The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails WP:GNG. Sources currently in the article are all primary - an official GI Joe book and the comics themselves. A WP:BEFORE search brings up unreliable sources and passing mentions in GI Joe books that may or may not be independent from the publishers of the comics. A merge to anywhere would likely creating WP:UNDUE coverage of Voltar. Hog Farm (talk) 23:33, 3 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.
Once again it's a spot in the middle of farmland and orchards on the former Sacramento Northern. There were a couple of buildings here, but old aerials show them as outbuildings far a facility that's no longer there. I find nothing that says this was a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 21:25, 3 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.
Please refer to the WP:NTOURS and you'll see that announcements, postponements and cancellations are not enough to warrant an article. There are no dates scheduled. And I'm not sure what me redirecting the article originally has to do with anything here. — Status (talk · contribs) 19:30, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's enough with the planning and milestones to retain this article, along with its past confirmed dates. We're not deleting an article that involved a wholesale sell-out of every date worldwide because 'it didn't happen'; every bank account, vendor, and venue would beg to differ despite its postponement. Nate•(chatter)00:37, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As mentioned above, these concert dates have been rescheduled to 2021. While specific dates aren't chosen, everyone who bought a ticket to a show still has a ticket to that show; additionally, it is still possible to purchase tickets even now. If the page is deleted, it will simply have to be recreated next year anyways when the tour actually happens. Lover Fest is an album tour by one of the highest profile artists in the music industry. Not having a Wikipedia page for their latest album tour would be highly irregular. Teddybearearth (talk) 12:36, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your rationality is completely WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. This is a tour that has no dates. We don't know when the tour will happen, if it even will end up happening at all. This fails multiple Wikipedia guidelines on notability, as I have pointed out here. This article is nothing but announcements, postponements and cancellations. Nothing is concrete. If the tour happens, a new article can be created then. But until then, this is WP:TOOSOON. This isn't a Taylor Swift fansite. — Status (talk · contribs) 19:26, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lover (album), and once dates are announced it can be restored. Concert tours as large-scale and international as Taylor Swift's have way too much uncertainly at the moment. --Prosperosity (talk) 05:08, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Please do refer to Taylor Swift's official website as it was stated that the re-scheduled dates for the tour will be announced later this year. I believe it is a good idea to have this page available until further notice: "The U.S. and Brazil shows will be rescheduled to take place in 2021, with dates to be announced later this year." But if you believe that the statement from her official website is not compliant to the Wikipedia's guidelines and such, you may so delete this article then. Aimndae (talk) 11:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Just because this technically breaks a guideline because it doesn't have announced dates is not a good enough reason for deletion. Because of the unique circumstances of the Covid pandemic, this is likely the case for a lot of very big events. It seems a bit counter-productive to delete an decent article on a notable topic just to have it rewritten in 3-5 weeks when the new dates are announced. Use WP:COMMONSENSE. This tour has gotten a lot of coverage from articles of its announcements, articles covering the nature of the tour, of course the cancelation.... It's a very notable topic. It easily passes WP:GNG. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 00:15, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Since the tour is confirmed to still be happening. Postponement has never been grounds for deletion, especially for a Taylor Swift tour for god's sake.--NØ11:47, 9 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.
Delete the only source I could find that was not a CV entry saying someone had won the award was from "Industrial Fabric Products Review, Volume 92, Issues 1-6". So, not notable by lack of SIGCOV.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:26, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pri source trademark filings and (as noted above) press releases redone as churnalism don't cut it. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Chicago Athenaeum. Note that the article was longer before I pared it down. This prize (along with International Architecture Awards) seems to be a Vanity award. The entry fee is 350 USD, and is is awarded in the hundreds. By cloaking it in the mantle of the MoMA exhibition from the 1950ies, it is puffed up. Some recipients of the award do mention this in brochures etc. So collecting information about the numerous "awards" handed out by the Chicago Athenaeum seems fair. --Minderbinder (talk) 09:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The 1950s version were the Museum of Modern Art (MoMA). The Chicago Atheneum wasn't founded until 1988. As far as I can tell, the award was given for a few years in the 1950s, and then shut down, and then the Athenaeum launched a new award in the early 90s with the same name. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 17:38, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well this is unraveling quite quickly! What you say makes sense because I could find nothing in references pre 1990s for the award that included a mention of the Chicago Atheneum.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the above I am going to change my !vote to Merge, with Chicago Athenaeum. Some mention of the MoMa history should be included. I would have suggested merging to the MoMA article, but naming would be tricky. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:51, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I should have linked that as I meant Good Design Award (Museum of Modern Art) when I said MoMa article. In a perfect world I think it makes sense to have them both in one article with a continuous history, but the naming and ownership makes it tricky. Anyway I think we are more or less on the same page.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:10, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a side note. I wrote the article Good Design Award (Museum of Modern Art), and I object to merging it with information about the awards which Christian Narkiewicz-Laine is handing out like candy. In one year (2012), more than 700 of these awards were awarded. You do the math. Recipients should order a couple of award books from the Metropolitan Arts Press, another outfit connected to Mr. Narkiewicz-Laine. The word "metropolitan" and "art" sound a bit like the The Metropolitan Museum of Art, which is surely a coincidence. --Minderbinder (talk) 14:37, 5 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.
Apparently created because of an unusually large radius, but the reference for this claim states that the star is a foreground object and likely not this large at all. Otherwise fails WP:NASTRO and WP:GNG. Lithopsian (talk) 20:08, 3 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.
Comment: The previously deleted version of the article was about an organisation named Rang De, not a film. Just thought people should know. It's also worth noting that the article creator did try to satisfy WP:NFF with the content "The first schedule was started in October 8 2019 in Hyderabad" supported by this reference, which they put in the section heading. The reference indicates that the film's pooja (blessing ceremony) took place on 8 October 2019, and that filming was to commence two days later. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:59, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are multiple reliable sources which confirm that the filming has begun. Production updates have also been reported by secondary sources.--Ab207 (talk) 11:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There have been more sources added to confirm that the film has begun and more sources added regarding the crew and marketing of the film. GODUBNATION (talk) 15:52, 8 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.
No longer does this article meet WP:GN due to 2019 discontinuation of this initially made-up category. Keeping the article provides legitimation to a designation that never existed in the first place. Shameran81 (talk) 17:41, 3 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - The article's sloppy state and support from a (nearly) single-purpose account show that it could be an attempted promotion by a volunteer who may not understand what Wikipedia is for. In response to a commenter above, in this particular discussion, what matters is notability rather than neutrality. WP:BLP1E is relevant because Ms. Fair received some momentary coverage for one story that was noticed by some media sources, but this does not bestow notability on any of her other work as a musician, professionally or otherwise. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs)14:51, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable pianist. We really should make all new articles go through the Articles for Creation process at this point. It may have taken a while for me to get the article on Ward Eaton Pack through that process, but at least that way I know I was right to create an article on him, and not just creating articles on my ancestors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:22, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It took almost 3 months for the aticle to be approved. We maybe need more Articles for creation patrolers, but considering how many rubbish articles we have from 2007 we need a better control on creation of articles on non-notable indivduals.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:23, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly this is not a case of WP:BLP1e. The article states multiple achievements, covered by multiple high profile international news organizations. The artist has been invited to be a featured artist at Lincoln Center multiple times for projects and content completely unrelated to each other. It is also clearly not a case of promotion, there are no adjectives or superlatives included in the article even though the cited articles are filled with them. As to Ms. Fair's notability, she has been featured in articles by The New York Times, Cosmopolitan, The Daily Mail (UK), Repubblica (Italy), NHK (Japan) on-air news broadcasts and many others. If there are suggestions for article improvement it would be great to see them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doppler75 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 10 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.
I did. Being founded in the late 19th century in the UK is not unusual, and is not an indication of significance--Eostrix (talk) 17:01, 3 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - my babysitter's name was Putsy. Perhaps she's notable too. It's a nursery school. There are schools in Britain that are over 1000 years old. Simply being old isn't a claim to notability. John from Idegon (talk) 08:55, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per [2]] any school that is not notable, which other than it got a good in Ofsted and was closed for snow references, needs to be redirected to the page of the town or local vacinity. User talk:Davidstewartharvey 15:32, 4 June 2020
Comment - above editor is a bit confused about WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, which he appears to be referencing. We redirect nn mainstream educational institutions in this situation. We do not redirect beauty schools, we do not redirect basic music and dance instructors and we do not redirect preschools (or infant schools or nursery schools - all regional terms for the same thing). I wasn't being totally flippant above - preschool programs are as much or more about babysitting than education. Specifically oppose redirect to locality. John from Idegon (talk) 09:04, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually this is a primary school not a preschool, which is why I quoted this WP which it actually clearly states that non secondary education should be redirected to the town/region page unless it is notable.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 10:01, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Seconding this. The article as it stands is wrong: the school takes Reception to Year 2, which means ages 4–7, or the youngest three years of primary school. That's the usual meaning of "infant school" in England in regions that have them; it's the counterpart to a "junior school", which covers Years 3–6 (i.e. the remainder of primary school). (And then you get first schools, which cover Reception to Year 4 in areas with middle schools. It's all a mess.) YorkshireLad ✿ (talk)20:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr Liffee: If it was a listed building (it isn't, I've checked NHLE list) then that might make it notable, but just being a Victorian foundation doesn't qualify for notability. @John from Idegon:: in the UK system an "infant school" is not a pre-school, it's the early 3 years of compulsory, mainstream, school. I don't know how they do things in Idegon! PamD19:06, 10 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.
"also Roble Station" says that, yes, it's yet another point on the railroad. In this case there doesn't appear to ever have been a siding, but there doesn't appear to ever have been anything else either. Searching is interfered with by the name being a component of many other place names in the state, but the only relevant reference I found was a fleeting reference to a school. Mangoe (talk) 16:46, 3 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment - I remain neutral and am simply creating an AfD to promote discussion from other editors and generate a more clear consensus Ed6767 (talk) 15:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I removed the PROD because lack of sources and factual errors are both defects which can be fixed through normal editing, and I had no reason to think the article was a hoax. If the nom had tagged the article or mentioned hoax in the prod, I probably would have left it in place. pburka (talk) 15:19, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like a hoax to me, possibly suitable for speedy deletion as such under WP:CSD G3. It's "the national airline" of a territory with fewer than 12,000 people? It's existed for 45 years and is a "major regional airline in the South Pacific", but the closest Google comes to a relevant match is this blog post from 2009 by someone who lives there wishing there was such a thing as "Air Wallis-et-Futuna"? ("Alors à quand la naissance de la compagnie tant attendue Air Wallis et Futuna, ou encore Air WaFu ?"; in English, "So when is a long-awaited Air Wallis and Futuna, or even an Air WaFu, going to come to be?") And the "official link" given is fake. At best, even if the territorial government is operating an air service by that name, at least some of the information given about it in the article is fake, and the airline certainly isn't notable. Largoplazo (talk) 18:21, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, and in addition: I learned of this discussion because the article's creator is on my watchlist. The reason for that is that, on new page patrol a couple of years ago, I put another hoax article created by that user up for speedy deletion. Largoplazo (talk) 19:57, 3 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 article has several links but none of them are reliable sources that are actually about him. The content reads like a promotional PR piece. M4DU7 (talk) 15:12, 3 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.
Article relies on routine coverage and passing mentions. No signs that this person passes our notability threshold. M4DU7 (talk) 14:49, 3 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.
Delete The sources provided certainly don’t support notability, and a search in Urdu doesn’t come up with anything else for me. Mccapra (talk) 15:46, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A notable person in Pakistan for devoting his life to Quran reciting at public events and had become very popular among the public for his skills in this field. Evidence of his notability is that 2 different Urdu language newspapers wrote his obituaries on his recent death at the age of 75 (see 2 references at the article). Ngrewal1 (talk) 16:50, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And both obituaries are in-depth news coverage by the Pakistani media. Two of the three newspapers are the largest Urdu-language newspapers in Pakistan – Daily Jang and Nawa-i-Waqt. The third newspaper Daily Pakistan is also considered a fairly good size newspaper. Ngrewal1 (talk) 17:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Oops! corrected my above earlier comments here after realizing two are obituaries and the third reference is about an event in UK where he himself recited the Quran, while he was still living. Ngrewal1 (talk) 21:31, 5 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
weakest of keeps, I'm really hoping some Hungarian sources surface. It looks like the scientific community took interest, but I haven't seen much outside primary papers in English. Still looking. StarM15:27, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The two sources that Oakshade provided look legitimate to me. There are also references currently provided in the article. I'm going to go ahead and admit that I don't know whether The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences is a notable and reliable source in the field, but per AGF, I would give it the benefit of the doubt. I know that burden of proof is on keep, but that proof has already been met by the four academic sources referenced in the article; I think at this point the burden shifts to the nominator, who is rejecting those sources without a single word of explanation about why they are inadequate. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:36, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. The sources found by Oakshade, combined with the other sources referenced in the article, make the subject a clear GNG pass. −−−CactusJack 🌵00:07, 9 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.
Delete. Being a perennially non-winning perennial candidate for political office at the local level is not in and of itself an article-clinching notability claim — and the article is not referenced to the depth, range or volume of reliable source coverage it would take to make him a special case of greater notability than most other non-winning mayoral candidates. Two of the references are primary sources (his own campaign website and a profile on Ballotpedia) that are not support for notability at all, one source just provides a blurb's worth of information about him in a listicle about all of this year's mayoral candidates (thus not constituting evidence that Broussard's candidacy is more special than Michael O'Callaghan's or Piper Crowell's or Randy Rapaport's), while the other is just covering him in the context of a criminal allegation without demonstrating that he would pass WP:PERP for that. So no, nothing here is a legitimate reason for us to maintain an article about him. Bearcat (talk) 14:03, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm reasonably familiar with his career, and I'm confident that he has not generated sufficient independent coverage to meet the requirements of WP:GNG. WP:POLITICIAN clearly does not apply either. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 22:38, 4 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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) 00:04, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Logs: 2020-06 ✍️ create
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I have been unable to find any sources discussing this man's life in-depth except a PR-type blog (Talking Biz News [which states here that it is a "blog"]) and this source. Other results in a search only yield news articles he has written or contributed to. If anyone can find more sources, please feel free to display them. As of right now, it would appear this article subject does not pass the notability threshold. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 09:07, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The subject lacks in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources. I ran a Google search and did not find coverage of him. Simply writing for notable news outlets doesn't make one notable. Versace1608Wanna Talk?14:02, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
He is rich, and is therefore included in listicles of rich people, usually placing 70+ in his countries top 100. Nothing significant to pass GNG. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 17:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep: It doesn't appear that WP:GNG is being contested, and I think there is enough here to meet WP:NACTOR, with at least a couple of long-running main roles in TV series. I don't think it matters that those TV series are soap operas. Dflaw4 (talk) 13:40, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep. I can find significant coverage in reliable sources, especially if I search for alternate spellings and nicknames: "Chithra" and "Chithu." However the sources I've found tend towards gossip. This one is decent, though. There may be more in Tamil sources. pburka (talk) 20:38, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Hi - I created the page, with reference to all the available sources, they are all arXiv preprints at this stage. I also added in the table all the known global efforts in this theme. The page seems to me of a similar style, standing and purpose to the tracking apps page that is linked from here (and from which it would be good to be linked). User:pc245 21 May 2020 —Preceding undated comment added 09:53, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the apps are notable and article written more like a product review rather than an encyclopedic topic. Ajf773 (talk) 23:46, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The topic is clearly notable - individual apps may or may not be, but this is not an article about an individual app. If you think it's not encyclopedicly written, please consider improving it.----Pontificalibus11:35, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Far too much of a chance to use WP:OR and a WP:SPAM magnet and a chance for unreviewed content to be added. Creator has not helped their cause in my book by disrupting the nomination by inappropriately placed unsigned comment. Would not object to userfication or draftication if creator promises to incline cite all content and not to attempt to circumvent AfD in any return to mainspace, using DRV if necessary. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a valid delete rationale. It's evidently not a catalogue, it's an article about a notable topic that happens to contain a list in one section. If you feel that section is problematic, feel free to propose improvements to it.----Pontificalibus11:35, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources in the article and mentioned above do not suffice for WP:GNG. Pre-prints are not sufficiently reliable; this covers all the current sources in the article. To address the sources mentioned above by @Pontificalibus: the BBC sources looks okay. The Financial Times article lacks depth: it only mentions these apps in passing; the main topic is AI-aided drug development. The Forbes article is a "Contributor" article, which is more like a personal blog: it does not have the same editorial scrutiny as the rest of Forbes and is thus not particularly reliable. BenKuykendall (talk) 06:00, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Several sources suggested here (but which are not yet in the article) seem to me to meet our GNG criteria.[13][14][15][16] Maybe more. Incidentally, they all seem to predate this AFD nomination. So, it looks to me the topic is notable. Any original research may be removed and editorial tone may be improved if thought necessary (which I do not). Thincat (talk) 16:49, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The new sources seem okay but not ideal; I think we are still borderline on WP:GNG. Of the four news articles listed above: The Next Web is discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_250#About_The_Next_Web; briefly, corporate sponsorships and poor editorial standards make it not particularly reliable. WGN9 and South Wales Argus seem like okay sources; for something like this major news agencies would be better than local ones. The EURACTIV article seems good.
But beyond reliability, the problem with these sources is that they each only describe a single app or research effort. This would be fine if we were writing individual pages, but to discuss the general topic of "Apps to analyse COVID-19 sounds" it would be preferable to have sources that discussed the idea more generally. BenKuykendall (talk) 18:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rename? This seems like a good start to an article on COVID-19 sound analysis. Any notable apps that relate to COVID-19 sound analysis techniques could be mentioned there. I don't really see how the apps could be relevant unless the techniques were, unless only one app was successful, in which case there is no need for a list. Tkondrashov (talk) 04:06, 8 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.
No evidence of notability could be found. Apart from the one review given, all I see are fora, fansites, wikis, or old adverts in other magazines like Dragon. Company doesn't have an article either, so no obvious redirect target. Fram (talk) 08:46, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The single review already included in the article appears to be the only big of reliable sourced coverage this adventure received, thus it fails the WP:GNG. The publisher and none of the staff involved appear to be, themselves, notable, so there are no suitable targets for a Redirect or Merge. Rorshacma (talk) 14:34, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Alarums & Excursions source, apart from being a fanzine, is not a source which counts to notability, as it is an article written by Chris Abbott, creator of this game. So a pure primary source. This is not a review. So, apart from the original review, we only have the Abyss magazine, which seems to be some fanzine as well, not something usually considered a WP:RS. Fram (talk) 08:27, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it isn't enough for something to be mentioned in a source, the source itself needs to be able to be considered a reliable source, and I am not really seeing anything that would indicate that Abyss could be counted as such. Fanzines seem to largely fall into the WP:SELFPUBLISHED category of non-reliable sources. Case in point, Abyss was published by "Ragnarok Enterprises", a group run by David Nale, who is also the creator and main contributor of the fanzine. Rorshacma (talk) 18:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Currently the only cited sources are two blogs and a book which only mentions this work in passing, and doesn't even support the statement for which it is cited. An online search found lots off places selling various editions of The Ancient Science of Numbers, but no place cites it or refers to it in more than a passing way in a reliable source. Fails WP:NBOOK. Fails WP:GNG. Apparently not notable, unless I have missed some significant sources. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs 06:33, 27 May 2020 (UTC) DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs06:33, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect? - I can't add anything to improve the sourcing, but "Luo Clement" is mentioned in the article on William Delbert Gann, as a possible pseudonym of his: is there any merit in redirecting this there? Ingratis (talk) 12:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is currently supported by two cited sources in William Delbert Gann. One is a blog, the same blog curently cited in The Ancient Science of Numbers for the same purpose. The other is a book, cited with no page number, that is not available online nor searchable, leaving a would-be verifier to read the whole book. I found this allegation in a few places online, always written as speculation of the "some suggest" type, with no attribution to anyone who says this is the case, or even likely. Not much of a basis for a redirect. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs17:58, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the author there says "He may have used a pseudonym to write The Ancient Science of Numbers" (emphasis added) with no indication of who says this is likely nor why. That is the sort of thing I was referring to above. But I wouldn't object strongly to a redirect, as long as this is not restored as an independent article without better sourcing. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs18:38, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I vote to keep this page. Nothing about it is insignificant, chiefly that it is a groundbreaking United Nations event at a United Nations headquarters, with representation from 19 countries on the burgeoning topic of transgender rights.Caterpillar84 (talk) 16:25, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but can you provide even one example of a source that isn't affiliated with the Advocacy Week commenting on it in detail? signed, Rosguilltalk17:21, 6 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 article does not cite any sources and does little to reflect on the life of the person it is written after to be considered as notable. U1quattroTALK03:17, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is more an improvement notice than a delete, as this is a notable person in the automotive industry, but has only a primary source as reference. Wikipedia does not need to be about the person's life, it can be aabout their notable contribution as long as they are referenced. User talk:Davidstewartharvey 13:08, 3 June 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.
Delete. I can't find any coverage of this company to establish notability. The article doesn't even really make a claim about notability, or provide any independently sourced information. ~ oulfis 🌸(talk) 05:36, 6 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.
Comment - several different single-purpose accounts including the acronym “TAO” have made substantial edits, possibly indicating COI issues. These accounts have also made edits on TAO’S clients’ pages. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 00:21, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep Akbar Laghari is popular writer and critic of Sindhi Language. He is well known among comtemporary writers including people. He touches the notablity as writer.--Aziz Kingrani (talk) 18:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
— Note to closing admin: Aziz Kingrani (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
What made you say that a Secretary of Sindh’s Culture and Tourism Department is a highest-level civil servant ? It is not. --Saqib (talk) 07:32, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
He's isn't a Secretary in the Government of Pakistan but in Sindh, a province in Pakistan which means the position would not seem enough for the applicable notability. Going by your logic every Secretary in every province of Pakistan should have a Wikipedia page. Clearly the subject isn't notable as per Wikipedia standards. Pls keep in mind secretary to the ministry, is a civil service and not a political position.--Saqib (talk) 15:56, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't misconstrue my statement; he is a "Secretary" whether Provincial or Federal, it is the title of his position and he reports directly to the Minister. I never claimed his position per se conveys notability; his position adds to it. The nature of his work brings him a higher profile; I doubt for example Aijaz Ahmed Mahesar, Secretary of the Sindh Provincial Department of Livestock and Fisheries would meet the GNG (but would be quite happy to be proved wrong).--Goldsztajn (talk) 17:40, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Most of the arguments for keeping are not based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, whereas those for deletion are based on policies and guidelines. In addition, Ewillett72's contribution should be totally discounted, as that is a sockpuppet account. (Swimminginwords may or may not be connected to Ewillett72 via sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry, but I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt and assume not.) JBW (talk) 21:01, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject fails WP:GNG. Once you strip away the self-published sources and citations from related endeavors, what you have left is a handful of local newspapers talking about an exhibit at the gallery but not really the gallery, itself. I don't see a case for notability. Chris Troutman (talk)01:43, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEPSubject does not fail WP:GNG. Newspapers are relevant sources. Replying to an argument with a statement that an argument is not relevant but without giving reasons is in fact irrelevant. Please provide more information about how you find the article irrelevant and we can edit that page. This page is for historical information about a nonprofit art gallery. Please further explain how that does not fit in the wikipedia guidelines. Ewillett72 (talk) 20:46, 28 May 2020 (UTC) — Ewillett72 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Please see WP:NCORP and WP:NONPROFIT. The AfD discussion is not a vote contest to ask people around if they think, in their own personal opinion, if a subject is notable. It is soliciting for input on notability based on their interpretation of relevant policies mentioned in the deletion nomination. Coverage in local media is valid as a reliable source of information, but local coverage rarely contributes to the establishment of notability for Wikipedia purpose. Graywalls (talk) 03:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
note see User:Ewillett72's talk page; and the staff directory at the organization's page. Very good chance of editing on behalf of the organization, but user has not disclosed this. Graywalls (talk) 06:29, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP 1708 Gallery has a long, outstanding history in Richmond, Virginia. Of course newspapers are important sources. 1708 gallery was one of the first incorporated 501C-3 member-run galleries in Richmond.Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 02:50, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mitzi.humphrey:, what does it do or receive notice in outside of the region? Per WP:NONPROFIT, the scale needs to be national/international in addition to meeting all the sourcing requirements. Graywalls (talk) 00:48, 30 May 2020 (UTC) *The influence and reputation of 1708 and its artists is most assuredly international.Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 13:06, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
question@Mitzi.humphrey:, what is your connection, if any to the organization in which you're participating in deletion discussion about? It says in the article "In April 1990 in the original Shockoe Bottom location, with visiting artist-in-residence Louise Odes Neaderland, 1708 presented Art Ex Machina, National Copier Art Show, curated by Anne Savedge and Mitzi Humphrey." Graywalls (talk) 00:24, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP The 1708 Gallery Wikipedia page should not be deleted as it has a long and recognized history that transcends its regional contributions. The 1708 Gallery history archive was in the process of being digititized by the Virginia Commonwealth University Library of Special Collections before the pandemic hit. After Forty years of print articles and reviews from ar digitized it will be easier to access the many contributions of nationally and internationally noted artists as well as the gallery's role in contributing to the greater community at large. https://www.library.vcu.edu/swimminginwords (talk) 02:58, 29 May 2020 (UTC)Swimminginwords (talk) — Swimminginwords (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I am deeply sympathetic to the difficulties of documenting the history of artist-run institutions, particularly those who were started in the 1970s as some of the first. Often those histories are not written until the archives are made available for researchers. It is quite possible that such a history will one day be written. But here we have a number of editors who clearly have a conflict of interest. The article -is- promotional, the sourcing is very poor, and I find the argument that Being "local" in Richmond is unlike being local elsewhere staggeringly arrogant. If the editors of the article really think that, they have lost all perspective. Delete without prejudice to recreation by uninvolved editors once independent, reliable sources become available. Vexations (talk) 14:58, 5 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.
very minor author--Worldcat shows "Less is More in 113 libraries, but each of the other is fewer than 10--a single barely ` successful book does not make a notable author. The references are almost all the publisher or the bookseller, The Times "reference" is just her own byline as an ocassional commentator there, the Independent one is an article she wrote, not a review of her work. . The editors works seems to be mostly similarly nonnotale individuals. DGG ( talk ) 00:29, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Libraries are buying books. E-books, usually, but that still counts in worldcat. (Libraries have the unique funding situation that they must each year spend al the money they are allotted .). DGG ( talk ) 03:32, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A very US-only answer! I doubt that's really true even in the US, still less in the UK, where all libraries are closed and the staff at home on "furlough". And actually, in the UK and I expect the US, having to spend the budget within the budget year is entirely normal for all government spending (with dire results). Johnbod (talk) 16:39, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete fails WP:NAUTHOR, WP:NJOURNALIST, and WP:GNG. A semi-notable book and being Fashion editor of The Times does not one notable make. I found a total of three short reviews of her work (two of which were of The New Girl). Seems to be widely published however, so a few more book reviews or the like would probably push her over the edge if they are found. Eddie891TalkWork01:09, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am improving the article - and have added sources and accomplished some clean up. The subject is a notable writer/expert and meets the requirements for WP:ANYBIO#2. In addition the subject has authored three books: two on fashion and one is a novel. She likely passes WP:AUTHOR#1 at this time as well; in any event the books further show her notability and expertise in her field. Lightburst (talk) 16:16, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Really? WP:AUTHOR#1? "widely cited by peers or successors"? That's quite a claim. Only a very small minority of authors fall into that category.
KEEP She is cited as an expert in her field by her peers. What has been found by others I believe proves this person is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. DreamFocus15:26, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no automatic notability in being a departmental editor. Maybe for editor-in-chief, but there is no presumption that there are significant independent sources for holding this job, nor are there shown to be. Being quoted a few times is not basis for notability without coverage about her. Reywas92Talk21:45, 5 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete as non-notable. Zero hits via the WP:VG/SE search engine apart from this database (read: un-authored) entry and no independent sources through Google. I was going to say that COI is likely, but the user has also created articles for several other non-notable games that might need to be discussed. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 09:33, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think I would rather tend toward WP:TOOSOON deletion here until release, as I acknowledge there are no extent reliable sources at this time. --Izno (talk) 16:51, 4 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article could be speedy-deleted as WP:CSD#G4 since it was deleted following this debate. But it was 13 years ago and it was a close decision so I suppose it's fair to revisit the issue. I'm personally ambivalent. It's a joke language and a pretty silly one at that but it appears to be semi-famous as far as joke languages go. Pichpich (talk) 18:20, 26 May 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 was previously discussed at AfD and the result was Delete arguments are stronger, and there is no double jeapordy in Wiki. An article which is notable will survive all reasonable XfD's. --Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Previous discussions: 2007-02✗ Delete arguments are stronger, and there is no double jeapordy in Wiki. An article which is notable will survive all reasonable XfD's, 2006-10✓ keep
Delete. Joke languages attract a bit of interest at first and are then forgotten. I see no indication that this is notable. Bduke (talk) 00:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Note that the outcome of the discussion I linked is that the article should not just be recopied over from Simple English Wikipedia, which is exactly what this article is. WikiMaster111 (talk) 16:40, 6 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.
Article is sourced to company website and SEC filings. Sure the company exists, but there is no evidence that it passes WP:NCORP notability guidelines. Rusf10 (talk) 20:12, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Very clearly advertising, and the only source is an Alexa ranking. PJvanMill (talk)
21:08, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Except Alexa, there are no other independent sources available for this subject. Andcentra (talk) 22:32, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep because essentially he is notable for being a Fugitive Economic Offender, this puts him in the same category as Lalit Modi, Mehul Choksi, Nirav Modi and Vijay Mallya, all of whom are notable enough to have their own separate Wikipedia articles. And strongly disagree with the claim that sources are very weak because all the major newspapers of India ranging from The Hindu to the Times of India have reported on him. A simple google search makes it clear that he is quite notable enough. Oskosst (talk) 14:42, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sources are very weak. Simply being a fugitive economic offender does not make for notability. My guess is that there must be thousands of such persons across the globe. The other examples quoted have other much more significant claims to notability. In any case WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is relevant here. Fails WP:GNGVelellaVelella Talk 19:38, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
comment - It is very unfortunate that unflattering information (backed by reliable sources) surrounding his status as a Fugitive Economic Offender are being censored out of his article. A simple Google search reveals the truth of his misdeeds, those same truths are being censored out of Wikipedia. It has been pointed out by [sources] that the fraud perpetrated by Nitin Sandesara is even larger than the fraud perpetrated by Nirav Modi. That alone should be sufficient to make him notable. It is like finding out about a Ponzi scheme that is even larger than the one perpetrated by Charles Ponzi himself. 103.68.221.91 (talk) 03:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: A.lot of the keep arguments offer no.policy based argument. Policy based input requested
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpartazHumbug!21:51, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Articles are picked from selected sources to just fulfill the basic guidelines of Wiki. Current article needs to be deleted completely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roseoke1980 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agreed about sources being very weak. The points mentioned to keep the article has no relevance with this because there are many more articles for other information in its respective categories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rakeshkraja (talk • contribs) 06:58, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Still not quite feeling a consensus either way. There has been some vote stacking so input from established users would really help.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpartazHumbug!07:19, 3 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.
Delete: Fails NBOX. I found two articles on him, but they were from eight years ago when some believed he might win a (non-notable per NBOX) title, which he didn’t, and coverage subsequently stopped. Has been retired for five years now and didn’t achieve anything in the sport. I believe he isn’t notable enough for an article. – 2.O.Boxing23:00, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Source evaluation would be useful
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpartazHumbug!22:06, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no evidence he meets WP:NBOX. My search didn't find the significant independent coverage I believe is required to meet WP:GNG. Everything I found was routine pre-fight coverage or reporting of results. All of the the sources mentioned by CJK09 were written right before his loss for the USNBC title (which one of the sources mistakenly called a world title). That seems like both routine sports reporting and WP:BIO1E. Papaursa (talk) 04:00, 6 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.
Keep. Whether town is small should not be a barrier for inclusion. Small towns are part of a country, every bit as much as large cities. Additionally, this is a bedroom community, a suburb of New York City. If the mayor made an impact on the politics of this town, which it appears he did, then he is worthy to keep.Dogru144 (talk) 15:28, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Strictly speaking, the notability test for mayors has nothing to do with the size of the town or city per se — it has to do with the ability to write a substantive article about his political impact, and is not passed just because it's technically possible to verify election results. But reviewing the sources, "substantive article about his political impact" isn't what's being offered here: three of the footnotes are just offering technical verification of election results, and three of them are just supporting purely tangential (and POV) content about Section 287(g) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 while completely failing to mention Cresitello's name at all in conjunction with them. So there's only one source here that's about Cresitello in any way relevant to actually getting him over the notability bar, and one source is not enough. Bearcat (talk) 17:13, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat: it appears that you reviewed only sources provided in article and other not RS, some of which are listed below, two at least of which are about CresitelloDjflem (talk) 01:49, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I don't have any responsibility to keep coming back to this discussion daily to see if people have provided new evidence of notability that was not already apparent as of the time of my original comment — once i've commented, I'm allowed to walk away and never come back to this discussion again if I don't choose to. Secondly, even if there are "two at least" sources about Cresitello, passing our notability standards for mayors still requires a lot more than just two sources about him: there's not a single mayor in the entire history of mayoring who couldn't show two sources about him or her. Bearcat (talk) 01:53, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The only thing in the article that would suggest some notability is the attention he's received for his stance and actions pertaining to undocumented immigrants, which doesn't appear to have garnered much coverage. The rest of the information present in the article basically amounts to election statistics, and participation in an election is not a guarantee for notability. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 18:45, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since Morristown is in the NYT distribution area, sources there and in New Jersey news do not demonstrate notability. The sourcing above can be found for virtually every mayor. We need non-local coverage to show notability for mayors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnpacklambert: Can you please back up your claim with some policy based argument. Otherwise your argument is invalid. Is there a specific place can you point to because it is not mentioned any where one might normally look such as Wikipedia:GNG, Wikipedia:NPOL, Wikipedia:POLOUTCOMES. Incidentally NJ.com/Star-Ledger and NY Times are STATEWIDE and REGIONAL, not local. You want local? Here's local: Morristown Patch], Morristown GreenDaily Record (Morristown), the other two are NOT local, so that doesn't fly. (Unless you're saying Morristown Patch and NY Times are the same, or saying for the sake of convenience they are) The coverage is far more than for elections or election results. So that's not a valid claim either, is it? So what, then, is the basis of your deletion argument?Djflem (talk) 01:36, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Morristown is a suburb of New York City, so having coverage in New York City's media does not singlehandedly make him more special than every other mayor of a town the size of Morristown. If a mayor of Morristown could show coverage coming from Chicago or Atlanta or Los Angeles, then he'd have a credible claim to being more significant than the norm for smalltown mayors — but if his only "more than local" coverage is coming from just 30 miles away, then that coverage doesn't automatically get him over the bar all by itself. This is for the same reason that a chip stand owner in Williamsburg is not automatically more notable than a chip stand owner in Wheeling WV, just because the Brooklyn guy's single local restaurant review happens to be in The New York Times while the West Virginia guy's single local restaurant review is "only" in the Wheeling News-Register]: even coverage from the New York Times can still be local-interest coverage in a not inherently notable context, and thus not count as anything special. Bearcat (talk) 02:08, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat: CLAIM is clear. NOW back it up with policies and links to them that says STATEWIDE and REGIONAL coverage is local coverage. Address the coverage/subject matter in the articles.(And spare us bad analogies about chip shops) Djflem (talk) 02:25, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When it comes to whether smalltown mayors get over the notability or not, "local vs. statewide and regional" is not the relevant question at all: a smalltown mayor needs nationalizing sources, not just "regionalizing" sources, before he gets over the notability bar. For the purposes of whether a source helps to demonstrate that he's special or not, the question of whether a source was published inside the town boundaries of Morristown itself, or has wider readership beyond just Morristown alone, is not definitive all by itself — it's not a question of the source's distribution range, but of its local coverage area. Any source published in any location where any regular coverage of Morristown would simply be expected to exist (including New York City and the entire state of New Jersey) is still "local" coverage for the purposes of whether a mayor has a credible claim to being more special than other mayors or not — a mayor of Morristown would need to show that he was getting non-trivial coverage in Illinois or Missouri or California before his sources were meeting the geographic range test, not just coverage in places where coverage of Morristown is expected.
And chip shops aren't a "bad" analogy, either: it doesn't matter whether a person was a mayor, a musician, a chip shop owner, a baker, a butcher, a candlestick maker, or whatever other occupation, because the same principle still applies no matter what. If two people do the exact same not inherently notable things and garner the same amount of purely local interest coverage within their own local area, but one did it in inside the New York City metropolitan area and the other did it in Wheeling WV, then the New York City guy is not automatically more special than the West Virginia guy just because the New York guy's article has the words "New York Times" in it and the West Virgina guy's article doesn't. We still evaluate sources for their geographic range and the context of what they're covering the person for, and New York Times coverage can still fall below the bar if it's fundamentally local interest coverage of a person doing not-inherently notable things. Bearcat (talk) 02:44, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is a very verbose way to avoid providing any back up way for what you are CLAIMING. And you seem to be absolutely so certain about it I'm sure you'll have not problem providing links that say STATEWIDE and REGIONAL coverage is "not relevant", with words like "for those purposes", "special", "expected". And yes, chip shops is analogy is bad because it's based on the assumption made in the first non-policy based claim.Djflem (talk) 03:18, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We most certainly do have an established consensus that a smalltown mayor has to show nationalized sources, not just local or regional sources, before he clears the notability bar. The fact that it hasn't been formally codified in a policy statement does not make it any less true — if local and regional sources were all it took to make a smalltown mayor notable enough for inclusion, then we would always have to keep an article about every single person who was ever mayor of anywhere, because every mayor can always show some evidence of localized media coverage in his or her own media market. From the new links you've added below, it's also clear that you don't understand several other things about what kind of sources it takes to make a person notable: for example, to support notability a source has to represent other people speaking, in the third person, about Cresitello as a subject — sources in which Cresitello himself is doing the speaking, whether about himself or about something else, are not support for notability. For another, there's a difference between sources that are about Cresitello, and sources that merely mention Cresitello in the process of being fundamentally about something or someone else. For three, you are never allowed to source anything to YouTube, and that applies regardless of whether the YouTube video in question is original content self-created by a YouTuber or recorded media content reposted to YouTube after the fact. Bearcat (talk) 17:36, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If by "we" you mean Wikipedia, "we" acknowledge, as you likely know, AfD outcomes have been varied, (when subject has other coverage other than campaign & election results, as is the case here. By the way, when one the mayors of the close to/more than 1000 municipalities in the region have an editorial & called incendiary by the NY Times, it is "special", one of your criteria.) As you also know, elected office-holders (as opposed chip shop owners and cnadlestickmakers), are notable for their policies, decisions, actions, statements as public officials: political impact (as you phrase it) is part of being about them. You will also note, that links here have not been added to the article (so your "lesson" in fundamental understanding is a waste). What they do do is undeniably demonstrate the LOCAL, STATEWIDE, REGIONAL, NATIONAL media attention garnered by the subject in the "real world". It's easy to comment on the technical reasons to invalidate them in "wikipedia world", but that doesn't that does change that fact. Is there goal-post? (one was not enough, then two was not enough, how many is your arbitrary enough? There are more than 20 significant supportive RS which are useful and the list of state-wide, regional, and national links certainly can be used to improve the article either as references or external links but deletion is not cleanup). Your cherry-picking you appears to overlook, ignore, (?) certainly not mention the ACADEMIC links (written after the mayor had left office), which represent a discussion of the subject in his role as politician, which "we" accept as RS for passing GNG.Djflem (talk) 18:07, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Elizabeth Llorente, "Newark killings become immigration flash point," North Jersey Media Group, August 14, 2007 "Archived copy". Archived from the original on June 16, 2007.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: While there has been a lot of discussion it's only been among a few participants who've said at length what their position is. It would help if we could hear from new editors about the issues raised and discussed at length.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:47, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat and our guidelines for notability of local officeholders. His small town is within the NY Times metro area. The article currently has potential WP:NPOV issues as well as a side note. The mass wave of local links actually further moves him away from our WP:NPOL rules on notability and local coverage. SportingFlyerT·C07:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer: Unfortunately Bearcat's analysis is not grounded in policy. Wikipedia:BASIC clearly states: "People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria" and has not addressed the RS below. Why are you both IGNORING reliable published sources? That contravenes both policy and guidelines. Which guidelines are you referring to and can you link to it, please, so that other editors can identify what you are talking about. (Don't believe there is a guideline which says editors can ignore "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." and require additional criteria.)Djflem (talk) 07:18, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We don't normally keep run of the mill mayors/politicians, and there's plenty of archives showing this. I can't access that first book, but the second book only has a brief mention of him. Instead of spamming the AfD, you'd be better off presenting the WP:THREE which clearly demonstrate his notability. All of the links spammed here is just local news coverage, even that book is from a local university. SportingFlyerT·C07:32, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've read the essay: there are way more than 3 RS that demonstrate Wikipedia:SIGCOV and Wikipedia:SUSTAINED coverage. That you cannot access book would disqualifies you from making a fair evaluation of it (thus this AFD). Rutgers is a colonial college and with respected press. The subject received more than a passing mention in its publication, so that claim is not valid. Can you please provide at least 3 samples of the New York Times writing an editorial about a regional mayor as it did here:"Opinion | Morristown's Incendiary Mayor". April 8, 2007 – via NYTimes.com. to demonstrate the claim that coverage was run-of the-mill and not special? Thanks.Djflem (talk) 09:26, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, GNG is not, and has never been, "automatically keep anybody who can show three footnotes". GNG most certainly does test the sources for their depth, their geographic range and the context of what they're covering the person for, and not just their number alone — and our inclusion rules most certainly do state that some classes of topic have to surpass a much higher burden of sourceability than others do before they warrant inclusion. And whether you like it or not, smalltown mayors are not an "inherently notable" context — which means they do have to show a much more impressive range and depth of sourcing than just the exclusively local coverage that every mayor of everywhere can always show. If the existence of three local sources was all it took to hand a municipal councillor a GNG-based exemption from having to satisfy NPOL, then we would always have to keep an article about every single mayor who ever existed, every single city councillor who ever existed, every single school board trustee who ever existed, every single candidate who ever ran in any election and lost, everybody who ever served on a municipal parks or library or planning board, and on and so forth — because every last man jack one of them can always show three sources. So getting such a person over GNG, as an exemption from NPOL, does require evidence that they're somehow much more special than the norm, not just evidence that they existed. Bearcat (talk) 17:52, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and Bearcat's arguments. We get an avalanche of articles from the mayor's state and the Jersey column in the NYT but this persistent defense of the notability of a politician of a small town still cannot overcome the subject's clear lack of national importance per WP:NPOLITICIAN. Wikipedia demands that the subject be a politician who has held international, national, or -for countries with federal or similar systems of government- state/province–wide office, or has been a member of legislative bodies at those levels. And he's the mayor of Morristown. -The Gnome (talk) 20:04, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First, the subject clearly satisfies basic GNG requirements. Second, as someone who lived for decades in two different cities in the NYTimes coverage area, both more than five times the size of Morristown, it's very clear that that the NYT was not giving "run of the mill" coverage to this mayor; he has received more substantive coverage than any mayor of these much larger cities. It's also important to note that much of the coverage is in the context of prominent national political issues. Third, rigid adherence to the binary "local/national" classification would be an almost supernaturally stupid practice: it has nothing to do with our basic encyclopedic purpose, ignores the many intermediate levels of coverage, and is far more of a pretext to delete articles on a flimsy rationale than any sort of reasoned examination. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 20:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as he passes GNG. Even if the city is in the New York Times coverage area, its still The New York Times. Its a major internationally read news publication, not The Nowhereville Gazette, and according to above editors the coverage given was by no means run-of-the-mill. Devonian Wombat (talk) 05:26, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I reject the argument put forth by Bearcat and Johnpacklambert that there is an "established consensus" that regional coverage is inadequate to support politicians' notability, and that consensus has the force of policy behind it, without actually being written down in a policy. If that consensus has actually been established, then it should be written down somewhere. If people are concerned about having too many articles about mayors, then I think they should go establish that consensus formally, and write it down as policy. For this particular case, I think that overly narrow "regional vs national" distinction has a consequence that I believe is contrary to common sense: that The New York Times is considered a notability-conferring source for articles about mayors outside of the metropolitan area, but not considered a notability-conferring source for articles about mayors of towns within a 32-mile radius. Is everything that The New York Times publishes about New York City and its suburbs considered "local coverage"? If The New York Times writes about an artist who happens to work in New York City, I'm pretty sure we consider that a reliable source that confers notability; we don't call it "local coverage". — Toughpigs (talk) 22:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- I reject the argument that local coverage is sufficient to establish notability for a politician. All politicians receive local coverage, no matter how small their town is or where it is located. Furthermore, I reject the argument that the New York Times equals auto-notability. Why this one source is constantly put on a pedestal above all others is incomprehensible to me. If the New York Times wrote an article about some small town mayor in Iowa (far outside of its coverage area), sure it would be notable, but when it writes an article about a mayor in New Jersey in its Jersey section, it amounts to nothing more than local coverage within its distribution area.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The scope and breadth of reliable, verifiable and independent sources about the subject in regional and national newspapers demonstrates that the notability standard has been satisfied. Given the 20 million people and more than a thousand municipalities in the New York metropolitan area, the extent of coverage that Cresitello has received provides evidence of notability. Alansohn (talk) 02:30, 11 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Reviewed as a part of new article curation / review process. This "foundation" is ISIS's film crew that creates videos of people being burned alive or beheaded. There is no coverage of this entity in the sources. Most of the article is just a listing of their accomplishments/productions. Also as a sidebar this has an NPOV problem. The only review of them in there is: "Al-Furqan is considered to be a considerable innovation in jihadist media, with Kavkaz Center describing it as "a milestone on the path of jihad, a distinguished media that takes the great care in the management of the conflict with the crusaders " I believe that some of this should be preserved and recommend a merge/redirect to the ISIS article. If pinged I'd handle it if needed. North8000 (talk) 12:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
According to its abstract this appears to be a 22-page peer-reviewed academic journal article about the subject. To get the full text it needs to be requested from the author. I have not done so yet. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:32, 19 May 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, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. If merged, I would recommend a substantial rewrite to be less promotional in tone. It's generally important to avoid articles with a promotional tone, but I'd argue this is especially true given the organization in question (the sheer overwhelming in-your-face gruesomeness of a Wikipedia article praising the media production skills of ISIS is a bit too ghastly to be funny). { }05:46, 9 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.
Comment I found some coverage in the Star-Tribunehere and here in addition to Peacemaker's passing mention. Granted, it's not a major paper, but it's not a small publication either. Eddie891TalkWork14:57, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete the sources I found seem to be the only in-depth coverage of him, and the Star Tribune is not a national paper. Not quite enough to satisfy WP:BASIC, which requires multiple sources. Eddie891TalkWork15:00, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - Technically, there's in-depth coverage in two sources. However, it seems that Mr. Spence has failed to get any sort of attention outside of that one city newspaper. With all of the coverage limited to one local area, I don't think that can push this to a GNG pass. With biographies, coverage in a major national newspaper or at least coverage from multiple geographic areas should probably have to be met to indicate notability. It's fairly easy for a figure to get a couple decent writeups in some local papers, where I grew up scoring 1,000 points in your high school basketball career generally garnered you at least a couple articles, and that definitely doesn't make you notable. No evidence that Mr. Spence has any notability outside of that one specific area. Hog Farm (talk) 02:22, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(With some regret) DElete -- Most of the article appears to be a copied extract from a NN book, which is presumably COPYVIO. The case is perhaps an unusual one, but I doubt that the subject meets notability criteria. I am not saying that it did not happen. I merely suggest it is NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:54, 7 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.
Subject of article is a non notable singer who doesn’t satisfy WP:MUSICBIO. He also lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. Despite the number of sources provided in this article, all seem to be unreliable sources. Celestina007 (talk) 04:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as pretty blatant promotion. All the sources are basically copies of the same press release, not actually coverage in reliable sources. ~ mazcatalk11:55, 3 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.
Delete: Whether as TIMEnavigator, ASG TimeNavigator or the current Tina Time Navigator, I am seeing little but brief product listings, routine announcements, and how-to-configure items such as those mentioned above, and others for Windows Server. Clearly a product which is actively marketed and used, but I am not seeing enough specific coverage to meet the WP:NSOFT inclusion criteria. An alternative option might be to redirect to the Atempo page, where this product is mentioned as a bullet point, but it seems unlikely that anyone would be searching on the precise naming of this article and there have also been other similarly named products: [23]. AllyD (talk) 06:52, 3 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.
Keep, the standard for references for artworks on Wikipedia seems to be a page or catalog link at the exhibiting museum, which in this case is MIT. The sculptor, Bernar Venet, is notable, and the overall MIT collection is notable. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:58, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Vexations, I'm not sure. All the links I shared on the article's talk page are for "Two Indeterminate Lines". This is why I wish editors would flag possible AfDs on talk pages before jumping straight to AfD. ---Another Believer(Talk)16:28, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Another Believer, well, we'd end up with something like three articles, one for Venet himself, one for the Arcs series and one for the Indeterminate Lines. We have plenty of images on Commons:Category:Sculptures_by_Bernar_Venet I'm not opposed to that in principle, but I think the content simply isn't there yet. Maybe we can translate some of the French article? Vexations (talk) 18:04, 9 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.
Sourced entirely to primary sources, with a lot of WP:GAMEGUIDE style information. Granted this is more than just a game, but a good half of this article is odd details like this, with no real-world context to have this meet the standard of WP:NOTPLOT. No need to rehash the plot with this level of detail, since that is WP:NOT what Wikipedia is for. Cannot find more than a passing mention to establish the notability of this massive cast of characters and establish notability for a standalone list. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added note about why a non-WP:NOTABLEWP:SPINOFF is inappropriate: the main article for this is around 40kb. According to WP:TOOBIG is "length alone does not justify division" at a size of around 40kb. Without being too rigid about it, the main article actually has been divided, with an encyclopedic spinout for List of Initial D episodes. There's no value to spinning that out with a third in-universe article, which would just duplicates most of the information in both the main article and the plot summary spinoff. And returning to the original reason for nomination, if you removed the in-universe and primary sourced information in this character spinout article, there would be no article. Hence my recommendation for deletion. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP The main article reads: "As of July 2013, collected tankōbon volumes of the Initial D manga series sold 48 million copies". This manga is quite notable, anime and games based on it also, and if the character list won't fit in the main article then a spinoff article for it is justified. DreamFocus00:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as sizesplit from the main franchise. Deletion is not cleanup. Many of the character descriptions are kept short and comparable to other manga / anime franchises of similar sizes. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This being a split is not a reason to keep since this gargantuan mass of fancruft should not exist anywhere on Wikipedia. If you can write 90 thousand bytes of prose on something without citing a single reliable source, then that information is worthless no matter how it is presented. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:58, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If consensus is to delete or TNT, it will have to be redirected back to the main article. Character descriptions can be shortened, but there are still many characters and teams that need to be described. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:39, 4 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.
Delete: there's no reliable independent sources for this article. Do not see these passing mentions, but if they exist, they're better suited to a few sentences in the main article. Jontesta (talk) 01:17, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While I normally would not be opposed to a selective Merge as suggested above, the fact that not a single bit of information in this article is actually referenced to reliable sources means that it really should not be preserved. Rorshacma (talk) 20:57, 10 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.
More G.I. Joe cruft. Sources in the article are a primary source book (not independent from publisher of comics), a magazine that appears to be officially licensed, so is probably a primary source, the comics/movies themselves, and a website of dubious reliability. A WP:BEFORE search turns up the standard assortment of fan sites, user-generated databases, and toy sales sites. WP:GNG failure. Hog Farm (talk) 04:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy delete - For multiple reasons as noted below, and the sensitive BLP issues necessitates a quick conclusion. This duplicates a topic (WP:A10), falls under WP:BLP1E (2/3 sources cited below are primary sources, and the other is a routine police blotter report), and a very standard WP:CRIME policy applies.
Fuzheado | Talk08:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. We already have a redirect at Derek Chauvin. This title with the unnecessary disambiguation doesn't even have the benefit of being a valuable redirect. Maybe it could be speedy-deleted per WP:A10? -- MelanieN (talk) 04:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If criteria n°1 is "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event." Herearesome reliable sources that cover him from years ago. Subesquent articles that have covered his previous life and his divorce are shaded by the context of the single event but they are not covered ONLY in the context of the single event. Kire1975 (talk) 06:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A10 imho would only apply if Derek Chauvin was an article, not a redirect. If this article was kept, it would have to be moved there. This is not eligible for speedy deletion anyway though because it would not be uncontroversial as WP:CSD requires. Kire1975's argument that WP:BLP1E and WP:CRIME do not apply if there is prior coverage of the subject's life is one that cannot be rejected without discussion (see WP:BLP2E). If this article only mentions information that would go or is found in Killing of George Floyd anyway, its existence alone cannot be a BLP violation since BLP applies everywhere equally. Regards SoWhy06:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Clearly Powell and Koon's articles fail to provide notability outside of that incident Powell more so than Koon should be deleted too. Chauvin would only be notable if one of his previous gained media attention at the time. Games of the world (talk) 08:27, 3 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.
Keep - He has 8 minutes of game time, not that that makes a difference. He’s a young player who has just made his debut this year in the fully professional Eerste Divisie. This nomination is ridiculous, there are plenty of young players across Europe who have a handful of minutes to their names, but have pages. They, along with Kasius, meet WP:NFOOTY, and seeing as he’s 17 and playing for Utrecht, I’ve no doubt he’ll make another professional appearance. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 07:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Playing less than 10 minutes clearly is too little to establish notability. We should probably delete most of the other articles listed above, but that will have to be considered on a case by case basis.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:57, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets NFOOTBALL; a young player at the start of his career, and we typically allow those a larger leeway given they have their careers ahead of them. GiantSnowman17:17, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets NFOOTY. At some point we have to sanction those that continue to nominate and vote delete on articles that they know meet WP:N because they don't agree with policy. Nfitz (talk) 23:46, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG. Guidelines like NFOOTY give a presumption of notability, however, there are occasional exceptions. This is one of them. 10 minutes of play simply does not establish the required notability. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 02:08, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it makes sense to delete articles on people who played for 5 minutes a decade and a half ago and will obviously never play professionally again, without regard to the highly technical NFOOTY pass, but for a player at the start of their career the reasoning for that does not apply. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:29, 11 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.
This time the siding was on the old Sacramento Northern (now abandoned). Old topo maps show a building here, but aerial photos back into the 1940s all show the same warehouse-ish building, which is still there. It gives no impression of ever having been a station, but at any rate I find no reference to it as anything but a general locale or a dot on a map. The spot is surrounded by a large expanse of irrigated farmland with no sign of anything town-like. Mangoe (talk) 01:14, 3 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.
But the article says it is a group. You are saying it is 2 entities, one is a person and one is MMG (which may be a person or group). That, IMO, may not demand deletion, but certainly should be re-written, or a 'solo' article written for 2 Black with this article as a redirect. Also worth noting, is that some of those references you posted are one line mentions - hardly 'notable'. 2601:983:827F:6B20:E15F:9D5B:6B1B:AB77 (talk) 15:05, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
2 Black 2 Strong was a rapper. MMG was his "crew" or "posse" (not my words). They are credited on his album cover, but I'm not sure how much they actually contributed to the record, and it appears that maybe more RS simply reference 2 Black 2 Strong, even when reviewing Doin' Hard Time on Planet Earth. Caro7200 (talk) 18:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of article seems to appear in a few reliable sources for his social and political activism through his/their music, however they have since left the scene since the 90's.--Olatunde Brain (talk) 01:47, 3 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.
Keep for now I think it makes sense to wait until after the election to decide if this page should be deleted. Plus, I think she's notable for having the highest fundraising total ever of any candidate for Lieutenant Governor of Vermont, in addition to being a local politician (I know that being an political official by itself is not grounds for notability!). Keep for now. Coffeespoons (talk) 22:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously without prejudice against recreation in November if she wins. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being election candidates per se — the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable political office, not just running for one, and being a clearing house for information about current candidates is not our job. To already warrant an article today, she would have to demonstrate that either (a) she already had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten her an article independently of her candidacy (the Cynthia Nixon test), or (b) she could be referenced to such an unusual depth, range and volume of press coverage that her candidacy could be credibly claimed as much more special than everybody else's candidacies in some way that would pass the ten year test for enduring significance (the Christine O'Donnell test). As for the fundraising claim, the source for that states only that she's the top fundraiser in the 2020 cycle, and does not claim that she has set the all-time fundraising record over the entire history of the office — so that doesn't pass the O'Donnell test. Obviously she'll get an article if she wins, since her notability claim will have changed from "candidate" to "officeholder", but nothing here is valid grounds for a Wikipedia article about her to already exist today. Bearcat (talk) 13:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mid-level civil servant running for notable office is not notable as a subject. If she wins and is elected Lieutenant Governor then obviously she will be.--Mpen320 (talk) 07:05, 6 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.
Comment: @Flori4nK, Abishe, CommanderWaterford, GPL93, and Celestina007: Help and request for review if interested. Thank you. ~ Amkgp ✉ 18:38, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
