Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 June 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 12 June 14 June >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:45, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron LaPedis

[edit]
Aaron LaPedis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. Seems to be referencing himself. scope_creepTalk 23:46, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:55, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:55, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:47, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The subject fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP :GNG. The sources cited are not independent as they appear to have close connections with the subject. For instance this source:[[1]]. These two sources have significant mention of the subject but their reliability is in doubt [[2]] [[3]]. While this [[4]] is written by the subject himself, this [[5]] is an interview. Only a paragraph in this [[6]] discusses the subject. All other sources cited do not appear to show any significant thing about the subject. Cryforjustice (talk) 6:48,17 June 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. 331dot (talk) 14:22, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ehsaas (say not to Acid attack)

[edit]
Ehsaas (say not to Acid attack) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSONG. Almost an identical repost of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ehsaas Song with exactly the same sources, so it could qualify for G4 speedy deletion, except the title is different and has the addition of some bizarre and irrelevant sentences about acid attacks. As before, almost all the text is about the film rather than the song, the infobox picture is the film's poster, and almost all the sources are links to download the song – the only two reliable sources are about the film, not the song. Richard3120 (talk) 23:32, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 23:33, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 23:33, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 23:33, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Academic Challenger (talk) 18:26, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

`Ali Hadi

[edit]
`Ali Hadi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable village only sourced on a website showing a list of Yemeni villages. No other websites talk about this specific village, and it does not even appear on Google Maps. Nehme1499 (talk) 23:07, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Nehme1499 (talk) 23:07, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Yemen-related deletion discussions. Nehme1499 (talk) 23:07, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. "Delete" has a majority, but the "delete" side merely asserts non-notability and does not discuss the sources provided by Fram. Sandstein 06:46, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alinur Velidedeoğlu

[edit]
Alinur Velidedeoğlu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unnotable individual, unable to find any primary sources whatsoever. Though not a reason for deletion worth noting he lacks even an article on the Turkish wiki. Serhatserhatserhat (talk) 21:30, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 21:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 21:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly not notable. Mccapra (talk) 21:55, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable ad man.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:17, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. You are not supposed to look for primary sources, you need to find secondary sources. There are plenty of those in Google News, e.g. this article from 2015 in Hürriyet, major Turkish newspaper, announcing that his wife has asked for a divorce (yes, the man is notable enough in Turkey to get articles about this kind of "human interest" gossip, not only there but also in other newspapers). This is an article from 2007 in the same newspaper about his efforts to get a different view of Turkey in the media than the one shown by Midnght Express. Here we have an article on the man, based on his appearance in the TV show of Ece Vahapoğlu. He is called in that article "the most important advertiser of Turkey". He also creates art, which gets attention in large newspapers like Milliyet[7]. And he produces movies, and again gets attention for this[8]. The movie is The Ottoman Lieutenant. The archive of Milliyet alone has 179 articles which at least mention him [9], including a number where he is the main focus (12 September 2002, 27 October 1995, 30 September 1998 ...), showing that he is notable and that this isn't a one-off spike in coverage, but sustained coverage over 25 years at least. (The number of 179 may be inflated with adverts, but even so there are clearly many articles about him and many others that mention him). A full biography can be read in this article on ArtTv[10] (I can't verify if this is independent or provided by the subject though). A lengthy interview about his ideas and career appeared in Capital[11]. And so on, and so on... I don't get how the 294 hits at Google News alone[12] match with the AfD nomination here, these would at least warrant some further investigation and a comment here why they are all not acceptable as sources indicating notability. "Unable to find any sources" seems like a very poor WP:BEFORE search. Fram (talk) 08:36, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:57, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:00, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 22:41, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:46, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Luculent

[edit]
Luculent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No external links beside web page of the font itself; notability not shown. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 22:13, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 22:13, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Spartaz Humbug! 03:43, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Matthew's Episcopal Day School

[edit]
Saint Matthew's Episcopal Day School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I feel like this runs afoul of WP:NOTNEWS. All of the independent coverage is strictly about the sexual abuse case and does not delve into any other aspect of the school's history. signed, Rosguill talk 04:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 04:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 04:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per WP:NOT as per Rosguill, and WP:TNT. If the claim in the lede regarding this school's foundation in the 1800s as a military academy are true, with appropriate research a decent article could be made, and that could include some of the content the nominator objected to (a position I endorse). As it stands it's unsalvageable and cannot remain per BLP. John from Idegon (talk) 06:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article existed with no problem for more than 10 years - until the reference to the sexual abuse case was added and now it is under constant attack. Why? Why does editor suddenly care so much, after 10 years of being fine, it's suddenly unsalvageable? The redirect didn't work so now attack it for deletion? Why suddenly did it become bad? Why is wikipedia working so hard to whitewash child sexual abuse? It happened and it's an important part of the history of the school and the city - exactly what you would expect to have covered in an encyclopedia. We know that there is a paid "reputation management" effort under way at the school, and the initial attack on this article coincided with that effort. Are editors being paid to make this article disappear? I note that one editor suddenly has a significant interest in eliminating this article and keeps coming back to it. Why is he suddenly so fixated on it? Whitewashing child sexual abuse, making them disappear, is a major part of the reason so much abuse continues to happen. Are you part of the problem or part of the solution? Wikipedia should not be part of that effort, either for $ or because of a belief that child sexual abuse is not important.Markm999 (talk) 17:30, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have started adding additional history on the military background of the school and history, as suggested by John from Idegon. It is actually really interesting. This makes the article more robust and expansive than it was in its first 10 years, and that was good enough even then, but it's even better now and will continue to improve. I assume that will resolve this issue. I have to say, it's a darn interesting entry now. Thanks for your suggestions and help to improve it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markm999 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 29 May 2020 (UTC) Markm999 (talk) 17:30, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are several great images highlighting the military history, such as https://calisphere.org/item/ark:/13030/kt8489q9m2/. I have contacted the San Mateo Public Library to confirm that it is a non-copyrighted images. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markm999 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 29 May 2020 (UTC) Markm999 (talk) 17:29, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to reach out to all the child sexual abuse survivor networks and victims' rights networks to have them contribute to this discussion if it would help to fill out this discussion. Let me know. Their voices should be heard before the content is deleted so give me warning if you decide to delete. Markm999 (talk) 17:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Markm999, I think that the additional historical content makes a reasonable case for keep. I would ask that you not accuse other editors of engaging in a conspiracy to cover up sexual abuse simply for enforcing Wikipedia's notability guidelines and policies on contentious content about living people. signed, Rosguill talk 17:49, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RosguillThank you. If you know that part of the Silicon Valley now, the idea that there was a military school there is really interesting and hard to imagine, it's fascinating history and connection to the past in a place best known for creating the future. The pictures that I am working on getting are really cool and of major historical significance. I've never seen you involved on this page and absolutely believe that you just had the bad luck of stumbling into this and nothing more. The good news is that your suggestions DID make the article much better, and it will keep getting better. I certainly apologize if my opinions on other editors are wrong. I contribute to a site that publicizes child sexual abuse cases and the forces trying to block that information are strong and have a LOT of $$. There definitely is a reputation management effort under way and a crisis management firm involved. I don't think there is anything contentious about the content. It's unpleasant for sure but not contentious, just facts that suck. Markm999 (talk) 18:29, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see that an editor (NOT Rosquill) is now whitewashing the page by removing the child sexual abuse content. We're adding this content to a lot of schools that had particularly notable and infamous sexual abuse cases (hint, check out the pages for the LAUSD, Redlands and SDUSD in the upcoming days). Are you going to remove the history of sexual abuse from all schools or just this one? It's important to know. Markm999 (talk) 19:31, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:46, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nominator Rosguill claims a breach of WP:NOTNEWS, without, I think, re-reading NOTNEWS to see if it is applicable. NOTNEWS has four numbered points, and I don't see how any are applicable.

    If nominator, or anyone else, had a concern over how coverage of the sex crime conviction was added to the article I think the responsible policy compliant first step should have been to raise that concern on the article's talk page. I checked. Nada. Geo Swan (talk) 05:19, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Would 1E make more sense, Geo Swan? I removed the sex abuse stuff as BLP violating. No one reverted, or brought discussion on the talk page. Without that, its nothing but a mundane K-8 school which wouldn't normally be considered notable in any way. Ok....so say someone wants to clean up the abuse stuff so it can be used. Now the school isn't any more notable outside that event than it was before, and if the details of the event raise a subject to notability, it's the crime that's notable, not the school. The article is a mess. Although creating an article on the crime would be a reasonable ATD, I'm not certain the crime was notable either. Still think TNT here and start over is the way to go. John from Idegon (talk) 09:00, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • John from Idegon, you are making highly questionable edits to the article, like these three large excisions [13], [14] and [15]. You had already said, here, that you consider the article unsalvageable. So edits justified by something like WEIGHT severely undermine your position. WEIGHT is an editorial question. Addressing an editorial question strongly implies you consider the article salvageable, after all. Almost every person who weighs in in an AFD, who does not call for keeping the article, give those who do favour keeping the article a free hand, to try to improve the article and address the concerns raised at the AFD, for the full period the AFD is open. The sole defensible exception would be addressing a gross policy violation. BLPCRIME would be an instance of a gross policy violation -- if your claim were credible. But BLPCRIME does not apply to suspects who pled guilty and were then convicted. It only applies to individuals prior to a verdict being rendered. Geo Swan (talk) 10:05, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - countering the already specious claim the school is only known for one thing, I added coverage to it being attended by three Hawaiin princes, who, from 1883 to 1887, introduced surfing to the Continental USA. Geo Swan (talk) 16:56, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Y
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 21:43, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep It needs a lot of work— not just the way the sex abuse case sprawls across the article, but the part on the associated parish seems to just repeat material about the school for the most part (and the church probably isn't notable, unless it is on the NRHP or had its own crisis). But the school is historic and notable, not just for the one crisis. Mangoe (talk) 02:04, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the historic information definitely moves this to keep. I agree with Mangoe that all the content on the church is off topic, and there are parts of the sex abuse case that are clearly off topic to the school. Still think it better to move the sex abuse stuff to a freestanding article which can be referenced in the school article via wikilink. The same stuff that's off topic here is what would make an article on the scandal notable. John from Idegon (talk) 02:32, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 14:39, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ngozi Egbuna

[edit]
Ngozi Egbuna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:SIGCOV. A search on GNEWS brings up passing mentions on the subject and nothing in-depth on her career as author or otherwise. Lapablo (talk) 21:31, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Lapablo (talk) 21:31, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Lapablo (talk) 21:31, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:06, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regretful delete - I went back and forth on this. A case could be made that some of these positions meet WP:NPOL. Most seem to be the equivalent of high sub-cabinet (which don't automatically qualify), but Director General of the West African Monetary Institute (WAMI) seems to be worth looking at more closely. My reading of Eco (currency) puts WAMI in the role of a precursor to a central bank, and I think the head of a real central bank would meet NPOL. Nonetheless, like the nominator I can find no sources with significant coverage. None of her books (including those not listed in the article) have substantial library holdings, and none of her papers are widely cited. With what seems to be a distinctive proper name, language doesn't seem to be a barrier to search results. As WAMI doesn't have monetary policy-making authority at this point, I can't say she meets NPOL. She seems to come close to notability threshold, but the sourcing just isn't there to support it yet. MarginalCost (talk) 05:57, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@MarginalCost, I’m not so sure being the head of a notable organization confers automatic notability I’d have to ask Barkeep49 that later but I think that would be a capital NO as per WP:NOTINHERITED. If the subject of the article doesn’t satisfy our golden rule or the appropriate SNG(as in this case) then they may not merit a stand-alone article so your desicion to !vote a delete is quite apt. Celestina007 (talk) 11:59, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're right that being head of a notable organization doesn't confer notability, but being a cabinet secretary generally does. (See WP:POLOUTCOMES as the general interpretation of the first criteria of WP:NPOL.) Central Bankers aren't usually cabinet secretaries per se, but are of similar policymaking authority (and I would say even greater), so that's the standard I would look to here. As you say, it's a moot point for now. MarginalCost (talk) 15:23, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — non notable author who doesn’t satisfy WP:AUTHOR. Generally no sources per se discuss her with in-depth significant coverage nor do they discuss her works per WP:SIGCOV. Celestina007 (talk) 11:59, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with nominator, does not satisfy WP:NAUTHOR. Nika2020 (talk) 21:51, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It is hard to contest that she does not readily produce en-RS that would provide GNG. However, her roles are very senior, and that she has been the first woman to hold some of them, even more interesting/notable. Her books appear cataloged in various libraries (per the authority control), so there is still an NAUTHOR chance. I wonder if we are missing local Nigerian RS that we can't find easily on the internet? It doesn't seem right to delete this one? Britishfinance (talk) 17:19, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Britishfinance, Contrary to popular misconception, Nigeria is easily top 5 most advanced African countries. I’ve lived in/ with Nigerians for 20+ years & I can assure you that every single Nigerian RS is readily available online so if a/an RS can’t be found discussing an individual it’s because that individual isn’t notable just yet. Celestina007 (talk) 00:10, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Celestina007, thank you for that, and I will defer to your expertise in Nigeria. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 13:32, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:41, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic movements

[edit]
Catholic movements (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sources given and difficult subjective inclusion criteria as a list. A possible source might be Hayes, M. A. (Ed.). (2006). New religious movements in the Catholic Church. A&C Black. I can't find much else. It's very difficult to write a good article on this topic. Why separate newer movements from older ones? How do we differentiate movements from institutional restructuring? Without a body of existing literature to guide us, this is WP:OR. Daask (talk) 21:28, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Daask (talk) 21:28, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete more of a category than anything, these things have little in common except they have some association with Catholicism. "Movement" is just too open-ended a word even to make a list out of this. Mangoe (talk) 02:06, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The nom has this exactly right, I think. There's the nugget of an idea here, but without an intelligible focus or good sources -- any sources -- better just to remove this. --Lockley (talk) 19:07, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:47, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Allan Ssemakula

[edit]
Allan Ssemakula (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources hence doesn’t satisfy WP:GNG. A before I conducted only shows goggle hits on a somewhat notable organization where he is the managing director but as notability isn’t inherited that doesn’t count for much. Celestina007 (talk) 20:45, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:45, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:45, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:36, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arbor, California

[edit]
Arbor, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A one-time rail depot [16]. Not recognized in Durham's Place Names of the San Francisco Bay Area. It was never a community and no other indications of notability. Glendoremus (talk) 20:09, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:14, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:15, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to The Palm Beach Post#History. czar 22:23, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Palm Beach Times

[edit]
The Palm Beach Times (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No such newspaper exists. There are no reputable sources to indicate that it does. A Google search turns up nothing. Website on the article's page redirects to a spam site. Duranged (talk) 19:56, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:01, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:01, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Note: This discussion was actually initiated on 12 June 2020 (link), and was on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 June 12 log page (diff). As such, the relisting timeline is correct.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:35, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:45, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest William Corfe

[edit]
Ernest William Corfe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable dentist. A search for sources produced only a book written by his grandson. The article creator has declared COI as a descendant of the subject. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:55, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:39, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:39, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:19, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you check the sources, he was one of the first four dentists to serve in the British army, not the first. I'm not sure how #4 and #6 would be met.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:23, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So effectively one of the four founders of the Royal Army Dental Corps! My comment stands. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:03, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One of the first four dentists in the field. Nobody mentioned founding. And there are no sources to speak of. and neither of the WP:SOLDIER criteria you mentioned aply: "4. Played an important role in a significant military event such as a major battle or campaign; or 6. Made a material contribution to military science that is indisputably attributed to them." Unless you are saying being a dentist meets #4: an important battle role that makes them notable. Bit of a stretch all around. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The one valid source in the article suggests he was somewhere between #3 and #6 in the dentists sent to the Boer war, based on preliminary work done by others. He's only mentioned in the image caption in this article.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:11, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The first four dentists in the British Army (yes, that's what it means - previous "military" dentists had been civilian contractors, not uniformed army officers) were effectively the founders of the RADC, even though they actually served with the Royal Army Medical Corps. They were the pioneers for the corps. And yes, I think being the first dentists to serve in the field qualifies as "Played an important role in a significant military event..." -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not that it matters, as this will likely be deleted, but the subject did not found the military dental service, he was merely one of the first four dentist hired to serve in it. Frederick Newland-Pedley did: "On the outbreak of the South African war Newland-Pedley volunteered to accompany Sir Alfred Fripp to the front as dental surgeon to the Imperial Yeomanry Hospital; seventy-five students volunteered to go with him, but were not allowed to proceed. Pedley had to provide all his own equipment and transport it as personal luggage, including three dental chairs and cylinders containing 5,000 gallons of liquid gas. He did sterling work in very difficult circumstances both as oral and dental surgeon, and acted as his own mechanic. He received the medal for the campaign. On his return to England he put forward a scheme in 1901 for the formation of an Army Dental Service".
See also this quote: "The first appointed dental surgeon in the British Army was Frederick Newland-Pedley, who qualified in both dentistry... "
There is also this book: "the first dental surgeon, Dr Frederick Newland-Pedley, appointed to the British Forces in South Africa..."
And according to the History of the Army Dental Corps and Military Dentistry, "The first army dentist was one mister Newland-Pedley of Guy's hospital who traveled to South Africa at his own expense and became the first dental surgeon to treat soldiers on the battlefield".
It is easy to find sources saying he was the first British army dentist, look around. BY contrast, all that is available for our subject Corfe are a few very minor mentions and a picture of him standing outside a tent. And just to make that a little sweeter, here is a much clearer picture of Frederick Newalnd-Pedley sitting outside his dental hut in 1900, much before Corfe. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:39, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Peter

[edit]
Jonathan Peter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject of this article may not be notable. There also don't seem to be any claims of significance. P,TO 19104 (talk) 19:24, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:43, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:43, 13 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 withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure). Raymie (t • c) 23:41, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nate Bland

[edit]
Nate Bland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No real evidence of notability and no decent references despite playing for the MLB for few weeks in May 2003. Pahiy (talk) 18:15, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 18:15, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 18:15, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 18:15, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:49, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 18:30, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Lewis (Montana politician)

[edit]
John Lewis (Montana politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable (and unsuccessful) political candidate fails WP:NPOL. Additionally, his role as a senate aide does not confer notability, and the page is only supported by a handful of local sources. KidAd (talk) 18:12, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:19, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:19, 13 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 Draftify. Black Kite (talk) 14:40, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Melbourne Tramcar Preservation Association

[edit]
Melbourne Tramcar Preservation Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No references. Send back to draft? Fuddle (talk) 17:31, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Fuddle (talk) 17:31, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Fuddle (talk) 17:31, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:09, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Captain Galaxy (talk) 17:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ubbi dubbi

[edit]
Ubbi dubbi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable game, most sources are trivial mentions 17jiangz1 (talk) 17:25, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. 17jiangz1 (talk) 17:25, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. 17jiangz1 (talk) 17:25, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 19:18, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that this demonstrates notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 19:46, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) ZLEA T\C 20:31, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Xinfadi market

[edit]
Xinfadi market (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The only source is a Chinese state-run news website. ZLEA T\C 17:13, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. ZLEA

T\C 17:13, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. ZLEA T\C 17:13, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Magnovvig Only one of the sources in the article could be considered a reliable source. The rest are all state-run or pro-Communist media. - ZLEA T\C 17:45, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So what ZLEA? Do you mean to imply that figures or events have been distorted by these sources? There are pages full of this story, that's why it's called breaking news. Please feel free to add your own sources if you feel the article to be inadequate. Magnovvig (talk) 17:52, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean to imply that figures or events have been distorted by these sources? Yes, that's exactly what I'm implying! These sources are totally inadequate for use in Wikipedia articles. Communist China has a long history of distorting the truth, especially when it comes to covering events within their own borders. - ZLEA T\C 18:00, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Worth noting, that while Chinese State media outlet may not be appropriate as a reliable source on every topic, for non controversial topics, such as this shopping mall it's appropriate. See this discussion Shushugah (talk) 19:34, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded the article, which now has seven sources. More are available online (I haven't started adding Chinese-language sources yet). —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:17, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. For WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Captain Galaxy (talk) 16:18, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Friedman

[edit]
Victor Friedman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Written like a resume and very little references James Richards (talk) 16:19, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. James Richards (talk) 16:19, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. James Richards (talk) 16:19, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. James Richards (talk) 16:19, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He appears to pass WP:PROF#C1 (three publications with over 100 cites in Google Scholar), #C3 (member of a bluelinked national academy), #C5 (the named professorship), and WP:AUTHOR (I found five published reviews of his three books Turkish in Macedonia and beyond, Macedonian, and The Grammatical Categories of the Macedonian Indicative on JSTOR and likely more exist elsewhere). Any one of these would be enough. Nomination shows no evidence of WP:BEFORE nor consideration of WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:25, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per reasons described above. Doremo (talk) 17:31, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:AUTHOR and multiple criteria of WP:PROF (at least C3 and C5, and almost certainly C1 as well), any one of which would suffice. Being "written like a resume" would be grounds for editing, not deletion, and it isn't currently so bad in that regard — more drab than anything else. XOR'easter (talk) 19:20, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think drab is a desirable quality for an academic BLP. Better that than the flamboyance of, for example, Dan Reinstein; see its edit history. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:41, 13 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Wow, yeah, that page is a garbage heap of peacock feathers. XOR'easter (talk) 23:23, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I sometimes try to restrain it but I wilt under the barrage of COI. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:38, 13 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]
I'd report it to WP:COIN, but it seems more a candidate for a "prose disasters" noticeboard, if we had one. XOR'easter (talk) 23:46, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:08, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jens Kabisch

[edit]
Jens Kabisch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP without any external references. The only links that work are to his own stuff. No real indication that anyone thinks he is notable. Rathfelder (talk) 15:50, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 15:50, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:59, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:59, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do not see WP:SIGCOV in an English search. The story might be different in German.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:40, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:08, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide Train

[edit]
Suicide Train (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No reviews or other significant and reliable media coverage can be found to satisfy the requirements at WP:NALBUM. Only listed briefly at AllMusic with no review, and all other sources are typical streaming and retail listings. Note that the band's article is also being discussed for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghost Club so beware that the usual recommendation to redirect to the band's article may not be viable. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:39, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:39, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:08, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ghostclubbing

[edit]
Ghostclubbing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No reviews or other significant and reliable media coverage can be found to satisfy the requirements at WP:NALBUM. Only listed briefly at AllMusic with no review, and all other sources are typical streaming and retail listings. The award nomination was from a student radio society that itself has little notability. Note that the band's article is also being discussed for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghost Club so beware that the usual recommendation to redirect to the band's article may not be viable. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:38, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:38, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Whether a redirect is useful can be discussed separately if redirects are creted. Sandstein 15:22, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chilean blue whale

[edit]
Chilean blue whale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Trapania norakhalafae (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Diaphorodoris olakhalafi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Dubious self-published content added to Wikipedia by the author himself. Does not appear to follow proper peer review or taxon description processes and as such the taxon is not currently, and unlikely ever to be, found in reliable secondary sources. Presence on user-generated content sites such as Zoobank and Biolib are sometimes explicitly listed as having been added by the author or are the result of automated propagation (ZooBank records imported to GBIF). On WoRMS, expert editors have noted, "unaccepted - online publication only; does not meet the ICZN requirements for e-publications".

The only other article created by the author is Urocaridella renatekhalafae, which was listed by WoRMS as a junior synonym of Urocaridella cyrtorhyncha (to which I've currently redirected it). See also previous deletion discussion on German Wikipedia regarding another self-published taxon, the "Gaza house mouse". Content posted elsewhere should be closely examined. Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 14:47, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 14:47, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 14:47, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (Thanks for digging in, Hyperik. I had not noticed that U. renatekhalafae was listed as a junior synonym.) It is not unusual for newly described species to be restricted to ZooBank for a period, if the description was published online only. However, in the case of this author I think we have that rare case where the usual trust in the nomenclator should not be extended. All descriptions were published in the Palestinian Biological Bulletin, which frankly is that guy's private blog. The house mouse episode casts solid doubts on his research ethics and capabilities (slooow link to that gobsmacking "publication" here). Independent peer review seems absent. Finally, the author's demonstrated penchant for self-promotion (his article about himself was deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norman Ali Khalaf), while not a crucial factor, certainly does nothing to increase willingness to AGF. - These articles should be removed until reliable and independent sources take up or confirm the descriptions. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:46, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Balaenoptera musculus un-named subsp. Chilean blue whale. [Branch et al. 2007] [21]. I really have no idea if that means anything for the Afd or not. Branch is doi:10.1111/j.1748-7692.2007.00137.x fiveby(zero) 18:33, 13 June 2020 (UTC) Blue whale#Subspecies and stocks needs cleaned up after Afd, seems widely accepted as a population, but removed from list as subspecies in 2019. fiveby(zero) 18:54, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I saw a few mentions in reliable sources of it potentially being a subspecies. I'd be fine with a delete and redirect Chilean blue whale to blue whale for now until a reliable source regarding its acceptance as a separate taxon comes through. A self-published source that itself has numerous references to Wikipedia written/edited by the author doesn't pass muster. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 19:07, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What material exactly would that be? Seems like anything not produced by von Jaffa is already in Blue whale, and the rest we don't want... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:21, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 15:20, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Adventure

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Miss Adventure (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is a collection of summaries of Weekly World News pieces. Searches find no evidence that this is a thing about which reliable sources have been written. Even if something does exist that I didn't find, the current content of the article is unusable for any encyclopedic purpose and would have to be nuked. JBL (talk) 14:27, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. JBL (talk) 14:27, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. JBL (talk) 14:27, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. JBL (talk) 14:27, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 15:20, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mary maclachlan

[edit]
Mary maclachlan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

References don't support notability. Fuddle (talk) 14:26, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Fuddle (talk) 14:26, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:28, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:28, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 15:19, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pages in Karakalpak Wikipedia

[edit]
Pages in Karakalpak Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:LISTCRUFT; unmaintainable and unnecessary - Flori4nKT A L K 14:18, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. - Flori4nKT A L K 14:18, 13 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.

Kill the Buzz

[edit]

The result was Speedy Keep as redirect to Revealed Recordings#Artists per the results at the contemporaneous RfD. Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:14, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Kill the Buzz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of any notability. Note this was CSD sometime around around the beginning of may 2018, then again in august, then again in April 2009 then again deleted in March 2020 (as a draft), then it was recreated as a redirect on the 8th of June.Slatersteven (talk) 13:57, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:11, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:11, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note it has not been converted back to a redirect, which just looks like an attempt to keep the name on Wikipedia by the back door.Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well its still being played about with.Slatersteven (talk) 16:17, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We have tools for that. If it's a single user (or a small number of apparent SPAs), then we can warn or block the offending user(s). If not, then we can apply an appropriate level of protection. But we should not allow disruptive editing to dictate the contents of the encyclopedia. If a redirect is appropriate, then it is appropriate. --NYKevin 21:24, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 15:18, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Alqadi

[edit]
Mohammad Alqadi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

He doesn't appear to meet WP:NATHLETE and hasn't placed in the top of any marathons that I can see and certainly attempting (and failing) to break a guiness record wouldn't make one notable. Lacks coverage otherwise. a search in arabic also reveals no additional sourcing that would indicate notability. And to put it into more perspective, simply running in a marathon is meaningless. The top 30 or so in most every marathon place in under 2 hours and 15 minutes, none of his run times would put him even in the top 50.Praxidicae (talk) 13:13, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:14, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:14, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 15:18, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rafih Filli

[edit]
Rafih Filli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

spammy pr piece about a non notable business dude who lacks meaningful coverage. The sources are less than stellar and largely paid for seo spam pieces. Praxidicae (talk) 13:07, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:11, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:11, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — non notable individual seeking Wikipedia presence. No real coverage in reliable sources. Celestina007 (talk) 13:24, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Actually I don’t understand what’s happening here. As a beginner, I don’t get any guidance from experienced users. Everyone looking with a prejudice. Also Rafi Filli is one of the famous entrepreneur from India, he is the founder of Filli Cafe. And he got an award. That’s why i created his article. There are enough reliable sources i found when i search him on google. Seriously I’m not a PR or something, I’m not getting paid to edit on Wikipedia. Also I request experienced users to collect details about him and please complete the article Ravishingstar (talk) 16:35, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. (Left this open on my laptop this morning but forgot to chuck it into AfD. Just saw that you beat me to it :P) ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 22:01, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Explain Anyone explain why this nominated for deletion? Ravishingstar (talk) 06:19, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ravishingstar It's literally explained on this very page you've edited twice. Praxidicae (talk) 12:27, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Velella What ?? Have you ever searched about his cafes? Ok ok let show something here.. when i found Wikipedia as eligible articles. Praxidicae https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayyappan_Sreekumar article like this are notable??. Ravishingstar (talk) 06:44, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So, there are other poor articles that need looking at. That is no excuse to keep even more poor articles  Velella  Velella Talk   07:54, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Velella that’s not my question.. i asked does the article like that are still notable??. There is nothing personal with my articles. I’m creating articles with an interest. But you guys must be loyal for everything. No partiality. He (Rafi Fillih) is a notable business man. May be my lack of experience in Wikipedia might be the reason why the article imperfect. If you can please update it. I have searched ‘’kerala entrepreneur’s in Wikipedia’’ and i got some articles which are not notable anymore. But still a real entrepreneur with an award still non notable. Totally disappointed. I *Delete (talk) 16:06, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I don't understand the question. If you are asking whether I did searches, then the answer is yes I did and found nothing notable. If you are asking whether it is fair that some articles in Wikipedia do not appear to be notable, so why not keep mine, then the answer is the one I have already given. This has nothing to do with partiality. I personally know nothing about the individual or his Cafes, I simply judge articles against the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia. Maybe one day I will get to some of those that you have alluded to, but my time is limited and there are more than 6 million articles. As a footnote, in the few cases where the creator has carried on arguing at AfD rather than providing better sources, it has often been the case that they are being paid for their efforts. Is that the case here?  Velella  Velella Talk   16:38, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Velella i said so many times that I’m not getting paid. Anyway i will send the sources now. You can decid whether it will be exist or not.. https://m.indulgexpress.com/life-style/food/2017/nov/24/rafih-filli-the-man-who-made-a-fortune-selling-tea-4897.amp ,

https://eoindia.com/rafih-filli/ , https://m.khaleejtimes.com/wknd/a-day-in-the-life-of/im-a-bit-of-a-perfectionist-rafih-filli , https://amp.thenational.ae/lifestyle/food/filli-cafe-s-cuppa-is-its-recipe-for-success-as-it-aims-to-overtake-starbucks-1.145922 , https://www.restaurantindia.in/amp/article/We-are-planning-to-open-300-Cafes-in-India-Rafih-FiLLi.6919 , https://www.foodyas.com/AE/Dubai/155403307874018/Rafih-fiLLi , https://gulfnews.com/food/filli-cafe-a-steaming-success-1.2075214 , https://vymaps.com/IN/Rafih-fiLLi-1399110956836574/ , https://www.spjain.org/blog/news/dr-kirti-khanzode-publishes-a-case-study-on-the-global-expansion-strategy-of-filli-caf%C3%A9?hs_amp=true , http://magazine.cochinherald.com/cover-story/rahfath-and-teazone-brewing-relations-over-a-cup-of-tea/ , https://www.britishherald.com/business-over-a-cup-of-chai-the-tea-tale-of-an-entrepreneur/ , https://malayalam.samayam.com/latest-news/nri-news/filli-caf-has-change-the-way-tea-is-served-across-the-uae/articleshow/57579444.cms , https://www.franchiseindia.net/business-opportunities/express-food-joints-drive-through/Filli-Cafe/ , https://www.ameinfo.com/industry/finance/filli-cafe-announces-its-major-international-expansion-plan , https://www.worldfranchiseassociates.com/franchise-news-article.php?nid=3663 , https://emiratespr.com/filli-cafe-saffron-scented-tale-success/ , https://www.forbesmiddleeast.com/lifestyle/travel-hospitality/after-a-popular-home-run-uaes-filli-cafe-is-going-global , https://amp.thenational.ae/business/franchising-may-not-be-best-route-to-expand-businesses-expert-warns-1.128658 , https://gulfnews.com/business/revealed-top-indian-business-leaders-in-arab-world-1.2218991 , https://www.khaleejtimes.com/business/local/filli-cafe-plans-to-open-100-outlets-in-uae-by-2020-eyes-global-franchises Ravishingstar (talk) 17:09, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More than half of these sources are black hat seo spam/fake or PR published interviews. Praxidicae (talk) 17:28, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. A redirect can be created separately if deemed useful. Sandstein 15:18, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trump Republican

[edit]
Trump Republican (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to be an unofficial political party that some candidates in Washington state have used. None of them has won election and there has been little coverage of the designation at all. Candidates in Washington can choose any party name they want, so some candidates choosing the name doesn't indicate notability and it doesn't have coverage to meet GNG. A PROD by SounderBruce with the rationale "Not an actual registered political party or well-documented/used label" was declined, so taking to AfD. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:41, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:42, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:42, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I originally created this article and will mildly vote for keeping it, but do agree with much of what is said above. This is indeed an unofficial political party and hasn't received widespread press coverage. I just did add one more reference to the article. I am arguing for notability and to keep the article because there has been coverage in multiple secondary sources, which is an important criterion for notability. I agree with the comment above that press coverage has been light; I'm arguing to keep since the press coverage, while light, has not been zero and has not been confined to a single article. Dash77 (talk) 17:24, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Candidates can put whatever the heck they want on the ballot as their party preference. This is not "an unofficial political party", it is a ballot descriptor. A few have put this name to describe themselves, but that does not make it a distinct, notable topic. Others have filed with "GOP", "R", the genius "GOP Party", "PRE2016 REPUBLICAN", "CASCADIA LABOUR", "AMERICAN PATRIOT", "CLASSICAL DEMOCRAT" and more. Sources that mention this particular party preference are not significant coverage or anything warranting a separate article. Reywas92Talk 17:59, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the above ballot descriptors that you mention, like Cascadia Labour, were named only by a single candidate. Trump Republican is a little different since multiple candidates used it, suggesting a small unofficial party. GOP Party was also used by multiple candidates, but GOP is a long-standing nickname for the Republicans, and GOP already redirects to Republican Party, so there is no need for a separate article for GOP Party. Dash77 (talk) 18:33, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirecting to Trumpism might be an option if the decision ends up being to delete. We really need to know more about the group of candidates calling themselves Trump Republicans to decide whether such a redirection is appropriate, which I know we don't have yet. Dash77 (talk) 18:44, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. If I understand this correctly, the label "Trump Republican" is a self-classification used by candidates who identify with the Trump-style of leadership and rhetoric. It is not a PAC, party wing, or group. If anything, it is most similar to the "Berniecrat" label I've heard from some progressive candidates. "Berniecrat" redirects to Political positions of Bernie Sanders, but I wouldn't advocate for "Trump Republicans" to redirect to Political positions of Donald Trump. Sorry for the ramble; just something to ponder. KidAd (talk) 18:54, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or selective merge somewhere - I do not know where. WP:TRUMPHATE Lightburst (talk) 01:26, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is an informal party label adopted, apparently without coordination, by four candidates in Washington state. In no way is it a "thing". Beyond that it's not even a cogent political idea -- Trump leads the Republican party, so any Republican's adoption of his name carries no meaning. --Lockley (talk) 20:34, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Too new for secondary sources to exist (remember that news reports are primary sources), so non-notable by definition. But "Trump Republican" can easily mean a Republican who supports Trump and his ideas thoroughly, as opposed to Republicans who support him because he's preferable to a Democrat. Sending this to Trumpism seems much better than deleting. Nyttend (talk) 13:34, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 15:17, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Osama Odat

[edit]
Osama Odat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non nontable doctor/academic. I conferred with a native arabic speaker (@علاء:) that there are no sources that satisfy any of our ncriteria in Arabic either. Praxidicae (talk) 12:38, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Praxidicae & Osama Odat article, a suitable article to be placed on Wikipedia, which also meets the requirements of the academic article. She previously carried out the review process as soon as the article was created.

I hope to undo the deletion— Preceding unsigned comment added by Osps7 (talk • contribs)

Osps7 she being, whom, exactly? Praxidicae (talk) 12:50, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:59, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jordan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:59, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am from the same country and native arabic speaker. I agree, non notable personality, his achievements are more personal than contributory. I believe does not meet criteria for notable people on wiki. He is not considered an acamedic as he does not possess any acamedic university degrees other than the bachelor degree. I can see he is active on social media and considered an influencer in the area. I am open for more discussion if needed. I vote for deletion. Regards. GiggsHammouri
  • Delete, this article already deleted on arwiki a lot of times under non-notable person by different arwiki sysops (ar:أسامة العودات), also about sources: (1) Talking about two doctors supervised training programs for medical students. (2) General source talking about hip dislocation on Jordan. (3) About Workshop for hip dislocation on Faculty of Medicine at Yarmouk University. (4) Video he talking about himself on interview. (5) article he wrote about Joints medical issue on (mkaleh.com), which is non-reliable website. (6) About Workshop for hip dislocation on Faculty of Nurse at Al-Zaytoonah University of Jordan. (7) not work with me. (8) Talk about Workshop. So non-notable one. Thanks Praxidicae --Alaa :)..! 13:41, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for sure, non-notable person.--Faisal talk 15:55, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not meet our notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:03, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nepal Standards

[edit]
List of Nepal Standards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined prod. I don't see what makes this list pass WP:GNG, WP:LISTN or otherwise be encyclopedic. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:01, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:01, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:32, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE. I am the creater of this article. I realized it is not worth to put it in wiki as separate entity. Although there is risk that this data will be lost due to poor archive system of Nepalese government websites past records. Sacrifice. Final word- delete*. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nirmaljoshi (talk • contribs)

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 15:17, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Mac

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Dave Mac (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO and WP:MUSICBIO. No charted songs or awards, and the usual promos and track listings. I located a number of short bios, though only one was a secondary source:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:59, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:59, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - Note that two of the previous AfDs listed above were for different people with the equally bland name Dave Mac. As for this rapper, he's a close call for notability. As mentioned by the nominator, he has been profiled in some reliable Canadian music magazines, which shows some popular notice, but I agree that they are primarily brief promotional announcements and introductory interviews. If anyone can find something more substantial, it might get him over the hump, but for now it seems too soon for a Wikipedia article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:24, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 15:16, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G. K. Vishnu

[edit]
G. K. Vishnu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage and notable works. Available sources are passing mentions or PR. - The9Man (Talk) 10:57, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. - The9Man (Talk) 10:57, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - The9Man (Talk) 10:57, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:39, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Captain Galaxy (talk) 13:29, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cipher Department of the High Command of the Luftwaffe

[edit]
Cipher Department of the High Command of the Luftwaffe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I know that military history is very well developed (and that's great) but I think this article is simply not encyclopedic. Scope-wise, it fails WP:GNG/WP:NORG. The current references all seem to be primary, a series of US Army reports hosted on Google Drive? I did a search for English and German names in Google Books and Scholar and come up with nothing. And even the very name suggests it was a very minor organizational unit. At best, I'd recommend that the author saves this as draft, and reworks it into something that can't be published in academic literature, then we could consider recreating this (because I also think the current article fails WP:NOR too). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:26, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:26, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:26, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It has been cut out of the main article 2 days ago, to try and reduce its size. It operated in the Eastern front, the western front, the southern front and in Africa and has been in existence from 1923 to present. It is still operating as an organisation. During World War II, it had 80000 soldiers working for it. All the references are primary because there is no information on it, apart from what is collected by American and British intelligence after the war. All the archives were blown up in March 1944. You won't find any information anywhere apart from what in Seabourne documents. Hence the reason why there is almost no articles on the Luftwaffe. scope_creepTalk 10:41, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The signals intelligence department of an entire military branch is notable given its potential impact on the war. Secondary source coverage - organization better known by abbreviation 'Chi-Stelle': here, here, here, here. Also several German mentions can be found by this search. This is just sources on Google books and there are likely more offline. Kges1901 (talk) 11:59, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOR Mztourist (talk) 12:28, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources
  • [2]
  • [3]
  • [4]
  • [5]
  • [6]
  • [7]

References

  1. ^ CJ Lim (16 April 2014). Food City. Taylor & Francis. p. 248. ISBN 978-1-317-91906-3.
  2. ^ Nigel West (27 May 2019). Codeword Overlord: Axis Espionage and the D-Day Landings. History Press. p. 31. ISBN 978-0-7509-9176-6. Retrieved 13 June 2020.
  3. ^ Magnus Pahl (17 January 2013). Fremde Heere Ost: Hitlers militärische Feindaufklärung. Links, Ch. p. 76. ISBN 978-3-86284-203-2. Retrieved 13 June 2020.
  4. ^ Steven J. Zaloga (31 October 2019). Ploesti 1943: The great raid on Hitler's Romanian oil refineries. Bloomsbury Publishing. pp. 202–. ISBN 978-1-4728-3197-2. Retrieved 13 June 2020.
  5. ^ Horst Boog (1982). Die deutsche Luftwaffenführung, 1933-1945: Führungsprobleme, Spitzengliederung, Generalstabsausbildung (in German). Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt. ISBN 978-3-421-01905-9. Retrieved 13 June 2020.
  6. ^ Das deutsche Reich in der Defensive: strategischer Luftkrieg in Europa, Krieg im Westen und in Ostasien 1943-1944/45 (in German). Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt. 2001. p. 219. ISBN 978-3-421-05507-1. Retrieved 13 June 2020.
  7. ^ Stiftung Luftwaffenehrenmal e.V. (1976). Die Verbände der Luftwaffe: 1935-1945 : Gliederungen u. Kurzchroniken : e. Dokumentation (in German). Motorbuch-Verlag. p. 547. ISBN 978-3-87943-437-4. Retrieved 13 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.

The result was keep. Solid keep vote, detailing sufficiently cited papers. (non-admin closure) scope_creepTalk 17:24, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Birgenheier

[edit]
Lauren Birgenheier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. No indication of notability. Associate professor with fairly low h-index. No real coverage. scope_creepTalk 08:57, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:30, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:30, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. I hate closing AfD discussions this involved as no consensus but sometimes there is no consensus to be found. There are three positions with some degree of policy and guideline based support: keep, rename, and merge. Based on the spread with which each position is held and that there are legitimate guideline based reasons for each position so we cannot weight that spread away we end with a no consensus. I recommend no renomination, or similar process (e.g. MERGE), for at least three months (and six or months would not be out of order). Barkeep49 (talk) 02:00, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

43,112,609 (number)

[edit]
43,112,609 (number) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Is this number important independent of being a Mersenne prime exponent?? Georgia guy (talk) 15:39, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 15:45, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There isn't sufficient material to sustain an article on this number, especially once all the trivial stuff about the GIMPS results are removed. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:56, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:NUMBER suggests that number articles should meet one of three notability criteria,
1. Are there at least three unrelated interesting mathematical properties of this integer?
  • It is a Mersenne prime index (there are ony 51 known such numbers, and only 45 at the time of its discovery)
  • It was the largest such number at the time of its discovery (WP:NTEMP)
  • It is one of a pair of Mersenne prime indexes that are the closest together known (in percentage terms)
  • It is the degree of four of the twelve largest primitive binary trinomials over GF(2)
  • It is the largest of only eight numbers which are both Mersenne prime indexes and Sophie Germain primes (sequence A065406 in the OEIS)
2. Does this number have obvious cultural significance (e.g., as a lucky or unlucky number)?
3. Is it listed in a book such as David Wells's Dictionary of Curious and Interesting Numbers, or Jean-Marie De Koninck's Those Fascinating Numbers, or on Erich Friedman's "What's Special About This Number" webpage?
  • It is listed on page 406 of De Koninck's book. The Penguin Dictionary was last revised in 1997 so is too old to include it (discovered 2008), and Friedman's list is only for numbers below 10,000.
  • It appears in five places in Enciclopedia Matematică a Claselor de Numere Întregi (Mathematical Encyclopedia of Integer Classes).
Evidence for meeting GNG include,
  • There is a scholarly paper on the discovery of it and another number.
  • Numerous books published around the time of its discovery name it as the largest such number [28][29][30].
SpinningSpark 17:23, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Spinningspark: Passing mentions do not demonstrate notability. The (short) paper is just a high-level overview of the search for Mersenne numbers in general and mentions the two most recent (at the time of publication) ones found. This is insufficient for contributing to meeting WP:GNG. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:34, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Even putting that aside, the number that's notable here is 2^43,112,609-1, not the number 43,112,609. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 15:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:58, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:NUMBER is a well established subject-specific notability guideline and the topic of this article meets that guideline. I am not persuaded by comments here that the guideline has not been met or that WP:NOT applies. Thincat (talk) 09:20, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure if you read my argument, but 43,112,609 is not notable whatsoever. What Spinningspark demonstrated was the notability of the corresponding Mersenne prime (which I won't object to keeping but is marginally notable anyways), not 43,112,609. There is no evidence of notability at all regarding 43,112,609 independent of being a Mersenne prime index (WP:INHERITED). Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 10:44, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I did read your argument and thought it was reasonable. However, I didn't agree with it. Any number discussed on WP needs to be represented in some way, generally by its decimal representation. A number used as an index or exponent is still a number. In this case it is part of (by far the most important part of) the usual representation of the prime. Yes, we could instead have an article titled 2^43,112,609-1 but I don't think that would be so helpful to our readers. Thincat (talk) 11:01, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    ...and if we did have such an article, then it would still be justifiable to keep this page as a redirect at least. Until such a page exists, that is a non-argument, but in any event, deletion is not the solution per WP:PRESERVE. SpinningSpark 11:31, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes so I advocate for a move and won't object to redirecting it, which is why I didn't put a "without leaving a redirect" after the "Move" – that is, assuming that 2^43,112,609 - 1 is notable. The argument for and against that are both well-reasoned. As for the representation, I can presume someone typing for "43,112,609" would reasonably want to look for the Mersenne prime.
    Now back to the question: is 2^43,112,609-1 notable? I'm inclined to say no. First, WP:NUMBER doesn't explicitly state that fulfilling one of them guarantees notability. Most of the sources are just short notes and preprints noting the discovery of this number. Whatever is notable about 2^43,112,609-1 can be, or is, reasonably captured in the article on GIMPS or Mersenne prime. De Koninck's book covers every single Mersenne prime with no nite whatsoever on any special properties; that of being a Mersenne prime does not make it good enough for an article.
    SIDE NOTE: I also noted that the list of numbers there are pretty WP:INDISCRIMINATE: it includes some virtually random number with some meaningless properties; for instance, p. 344 of the book lists 3,504,597,120 as "the 13th number n such that ϕ(n)+σ(n)=4n"; I don't see how notable that makes this otherwise random number. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 08:50, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As per comments above this number appears to meet the requirements to be notable under WP:NUMBER and can be well references as an individual article.Tracland (talk) 20:16, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you even read them? There's nothing interesting about this number whatsoever. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:20, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:INTERESTING is also something worth reading. SpinningSpark 00:12, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The arguments presented there are probably invalid when WP:NUMBER literally says "unrelated interesting properties". And WP:1729 is a pretty objective way to measure interesting-ness. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 08:57, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Objective != notable (or even sensible), and I humbly suggest that any formula involving Erdos number and OEIS page number is the very epitome of irrelevant for our purposes. SpinningSpark 12:03, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It is patent nonsense when taken literally. But it provides a good standard for guesstimating the "interestingness" of a number; for example, being a Harshad number != interesting while being a small Carmichael number = interesting. Now to justify notability, please provide 2 interesting properties of either 43,112,609 or 2^43,112,609-1 independent of being a Mersenne prime/the largest prime number. (I count that as one property.) Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 04:31, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I would argue that the trinomial property is independent of the Mersenne prime property. Not all primitive trinomials over GF(2) have a degree equal to a Mersenne prime index, and not all Mersenne prime indices are degrees of a primitive trinomial over GF(2). The sets intersect, but neither is a subset of the other. They only appear to be related properties because the trinomials are particularly easy to find in relation to a Mersenne prime so that is where research is concentrated. To argue that they are related would be a bit like arguing that the deficient numbers are related to the even numbers because some deficient numbers are even. SpinningSpark 10:47, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    But then we have a problem; there are so many of these that being an exponent is no longer special. For instance, this site lists a good number of primitive trinomials, of which quite a few don't have Mersenne index degree:
    • x2+x1+1
    • x3+x1+1
    • x4+x1+1
    • x5+x2+1
    • x6+x1+1
    • x7+x1+1
    • x7+x3+1
    • x9+x4+1
    • x10+x3+1
    • x11+x2+1
    • x15+x1+1
    • x15+x4+1
    • x15+x7+1
    • x17+x3+1
    • x17+x5+1
    • x17+x6+1
    • x18+x7+1
    • x20+x3+1
    • x21+x2+1
    • x22+x1+1
    • x23+x5+1
    • x25+x3+1
    • x28+x3+1
    • x29+x2+1
    • x31+x3+1
    With this analysis in hand, as 16 out of 25 of them not having Mersenne prime index (the bolded ones), it is not hard to see why being a trinomial degree hardly carries interest or notability, and especially that the 4 out of 12 trinomials are discussed together. This can be discussed in the page on Mersenne prime, but not enough to warrant unique articles. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 12:35, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    <sigh> the claim is that these are some of the largest primitive trinomials GF2, not any old primitive trinomials. The largest degree on that list is 32. Our number is well over a million times more interesting than that on that basis (43,112,609÷32=1,347,269). SpinningSpark 14:54, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well -- I guess we can agree that the property of being a prime is much more well-researched and well-known than having an obscure property such as the degree of a primitive trinomial. The level of interest generated by 43,112,609 as a Mersenne prime. According to the standard laid out in WP:1729, no mathematician has really written a paper on 43,112,609 as "one of the largest trinomials with this property" independent of others. In contrast, a lot have written about 43,112,609 as a Mersenne index. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 01:52, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, being the largest of an obscure class of numbers is radically different from being the largest of a well-known class of numbers (i.e. primes). Plus, many of the sources mentioning 43,112,609 and primitive trinomials also mention its Mersenne index property, so it would make great sense to merge into the article on primitive trinomials or Mersenne prime -- much more sense than leaving each and every index as a standalone article. cf. WP:INDISCRIMINATE Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 02:00, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, a mathematician has written a paper on the trinomial property; the "Twelve new primitive binary trinomials" article I added to the page as a reference. So you are going to dismiss Sophie Germain prime as being too common, and dismiss the degree of a binary trinomial as obscure and esoteric? SpinningSpark 02:43, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No, not exactly, but that "the degree of 4 of the 12 largest known binary trinomials" (not even the largest) as rather obscure. We only have ~100 articles on individual numbers greater than 300. In terms of fame and popularity, 2^43,112,609-1 just doesn't have enough to be included. 2^43112609 - 1 is currently a redirect to Mersenne prime. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 03:29, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You can say that 43,112,609 is an odd number, 1 less than a multiple of 90, and is 1 more than a multiple of 8, and you can list out a million more properties of that number. Do these make such a number notable? No, or Wikipedia will become a WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of info. To list out every number with 3 meh properties is not the purpose of Wikipedia. The "paper" you listed out was probably more of a non-peer-reviewed "press release", and falls short of establishing notability. A close read of the source states that it is basically a "hey, I found a bunch of numbers, and here is how I found them" notice and not really a scholarly article. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 02:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't try to smear the source with it's only a "non-peer reviewed press release". Brent and Zimmermann are not nobodies with a fringe theory. They can easily be shown to be recognised experts who have previously published in reliable sources in the relevant field and thus meet the requirements of WP:SPS. In fact, they previously published this and their table 3 in that paper shows that this number was the degree of the four largest known GF(2) trinomials at the time of publication. Your examples are unconvincing. I don't know what the largest odd number ever published in a math paper is, but I can easily find a larger one by adding two to it. Likewise, I can add 90 to your second example, or eight to your third. By contrast, these trinomials are enormously difficult to find requiring massive computing resources. There is no comparison at all. SpinningSpark 13:33, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I can let this property go as establishing significance, even though I'm still in favour of merging the contents into Mersenne prime as one of its applications. I'm not dismissing Richard P. Brent and Paul Zimmerman as nobodies. But wouldn't it make more sense to convey the information here in the article Mersenne prime, noting their discoveries and stating this application?
    Plus, is there a third property of either number that makes it notable? Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 14:15, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Spinningspark: Let's sort out where we're heading: if we were to keep either one of "43,112,609" or "243,112,609-1", which one are you edging for? Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 00:51, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The mere presence of reliable sources (which appear to have trivial mentions only) and singular interesting property as a Mersenne prime exponent do not make this number notable enough for a standalone article.
    Per WP:NUMBER:
1. Are there at least three unrelated interesting mathematical properties of this integer?
The keyword here is unrelated. From the looks of the article and sources, a pretty clear no. Everything described rests on it being the exponent for M43,112,609, and notability is not inherited. Not that it would matter, because that number is only notable for being a Mersenne prime (one property) and it's not even the largest known. I don't see what else is so unique, interesting, or not obscure that would fulfill this criterion. Based on what I'm reading above, such reasoning could lead to almost any number (even arbitrarily large ones) being deemed notable and having an article written, and Wikipedia is not a directory of indiscriminate number trivia. Is 6,700,417 notable for being a factor of F5 and once-upon-a-time the largest known prime? Or 33,550,336 for being the first perfect number not known to the ancients and the first with multiple digits that sum to a perfect number (28)? The list goes on and on, even more easily with less obvious mathematical properties such as these trinomials; to be frank, I'm not entirely understanding some of the keep !votes above.
2. Does this number have obvious cultural significance (e.g., as a lucky or unlucky number)?
No. Anything not obvious pertaining to its discovery is already adequately summarized at GIMPS or Largest known prime number.
3. Is it listed in a book such as David Wells's Dictionary of Curious and Interesting Numbers, or Jean-Marie De Koninck's Those Fascinating Numbers, or on Erich Friedman's "What's Special About This Number" webpage?
I'm open to being proven wrong, but I think it highly unlikely that it would receive a nontrivial mention (i.e. outside a list of Mersenne exponents) or any mention at all, as there are millions of other numbers with "interesting" or "fascinating" properties. The line needs to be drawn somewhere, and I'm pretty sure this number does not uniquely cross it for a number of its size and nature. ComplexRational (talk) 20:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to move to 2^43112609 - 1 over redirect, delete 43,112,609 (number) as a redirect, and selective merge from there into Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search. See my comments below. ComplexRational (talk) 02:12, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep: Considering all the points that SpinningSpark stated and the historical as well as cultural significance that this number has based on the fact that it is ONE of the only 51 such numbers, it should be kept without any doubt. Wikipedians who are a part of Wikiproject Mathematics should be called here because they won't view it as "just a number", unlike the rest here. If 800 can have its own article regardless of the fact that it has no cultural significance whatsoever, then this should obviously have its own as well. Clearly passes WP:SIGCOV as well. Regards Pesticide1110 Lets wrestle! 08:17, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Pesticide1110, I know, but Category:Integers show only 393 numbers, and hence only about 100 numbers over 300 are independently notable (not for a range) and just 11 over 10K. If it were the number 2^43112609-1 I can argue about that. But being a mere exponent of a possibly notable number carries no significance whatsoever. That is why I advocate for at the very least a move, presumably to a page named 2^43112609 - 1. Even then the level of notability is dubious, but at least greater than 43112609. Eumat114 (Message) 09:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Eumat114 I'm getting very mixed feelings about the whole issue. The is one of the more complicated afds. It took me more than 45 mins to read the whole discussion and even after that i'm very much confused about the whole situation. Both the sides have got brilliant points but a decisive factor is still missing somehow. Eddie891 Can you help? Regards Pesticide1110 Lets wrestle! 09:29, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm very much with you on this (I !voted keep). It seems to me both sides are giving utterly good faith subjective opinions. I can understand why some people do not think the number is (sufficiently) interesting. What I find very puzzling is that they also by implication feel that in future other people shouldn't be allowed to read the article. I can't come close to understanding that.Thincat (talk) 10:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just feel that much of the stuff, if keepable, have been, or can be, adequately summarized in existing Wikipedia articles. The fact that it is a Mersenne index is established in Mersenne prime; the "remarkable" trivia on similarly-timed discoveries may or may not be included in Mersenne prime or GIMPS. That of primitive trinomials can potentially be listed as an application to Mersenne primes. That of being a Sophie Germain and Gaussian prime (which BTW is practically trivia) can be omitted. I shall write a draft describing how it might look like if it were to be merged, at Draft:Mersenne prime (modification). Eumat114 (Message) 11:17, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think that shoving trivia and near-trivia together to make something resembling an article does a disservice to the subject of Mersenne primes. It's not that I feel other people shouldn't be allowed to read the article; I just don't find that the article can live up to the standards that Wikipedia should try to embody, and its existence doesn't help anyone learn about mathematics. XOR'easter (talk) 21:54, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with XOR'easter. We shouldn't try to polish this up if it's still not notable—no amount of editing changes a subject's notability and keeping an article like this would raise serious questions and considerations about out notability standards. And one could argue that many (subjectively) interesting articles get deleted at AfD everyday because interestingness and aesthetics do not compensate for a lack of notability... nobody comments about people not being able (or technically allowed) to read those anymore. ComplexRational (talk) 13:18, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, as I said above whatever is useful in the article has been, or can be, captured in the article Mersenne prime. Eumat114 (Message) 13:28, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While I appreciate the ping, I am not particularly familiar with math-related notability, and as this is a very borderline case I'm going to refrain from !voting. All the best, Eddie891 Talk Work 12:16, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge whatever's needed to Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search. The sources in question only cover the number in context of the prime search, thus the number should be covered proportionately within the prime search's article. There isn't enough material to source a full article on the number itself. I doubt the redirect's helpfulness, but all in all, this is a fine alternative to deletion. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 18:27, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Czar: I !voted delete in part because the redirect won't be very helpful. Even if it becomes an {{R with history}}, it will inevitably find its way to RfD because not even four-digit numbers have redirects, and having redirects for numbers of comparable notability (for lack of a better word) to 43,112,609 would not make sense, be difficult to maintain, and perhaps double the number of existing redirects in all of WP. Since most of the content is not unique to this article, is there a way to either only add what may be missing or otherwise find some other way of attributing? I would say "merge and delete", as this is written to convey greater notability than there is and the redirect may be problematic, but this could run into attribution issues. ComplexRational (talk) 14:17, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @ComplexRational, I'm not aware of any precedent at RfD that would lead to its deletion. It remains a valid search term (someone who is looking for this number is not looking for anything else and could likely lose the disambiguation) so like I said, I think it's more about this being a valid alternative to deletion and preserving sourced content. And yes, once the content is merged, the page history will need to be kept for attribution reasons. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 01:12, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Czar: Sorry for not linking them earlier. The most recent RfDs that I am aware of, pertaining to four digit numbers, are from September and December 2018; the latter refers to the former as a precedent. As an alternative to deletion, it could make sense, but what to do with the redirect is still debatable. ComplexRational (talk) 01:40, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search. I was going to close this discussion to that effect, but I can see it being argued that the discussion is on the edge, so I will instead !vote to move it towards a clearer resolution. With respect to WP:NUMBER arguments, I would suggest that you could pick literally any number—any number at all, be it 34,985,397,239,587,952 or 89,572,678,257,853,636 or 594,869,379,486,798,778—and if you investigated it deeply enough you would find three properties that would pique the interest of mathematicians. Perhaps one of them would turn out to be the sum of seven consecutive cubes, or is the exact reverse order of some weird prime, or is a string of digits of pi starting at a digit representing the sum of seven consecutive cubes. The point is, this number is not particularly more remarkable than any of billions of other numbers for which some interesting properties can be identified. However, as long as there is something to be said about it, it seems harmless enough to merge it into the most relevant article for the characteristic that makes it interesting. I would merge it pretty much as is, in its entirety. BD2412 T 05:14, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Should we leave a redirect, for this number and other Mersenne prime indices? Eumat114 (Message) 10:52, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I would assume that a merge includes a resulting redirect. Also, following from my rationale here, if a number is theoretically "interesting" for several reasons, I would presume that the merge target and resulting redirect target would be the thing for which it is most interesting. BD2412 T 19:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If you don't find this number interesting, I wonder what you make of, for instance, 83 (number), which gets past the WP:NUMBER criteria purely on a "completeness" argument. Mathematicians have paid a lot more attention to this number than they ever did to 83. SpinningSpark 20:23, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    83 is (according to that article) also the atomic number of Bismuth, and the age at which Jews are permitted to have a second bar mitzvah. What is 43,112,609 the atomic number of? What do Jews do when they reach the age of 43,112,609? Generally speaking, numbers in the two or three digits will have some other human connection that makes them interesting not only mathematically (although some mathematical points of interest are also identified for 83). Also, to the extent that anyone will ever actually look up 43,112,609 in Wikipedia, merging as proposed means they will find all of the mathematically interesting information about it in the context of that broader topic. BD2412 T 21:29, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The mathematical facts about this number are way more trivial than for 43112609. There would be no question that people here would bash it relentlessly if it wasn't a low number. Being the sum of three consecutive primes is not all that spectacular. A list of such numbers (OEIS: A034961) is easily generated from a list of primes. Even being a prime that is the sum of three consecutive primes (OEIS: A034962) is not that special. And note that that is the intersection of two properties, which I have been told repeatedly here does not count as a separate interesting fact. It is not the smallest such number, nor anywhere near the largest known. There are infinitely many of them and way more are known than the known Mersenne prime indices. I note also that one of its other "interesting" properties is being a Sophie Germain prime, which I have also been told here is not interesting enough to count. The non-mathematical social facts are even more trivial. Being an atomic number is not special either, since all numbers are atomic numbers up to the highest so far discovered element. I'm pretty convinced that there is rather less written about 83 as a number than has been written about 43112609. SpinningSpark 23:04, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
under-appreciated joke collapsed
  • From what I know, 43112609 is expected to be the atomic number of Quadtriununbihexnilennium, or as we call it, Unobtanium. If you can synthesize it, by all means please do so. Jews, like everyone else, would have become a fossil by age 43,112,609.[citation needed] The "completeness" argument makes much sense -- what would one think of Wikipedia if the number 83 is not covered? Anything at most 2 digits long are bound to have some culturally significant facts with it. Doesn't apply to 43,112,609, especially since its destination is what the reader expects. Eumat114 (Message) 09:44, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since I haven't made either an atomic number or culturally significant argument for 43112609 your comments are meaningless, amd by the way, see Wandering Jew in relation to your citation needed. My point actually was that none of these properties establishes notability of 83 under GNG; it relies entirely on WP:NUMBER. The completeness argument actually flies directly in the face GNG, as NUMBER itself readily admits. And on that I'll just point out that NUMBER allows 101 articles under that clause whereas the number of currently known Mersenne prime indices is only half that at 51. SpinningSpark 10:46, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    According to WP:NUMBER, for the sake of completeness, however, it is accepted that every integer between −1 and 101 has its own article even if it is not as interesting as the others. This avoids having, say, a gap for 38. This echoes with my view on why 83 (number) exists even if it is less notable than 43,112,609. Yeah, my above comment, esp. pertaining to Unobtanium, can be taken as a joke to lighten up the mood. Eumat114 (Message) 11:20, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    In all seriousness, though, there was an agreement to keep those number articles as it is and no consensus (yet) to keep each number with one single spectacular property. You can obtain it at an RFC; I won't stop you. Beware – consensus might. Eumat114 (Message) 12:13, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It has been proven by induction that all natural numbers are interesting. Stifle (talk) 10:54, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    [proof needed] Eumat114 (Message) 11:07, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Interesting number paradox is being referred to here, for which a "proof" in a reliable source can be found here. SpinningSpark 12:34, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, any number can be called interesting for being the first "non-interesting" number, which in turn makes it interesting. But we're not creating number articles (or even redirects) ad infinitum; the notability guidelines exist for this reason. Is this !vote serious? ComplexRational (talk) 14:17, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Hence my humorous maintenance tag. Eumat114 (Message) 14:46, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Should it be made clear that this, like the collapsed section above, was a joke? ComplexRational (talk) 16:09, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The rationale is clearly a joke. The "keep" opinion may or may not be, so should not be collapsed unless the OP chooses to so do. SpinningSpark 21:03, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Notable number of sweet beauty and per Spinningspark.Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:35, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Gonna need a relist. Eumat114 (Message) 15:38, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, definitely a relist, discussion is still very active. And what exactly constitutes "sweet beauty", if I may ask? ComplexRational (talk) 16:09, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No, a relist is not needed, except for the purpose of giving Eumat114 more opportunity to try and WP:BADGER everyone into submission. No new arguments have been offered (joke contributions aside), it's just the same old stuff being rehashed. The last new source offered was by me on the 20th and I don't believe that any new policy or guideline rationales have been offered for over a week. SpinningSpark 16:27, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. No relist needed – close this now as a textbook case of no consensus. Strong points made on both sides (slight bias to weak keep), but no clear winner. Ultimately, we are WP:NOTPAPER, and this number, after this epic AfD, seems to have won the right to fight for another day. No harm will come to WP as a result:) Britishfinance (talk) 20:06, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There is certainly not no consensus here, should an analysis of the arguments be made. Discussion is still active; a resolution or, failing that, a relist is warranted. Some votes are just humour, like Stifle's.ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:38, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:
    1. This AFD is overdue for 4 days already, for a total of 18 days. Any further relist might come into contradiction with WP:RELIST: in general, debates should not be relisted more than twice. This discussion is getting stagnant, but I believe the core idea is worthy of an RFC at WikiProject Mathematics if a revision to WP:NUMBER is needed;
    2. The consensus has swayed wildly from a keep to a merge. It seems unlikely that we will ever achieve consensus in a short period of time; a relist seems to be pointless as per the above, and a no consensus keep is warranted (after all, it's no harm);
    3. It appears that nobody has ever bothered to answer the question I set out quite a while ago: Which one should we keep, 43,112,609 with 2 not-so-interesting properties and 2^43112609 - 1 with 1 very interesting property and is significant? Most of the argument are centered on it being an interesting number, which I presume is pertaining to 2^43112609 - 1;
    4. I take allegations of WP:BADGERing pretty seriously. The thing is, yep, I admit to it (well, kind of) and as per that page, I'm gonna step back. But I would want an answer to the above age-old question, in particular for a future RFC on WP:NUMBER. I welcome any opinions to improve my discussion participating, especially since WP:Editor review is no longer present and I'm not so experienced.
Thank you. Eumat114 (Message) 01:47, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Eumat114: Of the two, I'd rather keep 2^43112609 - 1 as a redirect, since that is the number with the more interesting property and that was formerly the largest known prime. So as an alternative to deletion, I would now recommend:
  1. Move over redirect to 2^43112609 - 1 (an admin needs to do this, but it was never a content page)—after all, it seems the focus is really this number,
  2. Delete the resulting redirect at 43,112,609 (number) per my comments above and the old RfDs (attribution would not be a problem at this point, and with another redirect in place, this would be an otherwise insignificant 8-digit number), and
  3. Merge the new content at 2^43112609 - 1 to Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search or another suitable target (this redirect would make more sense), per most of the merge !votes above.
I'm striking my delete !vote in favor of these three steps. I feel this addresses everyone's concerns about notability, the resultant redirect, and attribution of the current article's sourced content. Thoughts? ComplexRational (talk) 02:12, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You asked me this question directly earlier. My apologies for not answering, but I felt discussing the title was unnecessarily complicating an already difficult AfD. The primary role of the AfD is to decide whether to keep the page. Naming could have been discussed later, but as we are having the discussion, here is my opinion. I favour moving to 43112609. That is, without the separators or disambiguator. Firstly, because "2^43112609 - 1" is a poor search term. A user looking explicitly for the Mersenne number is much more likely to type M43112609 which could be a redirect. "2^43112609 - 1" is not proper maths notation; it is how expressions are represented in some coding languages and an informal way of typing in text only files. We shouldn't have such ghastliness in a Wikipedia title. Secondly, 43112609 has some properties other than being a Mersenne index – the trinomial property and some other minor stuff which would be off topic in a Mersenne number article. SpinningSpark 08:38, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can’t see the purpose in replacing “43112609” with "2^43112609 - 1", which is a more obscure search term? Thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 09:42, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
M43112609 would also be a suitable place to relocate the history. I advocate a replacement because the notability of 43,112,609 is inherited from the Mersenne prime, and not notable in itself. It may be more obscure, but it (or M43112609) is more correct than 43,112,609 given the content and the nature of the "interesting" property. ComplexRational (talk) 15:44, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per arguments by Spinningspark. Also, if something was important and notable, it should have an article. Deleting this might create a terrible precedent that would justify the wholesale deletion of mathematics and sciences articles. I am anxious that we are becoming pop-culture-pedia, not Wikipedia. Bearian (talk) 15:07, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bearian: No, "importance" has no bearing on whether or not something should have an article, only its notability. And this isn't notable. There is nothing noteworthy about this number aside from it being a Mersenne prime exponent, and that's not enough to sustain an article. It merits an entry where we keep a list of the known Mersenne primes; that's it. Deleting this sets no precedent for deleting math and science articles; that's a nonsense argument. The historical anecdote about the GIMPS search has nothing to do with this number, and has everything to do with about GIMPS itself. This number isn't notable. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:57, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: while I don't find this the most exciting article, the delete case is technical rather than showing evidence of harm, the content is maintainable and verifiable, and it generally seems natural to put content relating to particular numbers under those numbers. Unless and until we have an RfC establishing a better way of treating this kind of material, I think it's best to leave things as they are. — Charles Stewart (talk) 20:13, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chalst: What part of "this isn't notable" is technical? Because this isn't notable. What part of the WP:deletion policy requires any evidence of harm to be shown, rather than a simple lack of notability? This doesn't require an RfC. It's simply fails WP:GNG by a wide margin. And if you really want harm, try the Pandora's box of millions of trivial number articles keeping this opens. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:57, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't object to an RfC if necessary, especially if there are questions as to this would set a precedent (regardless of the outcome). However, I'm still not at all convinced it satisfies GNG. My only reason to not delete is content attribution if a merge is performed (which seems sensible if done correctly); keeping indeed opens up endless possibilities as I outlined above.
    And as I understand it, certain speedy deletion criteria already exist for the purpose of removing harmful content. Many articles that are not "harmful" go through AfD every day in complete accordance with the deletion policy, and delete/keep !votes are based around policies such as GNG and NOT; harm is not even a factor because CSDs take care of the most obviously harmful cases. ComplexRational (talk) 21:12, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I should have been clearer about keeping the article history for attribution purposes rather than outright deletion, but my basic point remains the same. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 21:46, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't want to live on this planet anymore. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:57, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Captain Galaxy (talk) 08:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Dawson (podcaster)

[edit]
Andy Dawson (podcaster) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nominating for deletion on basis of notability — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hildreth gazzard (talk • contribs) 08:20, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 08:15, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 08:15, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Sandstein 11:04, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anita White

[edit]
Anita White (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A glaring case of WP:BIO1E. Notability is not based upon word/name association. Also clearly fails WP:MUSICBIO. She deserves a mention on the Lady A page. KidAd (talk) 07:22, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I agree with the nominator about her not being notable just because of word association. Its also a case of failing notability due to the basis of her article hinging on a single event. Wikipedia isn't a news outlet. Adamant1 (talk) 07:45, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 08:19, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 08:19, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 08:19, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete - per nom. Her entire notability is based on a notable band trimming the second part of their name, and that happening to be the same as hers. She already has a mention at Lady A. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 08:23, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retracted - Same reasons as DOOMSDAYER below. Passions seem to be burning high around the topic, for various reasons, and I'd also like to stay out of it. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:07, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - Definitely a case of WP:BIO1E, making the news a few days ago for the unfortunate use of her stage name by someone more notable. As a purely local DJ/singer she has little notability of her own outside of the Lady Antebellum/Lady A story. She might deserve a very brief mention at their article; the hatnote currently at the top of their article should be removed if/when this one is deleted. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:14, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vote Retracted - I voted when the Lady A/Lady A dispute had just recently hit the news, and concur that more sources on the blues singer are emerging at a rapid rate. It appears that music journalists were inspired to investigate her music career just in the past two days when they never did so before, so she is still benefiting from a controversy. In any case, I am bowing out of this debate because personal accusations, against the country band and Wikipedia voters, are emerging in the discussion below. Keep me out of it. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:34, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep / Wait for now. It seems she may have a notable music career (as more and more secondary sources and reliable articles start talking about her). I think it might be best to wait a few weeks and see where things go after the Lady A name change. Paintspot Infez (talk) 18:37, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a sourcing issue. Even if she is featured in a New York Times profile about her life leading up to this news cycle, she will still only be notable for one event. KidAd (talk) 18:58, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I disagree. In my opinion being the subject of a profile in the NYT and similar high-profile media automatically achieves WP:GNG. -- The Anome (talk) 12:07, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLP1E. literally no one knew who she was until Lady Antebellum changed their name. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:12, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As Paintspot said as the sole voice of reason so far, Lady A probably has a notable music career. We know perfectly well that she's had a 30 year career with various acclaim, which are therefore probably mostly in print and not instantly visible on google, and that *nobody here* has lifted a finger to even look for. You can't say it's not a sourcing issue when you have *no clue* and *don't want to know* what sources exist. It is just an aggressively nonsensical agenda from the church of deletionism to presume to predict the future, saying that no future article could possibly be written that could name another historical source or expand her notability, even out of this one event or that the event couldn't expand. My goodness we are living in times that are defined by people who are notable for single events anyway. Her website names a few print sources and reviews, and I don't even know what they all are exactly because she's spent her career working more than promoting. She is not purely local, not that that is a disqualifier either. She has a whole other fan base in, and has published at least one concert album from, New Orleans—and has been the cover feature of a 50 year old blues magazine in Sweden. And she has a whole history just in social activism alone, organizing events that sound substantial and might have local newspaper coverage. But the ones I have found via google and cited into the article do allude to a lot more of them in older print. — Smuckola(talk) 04:14, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment What a load of nonsense. No individual should have a page for "probably having a notable [anything]." Refrain from casting WP:ASPERSIONS about the so-called church of deletionism without at least making a case for your blind inclusionism and utter disregard of any recognized policy. KidAd (talk) 18:25, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As per Smuckola and Paintspot. Regards Pesticide1110 (talk) 05:33, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/wait per per Smuckola and Paintspot: more sources are emerging to confirm her notability, and reports suggest she is the owner of the trademark "Lady A". It's bitterly ironic that the all-white previously-Confederacy-referencing Lady Antebellum have chosen to take her name, and it would also be ironic if they also eclipse her here. -- The Anome (talk) 10:48, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a music career isn't one event, the fact that the sources are even mentioning her music career is tantamount to that, if she had a unknown career she would not be getting the attention. GuzzyG (talk) 15:58, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Multiple albums, appearances, and media mentions over a decades-long music career merited a Wikipedia article even before the current controversy. White 720 (talk) 18:03, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As per Smuckola, Paintspot and White 720. When someone has a pre-established career in the same industry, the newer entity should have done their research to avoid the potential conflict. The artists formerly known as Lady Antebellum will clearly lose any lawsuit about name priority which is brought against them and will be forced to vacate. Autopatch (talk) 18:14, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: If she really weren't notable, then why are there 10+ news articles focusing on her music? Skjn (talk) 20:50, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
^Month-old user with 11 edits to their name. Maybe not an WP:SPA, but just pointing that out. KidAd (talk) 05:28, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Rolling Stone and American Songwriter are reliable sources, writing specifically about White and her music. Whether that coverage is related to a news event is not particularly germane. — Toughpigs (talk) 23:52, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentThis isn't about being "deletionist", It's about holding her to same standard in Notability (music) that every other musical artist has to follow. Which last I checked doesn't involve naming disputes. If she is only notable for the naming dispute and not her music then she is not covered by Notability (music) IMO and it would definitely put the subject and her in the category of not being notable for trivial coverage/single event coverage. Just like a third tier otherwise not notable sports player or low rung actor wouldn't suddenly become notable enough for an article just because they died in a horrific way that got some news coverage for it etc etc. So, the question is, what exists about her supposedly storied legendary soul & blues award winning career that we can use then? Album wise, the only one on her website is Doin' Fine. I was able to a review of it on Blues Blast. Which BTW says a lot of the songs are repetitive. That's about it though. One review that says her music is repetitive. AllMusic has a profile on her but hasn't reviewed her albums. It does list a few other albums though, one of which "Loved, Blessed and Blues" that again I was only able to find a review of on Blues Blast and this time they called it "Nothing to write home about here." It's weird that for a "legendary" blues artist that is suppose to be notable for her musical career that's all there is and that her music only got lukewarm reviews from a single source. Has she been covered by Rolling Stone for anything else besides the name conflict? That would be a hard no. What about American Songwriter? That's a no also. How about the New York Post or TheWrap? As I'm sure you can guess, those are a NO also. But, but, but, I thought she was "legendary" and has always been notable? So, what do we have then? News sources only covering her for a single event that has nothing do with her musical career and wouldn't be notable otherwise, and a few bad reviews of her music from a single source. That's it. I'd call that not being notable. If you think the two bad reviews are enough for notability, cool. I disagree, but at least we could make the discussion about that instead of what it's been about. Voting delete on my judgement of what I was able to find definitely doesn't warrant the hyper hyperbolic and slandering messages above this one. Even if you disagree with my assessment of her notability. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:17, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The word "legendary" is used once in the article, in a direct quote of an author in American Songwriter, and thrice by you in making an argument to delete this article. At a time when racial injustice is prominent in the news, I think it is supremely disrespectful to argue in favor of deleting an article about a Black artist whose stage name has been co-opted (irrespective of intent) by a more prominent White group. Ms. White is notable enough for a Wikipedia article irrespective of opinions about her music's quality or of usage of one word that one publication used to describe her. White 720 (talk) 16:44, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with nearly everything AdamAnt has said, but I believe we’ve strayed significantly from the topic at hand. I also think that any notion that deleting this article is 1) Racist or 2) disrespectful to a social movement, is not a good faith one. KidAd (talk) 17:18, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It was actually used a few other places and last time I checked I can use whatever word I want to describe someone. Anyway, it was more a comment about how over hyped her career was being treated her and other places then a direct qoute. Thanks though. And yeah sure, lets not delete any article about a black person (including this one) for a while until racial issues with black people calm down, like that will ever happen, so we don't trigger the race baiters. Like they don't come out of the woodwork at the slightest provocation like you just did. A few weeks ago I was blocked from Wikidata for a while becuase I requested an entey be deleted about an Indian business. Which for some dumb reason the admin thought was racially motivated and tantamount to harrassement toward Indian people. Of course he was Indian. Go figure. I wouldn't be supprised if the same thing happened here. "How dare you vote delete on an article about a black person. Racist!" I do an AfD having do with nurses and someone says I hate women. I do one for a Jewish donut company and a Jew calls me anti-semitic. I put a notability banner on a worship bands aritcle and I get slammed for hating Christians. Now I vote delete on an article about a black person and use the word legendary and I'm not being sensitive to the moment black people are having. Christ, seriously its always something with you people. Also, thanks to KidAd for the comment. Adamant1 (talk) 17:30, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment From your comment: "trigger the race baiters," "dumb reason," "a Jew," "you people." Have you considered re-evaluating your use of language? If people keep criticizing you for being insensitive, there might be a kernel of truth to examine. White 720 (talk) 18:01, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple Jews are called Jews. Therefore, a single Jew would be called a Jew wouldn't they? Even dictionaries and Google search use the term Jew to describe a single Jewish person. Plus, the Jewish person that called me anti-Semitic was pretty up front that he was Jewish. So, I see nothing insensitive or bad language about me saying he was. It's not like I can remember his user name. People like you get offended whatever term someone uses anyway. I never brought jack to any of the people went off on me, just I like I didn't bring up race here. You did, just so you could then call me insensitive. Which you probably would have done whatever my response was, because the game of people like you. Good job sticking it to the white racist power structure by race baiting some rando on Wikipedia. "clap, clap, clap." Now you can go tell your twitter palls that you just totally ended racism by calling someone insensitive for using a term out of a dictionary "eye roll." Anyway, I'm done with this discussion. I agree with KidAd about forum. Your comments are off topic and disruptive. So, go race bait somewhere else. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:18, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Anita is getting plenty of public exposure now, no matter her status was a week ago. Plus she has made it clear she is not giving up sole rights to her stage name. [31] What are we going to do- Delete her biography just to recreate it when they go to court and makes all the headlines? And I’m 99.99% sure White will win that lawsuit too. Yep - Her biography is a keeper now. And for the record, WP:ILIKEIT has nothing to do with this... JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 14:48, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has enough independent refs to make her notable.User:Davidstewartharvey
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:11, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Avanceon

[edit]
Avanceon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Extremely run of the mill article about what appears to be an extremely run of the mill software company. The article only cites a single source and I couldn't find anything else about them that would pass NCORP. Adamant1 (talk) 07:16, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 08:24, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 08:24, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. For WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Captain Galaxy (talk) 16:17, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Good Time for a Dime

[edit]
A Good Time for a Dime (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable Donald Duck short from the 1940s. I couldn't find anything sourcing wise that would help it pass GNG. There is a trivial, passing mention of it in a book, but that's not enough IMO. Maybe the content could be merged somewhere, but I'm not sure where. Adamant1 (talk) 07:05, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 08:27, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disney-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 17:17, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 17:17, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Captain Galaxy (talk) 08:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Comcast

[edit]
Criticism of Comcast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is inherently bias and doesn't give a fair picture of the company as a whole. A lot of the topics in the article are also extremely trivial, regional, could apply to any company, and probably would not be worth mentioning on their own. For instance someone committing theft while installing Comcast cable. Some of the sources are also dubious. While I would have no problem with whatever is notable being merged with Comcast, I see zero reason there should be a separate article just for the criticism. Adamant1 (talk) 06:52, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 08:28, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 08:28, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep At a glance I'd have said this is certainly a keep. We do have many other criticism articles on companies, that in itself isn't a problem, especially for companies that manage to generate lots of controversy and end up making the main article too long (eg Criticism of Facebook). But I do see your objection - there is a bunch of original research and dubious sources in there. It's an article which needs work, but Comcast has managed to generate lots of controversy, as is noted in that article, and in the main Comcast article, both in section and in lead, so I don't think it's useful to salvage and merge into Comcast. It needs tidying up, and better sources (which do exist), but it's certainly salvageable. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 08:39, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you can say at this point the merging after "tidying up" would make the Comcast article to long. There's a lot that should be cut out. AfDs aren't cleanup anyway. Also, it's not really relevent if there are other criticism articles IMO. You can justify not deleting any article on the grounds that similar articles in a similar state exist. Adamant1 (talk) 12:09, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's an assumption (that after cleanup it would be too short). You're right that AfDs aren't cleanup - an article in need of cleanup doesn't mean it must be deleted. The question here is one of notability, and I think sufficient notability and significant coverage exists for this matter. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 17:36, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Notability isn't the only reason to do an AfD and I'm pretty sure an article inharently lacking neutrality is a valid reason for one. It doesn't matter how good the sourcing is if an article is extremely slanted in how it presents the subject of it and can't be fixed. The main reason to merge would be to be have both the good and bad of the company in the same article. So people get a neutral view point. There's no way to do that with a "criticism" article and you can't just add a "positive things about Comcast" section to balance it out. Adamant1 (talk) 17:49, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The topic is notable, cleanup is a matter for editing rather than deletion, and it's not Wikipedia's job to provide false balance. The "N" in NPOV means reflecting the sources fairly, not saying one good thing every time we say one bad thing. XOR'easter (talk) 19:25, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Except how can you fairly reflect the sources when you can't add the positive ones to the article because they aren't critical of the company? It's not a fair representation of the sources if you can only use ones in the article that have a single position and have to exclude others that don't fit it. Adamant1 (talk) 01:55, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the case. A reliable source will explain both the criticism and the company's response, as well as any extenuating circumstances. Having a "Criticism" article does not mean that only damaging information is allowed to be presented. — Toughpigs (talk) 03:21, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Notability is the main purpose of doing an AfD, and the sources on this article clearly demonstrate notability of the topic. The nominator asserts that "criticism of" articles are inherently "slanted.. and can't be fixed". This is not the case; it simply requires the use of reliable sources to summarize and explain the criticism. The inclusion of some trivial information and poor sources should be cleared up by normal editing, not a nomination for deletion. — Toughpigs (talk) 19:55, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - criticism spin-off articles are fine assuming there is sustained coverage of said criticism, as is the case here. In addition, the Comcast article is already size at > 120k bites and as such keeping the criticism article's content separate will improve readability. SamHolt6 (talk) 15:40, 14 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 WP:SNOW keep. There is no reasonable prospect for a consensus to delete this article at this point. Also noting the previous discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Wal-Mart, as this was not posted here. BD2412 T 22:33, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Walmart

[edit]
Criticism of Walmart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is inherently bias and doesn't give a full picture of Walmart as a company. A lot of the topics in the article are also extremely regional, trivial, and wouldn't be notable on their own. For instance an employee getting fired from a local Walmart for smoking pot or a few of their locations being ran poorly. A lot of the sources are extremely questionable also. While I'd be fine with whatever content in this is actually notable being merged into Walmart, I don't think there is enough there to warrant keeping such a clearly slanted article. Adamant1 (talk) 06:35, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 08:41, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 08:41, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There are 257 citations in this article, including articles in the Washington Post, the New York Times and USA Today and several published books, specifically about this topic. The nominator is incorrect that "Criticism of" articles are inherently biased; they simply require the use of reliable sources to summarize and explain the criticism. The inclusion of some trivial information and poor sources should be cleared up by normal editing, not a nomination for deletion. — Toughpigs (talk) 20:01, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Like the nom, I feel uneasy about the wisdom of any all-negative article, on the theory that it creates undue emphasis here, and lack of due emphasis over in the Walmart article. This particular list is well-organized, well-sourced and seems like the right tone. This is good material, it should stay. (I'm curious why it doesn't mention THE primary criticism of Wal-Mart in its expansion years, the way it suddenly dominated rural localities and played havoc with local businesses, job markets, wages, taxes, and traffic patterns, but I guess that's dusty economic history now.) --Lockley (talk) 09:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:11, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Mae Stover

[edit]
Jessica Mae Stover (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

After attempting to fix up and properly source, there's nothing to work with. The best coverage I can see, are a couple mentions of a long in-progress short film. Before !voting, please review prior versions, as there's been significant changes. Rob (talk) 06:35, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 06:53, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 06:53, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 06:53, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 15:15, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Gardiner

[edit]
Alexander Gardiner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was only a brevet general, which generally isn't consider to be a WP:NSOLDIER pass. In this case, it was particularly honorary, as it was a posthumous rank. He never actually held a rank above colonel officially, and received a posthumous honor. The coverage I can find is mostly in passing [32] states he commanded a regiment, but only mentions him in passing. Another source only mentions him in the context that his son got into Yale. [33] mentions him in passing in an order of battle. There's several official military records that mention him, but they are from his service time, and are primary sources, which don't contribute notability. The source in the article is a book published by "Olde Soldier Books, Inc", a rather obscure publisher out of Maryland. I am not familiar with the quality of the publisher, and a search in the RS/N archives brings up nothing. [34]. Anyway, we would need more than a mention in that one book to demonstrate notability, though. Fails NSOLDIER and GNG. Searching for this fellow is a bit difficult, as Alexander Gardner (photographer) was rather prominent in that war. Hog Farm (talk) 04:59, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 04:59, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 04:59, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 04:59, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:29, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WeOwnFire

[edit]
WeOwnFire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NCORP and is improperly sourced. Also, a search did not bring up any additional sources. Bingobro (Chat) 04:37, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Bingobro (Chat) 04:37, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bingobro (Chat) 04:37, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Captain Galaxy (talk) 08:23, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More of Our Stupid Noise

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
More of Our Stupid Noise (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

*DELETE - FAILS notability Trawnabrah8765309 (talk) 19:20, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:47, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:47, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 June 13. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 02:56, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Full disclosure, I'm the original creator of this, but I did so in 2007 at a time when our notability standard for albums was very different than it is today — at the time, the only notability test a compilation album had to pass was that it had notable artists on it, which this obviously does. That's not the standard anymore, however; albums now have to have much more significant notability claims than that, and much better sourcing to support those claims, than they had to have 13 years ago. So I'm not particularly wedded to the idea that it has to stay, because even as the creator I'm not fully convinced that it actually passes the stricter standards of 2020 anymore.
    That said, I've been kickin' around this joint for over 15 years now, and I've learned a few things about suspicious behaviour: the nominator is a brand new account, registered literally within the past 24 hours, and initiating this discussion was literally their very first Wikipedia contribution ever. That's just not a thing brand new users do, especially on fairly niche topics (like obscure 20-year-old compilation albums) that the average person is unlikely to even have heard of in the first place, unless they have some form of preexisting agenda to erase a topic from Wikipedia due to a personal vendetta. I don't know if it's personal beef with one of the bands on the record, or with somebody who worked at Squirtgun Records, or a sockpuppet attempt at retaliating against the deletion of a different personal pet topic — but it's definitely something that's outside of Wikipedia's concern, because new users (a) don't just find pages like this unless they were specifically looking for them, and (b) don't generally know our notability policies from a hole in the ground. I just don't buy that you're on the level, brah — you've got some kind of ulterior motive here. Bearcat (talk) 03:24, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Bearcat (even if he didn't explicitly write that). Also an AllMusic review, at just a glance. Successful enough in Canada that more sources likely exist. Right at that print/internet '90s divide, so always more difficult to research. Caro7200 (talk) 13:08, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep In addition to the article referenced from Edmonton in the article, I can find a lot of coverage in nation-wide newspapers at the time of the original release. But the article in 2016 barely pushes it over the line, to having some lasting meaning. Nfitz (talk) 22:45, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It has sources, which is pretty good considering the state of the internet at the time. However, I don't expect the article to expand much further. And it was a fine compilation, if I recall (although this shouldn't influence much on any verdict here). +mt 23:28, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:11, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Warren Adams

[edit]
Warren Adams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NSOLDIER. Lieutenant Colonel isn't a high enough rank to pass NSOLDIER, and commanding a regiment generally doesn't indicate a significant role in a battle or campaign the majority of the time. Of the three sources in the article, one is dead, one is a genealogy cite that likely isn't reliable, and the third mentions Adams in exactly one sentence. A WP:BEFORE search doesn't bring up substantial coverage. [35] mentions Adams in one sentence. [36] is a passing mention that suggests he commanded Fort Moultrie for awhile, but by that point, Moultrie wasn't a particularly important installation at that point. [37] is a passing mention in an order of battle. Several hits come up as part of the caption of a Library of Congress image. All other coverage is for other people with this name, it seems. Hog Farm (talk) 02:51, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 02:51, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 02:51, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 02:51, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. I'm surprised this wasn't closed sooner. (non-admin closure)  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 04:30, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1935-36 Segunda Division

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
    1935-36 Segunda Division (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Not a single source--Nvidiafan58 (talk) 02:39, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 03:17, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 03:17, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:26, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was redirect to The Last Confederate: The Story of Robert Adams. (non-admin closure) buidhe 05:12, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Robert Adams II

    [edit]
    Robert Adams II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    The refs in the article are all either unreliable, not about this figure, or both. Captain does not meet WP:NSOLDIER. He has some notable relatives, including a modern filmmaker and a 19th-century congressman, but he can't inherit notability from them. Google search and Google Scholar bring up nothing in reliable sources about him. A Google Books search brings up nothing that I am confident is actually about this figure, he has a common name. NSOLDIER and GNG failure. Hog Farm (talk) 01:50, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 01:50, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 01:50, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 01:50, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was speedy keep. Procedural close on the grounds that no-one has opposed and the nominator is a sock. WP: DENY. (non-admin closure) ——Serial # 08:00, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Minnal Deepa

    [edit]
    Minnal Deepa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Doesn't pass WP:GNG. References aren't WP:RS and not WP:SIGCOV. Google doesn't yield major references either. Minor actress. Jackreed86 (talk) 01:37, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 03:18, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 03:18, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ "Team Yaaradi Nee Mohini celebrates 600 episodes milestone; see pics - Times of India". The Times of India.
    2. ^ "Sirikira Neram Vandhachu". The Hindu. 20 December 2019.
    3. ^ "அந்த 'வாம்மா மின்னல்' பொண்ணு நாந்தான்! - தீபா [ That "Come Minnal" girl is me! - Deepa]". Vikatan (in Tamil).
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Sandstein 15:14, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Robin Ejsmond-Frey

    [edit]
    Robin Ejsmond-Frey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Re-submitting this AfD for an editor who malformed the original so that it ended up with no participation. The original nomination said "The article only mentions distant youth successes while Robin Ejsmond-Frey never had a real breakthrough as a professional rower. The original text was set up in 2007 to highlight an evolving sports career - the content has however not changed substantially in the last 10 years, so wondering if it is still relevant for WP at this stage." I am neutral. Black Kite (talk) 23:07, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Black Kite (talk) 23:07, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:15, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:49, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was redirect to Deep Listening Band. (non-admin closure) buidhe 05:11, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    David Gamper

    [edit]
    David Gamper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    No evidence of notability and no working references Rathfelder (talk) 00:17, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 00:17, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:54, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. czar 03:28, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Gisela Gamper

    [edit]
    Gisela Gamper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    No real evidence of notability and no decent references. Rathfelder (talk) 00:15, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 00:15, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:53, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:53, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:53, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Strong Delete: As per ThatMontrealIP. It really is amazing if we consider the fact that articles like these are getting nominated for deletion within 2 months from their creation despite that they are well sourced with more than 40 citations, all from reliable sources like New York Times, Rolling Stone etc. Regards Pesticide1110 (talk) 09:52, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 14:04, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. czar 03:27, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Avery Andon (artist)

    [edit]
    Avery Andon (artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    GNG fail. Notability is not inherited from the famous artist he manages. I suspect that some of the sources (e.g. "Kourtney Accepts Baby Daddy Scott's Girlfriend Sophia Into Family At Dinner") may be less than optimal quality. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:11, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:52, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:52, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:53, 13 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.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2020_June_13&oldid=963689320"