to back up your measure of notability? Wikipedia is a bureaucracy WP:BURYES, and we need more than subjective opinions. Above, I reprinted the guidance from WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS that one means of deciding notability is to compare with other stable, not-controversial pages (here I'll say more than five years old). Here are ten more local journalist pages to add to the six above which, unlike this page, list no claims to fame other than their reporting career:

Never marked for deletion:

Nominated for deletion, and ruled keep with less non-byline info than this page:

Steve Handelsman

Anya Kamenetz

Finding stable pages with less out-of-byline information is a shooting fish in a barrel exercise. Of course, there are journalists who have far longer résumés, but being in the middle of the pack would indicate keep and not delete.

I'd love to see some engagement with this or other proposed means of making the fundamentally subjective question of notability more objective. How can we apply the same standard used for stable pages throughout Wikipedia with this one?

There's something wrong when the established Wikipedia standard for possibly hundreds of journalists is a good career, while for this page it has become "multiple ... at length biographical essays or reportings about her life from cradle ... to current" (and, evidently, from sources editors don't brush off as not established enough). No matter how well-meaning the motivations of the editors may be, it's hard to distinguish ratcheted-up standards from WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which is why Wikipedia falls apart if we invent new norms for every page.

I didn't add more references or pull lines from the reviews because I was trying to satisfy the barrage of accusations of refbombing and puffery. Half the delete votes are that there is too much information and praise on the page; half are that there isn't enough information and praise. B k (talk) 18:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the refs listed here are underwhelming. Consider these [73] [74][75][76][77]. All of them (except perhaps the last, i hit a paywall) simply say that the story was first reported by Barnett, which is exactly what reporters do. Saying she is notable for breaking a story is like saying a bus driver is notable for driving a bus. The first three [78][79][80] are all the same story: her getting kicked off nextdoor for violating their TOS. You can add 6 more refs for that story and ill still say its underwhelming. A lot of links to the same unimportant story doesnt make the story important, nor does it make a non-notable subject notable simply by volume. So if that is what people are saying refbombing about, then i agree. Bonewah (talk) 18:54, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"I'd love to see some engagement with this or other proposed means of making the fundamentally subjective question of notability more objective." - You may want to try Wikipedia:Village pump to advance suggestions about fundamental changes to our notability policies. In general, we can't make changes to policy in an AfD discussion, however, Village Pump would be a great place to explore possible changes to policy that would make this BLP policy compliant if it is unable to achieve notability under our current standards. Chetsford (talk) 22:10, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"In general, we can't make changes to policy in an AfD discussion". Chetsford, I 100% agree with you. There is a standard, established by literally decades of Wikipages about journalists. I hope those commenting have looked at some of the samples above to see what this standard, which is well-established, looks like. For example, the discussion on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anya_Kamenetz went only a few paragraphs before a decision to keep was made because her one book was reviewed by sources comparable to those that reviewed _Quitter_. Other articles cited above have comparable content, meaning less than this page. The reason this discussion is so long is that editors are, as you note, attempting to develop a new standard for only this page that does not match Wikipedia's well-established precedent for journalist pages such as the 16 stable and established example pages I've provided. Thank you for pointing out Wikipedia:Village pump for people who would like to change the standard to "at length biographical essays" or other ad hoc rules that do not match existing Wikipedia standards for journalists—in some of the above cases satisfied by as little as one book or a few notable articles—which this page easily falls into.— Preceding unsigned comment added by B k (talk • contribs) 01:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has millions of articles and a high percentage of them are poor quality. Probably tens of thousands would get deleted if tested at AFD. You cannot judge our standards by comparing to random articles. None of those articles has been through any kind of serious quality review, and two of them are tagged for notability issues. If you want to make comparisons with other articles, pick something from the Wikipedia:Featured articles list. Those have been carefully reviewed and are a true representation of our standards. If you have some sensible comparisons there, I might start to listen, but until then it is just WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.

The claim that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy deserves a lot of criticism, but not for the reasons in that essay which has no widespread support in the community. It is self-evidently wrong. As far as editing rights are concerned, there are no formal division of powers or heirarchy. Administrators have no power whatsoever to decide on editorial content beyond their abilities as ordinary editors. You have demonstrated yourself that there is no "standardized procedure (rule-following) that dictates the execution of most or all processes" here. You moved this article out of draft space without going through the Wikipedia:Articles for creation process, the very process the draft space was designed to support. Nobody stopped you doing that or banned you from the site afterwards. Of course, you wouldn't have half the problems you have now if you had gone through the process and let someone else review it first before moving. SpinningSpark 13:02, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Ms. Barnett is an accomplished journalist in several Seattle publications as a reporter and as an editor, is a (soon-to-be) published author with a major publishing company, and currently produces independent reporting that is picked up by many mainstream sources. Irrespective of how well-written this article is, its subject merits a Wikipedia article of her own. White 720 (talk) 23:53, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Despite the denials, there is definitely some refbombing going on here. Considering that the lead of an article is meant to be a summary of the article body (and as such, referencing is not normally expected in the lead at all), and considering that this version was meant to address the problems from the first AfD, then why does the simple statement that Barnett is known for pioneering crowdsourced journalism need four citations in the lead? Two of those are Barnett talking about herself, so we can hardly consider those as verifying she is a pioneer, one has a passing mention of her as influential in Seattle, and the fourth, The Daily article, I can't access. Searching for "Barnett" on that site gets "bot blocked" so something dodgy is going on there. If anyone thinks that article does actually have something substantial, please e-mail it to me. On interviewes, we definitely consider those primary, non-independent sources as explained in the essay WP:INTERVIEW. There's not much visible in guidelines about that, but it is there in a footnote in WP:PRIMARY. While interviews are not unusable as sources, they do not establish notability, and they cannot be used for establishing a person's reputation. So as it stands, despite multiple references, the claim that Barnett is a "pioneer" remains unverified. All that has been established about Barnett is that she is a busy journalist, but that does not make her notable, SpinningSpark 12:12, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All these comments about refbombing and how the lead is written are irrelevant: see WP:NOTCLEANUP. Whether you can access a source or not is irrelevant. See WP:SOURCEACCESS, WP:PAYWALL, WP:LINKROT. You should trust your fellow editors per WP:AGF. If you need access to a source, ask the WP:RX or WP:Reference desk, but unless proved otherwise, assume good faith. —Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:43, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is all very true, but what refbombing does do is obscure the refs (if any) that actually do support notability and discuss the subject in depth. Are there any? So far, I'm not seeing it. SpinningSpark 18:50, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have every right to your judgement as to whether the cited sources meet the notability standards.

Last time around, Chetsford deleted content as uncited, or tagged it with {{Citation needed}}, so citations were dutifully provided, as requested. Now the very citations we were asked to give are "refbombing"? Which somehow is a reason to delete an article? Damned if you do, damned if you don't, am I right?

I would argue that the work of this discussion here is obscured filling up the page with unfounded accusations of canvassing from the previously closed AfD, repeatedly raising the non-issue of refbombing as if it had any bearing on notability, asserting an interview is a primary source, having to refute that it is a primary source for notability purposes, then asserting again it is a primary source. If you think an interview in an independent publication is self-published the same as anybody's personal MySpace or Twitter, then you go to that publication and make them publish an interview with yourself. Make them publish every word you say, unedited. It doesn't work, does it?

Independent organizations select whom to interview; interviewees don't select themselves. Interviewees don't control how much space is devoted to quotations of themselves, or which questions are asked, or which questions and answers are edited out.

The fact that an individual was interviews and it was published adds weight evidence of notability. A long, in-depth interview in a major publication adds a lot of weight. A short capsule interview, a single line quoted in an article about a different topic, in a minor publication adds only a little weight.

The facts asserted in quotations by a person interviewed can be WP:NOTRELIABLE, or only reliable as assertion of fact about the speaker. It is this sense in which an interview is a primary source and can be cited for a fact if: 1) the individual asserts about themselves, or 2) in which the individual is a widely recognized expert. But nobody is questioning any factual claims by Barnett about herself or her area of expertise in any interviews, and no facts in the article cite her quotes alone as a source. And even if they did, AfD is not cleanup, and it's irrelevant to an AfD discussion. Might want to re-read WP:INTERVIEW. The essay says exactly what I just said: "interviews as a whole contribute to the basic concept of notability. The material provided to the interview by the interviewer and the publication is secondary. The material provided by the interviewee may be primary, if the interviewee is speaking about his own life, or may be secondary, if the interviewee is recognized as an expert on the subject being reported."

Links to the specific sources which I claim meet the bar of WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO, as well as WP:NBOOK, are cited in my !vote. Others have pointed out which sources they think meet the bar. If you find those unconvincing, that's totally fine. But all these red herrings do not help anybody reach a consensus for either keep or delete; it only muddies the waters. All of what I'm saying is spelled out in Wikipedia:Arguments to make in deletion discussions and Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:35, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how you can cite that from INTERVIEW and come to exactly the opposite conclusion from what it actually says. If the interviewee is talking about herself it is PRIMARY and does not add to her notability. If she is talking about something else, and she is a recognised expert in that something else, then it is SECONDARY and adds the notability of something else, but it doesn't add to her notability. And you are right, I don't find the sources you mentioned convincing. SpinningSpark 20:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How? Here's how: Wikipedia:Interviews#Notability. "An independent interviewer represents the "world at large" giving attention to the subject, and as such, interviews as a whole contribute to the basic concept of notability." Is it primary or secondary? Let's read: "The material provided to the interview by the interviewer and the publication is secondary. The material provided by the interviewee may be primary, if the interviewee is speaking about his own life, or may be secondary".

It goes on to describe how some trivial interviews add little to notability, contrasted with serious interviews by respected media, meaning, exactly as I just said, "the material the interviewer brought to the table is secondary and independent and contributes to the claim that the subject has meet the requirements laid out in the general notability guideline."

Wikipedia:Interviews is only an essay, not policy, but it very much agrees with everything I've said. It's entirely legitimate to judge the interview cited here as adding weight to Barnett's notability. How much? It depends, but when you add that to the long list of other evidence, coming from multiple lines of reasoning -- impact on public events, unique contribution to her field, author of a notable book -- you'd really have to have a personal idiosyncratic desire to prevent Erica Barnett from having a bio on Wikipedia to insist the only choice is to delete.

It's fine to !vote delete, but support for that is not found in the pages you cited. They say the opposite. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:29, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can shout quotes at me all you like but it won't make them mean what you want them to mean. "Material provided by the interviewer" means something other than his questions and her answers. Barnett talking about herself is unarguably primary and INTERVIEW says exactly that, you just quoted it yourself. SpinningSpark 09:18, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great points, Spinningspark. I'm also not seeing any. Chetsford (talk) 08:26, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's saying that if you're interviewed at all, if an interview of you is published at all, you have some notability. In simple terms: "interviews as a whole contribute to the basic concept of notability." Not merely the parts contributed by the interviewer; as a whole. And shouting is writing in all caps. Bold is not shouting. Nobody is being uncivil to you. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:37, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Can we get a WP:THREE please? Stifle (talk) 11:07, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stifle - since no one else has replied, I'll offer it. I would just caveat this by noting that I am the one who nominated this for deletion.

"Reporter’s Nextdoor account suspended temporarily after she shares user comments from forum involving Seattle Police chief (geekwire.com)"

"Politics Website Publicola to Return" (Seattle Times)

"Erica C. Barnett (and her Mad List of Sources) Joins PubliCola Staff" (seattlemet.com)

Chetsford (talk) 00:07, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Stop it with the walls of text, please. Nobody reads them. Instead, make concise statements about whether or not this person is notable based on our policies and guidelines.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:42, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:BIO and WP:GNG. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 18:29, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - A second published book would make this a nonissue. It will also be a nonissue if, once her book is published, it becomes a bestseller, or is reviewed in multiple RS, such as The New York Times, Time, The New Yorker, etc. (Kirkus and Publishers Weekly are RS, but perhaps not enough). She seems to be a fine reporter, but I don't see enough RS coverage of her right now. I started an article similar to this one, Jill Leovy, but that subject's book was nominated for a literary award...and also was not a memoir (subjective, but I think it matters in this case, where this article is still overly promotional). Caro7200 (talk) 19:14, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject of this article has many bylines, but not enough RS about the subject. An unpublished book does not add to notability. The article is also full of WP:PUFFERY and, if kept, the lead needs to be completely rewritten. --Kbabej (talk) 02:53, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. [81] and [82] provide significant independent coverage of the subject in reliable sources. They do refer to the same incident, yes, but as a prominent reporter who is not primarily known for this one incident, she clearly doesn't fall under WP:BLP1E. This is a new source I found; once the article starts talking about her getting sued it's clear that it is about her rather than simply citing her. The book reviews combine with all those sources to push her over the bar IMO. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That source was already in the article (source 29 as of your date stamp). Chetsford (talk) 18:45, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. Whether a source is currently being used in the article or not doesn't change the subject's notability, of course. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:59, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course. Chetsford (talk) 19:17, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep her book is reviewed by Kirkus [83] which makes her notable, as per previous afd's regarding notability of authors, and the other refs are enough to pass [WP:BASIC}.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 14:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

her book is reviewed by Kirkus which makes her notable - I'm unfamiliar with that policy. Chetsford (talk) 18:45, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody said it was a policy. It's a !vote, arguing that it meets WP:BASIC. Which is a guideline, not a policy, and nobody claimed it was. This "oh that's not a policy" stuff is a strawman, with no actual point behind it. Other than to draw out a debate.
Why do you have to badger everyone who dares to disagree with you? You already posted your arguments for why you think reviews at Kirkus and Publishers Weekly aren't sufficient. Everyone read what you said. Obviously what you said wasn't convincing for this editor. Unless you have something new to add to your previous argument against Kirkus, bludgeoning the point wastes everyone's time
Anyway, you're right. Is not a policy. You win that one, at least against the non-existent point of view that "kirkus = keep". Good one. Please don't do this with the next !vote and the next and the next. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:23, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Other than to draw out a debate. This is a discussion where we freely exchange ideas and perspectives with each other, not a poll (see WP:PNSD). I regret if you find our process off-putting. Why do you have to badger everyone who dares to disagree with you? By my tally, both your comment count and word count eclipse mine here, Dennis, the latter by a factor of three. Indeed, the giant wall of text in the middle of the page is largely a tête-à-tête between you and Spinning Spark. And yet I don't consider you to be badgering anyone. I celebrate your enthusiasm at participating in this discursive, consensus-building process. Thank you for your contributions and intense passion on this topic! Chetsford (talk) 05:33, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop bludgeoning everyone. Opinions are here to be put by editors. WP:NBOOK is the wikipedia notability guideline essay for books and is the accepted standard. When a book is notable, which Barnetts'book actually meets because it has two or more independent reviews, which Kirkus deffo is regarded as being enough on its own, then the author is generally accepted as standard as being notable. With the additional non significant refs, these all lead to my answering of WP:BASIC . At the nd of the day the admin will decide who has put the most compelling vote against wikipedia criteria, and not one person challenging every editors opinion.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 07:06, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Davidstewartharvey. I've commented or requested clarification in response to four of the eleven !votes here and, by wordcount, am only the third most prolific commenter in this discussion. That's not WP:BLUDGEONing. On WP, AfD is a process for "discussion, debate and collaboration" (WP:PNSD). If you find that process disagreeable then I do apologize.

In any case, if you're open to continuing an informative discussion, I was hoping you could clarify something else. You cite WP:NBOOK which is a standard used for books, not people. Did you mean WP:NAUTHOR? Thanks so much, in advance, for your willingness in helping me better understand your opinion so I can evaluate, calibrate and reflect on my own. Chetsford (talk) 08:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You mean other than the reasons already posted above for having an article about the author rather than the book? If another editor !votes keep for the same reasons, are you going to ask them to re-post why we'd prefer to cover the book under an article about the author, rather than have a stub about the book? So you can re-post your counter-arguments already posted above? Ad infinitum?

Bludgeoning. AGF includes assuming that when an editor posts something at the bottom of a discussion, they did their due diligence, having read prior comments, in order to add to the ongoing discussion rather than repeat points already made. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You mean other than the reasons already posted above for having an article about the author rather than the book? I'm not sure I understand your argument here. Could you elaborate to help me consider it more fully? Chetsford (talk) 18:27, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What I said in my original !vote above. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:29, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, a writer's book that has received a couple of reviews does not mean that the writer meets WP:NAUTHOR as the book also needs to be "significant or well-known" (from point no. 3), i do not see this being the case with Quitter ie. it is only held in around 22 libraries. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:16, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If more discerning sources who review the book mean that the book and by extension author are more notable, perhaps this New York Times review would fit that criteria? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:9600:355:A13B:73C9:791D:6B9C (talk) 16:20, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Besides that 700-word review in the NYT, we now have an interview on local TV, and a 1600-word interview on Crosscut.com, which has published Barnett's journalism.

With Kirkus, PW, and the NYT, plus the local ones, the memoir now easily meets WP:BOOKCRIT, as "the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself". The simplest thing is to keep the bio article, and allow local consensus to deal with whether to maintain a bio article with a section about the memior, or move to a book article with a biographical subsection, or split into two articles. All questions that are outside the scope of AfD. Continuing to split hairs over notability is moving into WP:SNOWBALL territory. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:16, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While WP:NBOOK establishes the criteria by which a book is notable as linked to the quantity of reviews, WP:NAUTHOR - as noted by Coolabahapple - does not. Per point 3 in NAUTHOR, there is a two-part test: (a) the book must have received multiple independent reviews or been turned into a TV series, film, etc., and (b) the book must be significant and well-known. I'm not seeing that this meets part B. If it gets short-listed for the Pulitzer Prize, the Nobel Prize, the National Book Award, the Man Booker Prize, etc., we might have a more solid case. But we need some objective measurement of it being "well known" (separate from review quantity which is covered in clause A of criteria 3), and not just, "I've read it". And, as noted by others WP:BOOKCRIT establishes whether a book, not the author, is notable. Erica Barnett is a human being, and not a book, so is covered by NAUTHOR instead. This is a fundamental distinction since notability of a BLP requires biographical detail beyond what would be found in editorial coverage of a book and books may be notable, while their author may not. Chetsford (talk) 20:06, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I find it somewhat ridiculous that, where authorship is known and the book is an autobiography, notability of the work is not also notability of the author. If the book is notable for the work contained within and the work is the actual life experience of the author, it’s impossible to argue that the author is not notable while the book is since they are one and the same. Outside of pseudonym, ghostwriting, and anonymous works, has there ever been a nonfiction autobiography of notoriety that saw its author not be notable? I would say it’s inherently paradoxical and absolutely violating the spirit of the standards of NAUTHOR and NBOOK for an overly strict textual reading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:4:803:0:0:0:87 (talk) 22:40, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here Here! This discussion has happened on other AFD's of authors - an author must be notable if we recognise that the book is notable, especially when its an autobiography.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 07:02, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this information. So we can better understand the context of these AfDs, could you provide links to three or four? Chetsford (talk) 07:11, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to accept that creators inherit notability from their works. Notability is not inherited, after all. It's simply that it's rulebound and bureaucratic to delete Erica C. Barnett only to turn around create a new Quitter: A Memoir of Drinking, Relapse, and Recovery article that will contain virtually the same content -- especially since a summary of the book is equivalent to a bio of Barnett. We already have an article in front of us, and even if both book and author meet notability (!votes are split), we probably don't yet want two articles (see WP:NOPAGE and WP:SUMMARY STYLE). If a creator who didn't meet WP:BIO had two notable works, it's usually better to have umbrella article on the creator rather than two stubs on the works. The WP:NOPAGE guideline means that just because we can create an article on something doesn't mean we must: we often cover the content in a different context that serves the reader better. We know there will be at least one article on the author and the book. To go on and on debating notability as if the outcome will be no coverage of Barnett on Wikipedia is beating a dead horse, and that's what the WP:Snowball clause is for. Keeping what we have, expanding the section on the book with the new sources we are now seeing, and then deciding what to do with it once it takes shape is the essence of what Wikipedia:Editing policy is all about. And that one, Editing policy, is a policy, not a mere guideline like all these other rules we're throwing around. When we say deletion is a last resort, that comes out of the policy; WP:CANTFIX. Keeping it around so we can work out what to eventually do with it comes out of this policy: WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:23, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So no? Chetsford (talk) 02:25, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Librarian here. Her book was published today. It is standard for newly published works to take a bit of time to make their way into library collections, get properly processed by each library, and then each library does their regular batch upload to WorldCat. Check back in a month or two. Gamaliel (talk) 22:32, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a case of WP:TOOSOON then? Chetsford (talk) 22:33, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's a case of this metric being completely irrelevant. Viking is a major publisher, that's the yardstick Wikipedia has always used, not counting transitory library holdings. Gamaliel (talk) 22:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Viking is a major publisher, that's the yardstick Wikipedia has always used" I'm not familiar with a policy that says a book by a major publisher establishes the author of that book's notability. Chetsford (talk) 22:43, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A published memoir from a major publisher, a career in journalism substantiated by reliable sources. Maybe she wasn't notable when this article was created, but she certainly is now. WP:DROPTHESTICK. Gamaliel (talk) 22:32, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as is the presumption of the default for AFD, because in addition to Barnett appearing notable, at an absolute minimum to the community where she exists, for the reasons already given by other editors, the continued refined specificity over what may or may not make her notable "in the future" is approaching the absurd. She's written a body of journalistic work for which she has been recognized; she's written a book which, while containing details of her own life, also makes points about the general health issues she describes and has been both been reviewed and the subject of media coverage; and she's recognizable in her field. To now say "well, if she wins the Nobel Prize then perhaps she'd be notable" is both a stretch for all other notability and a tautology. To call Barnett "notable" is not an unreasonable conclusion to reach and, considering the twin defaults of "to keep the article" and "deletion is a last resort," we've clearly passed that point in favor of moving on with improving the article instead of finding more possible checkmarks Barnett could theoretically try to tick. U (talk) 22:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not going to re-cite the examples of notable events, interviews, &c already given. I created this page because I think the subject is about as notable as the typical journalist on Wikipedia. I think enough people are going to be curious about the subject that they'll type her name into a search engine and we can provide a fair and neutral description of her.

I'm still concerned by the standards being cited by the delete votes. Some editors have required cradle-to-now bios, nomination for a Nobel Prize, and comparison to pages about other journalists only when those pages have been featured articles. If these were the real standards for Wikipedia, it would have thousands and not millions of pages. Remember Donna Strickland, who was deemed not sufficiently notable for Wikipedia until she literally did win a Nobel? I don't know if Ms Barnett will win a Nobel for _Quitter_, but that Dr Strickland's page spent a public news cycle as an embarrassment to Wikipedia shows that we can't raise the bar anywhere near that high, especially on an ad hoc basis, especially on an ad hoc basis for a woman.

I also get a sense of moving the goal posts: a cradle-to-now bio did turn up, but it was deemed not sufficient for notability because she was involved, or the source wasn't deemed good enough. The delete discussion last time concluded that the article was too soon and we should wait for the book to come out and some coverage to appear (that's why it was left as a draft and not 100% deleted); I did and other editors said that it's still too soon. One editor comments that Kirkus isn't notable enough and maybe an NYT review would be sufficient, then the NYT review shows up and that's not good enough either.

She did some interesting things that third parties wrote about, and wrote a book with a very well-regarded publisher. Be it for love or hate, lots of people think she's worth knowing about. That's more than enough to take up one row in Wikipedia database tables of millions of rows. B k (talk) 17:39, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She's clearly notable regionally, which is good enough. However, because she is openly involved in editing this page and is gaming the system by bringing attention to this Article for Deletion page to her Twitter followers, some impartial admins should keep tabs on this page. Ideally admins not in the Seattle area, perhaps from the UK. It would be problematic for her to own this page, which is simply in her character. And it would be problematic for her many haters to own this page as well.

Unflattering content is not vandalism in and of itself. Barnett has several documented incidents of questionable ethics: The Atlantic incident, taking quotes out of context on the Nextdoor.com story (which is frustrating because it simply invalidates her premise and helps her detractors), her (mean-spirited) story about disabled bus riders, initiating unwarranted suspicions and rumors about black activists at the BLM protests, and I suppose the wine stealing incident. On the other hand she has over two decades of legitimate journalism and some solid reporting. If a reliable source has actually called her a "pioneer", it should be in the article. However she recently pointed out that all Seattle journalists "know each other", so I'm skeptical about that reliability.

In my humble opinion, her ego and immaturity are her worst enemies, which is worth mentioning because those enemies have already edited this page. At any rate, this has gone on long enough and has plenty of Keep votes already.--71.212.13.9 (talk) 00:41, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:22, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Virginia Attorney General election

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

This is WP:TOOSOON and Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL ~ Amkgp 💬 06:19, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 06:19, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 06:19, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This election is less than 17 months away, as are 2021 Virginia gubernatorial election and 2021 Virginia lieutenant gubernatorial election. Those pages have not been recommended for deletion, so I'm unclear how this one is WP:TOOSOON? As far as this page violating the WP:CRYSTALBALL policy, each prospective candidate and declared candidate is cited with a reputable source. SeekerofTruth90 (talk) 13:41, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~ Draftify while it's the next election in the cycle and there has been some amount of speculation about who's gonna run as well, there's been no coverage of declared candidates. Ideally this would be redirected to 2021 Virginia elections for now, but the article doesn't exist yet. (changed vote to draftify) Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:12, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:TOOSOON is only an essay and doesn't apply in any case because GNG is satisfied. WP:CRYSTALBALL states that "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." which is the case here.----Pontificalibus 09:58, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft pending more substantial coverage, which is more likely to come after the 2020 U.S. election season has run its course. BD2412 T 03:44, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As noted by SeekerofTruth90, both the 2021 Virginia gubernatorial election and the much less covered 2021 Virginia lieutenant gubernatorial election already have pages. Additionally, we are approaching the time period for candidates to start announcing their candidacy for next years statewide races. One Republican has already declared. While two Democrats, one a notable Commonwealth's Attorney from Henrico, and one being a state delegate have formed exploratory committees. It is my belief that this page does not violate WP:TOOSOON as coverage for this specific race is now starting to pick up media coverage. It is also my belief that this page does not violate WP:CRYSTALBALL as there is no speculation of who's running. All candidates, both Exploratory and Declared, comes from the candidates themselves and reputable news outlets. ThisUserIsTaken (talk) 18:20, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ThisUserIsTaken, how are you related to SeekerofTruth90 ? ~ Amkgp 💬 19:56, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not related to them. I do not know who they are. I referenced them in order to piggy back what they said. As I agreed with them and the point they made. ThisUserIsTaken talk 20:17, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
* Closing Admin do note that the above two editors are under investigation of sock-puppetry at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SeekerOfTruth90 ~ Amkgp 💬 05:07, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep As a rationale which could not possibly be applied to the article in its current state and as an evident lack of WP:BEFORE (googling the exact article title yields 1 2 3). There are also other sources already in the article about potential candidancies, and WP:TOOSOON does not appear to apply as this is not so far in the future as to be unreasonable (unlike, say, 2040 United States presidential elections), and there is already some coverage... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:54, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it's not that far in the future, there are enough reliable sources to say something useful about it, and the election is almost certain to take place. Hut 8.5 12:40, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Media coverage already exists, and keeping the article makes adding coverage more convenient than having to recreate it at some point in the future (when it will certainly need to be recreated). Many other similar articles for future elections exist, and deleting them all would be incredibly inconvenient. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 00:51, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL do not mean Wikipedia is not allowed to have articles on things happening in the future. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:33, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (G4). MER-C 17:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jamil Abiad

AfDs for this article:

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

Requesting deletion and salting – article was originally deleted per 9–0 unanimous decision on June 3 (AfD) and was re-created on June 27. It's worth noting that the creator of this article the first time around was blocked indefinitely for advertising, leading me to conclude that the second iteration's creator needs to be investigated for sockpuppetry (these two users' pages are very similarly formatted). Also, no references used in the re-creation add up to satisfy GNG. I think the appropriate action here is to SALT the article and BLOCK the creator. SportsGuy789 (talk) 07:06, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SportsGuy789 (talk) 07:06, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. SportsGuy789 (talk) 07:06, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. SportsGuy789 (talk) 07:06, 3 July 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 July 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:36, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article must be deleted under G4 as well as G5 as per this disclosure by the creator who is editing on behalf of a blocked spammer Revival932 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in a violation of WP:MEAT. GSS ^💬 15:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:37, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandria (typeface)

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

Notability not shown. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 15:56, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 15:56, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can you explain why this does not meet notability? Has same refs as Athens and others in Category:Slab serif typefaces? Davidstewartharvey (talk) 18:44, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidstewartharvey:, we must consider this deletion in isolation and review it per guidelines. There are a lot of articles out there that should be deleted. We couldn't possibly delete them all at once. --Ysangkok (talk) 00:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ysangkok:My question is simple - the nominator has not stated why notability has not been met against Wikipedia rules. In addition, if this is not notable should they not put in a group deletion of those who references are the same? I am not voting just asking why? I am not expert on Fonts but I have to say how do you actually prove a font is notable?Davidstewartharvey (talk) 07:29, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidstewartharvey: you should it with the WP:GNG. I don't know why the nominator only nominated this one. Probably because it is easier than to make a long list, and then you can't use all those javascript gadgets that do half the work for you. --Ysangkok (talk) 19:24, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it's a nice font and all, but it doesn't meet GNG. I don't think it makes sense to have articles for fonts that aren't widely used or talked about a lot. --Ysangkok (talk) 04:09, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:35, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted per WP:G5. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:11, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nisahr Yawar

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

If I get it right, the footballer never played in a fully professional league, thereby failing WP:NFOOTY. I do not see correspondence to WP:GNG either. Ymblanter (talk) 07:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 07:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 07:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 07:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:35, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:38, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see zero stats on websites, and nothing to help GNG. Govvy (talk) 15:54, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above Spiderone 07:44, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 23:34, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jira (software)

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

Atlassian as one article more than sufficient to cover all of their products. the company has made Wiki pages as some corporate blog for each of their products. Wiki is not a brochure. references are mainly their own and it is motivated by their PR/ digital marketing agency itself. and their articles were questioned for being written by close association of the company. Light2021 (talk) 07:10, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is technically a second nomination as the first was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JIRA. A rewrite is still in order to remove promotional material, but it's quite notable. Multiple articles https://techcrunch.com/2020/01/23/jira-software-gets-better-roadmaps/ https://www.infoworld.com/article/3535008/5-apps-to-integrate-with-jira-software.html https://www.clariontech.com/platform-blog/jira-software-15-important-features-you-might-have-missed https://project-management.com/jira-software-review/ https://www.softwarepundit.com/jira-software-review https://oit.colorado.edu/services/business-services/jira-software LinkedIn Learning even has a number of courses on it: https://www.linkedin.com/learning/topics/jira . Multiple books on the topic: ISBN 1788833511 ISBN 978-1449305413 ASIN B07FNYBHXS ASIN B07MCJ7P4B ASIN B07D7JMYHC ASIN B07N4LH9PM, and I did not scratch the surface there. I am assuming that Light2021 ignored the advice at WP:BEFORE and just went on the current state of the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:59, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is notable and so should be kept per WP:ATD; WP:IMPERFECT; WP:PRESERVE; &c. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:57, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

Doar, Matthew (2012). Practical JIRA Administration. Sebastopol, California: O'Reilly Media. ISBN 978-1-449-30541-3. Retrieved 2020-07-06.
Sagar, Ravi (2015). Mastering JIRA. Birmingham: Pakt. ISBN 978-1-78439-651-0. Retrieved 2020-07-06.
Li, Patrick (2014). JIRA 6.x Administration Cookbook. Birmingham: Pakt. ISBN 978-1-78217-687-9. Retrieved 2020-07-06.
Filion, Luc; Daviot, Nicolas; Le Bel, Jean-Philippe; Gagnon, Marc (2017). "Using Atlassian Tools for Efficient Requirements Management: An industrial case study". 2017 Annual IEEE International Systems Conference (SysCon). Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. doi:10.1109/syscon.2017.7934769. ISBN 978-1-5090-4623-2. Retrieved 2020-07-06.
Fisher, J.; Knoing, D.; Ludwigsen, A. P. (2013). "Utilizing Atlassian Jira For Large-Scale Software Development Management" (PDF). Proceedings of ICALEPCS2013. JACoW. ISBN 978-3-95450-139-7. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2020-07-06. Retrieved 2020-07-06.
Ferrill, Paul; Martinez, Juan (2019-09-19). "Jira Service Desk Review". PC Magazine. Archived from the original on 2020-07-06. Retrieved 2020-07-06.
Evans, Jon (2018-12-09). "JIRA is an antipattern". TechCrunch. Archived from the original on 2020-07-06. Retrieved 2020-07-06.
Pickavance, Mark (2019-09-12). "Jira Service Desk review: Low starting price with a steep ramp". TechRadar. Archived from the original on 2020-07-06. Retrieved 2020-07-06.
Adhikari, Supratim (2018-10-19). "Atlassian's 'big bet' on a rejig for Jira". The Australian. Archived from the original on 2020-07-06. Retrieved 2020-07-06.
Noyes, Katherine (2015-10-06). "Atlassian takes JIRA beyond the development world". PC World. Archived from the original on 2020-07-06. Retrieved 2020-07-06.
Speed, Richard (2020-03-19). "Atlassian finally unleashes free Jira tier – nearly six months late yet just in time for coronavirus crunch". The Register. Archived from the original on 2020-07-06. Retrieved 2020-07-06.

Sources with quotes

Doar, Matthew (2012). Practical JIRA Administration. Sebastopol, California: O'Reilly Media. ISBN 978-1-449-30541-3. Retrieved 2020-07-06.
Sagar, Ravi (2015). Mastering JIRA. Birmingham: Pakt. ISBN 978-1-78439-651-0. Retrieved 2020-07-06.
Li, Patrick (2014). JIRA 6.x Administration Cookbook. Birmingham: Pakt. ISBN 978-1-78217-687-9. Retrieved 2020-07-06.
Filion, Luc; Daviot, Nicolas; Le Bel, Jean-Philippe; Gagnon, Marc (2017). "Using Atlassian Tools for Efficient Requirements Management: An industrial case study". 2017 Annual IEEE International Systems Conference (SysCon). Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. doi:10.1109/syscon.2017.7934769. ISBN 978-1-5090-4623-2. Retrieved 2020-07-06.
The abstract notes:
This paper describes an industrial case study using Atlassian JIRA® and third party plugins for requirements management in the field of transit systems. The solution presented shows efficiency in supporting the management of requirements, traceability and the systems engineering processes globally.
The article notes:
Emerging from the software industry, Atlassian JIRA is a generic work item tracker (“work items” which JIRA calls “issues”) which is widely used for tracking software bugs and tasks and is also commonly used for Agile projects. JIRA has nonetheless a high level of configurability, which allow administrators to create legitimately all types of work items. Consequently, created work items can be requirement objects of all kinds (e.g. System Requirements, Software Requirements, or simply Requirements). All work items have a predefined set of data fields (properties or attributes), which are common to all tracked items, such as status, priority, version, etc. These properties are also configurable, and can be altered or complemented with new custom fields which can be specifically dedicated to requirements. For instance, we may want to characterize requirements with a Requirement Type, a Mode of Operation, a Source, a development Phase, a Component, a SubSystem, and so on.
...
One big advantage of JIRA consists in that the tracking of a requirement can be closely coupled with the tracking of everything else related to it: sub-requirements, tasks, change requests, tests, bugs, project management items, and so on. This can be very helpful to SME, the number of resources being limited. It can also be applied to lean systems engineering concepts as described in [8] [9] and practices or even Agile systems engineering [10] where the need for delivering something quickly is a live or die factor.
JIRA offers the ability to link items together. JIRA links go along with a link clause that describes the relationship between two linked items. The link clause is also configurable, and we may then correctly link requirements with, for instance, an “implements”-“implemented by” relationship. For instance, a Software Requirement may be implemented by a “Software Task” or by a “User Story” (for Agile fans). These links are the keys that enable traceability between objects (requirement to requirement, but also requirement to task, source code, test, change request, and so on).
Fisher, J.; Knoing, D.; Ludwigsen, A. P. (2013). "Utilizing Atlassian Jira For Large-Scale Software Development Management" (PDF). Proceedings of ICALEPCS2013. JACoW. ISBN 978-3-95450-139-7. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2020-07-06. Retrieved 2020-07-06.
The article notes:
JIRA is an issue tracking system developed by Atlassian Corporation starting in 2002. It is most commonly used for software bug tracking, but thanks to its advanced customization features, is highly suitable for other types of ticketing systems (work orders, help desks, etc.), and project management.
...
JIRA provides a mature, powerful toolset for local customizations to meet specific project needs. This includes custom fields, issue types, workflows, notifications, and user entry screens.
...
All software changes require a JIRA issue. This includes not just bug fixes, but enhancements and new features. In fact, documentation in JIRA issues is used as a basis for all end-user release documentation. In addition, database changes (in particular configuration data), code reviews, and design reviews are tracked with JIRA.
Ferrill, Paul; Martinez, Juan (2019-09-19). "Jira Service Desk Review". PC Magazine. Archived from the original on 2020-07-06. Retrieved 2020-07-06.
The article notes:
The primary customer-facing UI for Jira Service Desk is its customer portal, but customers can also submit requests by using email and embedded widgets. When a request has been handled, an email will automatically be sent notifying the customer of its status. A link in the email will open the request in Jira Service Desk, with a full description of the status and any comments by the agent.
A downside here compared to most of the other products we tested is Jira Service Desk's lack of an integrated knowledge base. According to Atlassian, this will be rectified in the next company fiscal year. Agents can search issues looking for how to resolve a specific problem, but there isn't a similar mechanism for the typical user.
Evans, Jon (2018-12-09). "JIRA is an antipattern". TechCrunch. Archived from the original on 2020-07-06. Retrieved 2020-07-06.
The article notes:
Atlassian’s JIRA began life as a bug-tracking tool. Today, though, it has become an agile planning suite, “to plan, track, and release great software.” In many organizations it has become the primary map of software projects, the hub of all development, the infamous “source of truth.”
It is a truism that the map is not the territory. Alas, this seems especially true of JIRA. Its genesis as a bug tracker, and its resulting use of “tickets” as its fundamental, defining unit, have made its maps especially difficult to follow. JIRA1 is all too often used in a way which makes it, inadvertently, an industry-wide “antipattern,” i.e. “a common response to a recurring problem that is usually ineffective and risks being highly counterproductive.”
One thing that writing elegant software has in common with art: its crafters should remain cognizant of the overall macro vision of the project at the same time they are working on its smallest micro details. JIRA, alas, implicitly teaches everyone to ignore the larger vision while focusing on details. There is no whole. At best there is an “Epic” — but the whole point of an Epic is to be decomposed into smaller pieces to be worked on independently. JIRA encourages the disintegration of the macro vision.
Pickavance, Mark (2019-09-12). "Jira Service Desk review: Low starting price with a steep ramp". TechRadar. Archived from the original on 2020-07-06. Retrieved 2020-07-06.
The article notes:
A new customer coming to the Jira website might be confused about exactly the right software for them, as Jira Service Desk isn’t the only helpdesk solution that Atlassian sells.
It also has Jira Core and Jira Software, so let’s explain how these are different from Jira Service Desk.
Jira Core is a basic project management tool, aimed at helping an organisation implement change in a way where everyone understands the critical path and their part in it.
Jira Software is also a management tool, but this one is focused on software development and integrates the tools used in those processes with functionality to keep all the developers on a big project linked to other team members and their code.
Adhikari, Supratim (2018-10-19). "Atlassian's 'big bet' on a rejig for Jira". The Australian. Archived from the original on 2020-07-06. Retrieved 2020-07-06.
The article notes:
Australian software giant Atlassian is giving its flagship product — Jira — a complete makeover, with company co-founder and co-CEO Scott Farquhar saying the move is a major investment in driving the $30 billion company’s future growth.
...
Jira, the engine of Atlassian’s success, is a project management tool that allows software developers to manage their workflows.
The software is used by developers to build better solutions and has a growing fanbase around the world, with 50,000 using Jira.
The success of Jira has propelled Atlassian to the highest echelon of homegrown technology players, with the Nasdaq-listed company’s founders — Mr Farquhar and Mike Cannon-Brookes — feted for their innovation and seen as major players in the Australian business landscape.
Noyes, Katherine (2015-10-06). "Atlassian takes JIRA beyond the development world". PC World. Archived from the original on 2020-07-06. Retrieved 2020-07-06.
The article notes:
Atlassian's JIRA project-tracking tool has long been a popular choice among software developers, but on Tuesday the company showed it wants to reach a broader market by releasing three new editions tailored for different audiences.
While JIRA Software retains the developer focus, promising agile best practices as defaults and deep integration with development tools, the other two extend beyond that original reach, which to date has placed the tool at about 35,000 companies, according to Atlassian.
Speed, Richard (2020-03-19). "Atlassian finally unleashes free Jira tier – nearly six months late yet just in time for coronavirus crunch". The Register. Archived from the original on 2020-07-06. Retrieved 2020-07-06.
The article notes:
Kindly old Atlassian is making cloud-based versions of Jira Software, Confluence, Jira Service Desk, and Jira Core free for teams of up to ten people.
...
The inflicting of Jira on potentially more people comes as companies adjust to the realities of remote working. Brainstorming on whiteboards and walls festooned with multi-coloured post-it notes (depending on which flavour of agile methodology has been spoonfed to managers) are not so simple once social distancing is factored in or offices are closed.

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Jira to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

Cunard (talk) 11:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Related AfDs of other Atlassian products: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bamboo (software) (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Confluence (software) (3rd nomination). Cunard (talk) 11:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all the sources are either primary, only contain extremely trivial information, or otherwise don't meet the notability standards. Including the new ones listed in the AfD. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:10, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple books about Jira published by O'Reilly Media and Pakt. The books have names like Practical JIRA Administration, JIRA Essentials - Third Edition, and Mastering JIRA. These books are all independent of the company and cover Jira in-depth. Cunard (talk) 09:34, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JIRA participants: Walter Görlitz (talk · contribs), Vijay Chopra (talk · contribs), and Alex rosenberg35 (talk · contribs).
Cunard (talk) 09:34, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, users involved in the original AfD didn't provide any sources at the time to back their keeps votes with. Hopefully they do this time. Since a good portion of the ones provided by Cunard and in the article, along with Cunard's quotes are are suspect and trivial. Otherwise, this will just go to another AfD in a few more years. It's better to just settle it now instead by finding some actually usable sources IMO. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:11, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately we don't vote in delation discussions. Secondly, your argument is about the sources in the article. You ignored all of the sources (books) that I provided and all those that Andrew provided. Now, why was I pinged? Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:18, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously. I use the "vote" because its simpler and saves everyone time in reading then it would be going on the long tangent it would take for a more in-depth "true" description of the process. Everyone who's opinions matter, of which for me at least yours isn't included in, gets what I mean anyway. On the sourcing, if by Andrew you mean Cunard, the problem with him/her is WP:THREE or whatever it is. Instead of just providing the three sources that it would only take to establish notability he/she canvasses us repeatedly a ton of them that are usually not usable and then expects us to sift through the garbage to find the ones that are. Which it isn't on us to do. Same goes for the quotes. We don't need 50 mediocre sources for this, Just three good ones. And he/she has repeatedly refused to just provide them in-stead of ref-bombing. Personally, I'm not going to spend my day sifting through his/her trash to find something usable. Its not our jobs. The ones I did look at weren't good though. Maybe the 49th would be, but likely not and I have better things to do with my time then waste it trying to find out. I'm everyone here, including you, would agree that "Finding sources" doesn't mean "do a 1/1 word for word recreation in the AfD of everything you find on Google." Especially when it comes to the quotes, but also with the sources. Adamant1 (talk) 17:40, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I see who you were talking about with Andrew now. I usually just see the snake emoji and associate Andrew the user with that. Anyway, the few sources he provided that I looked at were blog posts. Which he should really know aren't acceptable for establishing notability. So, i'd say the same thing applies in his case as Cunards. Either take the time to provide good sources or don't expect us to sift through the trash to find the goods ones. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:00, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the multiple independent reliable sources cited about by Walter Görlitz and Cunard above. As shown above, whole books are devoted to Jira, and as with the IEEE and PC Magazine articles above, there are independent reviews, too. The topic seems highly notable. Given abundant sources, any problems with promotional content can be addressed. A highly notable topic and WP:SURMOUNTABLE problems suggest keeping the article. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 18:41, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: JIRA is well known, and is the subject of many books, including Practical JIRA Administration (O'Reilly Media, 2011) and JIRA 8 Essentials (Packt Publishing, 2019). I agree with Adamant1 that Cunard's posts are sometimes hard to sift through, but a little mindful searching on Google Books or Newspapers.com often turns up decent sources for notable topics. — Toughpigs (talk) 23:46, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:41, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confluence (software)

AfDs for this article:

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

Atlassian as one article more than sufficient to cover all of their products. the company has made Wiki pages as some corporate blog for each of their products. Wiki is not a brochure. references are mainly their own and it is motivated by their PR/ digital marketing agency itself. and their articles were questioned for being written by close association of the company. Light2021 (talk) 07:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 20:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

Hedgebeth, Darius (2007). "Making use of knowledge sharing technologies". VINE Journal of Information and Knowledge Management. 37 (1). Emerald Group Publishing. doi:10.1108/03055720710742025. ISSN 0305-5728. Retrieved 2020-07-06.
Ebersbach, Anja; Glaser, Markus; Heigl, Richard; Warta, Alexander (2008) [2005]. "Installing Confluence". Wiki: Web Collaboration (2 ed.). Berlin: Springer-Verlag. ISBN 978-3-540-35150-4. Retrieved 2020-07-06.
Mader, Stewart (2008). Wikipatterns. Indianapolis: Wiley. ISBN 978-0-470-22362-8. Retrieved 2020-07-06.
Duffy, Jill (2015-10-06). "Atlassian Confluence Review". PC Magazine. Archived from the original on 2020-07-06. Retrieved 2020-07-06.
Heck, Mike (2007-01-05). "Wikis evolve as collaboration tools". InfoWorld. Archived from the original on 2020-07-06. Retrieved 2020-07-06.
Lardinois, Frederic (2020-03-30). "Atlassian's Confluence gets a new template gallery". TechCrunch. Archived from the original on 2020-07-06. Retrieved 2020-07-06.
Finnegan, Matthew (2019-04-11). "Atlassian's Confluence gets more powerful analytics". Computerworld. Archived from the original on 2020-07-06. Retrieved 2020-07-06.
"Review: How SharePoint, Confluence, IBM Connections and Yammer compare". Computerworld. 2017-08-11. Archived from the original on 2020-07-06. Retrieved 2020-07-06.
Filion, Luc; Daviot, Nicolas; Le Bel, Jean-Philippe; Gagnon, Marc (2017). "Using Atlassian Tools for Efficient Requirements Management: An industrial case study". 2017 Annual IEEE International Systems Conference (SysCon). Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. doi:10.1109/syscon.2017.7934769. ISBN 978-1-5090-4623-2. Retrieved 2020-07-06.
Lazar, Deretić; Ana, Pajić; Ognjen, Pantelić (2016-01-05). "Primena Confluence alata za upravljanje znanjem u procesu modelovanja proizvoda u osiguranju" [Application of Confluence knowledge management tools in the process of product modeling in insurance]. Centre for Evaluation in Education and Science (in Bosnian). 14 (55). Archived from the original on 2020-07-06. Retrieved 2020-07-06.
Wang, Ting; Vezenov, Dmitri V.; Simboli, Brian (Summer 2014). "Use of a Wiki-Based Software to Manage Research Group Activities". Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship (77). doi:10.5062/F4KS6PJ1. Archived from the original on 2014-10-10. Retrieved 2020-07-06.
Bibbo, Danielle; Sprehe, Eric; Michelich, James; Lee, Young Eun (2010). "Employing Wiki as a Collaborative Information Repository in a Media and Entertainment Company: The NBC Universal Case" (PDF). ICIS 2010 Proceedings. International Conference on Information Systems. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2020-02-12. Retrieved 2020-07-06.

Sources with quotes

Hedgebeth, Darius (2007). "Making use of knowledge sharing technologies". VINE Journal of Information and Knowledge Management. 37 (1). Emerald Group Publishing. doi:10.1108/03055720710742025. ISSN 0305-5728. Retrieved 2020-07-06.
The abstract notes:
An evaluation of Atlassian's Confluence collaboration product is provided.
The article notes:
Confluence is an Enterprise Wiki that enables organizations to collaborate and share knowledge. Wikis are web-based collaborative applications that allow users to add and edit online content (ex. Wikipedia.org, online forums, blogs). Confluence is used by more than 700 large, medium, and small organizations located in over 40 countries around the world, and include: Cisco, Friends Provident, Deutsche Bank, Citigroup, DaimlerChrysler, Sony, Volvo, US Department of Health and Human Services, SAIC, Raytheon, The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Stanford University, Stockholm University, and Boeing.
Confluence can be run as a standalone application, or as a web service hosted by industry-proven application servers such as JBoss, BEA Weblogic, or Tomcat. For evaluation purposes, I hosted Confluence as a web service using the Apache Tomcat 5.5 servlet container (modular holding area for web applications) in Microsoft Windows and Linux operating system environments. Running Confluence as a web application better facilitates scalability (the ability to make networked applications available to multiple users across enterprises). Confluence leverages a J2EE framework in its use of containers consisting of pages and spaces. Pages are used to share and store information that can be grouped into larger spaces (Wikis or containers) and can be linked, searched, and integrated into an organization’s document management structure. Spaces are used as holding areas for news posts, archives, and other pieces of information (see Figure 4).
Advanced integration features enhance Confluence’s capabilities. Security features maintain levels of access for individual users, as well as groups. [More information]
Ebersbach, Anja; Glaser, Markus; Heigl, Richard; Warta, Alexander (2008) [2005]. "Installing Confluence". Wiki: Web Collaboration (2 ed.). Berlin: Springer-Verlag. ISBN 978-3-540-35150-4. Retrieved 2020-07-06.
The book notes:
Confluence is a wiki engine currently only available in English whose WYSIWYG editor and integrated user rights administration also make it ideal for use in companies. License owners of this commercial software receive the source code and can develop it further.
...
The producer of Confluence is the Australian software company Atlassian Software Systems Pty Ltd.
...
Confluence is based on the Java platform Enterprise Edition 5 and is thus available for all conventional operating systems, such as Windows, Linux, Mac OS X and various Unix derivatives.
Mader, Stewart (2008). Wikipatterns. Indianapolis: Wiley. ISBN 978-0-470-22362-8. Retrieved 2020-07-06.
The book notes on page 139:
The experience of the last year in implementing and expanding the use of Confluence has left no doubt to the substantial benefits of a well-engineered enterprise wiki over a traditional web server approach. Even at its most basic level of implementation and usage, Confluence allows researchers to take direct control of the publishing and communication with their collaborators and community with a minimum of distraction.
The full potential of the wiki approach will begin to be realized when the things that previously required dedicated sophisticated application to achieve can be delivered simply and effectively by adding functionality onto Confluence. Extending the functionality through utilizing common resources, attracting a higher proportion of the interaction from a growing proportion of a research community and facilitating this in a federated seamless manner will generate substantial positive network effects. One mechanism to accelerate the research community's adoption of Confluence and other advanced wikis would be to establish focused online communities to discuss the usage and possible research specific enhancements. This should also include opt-in listings of those wikis used for research along with case studies of the impact of the wiki on the research.
Duffy, Jill (2015-10-06). "Atlassian Confluence Review". PC Magazine. Archived from the original on 2020-07-06. Retrieved 2020-07-06.
The article notes:
In the world of collaboration software, there are easily a hundred services that promise to get your team working together in a communication application that keeps a searchable record of all their work. If your organization already uses issue-tracking software Jira by Atlassian, you might consider adding Confluence (Visit Site at Confluence) as your virtual workplace huddle room. Confluence is a service in which team members can discuss work, record decisions, comment on documents, and otherwise collaborate as a team. When new team members come on board, Confluence gives them context and history about both the projects at hand and the team itself. Both Confluence and Jira are made by Atlassian, so they are designed to work well together.
...
There are two add-on options called Confluence Team Calendars and Confluence Questions. Team Calendars adds a central calendar for keeping track of who's taking time off and when, as well as for project and event planning. Jira users see on this calendar dates for releases, sprints, and more. The Confluence Team Calendar also has integration options with Google Calendar, Outlook, and iCal. For Confluence plus Team Calendars, a group of 15 can expect to pay $75 per month.
...
Uploading documents on Confluence is simple, and I tested the feature by adding both images and PDFs. There's an option to add simple effects to an image, such as a drop-shadow, though doing so made my image go bonkers and prevented the page from loading.
All these little kinks and quirks need to be ironed out, but they aren't show-stoppers by any means. Some teams might never even run into them or notice them, though others could end up pulling their hair out because of these simple frustrations.
Heck, Mike (2007-01-05). "Wikis evolve as collaboration tools". InfoWorld. Archived from the original on 2020-07-06. Retrieved 2020-07-06.
The article notes:
Confluence has multiple personalities: a collaboration tool, intranet, document repository, and project monitor. Throughout it all, however, the system stays true to its wiki roots. Spaces hold pages that are easily organized, can reference attachments, and turn into discussion forums using comments. Moreover, everything is searchable — subject to enterprise-grade security that extends permissioning to individual pages.
Still, Atlassian doesn’t try to make Confluence into a collaboration Swiss Army Knife; although the software integrates with other systems through provided Web services interfaces, you won’t find a spreadsheet or other built-in applications. And that’s fine, in that it means you don’t have to be a genius to use or administer this application. Further, more than 100 plug-ins and Confluence’s internal component system (built on the Spring Java framework) provide great extensibility.
The only option I’d like is the capability to import user accounts from an Active Directory or LDAP server; currently you have to create individual user accounts and apply permissions.
Just about everything in Confluence shows polish and attention to detail. You can instantly create pages in the designated space and edit with standard wiki markup code or a rich-text editor. Linking to other pages is simple, and the system ensures links don’t break if you reorganize pages into a different hierarchy. Further, categorizing pages into logical parent and children groups is point-and-click simple. Each page has a printable view and can be exported to PDF.
Lardinois, Frederic (2020-03-30). "Atlassian's Confluence gets a new template gallery". TechCrunch. Archived from the original on 2020-07-06. Retrieved 2020-07-06.
The article notes:
Confluence, Atlassian’s content-centric collaboration tool for teams, is making it easier for new users to get started with the launch of an updated template gallery and 75 new templates. They incorporate what the company has learned from its customers and partners since it first launched the service back in 2004.
About a year ago, Atlassian gave Confluence a major makeover, with an updated editor and advanced analytics. Today’s update isn’t quite as dramatic, but goes to show that Confluence has evolved from a niche wiki for technical documentation teams to a tool that is often used across organizations today.
Finnegan, Matthew (2019-04-11). "Atlassian's Confluence gets more powerful analytics". Computerworld. Archived from the original on 2020-07-06. Retrieved 2020-07-06.
The article notes:
Atlassian has given Confluence its biggest revamp in years, offering more powerful analytics, improved search and new ways to interact with the content collaboration platform.
...
Confluence, created in 2004, is one of Atlassian’s oldest products and its second biggest revenue driver. Initially aimed primarily at software developers, its focus has widened in recent years: Atlassian’s head of Confluence Cloud, Pratima Arora, said that one in four Confluence customers now use the application across their operations.
"Review: How SharePoint, Confluence, IBM Connections and Yammer compare". Computerworld. 2017-08-11. Archived from the original on 2020-07-06. Retrieved 2020-07-06.
The article notes:
Microsoft SharePoint, Atlassian Confluence, IBM Connections and Microsoft Yammer all fit the bill in some ways. But is one better than the others?
Filion, Luc; Daviot, Nicolas; Le Bel, Jean-Philippe; Gagnon, Marc (2017). "Using Atlassian Tools for Efficient Requirements Management: An industrial case study". 2017 Annual IEEE International Systems Conference (SysCon). Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. doi:10.1109/syscon.2017.7934769. ISBN 978-1-5090-4623-2. Retrieved 2020-07-06.
The article notes:
Confluence
One problem with JIRA is the impossibility to describe requirement textually in a proper way. JIRA only provides a basic text window for descriptions and only allows to attach files (such as images or diagrams) separately. On the other hand, Atlassian Confluence compensates JIRA for these limitations. Confluence is a multi-user web-based advanced wiki editor, which offers on-line word processing and image embedding. It proposes a set of programmable macros to enhance a documents’ content. Through macros, Confluence offers the possibility to connect with the JIRA database to dynamically reflect the state of requirements within the text itself. This highly reduces the manual modifications to apply to the specifications. Fig. 1 depicts such a macro.
...
Even though Confluence has been deployed, it is not targeted yet for writing document to be delivered to customers. Confluence does not offer enough features nor provide sufficient document quality to be used in our case. Confluence will be used for internal documentation only.
Lazar, Deretić; Ana, Pajić; Ognjen, Pantelić (2016-01-05). "Primena Confluence alata za upravljanje znanjem u procesu modelovanja proizvoda u osiguranju" [Application of Confluence knowledge management tools in the process of product modeling in insurance]. Centre for Evaluation in Education and Science (in Bosnian). 14 (55). Archived from the original on 2020-07-06. Retrieved 2020-07-06.
From this book titled Open Access to STM Information: Trends, Models and Strategies for Libraries:
In Serbia there is the Centre for Evaluation in Education and Science (CEON/CEES) as an independent science and technoloyg observatory. CEON is creator of SCIndex – Open Access Citation Index. Purpose of this programme is to promote Open Access (OA) in Serbia and within the region.
From a Google Translate of the article's abstract:
The Confluence tool is one of the possible solutions that can be used for this purpose,but its use should be carefully designed in a way that will make it easier for users to navigate and understand the solution. This paper presents a proposal for the organization of space and content within the Confluence tool for the needs of the team that deals with product modeling in the company Futura osiguranje and highlights the potential benefits of its application.
Wang, Ting; Vezenov, Dmitri V.; Simboli, Brian (Summer 2014). "Use of a Wiki-Based Software to Manage Research Group Activities". Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship (77). doi:10.5062/F4KS6PJ1. Archived from the original on 2014-10-10. Retrieved 2020-07-06.
From the abstract:
This paper discusses use of the wiki software Confluence to organize research group activities and lab resources. Confluence can serve as an electronic lab notebook (ELN), as well as an information management and collaboration tool. The article provides a case study in how researchers can use wiki software in "home-grown" fashion to organize their research activities and how librarians can play a role in exploring or advocating wiki software for these purposes. Most of the focus in our discussion will be on ELNs, but we will also address other uses of Confluence.
The article notes:
Flexibility. Users can design their own ELN style and derive new ELN templates from the basic templates provided by Confluence (e.g., blank Page, decision, file list, how-to article, share a link). Therefore, researchers have considerable freedom to develop ELNs suitable to their research workflow. Little administration is required beyond setting up the initial structure of the space.
Ease of use. Confluence is based upon HTML editing and requires only a browser for content entry. Therefore, beginners will find that creating ELNs is easy and intuitive. Computing consultants can help users come up to speed, but the learning curve is not prohibitive. Once a few members of a research group have created their ELN, new members can learn best practices by inspecting the content in existing ELN pages.
Bibbo, Danielle; Sprehe, Eric; Michelich, James; Lee, Young Eun (2010). "Employing Wiki as a Collaborative Information Repository in a Media and Entertainment Company: The NBC Universal Case" (PDF). ICIS 2010 Proceedings. International Conference on Information Systems. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2020-02-12. Retrieved 2020-07-06.
The article notes:
Confluence gave Bill Endow the structure he needed while providing a powerful search engine – something that was absent from the Support Central site and was hard to find in other wiki alternatives. Also, the subscription fee was reasonable: a one-time initial cost of approximately $12,000 USD to purchase the software, plus $6,000 USD per year for maintenance. Consequently, Bill Endow’s team chose Confluence Wiki, by Atlassian, and implemented it on Oracle 10g RAC, running on Red Hat Enterprise Linux on HP servers. Specifically, the team set up two servers to run the wiki platform – one for software to display the wiki pages, the other an oracle database server to deal with structure and content, as well as user info and history. In addition, they built a small storage unit to act as a file system, holding all attachments and non-text documents.
Low Initial User Acceptance
By 2007 the wiki was finally in place but receiving minimal traffic. Only Bill Endow's team of 10 - 15 was using the wiki due to two major problems. The first issue was integration of Confluence Wiki into NBC’s existing network software. In order to verify whether the content contributor is a legitimate NBC employee, Confluence Wiki must check the contributor’s identity by forcing him or her to log into the NBC network with an employee ID and password. This verification phase was slow and often failed, preventing even legitimate users from accessing, contributing, and modifying content on the wiki. Second, the version of Confluence Wiki software purchased was still in an early stage and had several lingering glitches which caused annoying delays in accessing and updating content. The collaborative effort of Bill Endow’s team and Confluence resulted in a resolution of these problems, ensuring seamless user verification processes and increasing performance and speed of the wiki application.

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Confluence to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

Cunard (talk) 10:25, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Related AfDs of other Atlassian products: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bamboo (software) (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jira (software). Cunard (talk) 10:25, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I think Confluence is a widely used product and all this information wouldn't fit into the Atlassian page. There are enough notable sources, but that was never really disputed. So the question is simply whether you think it fits into the Atlassian page. I don't think it does. --Ysangkok (talk) 22:45, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Confluence (software) participants: czarkoff (talk · contribs), Lambiam (talk · contribs), Diego Moya (talk · contribs), QA Eric (talk · contribs), Steven Walling (talk · contribs), and Jonathunder (talk · contribs).
Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Confluence (software) (2nd nomination) participant: Intgr (talk · contribs).
Cunard (talk) 09:25, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article obviously passes the WP:N bar with a preponderance of dedicated third party source material. If we think it's biased, let's rewrite it. Steven Walling • talk 11:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I do not think that "Atlassian as one article more than sufficient to cover all of their products" is a valid deletion rationale. Wouldn't that equally apply to the Ford Taunus article and other articles in Category:Ford vehicles? Is there a basis for the allegations that "the company has made Wiki pages as some corporate blog for each of their products" and that "references are ... motivated by their PR/ digital marketing agency"? --Lambiam 16:28, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:40, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JMood Records

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

There are no specific guidelines for notability for record labels in WP:MUSIC so only WP:NCORP and GNG apply. I did not find any significant coverage of the company. The sources in the article are linked to its own website and the article is majorly an advert. - Harsh 12:08, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. - Harsh 12:08, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. - Harsh 12:08, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. - Harsh 12:08, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The label is existing and active and its recording artist rooster includes also well known jazz musicians. On the web there are dozens of Cd reviews and links. It's like many other Indie record labels already included in Wikipedia. Thanks 10:47, 29 June 2020. Robmag

Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-03 ✍️ create

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:50, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have really found nothing supporting notability of this record label. It could achieve notability in the future, but it seems to be simply a start-up company. Good for them! But that doesn't qualify for inclusion in this encyclopedia. Notability speaks to WP:IMPACT and I don't see any indicator here--at least, not at this time. Wikipedia is not a directory.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:07, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The first post is cogent and succinct. What's it doing on Wikipedia?
Vmavanti (talk) 14:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:09, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Synder App

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

Reviewed through NPP. Promotional article on a software package sourced to random no-name websites and primary sources, nothing better to be found through WP:BEFORE. See also CloudBusiness. Spicy (talk) 10:41, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Spicy (talk) 10:41, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spicy (talk) 10:41, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:35, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom —{Cryptic Canadian} 01:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep taken down primary sources, now article only covers important integrations with major US payment and accounting platforms (Stripe, PayPal, Xero, QuickBooks, Square). Hoping it can stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seabreeze44 (talk • contribs) 12:34, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 11:28, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Entirely generic payments app, one amongst dozens upon dozens. Nothing stands out as being notable. Fails WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. scope_creep^Talk 15:31, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Goal of the Year (AFL)#Official winners (2001–present). Sandstein 13:12, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2019 AFL Goal of the Year

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

The article clearly fails WP:GNG. HawkAussie (talk) 02:55, 24 June 2020 (UTC) EDIT: Have now added these pages to the deletion pool for the same reason.[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 02:55, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 02:55, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:40, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment consider bundling the 2007, 2011, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017 editions into this nomination, as they have similar amounts of independent coverage. – Teratix ₵ 09:03, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good point as I was only doing 2019 as the 2018 link wasn't there @Teratix:. HawkAussie (talk) 01:56, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Definitely doesn't pass WP:GNG. Ajf773 (talk) 09:16, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all sole-sourced to the league's website, no evidence of secondary coverage. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:43, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'll try to write a more considered !vote before this is closed, but I did find a couple of bits of independent coverage 1, 2. Not sure if this will be enough. – Teratix ₵ 01:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak redirect all to Goal of the Year (AFL)#Official winners (2001–present). I don't see indication the individual years are particularly notable, most of the coverage is in relatively local publications and is news articles that don't indicate a lasting importance of each year. The main case to be made is that the winners are worth mentioning, and they are already listed at the main article. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:18, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 2016, 2017 and 2019, Redirect the rest to Goal of the Year (AFL)#Official winners (2001–present), the individual years have received coverage in secondary sources, as can be seen here: [84] [85] [86] all of that is for 2019, you can also easily find coverage for earlier years, such as [87] for 2017, [88] for 2016, from just a minutes search. However, coverage of this award before 2016 is lacking, before then most of the coverage is based around the AFL Mark of the Year, meaning those should be redirected. Bundling these was probably a mistake. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:53, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to Goal of the Year (AFL)#Official winners (2001–present), as valid search terms. I would ordinarily consider post-2012 AFL.com.au sufficiently independent of the league to count toward meeting the GNG, but since the site hosts and promotes the voting for the competition it is not independent here. There is some coverage on club websites, but not wholly independent and mostly along the lines of "vote for our player!" The only truly independent, substantial piece I found is from The Age, but it is fairly short, and I can't find any other acceptable sources (the ones mentioned by Devonian Wombat either do not mention the award or do so only briefly). The fact that only certain years have individual pages is a massive red flag that the award is not receiving sufficient independent coverage.

Full deletion would be an inferior outcome: the titles are probable search terms, and the page history is worth preserving on the off-chance sufficient independent coverage emerges. Partial redirection, as advanced by Devonian Wombat, is no better; the 2016, 2017 and 2019 awards were not somehow more significant or noteworthy than their predecessors. (It is more likely that coverage of preceding awards is no longer available online). Additionally, the inconsistency would only serve to create new debates over whether future awards deserve pages, and editors unaware of this discussion may simply recreate the missing pre-2016 articles. – Teratix ₵ 12:58, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would be happy if this redirected instead of delete. HawkAussie (talk) 05:58, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:20, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lichess Titled Arena

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

An unjustified fork from Lichess and sourced only to the site which is the subject of the article. While discussion was limited, and those wanting inclusion of the content did not participate, a previous Rfc on the inclusion of this content did not achieve consensus that it should be included in the Lichess article, and now those wanting inclusion are circumventing discussion by creating a whole new article with this disputed content. In the chess world, online events such as this are considered of very minor importance even if world champion Magnus Carlsen participates in them. The event can be mentioned in the lichess article and a detailed list of results can be linked to on that site, but it doesn't belong on wikipedia. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 05:26, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable, sources are only coming from lichess.org. Geekpotato24 (talk) 14:10, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: Absolutely notable. Top chess players in the world. Continuously won by the greatest chess player in the world (arguably of all time). Plenty of coverage outside of lichess. This event was/is considered the premiere online chess event and the top bullet chess event in the world.DonkeyPunchResin (talk) 01:10, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Edit re other sources (there are others) Forbes - https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaellore/2020/05/26/online-chess-taking-advantage-of-opportunity-to-grow-entertain-during-coronavirus-pandemic/#b36decb97459
  - It's a brief mention, and not a reliable source (see WP:FORBESCON). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:38, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - If somebody can find enough reliable sources then I would say keep. Geekpotato24 talk to me! 17:07, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - https://www.insidehook.com/daily_brief/sports/magnus-carlsen-chess-games-under-pseudonym https://www.spiegel.de/consent-a-?targetUrl=https%3A%2F%2Ffanyv88.com%3A443%2Fhttps%2Fwww.spiegel.de%2Fsport%2Fmagnus-carlsen-und-online-schach-drnykterstein-plant-die-revolution-a-6d3cdb5d-c0d2-4c9f-ae5c-aedc664bf9e0 https://www.marca.com/esports/otros-juegos/2020/03/16/5e6f3f5146163f7b5e8b45ba.html https://www.forbes.com/sites/mattgardner1/2020/06/19/esports-biggest-winners-of-2020-fortnite-dota-2-csgo/#14165715ddf2 Etc. Etc. DonkeyPunchResin (talk) 17:47, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        None of these even mention the titled arena. --SubSeven (talk) 21:54, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        ?? The very first article is nearly all about the titled arena and discusses it in depth. Did you even click on any of these?? “ Lichess.org is a free, ad-less web platform for chess players, a favorite in the online chess community. On Dec. 14, 2017, the site held its first Titled Bullet Arena, an exclusive tourney for master-level players to play blisteringly fast one-minute games. Lichess’ decision to host top-tier tournaments was viewed by some as a great leap forward toward establishing chess as an esport. In that debut, Carlsen appeared incognito as “DannyTheDonkey” and won, donating his small prize money back to the website.

Carlsen’s first showing as DrDrunkenstein was in Lichess’ second Titled Arena the following month. DannyTheDonkey was missing, and the mysterious Drunkenstein soared to the top of the elite competition. Commentators soon started speculating that the world champion had returned. He won commandingly; Carlsen ended the two-hour match with a score of 199. His three closest rivals were two grandmasters and an international master, who scored 132, 120, and 111, respectively. Carlsen streamed the games on Twitch, where he lived up to his username, pounding Coronas while bantering in Norwegian with his friends.”DonkeyPunchResin (talk) 20:42, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete of course. There are an awful lot of new accounts adding lichess spam to lots of articles, sourced to nothing other than lichess itself. This is just the latest example. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:56, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Anything substantial about these events is only sourced by Lichess itself. The Forbes source above is not about Lichess Titled Arena - it only mentions it in passing. --SubSeven (talk) 05:57, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Lichess. There is not all that much sourcing about the tournament itself, I did find this Slate article with some coverage. However, the players who are participating in this series of tournaments include the world elite, up to and including the current world chess champion. Chess tournaments involving players of that caliber merit coverage somewhere, and if no further sourcing is found, the hosting website is a reasonable place to do it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 18:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- This material has already been rejected from the main Lichess article (again, it's sourced only to Lichess itself), and this AfD wouldn't override that. It's already mentioned to the extent it should be (if that). This is material that goes on the Lichess website, not Wikipedia. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:56, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:02, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:02, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG as it hasn't been taken note of anywhere secondarily, at least not in the article. SportingFlyer T·C 05:04, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like it's going to be deleted. Geekpotato24 (talk to me!) 00:21, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:11, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Aluria Chronicles

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

Subject does not meet WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG. Article is not sourced. lullabying (talk) 04:39, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:49, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there are a couple of primary sources and some in-universe stuff in unreliable secondary sources, but nothing that would help it pass GNG or NBOOK. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. lullabying (talk) 05:52, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:53, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Somdutta Singh

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

Fails WP:GNG. As of now its WP:PROMO and WP:TOOSOON. Calling for an AfD Discussion. Hatchens (talk) 07:56, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 07:56, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 07:56, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 07:56, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:22, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been removed from the list of People-related deletion discussions (already included in more specific deletion sorting categories). 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:24, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary). --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 03:43, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clear promotional article, this can go to LinkedIn Shadow4dark (talk) 07:10, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Spiderone 09:17, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Except the first reference from economic times, none of the other sources are reliable and significant, hence fails to meet WP:GNG -- Ab207 (talk) 19:25, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Disregarding the personal attacks, consensus is still that this article should be kept, though the discussion could have been better. (non-admin closure) Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:28, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paxo

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

Borderline, but I don't see it meeting CORP or GNG. Boleyn (talk) 07:31, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:37, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Problem is its a well known product made by a major Corp. WP:Basic could cover it, as there is so much coverage, but not in depth. Also issue with sourcing is Jeremy Paxman is knick named Paxo, so news is clogged up by stories surrounding him and Boris Johnson. I would vote Keep because it is a ubiquitous product in the UK, but this does not meet wikipedia rules. User:Davidstewartharvey

Keep It's not a corporation; it's a famous brand. Deletion is not appropriate per our policies WP:ATD; WP:BEFORE; WP:NOTPAPER; WP:PRESERVE; &c. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:17, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is WP:PRODUCT says When discussion of products and services would make the article unwieldy, some editorial judgment is called for. If the products and services are considered notable enough on their own, one option is to break out the discussion of them into a separate article following WP:Summary style. If the products and services are not notable enough for their own article, the discussion of them should be trimmed and summarized into a shorter format, or even cut entirely if the products are not significantly mentioned in reliable secondary sources. I have looked and none of the sources meet gng rules - I agree we should keep if ref could be found - although you could argue WP:BASIC, as there is enough coverage, but that is for notable people (although I would argue it should be for all or none). Could also argue WP:ITSACASTLE as it is a national institution.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 13:28, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the nominator isn't following WP:BEFORE by considering alternatives. AfD is not cleanup. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:36, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:04, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, this appears to be a culinary(?:)) institution in the UK ie. Secrets My Mother Kept - "She would never cook the stuffing inside. We always had Paxo sage and onion and it would be...", "I have to admit that we usually cheat with the stuffing and buy Paxo as it is always tasty and simple to cook.", Ten O'Clock Horses - "Sunday. Roast chicken, peas and potatoes, roast and mash, Paxo stuffing, gravy,...", but there doesn't seem to be anything indepth out there, did the nominator consider a Merge/redirect to Premier Foods? Coolabahapple (talk) 10:37, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Problem merging into Premier Food is that its only one of very many products they make. They are a vast food manufacturer with a huge range of products. Bit like merging Heinz Ketchup into Heinz Kraft.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 16:24, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:00, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus on what should be done yet. One of the keep !votes is just loosely pointing at policies without explaining their relevance.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:18, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable. Exceptionally well-known brand in the UK. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:58, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Its name is synonymous with ready-mixed stuffing in the UK. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KeepAlthough I questioned above I now believe we should use WP:ITSACSATLE.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 08:07, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 01:58, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statue of Williams Carter Wickham

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

This is one of a number of articles on statues which were created because they were taken down or vandalized in the recent protests, and I've picked it more or less at random as a representative. The problem with all of these is the same: the statue itself isn't notable as a statue. Its notability, such as it is, exists only as an after-death biographical detail. I would not object to the judgement that these articles should be merged back to the subjects of the statues' articles, but seeing as how hardly any of these say much more than what is already said in their subjects' bios, I don't see having them as stand-alone articles. The argument that they are all in the news now I will anticipate with the observation that the subjects of these protests are the figures these statues represent, and that is by and large their only quite derivative notability. Mangoe (talk) 02:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per GNG (disclaimer: creator). Article should be expanded, not deleted. Start with the Save Outdoor Sculpture! entry, then search books and newspaper archives. A public Confederate monument erected in 1891 and removed because of connections to racism? Notable. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I really think a better response than this is called for. This precisely fails to address my last comment. Mangoe (talk) 02:24, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mangoe I'm just saying the topic is notable. I'm working to expand the article now. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:27, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep people, please use common sense before nominating artworks that have been in the public sphere for 129 years. It is a safe bet that lots of people have written about a work in that time span, as is the case here. I saw lots of Google books entries and have added a few to the article. The current news coverage is not a one-time thing on these sculptures, in fact it tends to cement their notability when paired with the other 129 years of coverage. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:31, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, much work has been put into the page since the nomination 44 minutes ago, and the article is now a fine Wikipedia page. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Monroe Park as WP:REDUNDANT. Content and images already fit well there, and Wikipedia is not a catalogue of every statue and the text of every plaque. Content in the news about a statue does not mean that even if it's deemed notable, it must' have a separate article, per WP:NOPAGE. "People, please use common sense before" creating separate articles on every item when the information can go elsewhere just fine. Reywas92^Talk 03:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We have only found a few of the available sources for this article; there are presumably many more in print. What I meant above is that after 129 years the story runs deep, and merits its own article.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with ThatMontrealIP. There's more to add, and I disagree with Reywas92 that the content could easily live in the park article without skewing the page. You copied over some, but not all, of the detail we've already added to the sculpture entry. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So WP:ITSOLD? And between construction and removal it was merely present as a feature of the park, and it should be covered in the context of the park, along with the statue of Joseph Bryan, the marker for George Washington, the Archenima artwork, the WWII Memorial, the Lee Cross, and McGuire Bench. So put these hypothetical sources in the main article and split when actually warranted. There are so many thousands of statues, sculptures, and other artworks, both outdoors and inside, they do not need separate pages on the basis of their existence (or removal), and sources do not mandate their own articles when there is a main article that should have the content. Reywas92^Talk 03:49, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This statue is arguably a lot more notable than the park it is in. We should have articles for artworks that are independently notable of the park, gallery or museum that houses them. That is why we have separate articles for The Louvre and for the Mona Lisa, to use the most cliched example.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:53, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS then?? Give me a break. We should absolutely have content about artwork that is notable, but there is no requirement it be on a separate page. My original edit to the main article had all content except the space-taking formatted inscription. Reywas92^Talk 04:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your arguments reminded me of this Jenny Jolzer plaque. It really needs its own article.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are books about this and other such statues: An Illustrated Guide to Virginia's Confederate Monuments; Discovering Richmond Monuments and so they are notable. The current wave of iconoclasm adds to this notability. The rest is then a matter of ordinary editing not deletion per WP:ATD; WP:PRESERVE; &c. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:03, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: The topic is clearly notable, even the subject of at least two postcards. The article includes material specific to the statue. Leutha (talk) 08:20, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:18, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:18, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:18, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:GNG, with the addition of sources article now reflects this. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:26, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not a yet another statue but the one which was relevant before the recent controversies. desmay (talk) 09:22, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:28, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep It is the statue of a notable . . ....... loser, done by a notable artist. I would be happy with the article even if the statue was not torn down. Carptrash (talk) 22:21, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn (speedy keep). Convinced by PTO's arguments (non-admin closure) Ysangkok (talk) 18:50, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Taaki

AfDs for this article:

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

Notability not established. Amir Taaki was one of the few bitcoiners willing to give interviews when Bitcoin was new and exciting, that does not make him notable. Wired frequently writes about niche topics, an article in wired is not a proof of notability. Blogs on Forbes are not actually written by Forbes staff, so they do not indicate notability. SourceForge can not be cited. Conference videos on YouTube can not be cited. Ysangkok (talk) 02:03, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 02:03, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the article is badly WP:REFBOMBed, the refs need cleaning out first - there's a lot of cruft, and a lot of the RS coverage is actually passing mentions - David Gerard (talk) 11:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I don't know about this one... this subject has quite a bit coverage. He was labeled "notorious" in the Bitcoin World by Quartz. See: [89] P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs)

@P,TO 19104: media like Quartz will call anybody "notorious" just to have a more exciting article. Why not look at actual amount of reliable coverage instead of simply trusting some random source when it calls somebody "notorious"? --Ysangkok (talk) 18:01, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ysangkok: Please see: [90]. Also your claims about Wired being non-reliable are incorrect, although it is an industry source: WP:RSPSOURCES. Also multiple articles from Wired solidfies the subject's notablity. I disagree. Best,P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 18:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:39, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Camley Street

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

No evidence the meets GNG. Notability is not inherited from a few notable places located there. The final paragraph claims it is notable for having a Neighbourhood Forum, but that is not verified in the sources and appears to be an assertion made in WP's voice. MB 23:48, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MB 23:48, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:13, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:13, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sources cover places along Camley Street, not the street itself, and notability is not inherited. –dlthewave ☎ 18:21, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I do not really know how this process works, and have spent an hour trying to understand it, but as I created the article I should probably comment. I did not realise the above, and believed it would be useful for the street to have an article to provide a framework for reference from the (I hope indisputably notable?) sites on it, so made no effort to make references in the article to its more "inherent" notability. However, there is also a big dispute about the street (not the sites that have their own article) in a regional newspaper (for example 1 2 3), and the developments on the street do get considerably media coverage from outside the area (for example 4 5 6 7 8. Fosse1884 (talk) 21:11, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 01:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Isn't the nomination a bit like saying United States is not notable because notability is not inherited from the places, people and events there? If buildings and developments on the street are notable (and they are[91][92]) then from an editorial point of view it may well be sensible to cover them in an article on the street rather than insist the information is covered in separate articles on each individual property or is removed completely. The neighbourhood forum is now referenced.[93] The topics we chose to cover in articles should be appropriately selected to help the reader. Thincat (talk) 04:26, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KS Thangasamy

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

This actor/director is not notable because there are no available sources about him. TamilMirchi (talk) 01:44, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 01:44, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 01:44, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 01:44, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete YouTube is not a reliable source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:59, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per all of the above Spiderone 06:25, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it is a promotional autobiography that falls under WP:PROMO as well as failing WP:GNG imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:02, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:39, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Raat Ke Gunaah

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

An article about a Bollywood film without even a plot, sourced only to non-WP:RS site IMDb since its creation in 2016. A WP:BEFORE search turned up zilch. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 19:17, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 19:28, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 19:28, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 01:43, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no assertion of notability Spiderone 19:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:09, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RJ Tazz

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

Trivial mentions or event related news coverage and sources fail WP:RS. Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO or WP:CREATIVE. Author probably has COI because all their contributions focuses on the promotion of Spice FM. ~ Nahid ^Talk 20:42, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. ~ Nahid ^Talk 20:42, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per detailed nom. --Micky (talk) 01:32, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:50, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:13, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 16:38, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 16:38, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This person has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources, e.g. Dhaka Tribune, The Asian Age, Daily Sun. And those are just sources in English. pburka (talk) 17:04, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:22, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails WP:GNG. One/two interviews doesn't make someone notable, they publish this type of interview everyday. This article was created for promoted purpose. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 19:04, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@আফতাবুজ্জামান: My dear, thanks for your valuable feedback on this page. As you have mentioned delete as per nom with GNG fail. I would really love to know if I do the mistake. If you see the reference you will find the content from Jugantar_Patrika Kaler_Kantho Jagonews24.com Daily_Sun_(Bangladesh) Dhaka_Tribune and more. Having significant mentions on the news. I want to learn how the nom fails the notability. Thank you for your finding. Sunny.pervez (talk) 19:18, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:GNG per sources added by User:Pburka. Dhaka Tribune, The Asian Age, Daily Sun are all reliable sources and independent of the subject. If a person is the subject of a detailed interview by a media outlet it is an indication of notability. This is also not a case of WP:ONEEVENT as the person has been involved in several controversies. WP:GNG states, a topic needs to be the subject of significant coverage in more than one independent and reliable sources while we clearly have at least three here. There indeed appears to be a COI issue but that doesn't justify deletion as long as the article satisfies WP:GNG. --Zayeem ^(talk) 09:30, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:GNG non- notable person. ErrorShadow420 (talk) 17:50, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ErrorShadow420: My dear, thanks for your valuable feedback on this page. As you have mentioned delete as per nom with GNG fail. I would really love to know if I do the mistake. If you see the reference you will find the content from Jugantar_Patrika Kaler_Kantho Jagonews24.com Daily_Sun_(Bangladesh) Dhaka_Tribune and more. Having significant mentions on the news. I want to learn how the nom fails the notability. Looking forward to hearing from you. Sunny.pervez (talk) 19:24, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: With reliable sources indicated by pburka, the article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 00:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 01:38, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, interviews are primary sources, which cannot contribute to notability, meaning that this person fails GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:25, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Devonian Wombat: My dear, thanks for your valuable feedback on this page. I would really love to know if I do the mistake. If you see the reference you will find the content from Jugantar_Patrika Kaler_Kantho Jagonews24.com Daily_Sun_(Bangladesh) Dhaka_Tribune and more. Having significant mentions on the top news if it not worthy to enlist on wikipedia I want to learn how the nom fails the notability. Looking forward to hearing from you dear. Sunny.pervez (talk) 19:27, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As you ping me, A passing mention or interview isn't enough for notability. Here is my analysis:

https://icetoday.net/2017/06/bold-and-beautiful-she-is-taking-the-internet-by-storm-with-her-fearless-persona-lets-do-an-air-check-with-rj-tazz-with-these-20-questions/ interview, primary sources, not WP:RS source = doesn't pass

https://www.jagonews24.com/entertainment/news/503756 press release, interview = doesn't pass

https://www.kalerkantho.com/print-edition/rangberang/2018/10/03/686942 completely unrelated, not even a mention = doesn't pass

https://www.jugantor.com/todays-paper/city-news/161460/কড়াইল-বস্তিতে-স্পাইস-কেয়ারের-ফ্রি-মেডিকেল-ক্যাম্প just a passing mention = doesn't pass

https://www.bd24live.com/96-4-spice-fm-came-forward-to-help-the-homeless-people-of-the-city just a passing mention = doesn't pass

https://www.daily-sun.com/printversion/details/226861/96.4-Spice-FM-officially-launched just a passing mention = doesn't pass

https://www.dhakatribune.com/showtime/2018/02/20/radio-rant-sparks-public-outrage talks about a prank call by tazz, usual entertainment news = doesn't pass

https://www.dhakatribune.com/showtime/2018/02/24/rj-tazz-facing-legal-notice-over-controversial-prank-call talks about a prank call by tazz, usual entertainment news = doesn't pass

https://www.somoynews.tv/pages/details/114897/%E0%A6%86%E0%A6%AC%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%B0%E0%A6%93-%E0%A6%AD%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%87%E0%A6%B0%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%B2-%E0%A6%86%E0%A6%B0%E0%A6%9C%E0%A7%87-%E0%A6%A4%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%9C usual entertainment news = doesn't pass

one mention in a newspaper doesn't mean anyone automaticly pases notability --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 19:52, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your assessment of the Dhaka Tribune pieces. I presume that by "usual entertainment news" you mean the coverage is WP:ROUTINE, e.g. announcing the time of a radio show. These articles are WP:NOTROUTINE. They're significant coverage of an event (her controversial prank calls), indicating that the event and the people involved may be notable. You might make a WP:NOTNEWS or WP:BLP1E argument, but I think it's incorrect to dismiss them as routine. pburka (talk) 20:02, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not using correct term. I meant to say that newspaper always published this type of news. One or two news of event like this doesn't give someone automatic notability. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 20:26, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Newspapers always publish stories about typhoons and wars, too. That doesn't mean they're not notable: it means they're newsworthy. What specific policy, guideline, or essay are you referring to? pburka (talk) 20:35, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

if you say a news about a prank call is enough for notability then i have nothing to say. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 21:49, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prank calls certainly can be notable. We can tell these ones are notable because a major newspaper took note of them. I try not to make personal judgments, but to base my arguments on established policies, guidelines, and consensus. I urge you to review WP:N and WP:GNG, and to do the same. pburka (talk) 22:01, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dhaka Tribune pieces can't be used to establish notability simply because they are not "Significant coverage". Those pieces focused on and addressed the event (prank calls) in detail, yes, but not the subject which is what we need for this topic. ~ Nahid ^Talk 22:14, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree (they constitute significant coverage of her actions) but this argument is at least based on policy! Thank you. Even if she isn't notable, the radio station she founded, Spice FM, certainly is, and this page could be merged and redirected there, per WP:ATD. pburka (talk) 00:48, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some more references i find that may help you guys and also let me know if i can add these on the references. 1. https://www.jagonews24.com/entertainment/news/503756 2. https://dailyasianage.com/news/48235/we-have-brought-the-cultural-shock-rj-tazz, 3. https://www.newagebd.net/article/38304/taking-a-joke-to-court , 4. https://www.bd-journal.com/entertainment/74545/%E0%A6%B8%E0%A7%87%E0%A6%B0%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%A6%E0%A7%87%E0%A6%B0-%E0%A6%A4%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%B2%E0%A6%BF%E0%A6%95%E0%A6%BE%E0%A7%9F-%E0%A6%86%E0%A6%B0%E0%A6%9C%E0%A7%87-%E0%A6%A4%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%9C/print 5. https://www.bd24live.com/bangla/%E0%A6%A8%E0%A6%BF%E0%A6%89%E0%A6%87%E0%A6%AF%E0%A6%BC%E0%A6%B0%E0%A7%8D%E0%A6%95-%E0%A6%AB%E0%A7%87%E0%A6%B8%E0%A7%8D%E0%A6%9F%E0%A6%BF%E0%A6%AD%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%B2-%E0%A6%B0%E0%A7%87%E0%A6%A1%E0%A6%BF/ i know social links dont pass GNG this links from Nagorik Tv broadcasted content which has been uploaded on thier YT channel later May helps to understand the notability of this public figure. 6. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8N52XCGj9j0. Sunny.pervez (talk) 02:56, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1) talks about the nomination of the "best digital radio personality" at New York Festivals Radio Awards 2019. Which does not give automatic notability pass even if it's true (didn't find anything on the award website), 2) interview, 3) opinion piece, 4 & 5) circular of number 1 and fail WP:RS 6) talkshow. ~ Nahid ^Talk 09:38, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can check the details here [94]. Thank you dear.Sunny.pervez (talk) 10:37, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Spice FM: Changed my vote, per reasons above, as an WP:ATD. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to University of Melbourne Student Union#Student Clubs and Societies. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

University of Melbourne student organisations

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

There's probably any number of grounds to delete this article. It fails WP:GNG, it fails WP:ORGDEPTH. Moreover, there are probably other grounds to delete it, such as WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 09:59, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 10:14, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 10:14, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 01:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge to University of Melbourne Student Union#Student Clubs and Societies - the fact that Melbourne University has clubs and societies is notable, so there is room to include relevant information on the merged page without violating any Wikipedia policies. Deus et lex (talk) 00:34, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All that sourcing is primary on that section. Arguably, that section should be deleted too. And in fact, arguably the entire University of Melbourne Student Union needs to nominated for deletion as well (though i haven't searched for reliable sources yet.) But if there are no reliable significant sources for 'Melbourne University student organisations' then what would you propose to merge? We shouldn't merge unsourced/unreliably sourced material. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 14:13, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Melbourne Student Union has been in existence since 1884 - student societies for the big universities like Melbourne and Sydney have a strong history and significant notability going back a long time. Some of the individual clubs and societies will also have their own history and existence. There's enough there to justify some merging. Deus et lex (talk) 07:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's irrelevant see WP:ORGSIG and WP:INHERITORG. But I can't see what you're actually proposing to merge? Unsourced information? ... If you want to write about these clubs on on the University of Melbourne Student Union article, well, then you can? I don't see how that's relevant to this AFD. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 05:03, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, you don't understand me. It's not "unsourced information", I'm saying that there are sources there on University of Melbourne student organisations (due to their long history) and they are notable, so while it's not necessary to keep this page you can merge a scaled down version onto the Uni of Melbourne student union page. This is a sensible alternative to deletion. Deus et lex (talk) 00:55, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand your position because I'm not sure what information would actually be worthy of merging there. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 03:58, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First, let me indicate my relationship with Melbourne University. I am a retired academic. My last and only job in Australia was at Charles Darwin University. I now have a adjunct position at Monash University Parkville Campus. However, I have visited Melbourne University many times. University of Melbourne student organisations have a long history and I am sure that there are many sources. I am inclined to say keep, but a merge to University of Melbourne Student Union#Student Clubs and Societies would be an acceptable. I see no reason to delete it. --Bduke (talk) 04:35, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't exactly understand your position either. Are you proposing just to redirect this page (which essentially deletes it anyway)? And if so, what material do you actually want carried over? Keep in mind the fact that material should be supported by reliable secondary sources which attest to such material being suitable for an encyclopedia. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 06:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am saying that I think it is highly likely that reliable sources can be found for much of the material, but that needs a serious look for such sources, but it needs some work which I do not have time for right now. There is a long history here and many of the sources will not be on the internet. Let us leave some Melbourne Uni people time to look for them. --Bduke (talk) 10:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But then it's unclear what information you want to "merge" per se. People are free at any time to find reliable sources (if they exist) and write about clubs on the University of Melbourne Student Union article. Deleting University of Melbourne student organisations article doesn't really prevent anyone from doing that. This just looks a like a DIRECTORY featuring lots of ORGANISATIONS which are NOT NOTABLE. Your position isn't clear to me: because on the one hand it sounds like you are arguing that this article meets notability requirements...but on the other hand you are saying to merge which would suggest that it doesn't meet notability requirements...and then on the other-other hand you're also not saying which information actually should be merged. To me it seems like you can logically hold one of positions, but you can't hold all three positions at once. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 11:54, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You do go on a lot! Merging does not always mean the topic is not notable. It can be done to just bring things together if that makes sense. I am not saying which information actually should be merged because I do not have access to sources that will record the history of Melbourne University, but knowing academics and universities with a long history I am sure they exist and will be available. Not all information is found by google. Now let us see what others have to say.--Bduke (talk) 21:37, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're making a "WP:SOURCESMAYEXIST" argument, which is listed as an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. Also I'm still not sure what you actually propose to merge, some random unsourced stuff about some political club...it doesn't feel like it would belong on the University of Melbourne Student Union page. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 13:33, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've just been in some discussions on another page with some editors where they have all been really collaborative and helping to improve a page. Apples&Manzanas I think you could learn a lot from them about collaboration, instead of just citing multiple Wikipedia policies (some of which don't seem to apply) and using capital letters helps in this instance. Deus et lex (talk) 12:58, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you really understand how deletion discussions work. I'm actually trying to be collaborative with you, but you're not making your position clear to me. It's very common to link to Wikipedia policies, in capital letters, on AFDs...That's a totally normal thing, don't think of capital letters as a sign of something bad. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 22:45, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have to say that you making a pretty bad job of it, so much so that I have given up commenting on this deletion. You have proposed this for deletion, and so far nobody has agreed with you. So please just stop editing here, as I have (apart from this edit), leave it to others to comment, and an admin to close it.--Bduke (talk) 01:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You keep making things personal when all I've ever done is discuss Wikipedia policies (discuss edits, not editors). If you have no desire to discuss any Wikipedia policies with me, then I can't force you to...feel free to ignore me. But I would suggest that AFDs are a very appropriate to discuss Wikipedia's policies as they relate to deletion. That's literally what we're here for. We're not here to discuss whether we prefer to eat beef or chicken. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 02:52, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus (WP:NPASR). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:38, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Priyanka Jawalkar

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

No evidence she played a significant role in Kala Varam Aaye. Fails WP:NACTOR and a case of WP:TOOSOON. GSS ^💬 17:33, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 17:33, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 17:33, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 17:33, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She played the lead in Kala Varam Aaye and Taxiwaala and the article has enough sources to establish notability. --Ab207 (talk) 14:46, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ab207: Kala Varam Aaye is not a notable film per WP:NFILM so it does not satisfy WP:NACTOR that require significant role in multiple notable films. GSS ^💬 15:27, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GSS: Kala Varam Aaye is sourced by Times of India, reliable per WP:ICTFSOURCES; Along with Taxiwaala, she played lead role in at least two films. She also has other films in production. So subject does satisfy WP:NACTOR.-- Ab207 (talk) 16:09, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ab207: No it doesn't, as I said above WP:NACTOR require significant role in multiple notable films and "Kala Varam Aaye" doesn't meet WP:NFILM that require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and this profile on TOI does not establish notability. GSS ^💬 16:17, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence she has even met the multiple roles in notable films requirement, let alone she has had multiple significant roles in notable films.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:03, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:03, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 01:36, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:40, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sarbala

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

Poorly written, does not cite any sources, could be a section in Vivaah or Hindu wedding. lammbda^talk 04:23, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. lammbda^talk 04:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. lammbda^talk 04:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 01:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No assertion of notability. Zero sources. A dict def on its best day. --Lockley (talk) 04:38, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:40, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sandman Animation Studio

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

No significant coverage in independent, reliable sources exists. The subject does nor meet the requirements of WP:NCORP The article claims credits for Horrid Henry and Moomins on the Riviera. The sources for the article Horrid Henry (TV series) mention Sandman once, in [95], where Layouts and animation overseas are credited to Sandman Animation Studios and Kieron Seamons is credited as Animation Director for Sandman and Nelson Chu as Executive Producer for Sandman. The sources for Moomins on the Riviera mention Sandman in [96]. All that source has to say about the studio is "the Sandman Studio in China worked on the hand-made animation – 120,000 drawings". Vexations (talk) 00:35, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:41, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:41, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 01:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 18:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:38, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The primary claim to notability (RSA fellowship) seems to be a different person of the same name. No other claim to notability established or sourced. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Newman

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. Should be notable, but don't see it. Atrocious references. No indication. scope_creep^Talk 01:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article says that he is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts. That would satisfy notability criterion for any biography number 1, a well-known and significant honor. However, the article sources that recognition to The Leadership Agency, which may be the same as The Leadership Council, and Newman is the founder of that, so that it isn't an independent source. Attempting to check the reference on-line times out. If FRSA can be verified, then he passes biographical notability, in which case this article should be scrubbed to a stub to get rid of the puffery. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- FRSA is certainly not sufficient to meet WP:ANYBIO. Paid for and ten a penny. Not a real honour. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete pending verification of whether he is FRSA. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - See also Draft:Martin Newman (author). Is this the same person? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only Martin Newman who is a member of a royal society is [97] and it seems to be a completely different person. Unless anyone else find different its a delete from me.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 14:40, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it is a different person right enough. The first block of references are entirely non-specific, which I've not seen before. I thought it was hoax originally. scope_creep^Talk 14:52, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 05:32, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GAFFER

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

Deleted by PROD in 2010. REFUNDed earlier today by a user who then changed the article to be about an entirely unrelated magazine. That edit has since been reverted (not by me) as an article hijack.

The point remains that the original subject, the east African football organization, does not demonstrate notability. In its present state it is basically an A7. Since birth in 2009, it has been sourced solely to its homepage, and I did not find any substantial sources on a search. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Does this need to be in AFD? It seems that no one wants the article ... User:Serankail asked for a refund, but the material they got was presumably not what they were looking for. So they did the sensible thing, and put in the content on a different subject. What I don't get is why User:Prahlad balaji restored the text that no one had any interest in, and then actually warned Serankail! Why not simply revert User:Prahlad balaji's edit, and judge the notability of the magazine? Is Prahlad balaji] supporting a keep? Nfitz (talk) 05:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I don't think the magazine is notable either based on the sourcing, and based on their edits (a bunch of little tweaks before suddenly requesting a REFUND) I'm suspicious of a possible COI on Serankail's part. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:27, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The magazine may well pass GNG, but the capitalisation is unnecessary, per WP:TITLEFORMAT. I propose the content about the magazine (i.e. this edit) be moved to Gaffer (magazine) and linked from the disambig page Gaffer; and that the page GAFFER is deleted. If editors feel that the magazine isn't notable, that needs to be addressed in a separate AfD discussion. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 06:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like the best approach! Nfitz (talk) 08:24, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really care either way, but for what it's worth I'm not sure we can just un-refund a refund on the basis of assuming that the original requestor didn't actually want the content. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the page to Gaffer (magazine) and linked it to the disambiguation page. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 10:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

REDMAN 2019, why would you do that? The subject matter on the page is about a football organization. Copy/paste the magazine content if you want, but you've now moved unrelated edits to a page whose title describes it as a magazine. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:52, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Premeditated Chaos, sorry. Misinterpretation on my part. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 10:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: To everyone above (nfitz, Premeditated Chaos, and REDMAN 2019), the user hijacked the article, which I don't support. ~~I am completely neutral on this subject,~~ and if they want to make their own page about their magazine, I'm completely fine. (Courtesy pinging @Serankail.) However, as Premeditated Chaos said, Serankail might have a COI on their part, so we might want to watch out for that. ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 14:27, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:35, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - where's the notability? Giant Snowman 15:38, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete This really should CSD. Govvy (talk) 15:51, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and move the earlier draft to Gaffer (magazine) as per discussion above (which I'm doing right now), with no prejudice about AFDing that. User:Prahlad balaji, I don't see that refunding a decade-old article that no one wants, and then replacing it with what may be notable is "highjacking" - and there's no evidence that there was any malice in the action. It would have been best if the user had asked that the article be redeleted, and then create something new ... but I don't think using terms that fail WP:AGF helps the situation, and only creates a disruption. Nfitz (talk) 18:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nfitz I support retargeting. There's no evidence that this one Gaffer is more notable than the others. Serankail can start his own page about his magazine. ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 18:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

courtesy pinging @Serankail: ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 18:24, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They did! They just didn't do it in quite the write way. Surely we should welcome and support new editors, not make two different AGF accusations about them AND basically shit all over them. Essentially you've assumed bad faith here ... which is surely a worse offence than whatever red tape they failed. Any why the assumptions about gender, User:Prahlad balaji? Nfitz (talk) 18:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

nfitz Don’t nitpick. I’m sorry I assumed bad faith. ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 19:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Time for a nice cup of tea and a sit down. It looks like Gaffer (magazine) is where it should be (thanks @Nfitz:) and now we can focus on the matter in hand. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 19:59, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am very sorry for all these mess. I was not aware of all these and hijacking an article was not intended at all. I will try my best to keep improving the existing pages. Regards. Serankail (talk) 20:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Serankail Thank you. Please remember that if you want to create a new article, then make a new article instead of modifying the existing pages. Best, ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 20:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't an existing page User:Prahlad balaji - that's the whole point. And you accuse me of nitpicking! You messed up the entire situation and created an unnecessary disruption - stop blaming others and stop the WP:BITE. Nfitz (talk) 20:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

nfitz i am not blaming anyone. Who am I biting? All i am doing is saying that if there’s a new page, they should actually create a new page. i might look like i’m disrupting, but i’m Not doing it intentionally ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 20:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You literally put a warning template on their page, threatening that they could be blocked from editing. And now you justify your error by noting that it was an existing page ... but when they started, it wasn't an existing page. They had all rights to request a speedy of the page ... so changing the page, instead of first deleting it again is a minor technicality. The use of the word existing to defend you mistake, is a WP:BITE, and uncivl. Please stop. Nfitz (talk) 20:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

nfitz Sorry about putting the warning message. Can we please forget about that? Please see my comments below. ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 21:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your comments below User:Prahlad balaji. You are still pretending there was an existing page before Serankail came along, trying to deflect the blame for your error. That's biting. Stop now. Nfitz (talk) 21:07, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nfitz: I’m sorry for my error. However, I’m unclear about the “existing page” bit. Could you clarify that for me? Sorry for everything that I have done. Thanks, ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 21:10, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The page had been prodded and deleted in 2010. This week, Serankail asked it to be REFUNDed, presumably found it wasn't what they expected, and started a new article. The only thing they should have done in addition, was to request the Admin who'd just REFUNDed the page, to undo that. But I can see why one would try and fix an error of one's own making oneself, rather than ask others ... Nfitz (talk) 21:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But what are you implying? ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 21:26, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There was no existing page - it had been deleted in 2010. Nfitz (talk) 21:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@nfitz Ok, but how does that relate to the new article? Forgive me if I’m annoying, but I’m very confused. —◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 21:50, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'll agree with that ... Nfitz (talk) 21:54, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’m just gonna forget this stuff. I’ve apologized, !voted, and the magazine page has been created. Nothing more for me to do here. I’ll go back to vandal-fighting. ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 22:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nfitz: It looks like there’s a misunderstanding. I told them that if they want to edit about a topic not already on WP, then they should create a new article instead of modifying an existing page. ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 20:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Serankail,I hope that helps. I have also messaged you on your talk page. ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 20:52, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nfitz, I really have no idea how you can claim there wasn't an existing page when there literally was? Serankail got it refunded, and then chose to overwrite the content. There wouldn't have been any content to overwrite if there wasn't an existing page. It's pretty ridiculous for you to go so hard on Prahlad balaji, who clearly didn't realize there had been a refund, and correctly reverted a page overwrite (which is exactly what is normally done when an article is overwritten) and then again correctly warned the person that overwriting pages can lead to blocking if it continues (which it can). I think you're the one who owes an apology here. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:54, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't give them a hard time, until they kept going on about it after having been told otherwise. Gosh, it says it was refunded at the top of this page! They did NOT correctly warn the person ... warning a new editor that they could be blocked is NOT the way it should be done. I have no idea why this discussion is proceeding here ... they've both admitted their errors. Move on. Nfitz (talk) 02:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You literally followed them to Serankail's talk page to continue to hassle them about it, but yeah, I'm the one who needs to move on. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:27, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not moving on until User:Nfitz gives me the sorry that they so expected of me. ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 20:43, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please take this elsewhere ... I'm not sorry for pointing out your WP:BITE fail here. Nor did I solicit an apology. Nfitz (talk) 21:02, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - no assertion of notability Spiderone 07:44, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:45, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Winston Hines

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

Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. The sources cited are also not in depth and fails GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:52, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Fails WP:GNG KidAd (talk) 01:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as non-notable. --Lockley (talk) 01:58, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:56, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:56, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:45, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bashshar Habibullah

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

Non notable "entrepreneur" sourced to the usual churnalism. No meaningful or in depth, independent coverage. In fact, searching under both Hindi and Urdu translations gives nothing. Praxidicae (talk) 11:02, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 14:16, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:40, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to PatnaBeats. Mccapra (talk) 21:51, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is "absolutely execrable' a valid deletion rationale? Why, yes, it is. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:00, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: old afd; needs more participation
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eternal Shadow Talk 00:48, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief! Delete. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 06:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no assertion of notability Spiderone 19:10, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delele No significant reliable coverage, hence fails to meet WP:GNG -- Ab207 (talk) 19:32, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 00:20, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Claudio

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Non-notable. Minor artiste, coverage. scope_creep^Talk 00:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, she's been on the Billboard charts multiple times[98][99], been on national TV as a tribute to Marvin Gaye[100], shes had 2 albums published by Kromatik [101][102], shes been published about a load of times[103][104][105][106][107][108][109][110][111][112][113]... And I'm pretty sure there is a few notable inclusions on Youtube. She's been all over the world supporting big name acts. She's not a famous star per se but she's sort of like a cult personality to that scene. And she's great, a powerful and pretty musical exhibitionist who appeared just a few years too late for what she does to make her a recognisable name. She did a great TEDx once. Actually you've reminded me, if the article isn't deleted, I wonder if I can convince the owner of this photo to release the copyright for the purpose of the article. ~ R.T.G 03:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The numerous citiations provided by RTG are compelling. Looks like a legitimate article to me. Cabrils (talk) 05:02, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:14, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:14, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:48, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems to be case. If everybody doesn't mind, I will withdrawn the nomination tomorrow. scope_creep^Talk 08:59, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 01:55, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Common Law Wife (film)

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

Non notable, independent release with no known verifiable reviews. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - No SIGCOV, nothing that meets criteria for film notability Rogermx (talk) 00:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I've added some reviews and interviews. Larry Buchanan is a notable filmmaker in his own low budget way - books have been written about his work. He deserves an entry. Dutchy85 (talk) 03:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: In addition to Dutchy85's work, I added some analysis from the book The Films of Larry Buchanan: A Critical Examination. The film is clearly notable. — Toughpigs (talk) 05:06, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Toughpigs appreciate it Dutchy85 (talk) 06:21, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the article has been improved with the addition of referenced material from multiple reliable sources so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is no longer necessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ "Meadowbrook Country Club - Michigan - Best In State Golf Course". www.top100golfcourses.com.

[Windmiller2011-1] Marshall Windmiller (2011). Communism in India. University of California Press. p. 439. GGKEY:NSY99CAKNFU.

[Benichou2000-2] Lucien D. Benichou (2000). From Autocracy to Integration: Political Developments in Hyderabad State, 1938-1948. Orient Blackswan. p. 148. ISBN 978-81-250-1847-6.

[Welch1980-3] Claude Emerson Welch (1 January 1980). Anatomy of Rebellion. SUNY Press. p. 183. ISBN 978-0-87395-441-9.

[4] State Government & Politics, Andhra Pradesh. Sterling. 1979. p. 290.

[Reddy1991-5] K. Narotham Reddy (1991). Freedom Struggle in Erstwhile Nizam State: With Special Reference to Karimnagar District, 1920-1948 A.D. Copies can be had from K. Ganga Devi. p. 7.

[Rao1972-6] K. V. Narayana Rao (1972). Telangana: A Study in the Regional Committees in India. Minerva Associates. p. 63.

[7] Link: Indian Newsmagazine. September 1972. p. 13.

[8] "Five flashpoints that have fuelled the recent Man City and Liverpool FC rivalry". Manchester Evening News.

[9] "City Runs Past Liverpool in a Race That Ended Months Ago". The New York Times.

[10] "Can Liverpool v Manchester City be accepted as England's biggest game?". The Guardian.

[11] "Liverpool Versus Manchester City: A Rivalry Renewed Sets Tone For New Season". Forbes.

[12] "Liverpool v Man City: 'A gripping chapter in a great new rivalry - and a defining moment'". BBC.

[13] "Liverpool v Man City belongs to a different class of rivalry, one consumed by wealth, history and reputation". the Telegraph.

[14] ttps://www.shape.com/lifestyle/mind-and-body/share-the-mic-now-med-campaign-black-female-doctors. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[15] "ISIS Has Launched a Newspaper to Recruit Southeast Asian Fighters". Yenni Knok. Time. 11 July 2016. Retrieved 5 July 2020.

[16] "New Al-Fatihin: IS Continued Ideological Threat to Southeast Asia". Syed Huzaifah Bin Othman Alkaff, Jasminder Singh. RSIS. 4 May 2018. Retrieved 5 July 2020.

[17] "ISIS launches first Malay language newspaper in South-east Asia; distribution includes Singapore: Report". The Straits Times. 12 July 2016. Retrieved 5 July 2020.

[18] "IS trying to expand foothold in Southeast Asia: Report". The Economic Times. 11 July 2016. Retrieved 5 July 2020.

[19] "Meadowbrook Country Club - Michigan - Best In State Golf Course". www.top100golfcourses.com.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]