Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 August 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 14 August 16 August >

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. Salvio 11:14, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aotearoa New Zealand Development Studies Network

[edit]
Aotearoa New Zealand Development Studies Network (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)

Reviewed under effort to review longest wp-notability tagged articles. Tagged for wp:notability for over 11 years. No indication of wp:notability. Has no sources covering the topic, and I was unable to find any. I can't even find anything to indicate this even exists much less being wp:notable. North8000 (talk) 23:46, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:55, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:55, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:55, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I found their website, [1] so this exists. However, it fails WP:GNG. I searched for references using many variations of their name but found academic papers presented at their conference or a brief mention in an academic's bio. Z1720 (talk) 02:29, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree with above. Apart from the name also seems to be missing "International" (Aotearoa New Zealand International Development Studies Network) there really isn't a lot about them there to give WP:GNG NZFC(talk)(cont) 10:33, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:38, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Selim Nurmyradow

[edit]
Selim Nurmyradow (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)

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY BlameRuiner (talk) 21:11, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 21:15, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkmenistan-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 21:15, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:51, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:58, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arguments have ranged from deleting to keeping and improving, and everything in between. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:50, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joost de Valk

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Joost de Valk (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)

Creator refuses a redirect, and it's not a G4 because it's padded out with additional PR. This person is notable for exactly one thing: his Yoast SEO plugin for WordPress. All the sources are in that context. WP:BLP1E appliues, but a redirect to Yoast SEO is the obvious solution IMO. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:58, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:46, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:46, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:46, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:46, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 15:46, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable individual who is an expert in his field, easily passes WP:ANYBIO#2 This particular de Valk article was started from scratch and has nothing to do with the first article or AfD (which looks to have been a pretty solid delete). Business Insider has a biography of de Valk. In PCWorld magazine (not yet in the article), he is an expert finding vulnerabilities in software. WP:BLP1E does not apply because the subject is an expert, widely acclaimed, meeting WP:ANYBIO, and the subject has had significant roles with two companies (Yoast as CEO and WordPress as WordPress Marketing and Communications Lead role) He has made a major impact in the field of computing, app development, optimization and software. We have the room for such an article WP:NOTPAPER, it serves our readers. Lightburst (talk) 15:46, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is a great article and notable per WP:AUTHOR point 1-3.--Greg Henderson (talk) 17:06, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Umm, this isn't an author (or creative individual). Plain assertions that someone passes WP:AUTHOR 1-3 are meaningless unless you actually say how (and none of them apply here anyway). Plus, "... meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:30, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I meant WP:CREATIVE as in point 2: "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique." There is a seconday source here Ultimate Guide to Link Building that says: "Joost De Valk is a well-known specialist in the fields of SEO and WordPress...he built a plugin for WordPress with 3.5 million downloads."--Greg Henderson (talk) 18:13, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. BLP1E doesn't apply because this isn't a low-profile individual, as evidenced by the interview in Business Insider and various other PR-pushing. However, speaking of that interview, it's an interview and not a biography, as claimed immediately above. It therefore does nothing to establish notability, and is not independent of de Valk. Also doing nothing to establish notability is the entry in the Clickz listicle of SEO experts. A quick glance at the site shows that they accept payment to publish stories. Likewise, the PC World source is nothing in-depth; it merely mentions his role in looking for security vulnerabilities in Wordpress plugins that also affected his own product. The vulnerability itself was found by a third party. Calling him an "expert" is extremely questionable, and simply having expertise doesn't make someone notable. What ultimately matters is being able to write an article about someone because they've been written about in-depth by multiple, independent sources, and that just doesn't seem to be the case here. Take away the PR stuff, and there's nothing left. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:21, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ward, Eric; French, Garrett (April 5, 2013). Ultimate Guide to Link Building: How to Build Backlinks, Authority and Credibility for Your Website, and Increase Click Traffic and Search Ranking (Paperback). Irvine, California: McGraw-Hill Companies, Incorporated. p. 179. ISBN 1599184427. ISBN 9781599184425. Meets WP:GNG. Recognized expert. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:37, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This little mini-bio of de Valk is in the source because de Valk himself contributed a couple of pages to this compilation. The book making glowing statements about one of its own contributors is thus not independent of the source, and so this does nothing to offer recognition. In any case, simply having the expertise and position to contribute a couple of pages to a magazine's published special volume does nothing to establish GNG. Even being a recognized expert isn't enough on its own; it merely indicates likelihood of notability, because recognized experts will often have been written about. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:50, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Published by McGraw-Hill. But I knew that wouldn't matter ... 18:06, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • KEEP I agree WP:CREATIVE point 2 is clearly met. I also wonder how many reliable sources in other languages Google news actually scans for. The Business Insider coverage helps meet the general notability guideline. Dream Focus 19:05, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't shout your !vote in all caps, thanks. Creative #2 isn't met for the simple fact that the subject isn't a creative individual (in the Wikipedia sense). Notability is being claimed in regards to his position as CEO and his development of a piece of software. (Even if it did apply, that doesn't translate to automatic notability). That's not even remotely what WP:CREATIVE is about. Moreover, as I already mentioned, the Business Insider piece is only an interview with no secondary analysis or commentary by the interviewer. This offers no weight in establishing notability. Musing about existence of sources in other languages is all well and good, but unless you find any, it won't help us here. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:28, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Capital letters make it easier for me to read. Its not shouting, you just imagine things. Anyway, interviews do count towards notability, the person notable enough for them to interview and write about. They just can't be trusted for variability since they are a primary source. And creative doesn't discriminate against a piece of software as a creative work. Dream Focus 20:32, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Ultimate Guide to Link Building looks solid. It wasn't written by him and it has a reputable publisher. Combined with Business Insider and PC Magazine, I feel that it could be said that we have WP: THREE. Eliteplus (talk) 20:42, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This person surely at least fulfils WP:bare with the half-dozen secondary sources that I currently see in the article. It appears he has had a notable influence in his field. Merger with Yoast SEO is another option, but not delete.Patiodweller (talk) 21:49, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Yoast SEO. The sourcing is insufficient to demonstrate notability independent of his product. Analysis below:
Source analysis by Spicy
Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
PC World Yes Yes No No substantial biographical coverage, just a mention that he discovered a code vulnerability ✘ No
Yoast.com No Company's own website Only for basic uncontroversial claims Yes ✘ No
Business Insider No Softball interview. Not considered to be an independent source, as it's just the subject talking about themselves No consensus on the reliability of Business Insider at WP:RSP Yes ✘ No
PC Tech Mag Yes Unclear No Does not mention Joost de Valk at all, only his product ✘ No
Ultimate Guide to Link Building Introductory material to content written by Joost de Valk. Unclear if this was written by an independent editor or by Joost himself. Yes Book from reputable publisher Yes A couple paragraphs about him ? Unknown
Income Diary No Another softball promo interview Unclear Yes ✘ No
1st Web Designer No Another softball promo interview No Appears to be a blog without any sort of editorial policy Yes ✘ No
ClickZ Unclear, the site offers native advertising services and these sorts of listings are often paid for No SEO blog, no editorial policy No Just a couple sentences about him plus a quote ✘ No
BuiltWith Yes Yes Not familiar with this site but I'll assume it's reliable for plugin usage statistics No Just a statistics database, does not mention Joost at all ✘ No
WPTavern (1) No Coverage is just Joost talking about his company, not really independent for the same reason that interviews aren't No Blog, no editorial policy No Entirety of coverage is "Joost de Valk, founder of Yoast.com, says the company is focusing on its core offerings surrounding SEO and that the plugin no longer fits into its roadmap" plus a quote by him ✘ No
Gelderlander Yes Yes No Article is about Yoast, Joost only mentioned in passing ✘ No
WPBeginner No SEO blog No Does not mention Joost ✘ No
Emerce (1) No Article is based on Joost talking about himself Unclear No WP:ROUTINE corporate coverage ✘ No
WordPress Search Engine Optimization Yes Yes No Does not mention Joost ✘ No
Emerce (2) Yes No Article is about the new CEO, Joost only mentioned in passing ✘ No
WPTavern (2) No Article based entirely on statements from Joost No SEO blog No WP:ROUTINE corporate coverage ✘ No
David Henzel No Clearly an obnoxious promo puff piece - "The Yoast team is absolutely amazing in fostering friendly company culture. Here are some of the great practices they have adopted in their company to make their employees achieve work-life balance and feel appreciated." No Personal blog of a marketer Yes ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
In short, the only source that might demonstrate notability here is The Ultimate Guide to Link Building and we need more than one good source to write a BLP. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED from creating a notable piece of software in the absence of independent reliable sources about the man himself. And as creating Yoast is the only thing he is known for, it would be reasonable to merge to Yoast even if there were more coverage available, per WP:NOPAGE. Effectively all of the information in this article could be covered in the history section of the Yoast article, where it would benefit from additional context. Spicy (talk) 22:54, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So you made a large chart for a strawman argument. Why not just comment on sources some stated proved notability instead of wasting time with every single one listed in the article? Also WP:INTERVIEW is just an essay, any random person can toss one up, it is not a guideline or policy. Even it says: An independent interviewer represents the "world at large" giving attention to the subject, and as such, interviews as a whole contribute to the basic concept of notability. They asked questions about the person's business and whatnot, it not just a "softball interview". Dream Focus 23:38, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to Yoast SEO - per the above source analysis table, the subject does not meet NBIO/GNG. Business Insider is yellow at RSP; Clickz is, in the most obvious way possible, not a reliable source; a book that he partially wrote or contributed to cannot establish his notability. Per the above table, the actual RSes are brief mentions in articles about SEO; the rest are not RSes. (In fact, they shouldn't even be in the article at all, but if anyone goes and deletes them now, they will be accused of "evisceration", of course). I don't see WP:THREE, so it should be a redirect of the founder's name to the product/company. Lev!vich 02:11, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per sourcing identified, meets GNG. I find the sourcing matrix utterly unconvincing although perhaps well intended. I think readers are better served by a full bio on this creator rather than a few sentences in his app article. Gleeanon409 (talk) 03:36, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The sourcing doesn't impress me. A lot of it seems COI. The four sources that name him are [2] a WP:INTERVIEW in a niche outlet, another identical low visibility interview in [3], then [4], a short report that reads like a rewritten press release, and a bit longer version of the same in [5]. Business as usual, vanity as usual. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:07, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Here's something: [6]. Joost de Valk was accused of objectifying women. Can this be added to the article? Perhaps no, since this is a serious BLP claim and it looks like no reliable sources covered it. Maybe because the truth is, Joost isn't notable. All the sources that cover it are insider SEO press that can only be considered of value by ARS members and perhaps only when they want to "save" an article from deletion. If this information about #YoastCon can't be added to article because sourcing is weak, the article shouldn't exist because all sources in the article are like that. PS: Am I the only one who pronounced his name as written? The correct pronunciation of Joost is "Yoast" and that's why the name of the company. Regards, TryKid [dubious – discuss] 13:15, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article was made live on July 4, 2020 and nominated for deletion June 5, 2020. Honestly, I had hoped to have more time to let the article breath - Many times the start of an article is not all that is available and fleshing out articles in non-English media outlets is somewhat more difficult. I did some work today, looking for sources. I did not include all of the various announcements where de Valk was the keynote speaker at conferences. I have to look at another article now.
    I do not think any of the items below are in the article yet.
    He is referred to as an expert by these outlets. Meeting WP:CREATIVE#2 and to a lesser degree #1
    The Guardian hired SEO Expert Joost De Valk to move their domain name. In 2014 Torgue Magazine quotes de Valk in their article about Microsoft. In 2017 The Guardian also called on de Valk as an expert in this article about Google. In 2016 Business Insider quoted de Valk in a news article about a new Google algorithm.
    These other pieces are much less worthy but I present them here as things I came across researching. In 2010 this is Kind of a bloggy looking site - State of Digital. I am posting it here because 2010 was the year he started Yoast. In 2011 the same website covers de Valk in an article about search. He is also interviewed here (english translation) in a 2014 Yellow Walnut piece. (a bit bloggy also) And finally, in 2018 his hometown newspaper Wijchen News Netherlands published a short story quoting de Valk about sponsoring a free day of ice skating. I can keep looking if the clock does not run out. Lightburst (talk) 02:30, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    We shouldn't create a BLP in mainspace first and then find reliable sourcing later. BLPs should be developed in draft space or user space not mainspace. Lev!vich 02:52, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You are right. I first make sure the subject is notable, and this one was started WP:IMPERFECT but like you I think creating stubs is not a great practice, so I flesh it out, and hope for time to research more, and collaborate. Lightburst (talk) 02:55, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:CREATIVE doesn't even remotely apply, and continuing to insist that it does is bordering on tendentious editing. Moreover, simply being an expert in something doesn't make someone notable (in the WP sense). Again, none of these sources establish notability. This is just throwing a plate of spaghetti at the wall and hoping something sticks. The ice skating thing? really? A thousand trivial mentions don't add up to one in-depth piece. Interviews (especially by iffy sources) don't help to establish notability unless the interview is accompanied by independent commentary from the interviewer. All this is compounded by the fact that it's clear that there's been a significant amount of PR behind this. In that case, we need an extra critical eye. WP:Wikipedia is not a PR mouthpiece. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:43, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect per Deacon Vorbis. I don't see evidence of significant biographical coverage. BLP1E as eloquently argued doesn't apply as he pushes his profile. But more importantly there is no notable event for it to apply to. He can't inherit notability from the company. All that is needed is in the article for the product/company say he was founder. Easy. PainProf (talk) 00:38, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't think WP:BLP1E applies since it's more in the context of an event. Also, the three criteria listed there aren't all met, particularly the 3rd one. Hmanburg (talk) 18:59, 14 August 2020
  • Keep per Greg Henderson and possibly also per WP:ANYBIO. Spicy's source analysis shows that some of the citations will need to be trimmed later, but there's still enough to prove that he is a well-known developer. Behindthekeys (talk) 18:05, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 20:58, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Family project in the sense that Joost (pronounced in Dutch as Yoast!) is the CPO, his wife the CEO, and his brother the CXO. Of course you are welcome to disagree. Disagreeing with facts is fashionable. In the past I have supported keeping Yoast SEO. Its officers can be listed there. There is absolutely no need to spread Yoast SEO, product of a small family-run company, all over Wikipedia. gidonb (talk) 01:53, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A little historic perspective. A previous version of this article was removed in 2016. I nominated it, so I should know. Its main author was later banned from editing because of promotional writing (example). Yoast SEO carries the following warnings: "This article contains content that is written like an advertisement" and "This article may contain excessive or inappropriate references to self-published sources." Both articles are just "starts". Merging some content makes sense. Being suckers of a small SEO business and its principal less. No wiki but us carries this person or his plugin business. We carry both! Nlwiki, not known for quality,[7] got rid of it right away. I'm a preservationist with many receipts. Saved many articles on WP. But let's all stay reasonable. This one does not meet the WP:GNG, WP:CREATIVE, and its content can be better put to use elsewhere. gidonb (talk) 02:48, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not seem to meet WP:ANYBIO, sources are bad - in passing, press releases and their rewrites... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:27, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Quality of sources is middling but they are numerous and meet in-depth requirements: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16] ~Kvng (talk) 21:03, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seriously? This is pure refspam. One of your links is to a article that starts with "37 SEO experts" on a website called Clickz. None of these can be considered reliable. TryKid [dubious – discuss] 09:52, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • TryKid, I've listed 9. You've knocked at 1. I've acknowledged that the sources are not great but I think there's enough available to write a compentent article and that (not SEO any battle) is the root of our notability requirement. ~Kvng (talk) 13:53, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's how refbomb works I would say. Many low quality sources used at once, you simply can't comment on all of them. If you knock one out, there are ten more. Here I see WPTavern, an industry insider blog type site (kinda like how Coinbase isn't considered a reliable source for cryptocurrencies, I don't think WPTavern can be used to establish notability). There's Income Dairy (link 7 and 10 are exactly the same) which is a very short interview and not independent. The Business Insider Dutch edition is the best source in there but it's mostly an interview too. There's another industry blog type site (1stwebdesigner) and it's a interview too. All in all, all of them look promotional and can't really be used to write a good article on Joost de Valk. Regards, TryKid [dubious – [User talk:TryKid|discuss]]] 08:01, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          TryKid, thank you for your assessment. I believe my keep vote is still supported by at least two of the sources I've listed. ~Kvng (talk) 15:23, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect (no objections to delete and redirect) given the source analysis by Spicy, which Kvng's 10 sources don't really help with countering, and the analysis by gidonb. I have never seen a software developer be considered eligible for NCREATIVE. The idea of software programming as a creative endeavor is interesting on an intellectual level and I might even support an RfC on the idea of adding it to that SNG. But without explicit community consensus I think we're bending past the point of breaking the intent and wording of the SNG. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:25, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:40, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

InoForum

[edit]
InoForum (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, as there is no coverage by reliable sources (the only RS in the article does not even mention InoForum). Looks like an advertisement. Wikisaurus (talk) 20:30, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 21:17, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 21:17, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Salvio 11:17, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of phase III cancer clinical trials, 2016

[edit]
List of phase III cancer clinical trials, 2016 (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 citations, this is just a list without context, Wikidata is the place for this kind of content Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:28, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:32, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:21, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:21, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Spiderone: Thanks for finding that one. I tagged all of them for deletion with a note pointing here to this discussion! Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:45, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Comments suggest that nomination was either frivolous or bad faith. Closing under WP:CSK criterion 3. Kinu t/c 05:25, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Zhuo

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

There is no independent news for her, very clearly fails Notability and GNG. Niligirinorbert (talk) 18:28, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:45, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:45, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:45, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk ) 21:44, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 21:44, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 21:44, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 21:44, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 21:46, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The "keep" and "merge" side don't really address the sourcing proplems with this material. Sandstein 19:39, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Line of succession to the former Bulgarian throne

[edit]
Line of succession to the former Bulgarian throne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is mostly unsourced, and I question if you can have a line of succession to a throne which no longer exists. PatGallacher (talk) 18:15, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:23, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:23, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There will in by far the most cases always be a line of succession to a monarchial institution, if that institution was based on the principle of inheriting the tile, unless the family in question has run out of heirs (which pretty much seem to be the case in Romania), your assumption that the line of succession to a former throne dosen't exist any more is pretty much an (unsourced) opinion, a private opinion you may say, can you for instance find any UN-resolution that states, that line of succession to defunct thrones dosen't exist any more? I think not. We do actually have a number of cases, where referendums have been held about the question whether an abolished monarchy should be restored. If we put the 1947 Spanish referendum aside, because it didn't involve reinstating an actual monarch in the job, then there are at least four known examples of such referendums: 1935 Greek monarchy referendum, 1953 Maldivian constitutional referendum, 1993 Brazilian constitutional referendum & 1997 Albanian monarchy referendum. These referendums would have been meaningless, if the nations where they took place didn't think a) there is actually a former royal family, we can put back on the throne and b) there is a line of succession in that family that determins, who will become monarch and who will become first, second, third and so forth in the line of succession if we the people/nation decides to bring back the monarchy to our country. In a former reply to my first posting in this thread you tried to present "an analogy" between monarchial and presidential lines of successions. Your argument/analogy might at first make sence to some republicans, but it surely dosen't make any sense to most monarchists. The line of succession to those monarchies we are debating, defunct or not, are based on the principal of right by birth and some principals about the order of births and to variuos extent about the sex of the people born in the particular royal/princely family. How many in the United States presidential line of succession have their place in the line based on the principle of birth(right)? Well the obvious answer is none! If we bring back a former monarchy, to be a functional monarchy again, the line of succession will be clear from day one, unless the nation in question decides to change the rules upon which these succession rights was/are based. If we had referendums in more than two third of the states in The United States (I know that there aren't referendums about such matters, but for the line of argument - actually they have just had a referendum like that in Russia, so we could also use them as example) about changing the constitution so presidents (again) can run for a third (or more) term, and this was approved by the US congress and at least two third of the states in the union, then Bush, Clinton or Obama could run for another term as president, and if elected, then what about "the line of succession"? Well, it would probably be very different from their last term in office. The vice-president would probably be someone new, so would the Speaker of the House of Representatives & the President pro tempore of the Senate and most of the cabinet would probably also be new (or old people in new positions) faces, so "the line of succession" would be utterly different from their latest term. Also there seem to be a notion, that princely titles dosen't exist any more just because the monarchy in a particular country was abolished. Well, for many members of princely and noble families their titles is in fact more or less equivalent to the surnames that the most of the rest of the people in the world use. They can of course choose to use a more common family name, but no government in the world can decide, that a certain family have to give up their princely or noble titles whereever in the world they may live. I know for sure this to be the case in the country where I live. We do have an existing monarchy and we also have a central registration of all people with permanent residence in the country (or with previous permanent residence in the country), so everyone including the royal family and their noble cousins and every princely person from any other princely house living in the country is registered in the same database. Obviously our royal family don't have a surname, so they are registered by some title or some other manner, and the same with other princely people, who lives in the country. If the family have lived in the country for generations or if the can document, that they are entitled to use a specific princely title as their "surname" then they can/will be registered this way, and since I work with these matters professionally, I known for sure. Lets take Germany as another example. Perhaps the nobility and the former princely houses in Germany isn't recogniced by the state/law as such any more, but the Germans are a polite people, and if someone would like to be called von or zu or Prinz or Fürst, and they have the "traditional right" to be addressed in this manner, then the Germans will usually do so, that is at least my impression, when I read German medias, the Prinzes and the Fürsts are still here in the year 2020 referenced in the articles by these titles (if they which so). It's not up to us here at Wikipedia to say, that they can not or are not 'allowed' to use such titles - then we would have to have consensus on this matter for all nations in the world before such a policy could be 'relevant'. As written earlier, for many of these people, their title would be comparable with the surnames that you and I and most other people use. If we said, that a certain country had the right to abolish the use of such titles for every individual person holding these titles and we at Wikipedia accepted such a policy, then it would from my point of view be like endorsing the Turkish law and policy, that Kurdish people in Turkey may not use Kurdish family names, they have to use a Turkish name or at least a Turkish variation of the Kurdish name. But to my knowledge, the president and government of Turkey have no authority (or at least only limited so) over Kurds hailing from Turkey but now living outside this country. If the people in question want to change their name in their country of residence from a Turkish name to a Kurdish name, and use that name, then that is their free right as individuals to do so - the same free right applies (hopefully) to people of princely and royal descent. Did I forget anything. If so I might be back for more. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 15:23, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That there is no line of succession when there is no monarchy isn't an opinion, it's what there being no monarchy means. Like I said before: the question you should be asking is "If Simeon Saxe-Coburg-Gotha died tomorrow, who would succeed him as Tsar of Bulgaria?" to which the answer is "nobody, because that position (and indeed, the monarchy itself) doesn't exist anymore". That's all there is to it. And you also have the WP:BURDEN of proof backwards: All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. You're the one arguing for the inclusion of material, so you're the one who needs to demonstrate that the line of succession to the defunct throne still exists. Which you can't, because it doesn't.

Whether you realize it or not, you actually admit that you are making some big assumptions here. If we bring back a former monarchy, to be a functional monarchy again, the line of succession will be clear from day one, unless the nation in question decides to change the rules upon which these succession rights was/are based. "If" and "unless" do a lot of heavy lifting there. As Agricolae pointed out over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Line of succession to the former Portuguese throne, When Spain restored a monarchy in 1975, the person chosen was not the person next in line based on the prior rules of succession. By your own admission, the restoration of the monarchy with identical rules of succession is hypothetical. In other words, it's speculative, alternative history – real-life fan fiction, if you will. However, Wikipedia is WP:NOTSPECULATION.

Also there seem to be a notion, that princely titles dosen't exist any more just because the monarchy in a particular country was abolished. This is completely beside the point. Whether the titles exist is not what's being argued here. What's being argued here is whether the line of succession exists when the monarchy has been abolished (it doesn't). TompaDompa (talk) 19:21, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Le Petit Gotha sets out the line of succession (one person has died since it was published), have you seen Succession to the Bhutanese throne? The whole line of succession is unsourced and I doubt it could be to reliable sources. Or Succession to the British throne says Zenouska Mowatt is 55th based on a book published in 2015, I.e. which might say she is in line but won’t say she is 55th as people will have been born since so she would have been higher in 2015. Back to this AFD even if the whole line of succession were deleted how the succession is determined is still relevant for discussion of them. But I’m more than happy to merge with Bulgarian Royal Family as I’ve said above. - dwc lr (talk) 07:11, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What does Le Petit Gotha say, exactly? Does it say "these are the rules of succession, and this is the genealogy", "these were the rules of succession, and this is the genealogy", "this is the theoretical line of succession to the throne if the monarchy were restored", "this is the line of succession to the headship of the house", or something else? This matters quite a bit.

Indeed, it would be ideal if we could find sources for all extant lines of succession that are as explicit as this one for the Succession to the Norwegian throne or this one for the Succession to the Swedish throne (Princess Adrienne is tenth in the line of succession, following […]). However, the difference between the Bhutanese and Bulgarian lines of succession is that while the former is currently unsourced, the latter is fundamentally unverifiable. If you think that the article Succession to the Bhutanese throne should be deleted, go right ahead and nominate it for deletion – that article being poor is irrelevant to this one being fundamentally unverifiable. TompaDompa (talk) 22:40, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Woa - First time Iv'e seen presidents and royalty compared this way. LOL! Oleryhlolsson (talk) 07:30, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I have no idea how this analogy applies. Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:50, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What is it you don't understand about it? Perhaps I can explain further. TompaDompa (talk) 14:10, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per reasonings for pervious line of succession deletions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.110.217.186 (talk) 02:13, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - From what I experienced in other similar succession articles, people could just pick biased or misleading news to be the source of the succession line claim and the Wikipedia article would therefore become untrustworthy. By that I mean is about former Chinese and Korean Imperial family. As such, I hope the remaining line of succession articles could be those including the concensus in those county and the former royal family, or who knows if the succession and/or statements can be verified, considering there may be some cultural differences we may not be aware of? - George6VI (talk) 08:26, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Im not sure what relevance any of this has to do with Bulgaria? There are reliable sources backing up what’s in the article? That’s how Wikipedia works. If Korea has a succession dispute then reliable sources will reflect that and Wikipedia reflect them. - dwc lr (talk) 11:08, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying, most of the line of succession to the former throne articles share the same problem. In short, I support the deletion and the rest of similar articles, except those supposedly has solid references about certain former royal house still goes by the provided line of succession. - George6VI (talk) 11:54, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This one has references. Le Petit Gotha (cited in the article) clearly sets out the line of succession, it sets out the succession law. - dwc lr (talk) 07:11, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nuh-uh. The line of succession was valid when the monarchy was ruling, but as of now is it valid? The people listed are descendants of the former royal family, but the line of succession should be referenced clearly that the family still apply the law to the current living people. Just like the other people said, "If Simeon Saxe-Coburg-Gotha died tomorrow, who would succeed him as Tsar of Bulgaria?" And here is the end of my discussion here, and I am not going to change my mind. - George6VI (talk) 16:10, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 20:23, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:42, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro Thiago of Orléans-Braganza

[edit]
Pedro Thiago of Orléans-Braganza (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)

Obscure member of former royal house which was deposed some time ago. PatGallacher (talk) 18:08, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:11, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:11, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. or, more precisely, no consensus to delete. There are a number of suggestions that a redirect with or without a merge might be appropriate. This can be taken forward on the article talk page or via WP:BB. This closure should not be cited as a consensus in favour of the article remaining a standalone article. Stifle (talk) 15:32, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eva Mroczek

[edit]
Eva Mroczek (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)

Scholar of Judaism who appears to fail WP:NPROF. Article is outdated: she's now an associate professor (i.e., not an endowed chair or university professor) at the University of California, Davis [17]. Oxford University Press publishes many, many books like hers [18] a year. Her book has been cited 116 times according to Google Scholar. Awards listed on her faculty profile are WP:ROUTINE. Other online hits like [19] are open letters she's signed; her work in the Los Angeles Review of Books and Religion Dispatches is exactly what mid-career academics publish all the time. Seems like she does interesting work, but doesn't appear notable—at least as yet. Notability tagged since 2016. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:46, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:46, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:46, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:46, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:46, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. The book has multiple published reviews, easily found by searching for its title on Google Scholar. But with only one book, and other publications not highly cited, I think we have an issue of WP:BIO1E. If someone wants to make an article on the book we can redirect to it instead of deleting, as at this point the book looks more notable than its author. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:23, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral (new vote on the bottom), but I would like to add a few things. Apparently she is now a member of the Association for Jewish Studies according to their site. I am not sure if this association is "highly selective and prestigious", as required by WP:NACADEMIC criteria 3. Looking at the citation numbers of some other board members, I also fear that the nominee might pass the "average professor test" in her field. Also looking up "Jewish Antiquity" or "Jewish Marriage" in Scholar yields papers with very few citations, indicating that it is a very low cited field indeed. While her other works do not have many citations, she seems to have some activity in articles published in the web, in the publishers mentioned by the nominator, but there are not many secondary sources talking about her work, just a few facebook posts. She has very recently published two books Literature of the Jews, Fourth Century bce to Second Century ce and A Companion to Late Ancient Jews and Judaism: Third Century BCE To Seventh Century CE (striked per comment below). With these considerations, I would rather leave decision to those that have more knowledge about the humanities fields, and judaism more specifically. Walwal20 talk ▾ contribs 06:37, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • A correction: she has not published two new books. "Literature of the Jews, Fourth Century bce to Second Century" is a book chapter, not a book, and "A Companion to Late Ancient Jews and Judaism" is the book containing it, an edited volume which is not even edited by her. That is very different from publishing two monographs, and adds very little to notability. (In general, it is not publications, but the impact of the publications as measured by citations or reviews by others that counts towards academic notability.) Also, for most academic societies (and I think in particular for AJS), membership is open to all, and does not contribute to notability; it is the selective honorary levels of membership that we are looking for, and AJS doesn't seem to even have those. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:10, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain In case this is relevant, I wanted to weigh in that as a supervisor of PhD students (in the field of Early Judaism and New Testament), and an external/internal examiner of PhDs in the humanities, I have found that for almost every thesis I supervise or examine, I am finding it essential that they use Mroczek's monograph, even though it's from a different field. It is a book that, once written, is ignored at peril. To me, this means the book is more important than most monographs. I mean, I've got a monograph, but I don't think that all PhD students, even in adjacent fields, will do poorly unless they engage with it. With Mroczek's book, though, I'm finding that my PhD students cannot avoid it. In that way, it is what we in the British context rank as "worldchanging". Also, to the above commentor who thought her work was "low-cited," in general there is no way to monitor citations in the humanities. Most humanities citation does not occur in any way that appears online. Our journals are often not open-access (or not even available digitally), so it's not like the sciences or social sciences at all. It's apples and oranges. The lifelong giants in my field all appear "low-cited" online. These two points must play a factor in this decision, in my view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.45.209 (talk) 15:54, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to an article about the book. The book is reviewed and respectably cited. But while I understand about low-citation fields, I'm not seeing any evidence of impact besides the one book. The subject apparently has another book in progress, and will probably meet WP:NAUTHOR once that is released and reviewed. But Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and it looks like a case of WP:TOOSOON for now. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:12, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The Literary Imagination in Jewish Antiquity, which exists now. I'm sympathetic to the argument that a scholar can become wiki-notable even for a single book, if it's a really influential book. But without a heap of third-party documentation to that effect, it's a tough argument to sell. I think the safest course of action is to have an article on the monograph for now, and recreate one for the author if, as seems plausible, the situation changes after her second book. The existing article is sufficiently dry and boilerplate that making it a redirect would be no great loss of prose. XOR'easter (talk) 22:06, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Addendum I've looked over the expansions made after I left my !vote, and I don't see a reason to change my !vote to a "keep". The accomplishments listed in the article still seem typical for an early/mid-career academic. For example, getting a couple years' salary to conduct a research project is nice, but not exceptional, and the Frederick Burkhardt Residential Fellowships were awarded to many scholars each year. One sometimes says that a person was "awarded" a grant, but grants are not awards in the sense of prizes, honors, or medals. (Convincing a funding agency that your work could potentially be productive is not the same as the community recognizing that your work has been productive.) XOR'easter (talk) 17:32, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The Literary Imagination in Jewish Antiquity per XOR'easter. I'm not withdrawing this nom, given that there doesn't seem to be consensus as to Mroczek's notability in her own right, but I think redirecting is quite a sensible solution—especially as it preserves the edit history. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 22:11, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain The page has been updated and the case for notability is stronger now. In relative comparison to other biographical pages on Wikipedia, I think that this page makes a good case for notability and should not be deleted. Srsval (talk) 09:20, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as others have said per WP:BIO1E, perhaps a case of WP:TOOSOON as well. There might be something that can be merged too. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:56, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain. The first criterion for WP:NPROF is that "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." Reading the reviews for her monograph makes it clear that she has had such an impact on the field of ancient Jewish/Biblical studies. I have updated the page to replace the dead links with live ones, add further references, demonstrate the importance of her work, and generally give it more of a structure. It also makes little sense to have a very short page for her monograph rather than a more detailed one about her work overall including the monograph, so I have incorporated the information from the monograph page into this page and propose to redirect the monograph page rather than vice versa. Eritha (talk) 13:34, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain In line with Eritha's arguments. In particular it seems better to retain the page and redirect the (shorter and less substantial) book page rather than vice versa. Clio987 (talk) 16:52, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Someone who has written a work that has been described as 'field-changing' and 'one that all scholars of antiquity should read' clearly passes the very first criteria of WP:NACADEMIC. Richard Nevell (talk) 11:42, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Anyone can call people anything. The first criterion seeks *measurable* impact, usually in the form of citations or (more appropriately for this case) book reviews, not hype. And #C1 specifically asks for "several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates". One is not several, and her one book has a significant number of reviews but is not extremely highly cited. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:49, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@David Eppstein:: as has been pointed out before, online citation counts are not remotely reliable for this field, where many publications are not available online and so do not show up in Google scholar et al. Citation counts are simply not used as a measure of impact in fields like this as they are in many scientific fields. Eritha (talk) 09:38, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@David Eppstein: Where quantitative analysis fails due to a subject's poor coverage in citation indices, a qualitative approach based opinions from people working in the field seems appropriate, hence the book reviews. The guidelines notes that having multiple highly cited publications is the 'most typical' way to satisfy the criteria, so not the only way. Richard Nevell (talk) 15:57, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Both of you are replying to what I didn't say, rather than what I did say. I said book reviews are more important than citations in this case, to which you both replied "citation counts bad!". Yes, but that doesn't strengthen your case at all. We can and should use reviews instead of citation counts for a case like this. But it still doesn't show that she passes #C1, which demands either several works of extremely high impact (she has zero, not several) or a substantial number of works with significant impact (she has one, not a substantial number). So Richard Nevell's justification for his opinion is bogus. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:02, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Citation counts bad" wasn't precisely what I meant to convey, more "citation counts have their limitations, and need to be handled carefully". As for satisfying C1, it is entirely possible for us to be reading the guideline in different ways and there is room for interpretation and disagree without it being bogus (even if anyone can call people anything). Anyway, have an excellent day. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:52, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don' see any reasonable way to read "several or a substantial number" as being satisfied by a single work. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:02, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to add that WP:NPROF does not make a hard requirement for "several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates", although this is the "most typical" way to determine notability. Walwal20 talk ▾ contribs 13:09, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Cts499m: I don't think uninformed speculation about the reviewer's motivation is helpful or appropriate. As for 'only a PhD student', what that means is she is a researcher in this field and therefore qualified to makes judgements on the impact of such works. The point of literature reviews in PhDs is to centre that research within the wider field, and you end up becoming familiar with the subject. What it is is a reliable source telling us how the book has been received. And the second quote comes from another author. Richard Nevell (talk) 23:19, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Richard Nevell: A student is not enough of an authority on the subject to establish that somebody's work is 'field-changing'--Cts499m (talk) 01:08, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Cts499m I have to disagree with that. I'm more concerned with the fact that the PhD student comes from the same university of the nominee. Walwal20 talk ▾ contribs 12:40, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/weak delete. Seems like WP:TOOSOON for WP:PROF. No in-depth coverage, a few mentions in passing, one recent notable work... Let's wait until she has at least two notable works or until someone writes a tribute to her impact on the field. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:47, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While both sides have convincing arguments, it appears to me that the first criterion of WP:NACADEMIC is fulfilled, and this criterion does not disregard recognition for a single work, even considering the general notes in WP:NPROF. Also, the same general notes mention that the criteria "sets the bar fairly low, which is natural", so I'm convinced that the article should be kept. I'm supporting myself on Eritha's content that has been added to the article, on the other 'retain' voters comments, on the citation number for her main book, on the fact that such a book has copies in numerous places [20], on the fact that her book (being written based on her thesis) comprises content from multiple of her articles and thus can be seen as multiple work, on the secondary sources that comment on Eva's work (cited in her article), and other aspects mentioned here and in the article. Walwal20 talk ▾ contribs 12:56, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just a thought, rather than WP:NPROF, maybe could consider WP:AUTHOR given the multiple reviews of the monograph? -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:37, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NAUTHOR is a better fit than WP:NPROF here, but has the same WP:BLP1E issue – it generally requires multiple reviews of multiple works. I think everyone agrees that she's likely to meet our notability guidelines if she ever gets her second book published. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:34, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I interpretted #3 as "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.", and when crossing out some sides of the OR statements, it sounds like a single work with multiple reviews is acceptable? -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:10, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But WP:BLP1E also applies: the subject is known almost exclusively for the single book, with moderately good citations and a handful of reviews (and some WP:ILIKEIT support here). A very highly notable single work can override BLP1E, but I'm not seeing evidence of that level of notability; such would be unlikely in such a restricted subfield. The precedent of the AfDs I have observed points towards a redirect. It appears likely that she'll get the 2nd book out soon, and I expect that will tip this firmly towards keep, but I'm engaging in WP:CRYSTAL there. For now, this still looks WP:TOOSOON to me. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:05, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. I'm going to leave my !vote as redirect I think. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:09, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 09:26, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JULES

[edit]
JULES (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)

Poor references. Mostly primary sources. Fails WP:GNG. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 19:25, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 19:25, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 16:47, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 09:07, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:01, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. On the first page of google scholar, I found two sources, both of which were studies or analysis relating to JULES, but contained decent explanations of what JULES is. I assume there should be more on the following pages, which should add more content to the article. The real problem here is previous editors who worked on this page not doing more than a google search to look for information. BlacknoseDace (talk) 11:21, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is 12 years old.. it can be improved   ApChrKey   Talk 23:54, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The article is little more than a dictionary definition. The keep !votes suggest the article's age and number of hits it get on Google should merit keeping it but that doesn't really help unless someone is willing to add reliable sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord (talk) 17:09, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) ~ Amkgp 💬 19:11, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cuckold (film)

[edit]
Cuckold (film) (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 film; does not meet WP:NFILM. We cant just be giving articles to every film mentioned briefly mentioned in a few sources. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:01, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:01, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:16, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 09:26, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mudassir Idris Abubakar

[edit]
Mudassir Idris Abubakar (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)

Possible UPE article of a non notable “business magnate” and “philanthropist” who fails WP:ANYBIO & lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources hence fails WP:GNG also. A before search shows no evidence of notability & the few sources that do discuss him are either sponsored posts or mere announcements. Celestina007 16:42, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 16:42, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 16:42, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 16:42, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 16:42, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 09:26, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Projects for Humanity

[edit]
Projects for Humanity (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 have enough coverage in reliable sources to meet notability guidelines. Fails GNG. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 05:34, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 05:34, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 05:34, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 05:34, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Logs: 2020-06 ✍️ create
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio 16:33, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America1000 07:24, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Brandt

[edit]
Evan Brandt (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 not met; there is only one source, a recent NYTimes article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:30, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:30, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:30, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there are many other good sources available; I added several. That said, they all seem to be around his fight with the hedge fund that was killing off his newspaper, with coverage between July 2019 and now. I would probably say this is not worth keeping as there is not much to write about and it is BLP1E, but I will wait and see what others think.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:42, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:43, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep More reliable sources have been added. The article also does not seem to be BLP1E but it depends what we are calling one event. The article in Whyy covers Brandt in the context of how his workflow is changing. The NYT article, which comes out about a year later, is covering Brandt's backstory and him confronting one of his bosses. They are both related to local newspapers shrinking but that doesn't makes them a single event. RayScript (talk) 19:14, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 05:43, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio 16:32, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:45, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Benedict

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

This article is solely serving as a promotional piece for the subject. The statements contained in it are directly from the subject and are false. Benedict has never ranked in the top 20 American men in any track and field event, nor has he competed in the Diamond League (let alone being a record holder), nor has he been an Olympic qualifier - his lifetime best would not have ranked him in the top 40 American women last year.[21][22]

The outlets that have covered him or published him are not reliable, as they have not taken basic steps to verify the fact Benedict is not a 2020 Olympic hopeful, but rather a man in his 40s with no experience of national level track and field competition. SFB 16:18, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:27, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 09:26, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

415 (group)

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

Side project of rapper Richie Rich that has not achieved significant coverage in reliable sources. Article sourced only to bare database listings and non-RS (Discogs, Musicbrainz, AllMusic) and WP:BEFORE only discloses similarly non-RS (e.g., sale and download sites, fandom.com, Pinterest, and something called Brooklyn Vegan). No evidence passes WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:59, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update upon further investigation: I'll grant that Brooklyn Vegan may be reliable and even reliable for rap and hip-hop, but their link to 415 does not discuss the group and so can't contribute to notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:53, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:59, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:59, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:59, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:56, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:51, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio 16:17, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I spent truly too long researching this. When I !vote, I often simply quote just the guideline that the subject fails or passes. I had to take a long, hard look at WP:NMUSIC and climbed down the rabbit hole as to which charts counted and which did not at WP:CHARTS. It seems, at least to me, that their second album did appear on an acceptable chart and that the subject then does meet WP:NMUSIC. Ifnord (talk) 16:47, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Maybe I can help wrap this up after an entire month. The article needs more sources and most of the fan trivia should be removed. Their bland name makes searching difficult, but some genre sources can be found via a search for <"415" + "Richie Rich">. See also the sources found by the "keep" voters above, plus [23], [24], though it's not much. I find the "keep" votes above more convincing. Per a few deep requirements at WP:NBAND the group had a charting album and has enough documented history outside of Richie Rich to (just barely) qualify for an article here. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:37, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Salvio 13:12, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy Olsoff

[edit]
Wendy Olsoff (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. Not much in the way of media coverage about her specifically out there. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:55, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Edit and Keep A quick look at the news search of her name brings up a lot of articles related to her and the PPWO gallery. This page is definetly in need of updating but I would not say a need of updating is justification for removal. That being said I could easily be entirely wrong and that these local "news" sources and art "news" sources could very well not be justification for the article to continue. That being said, her gallery probably grants her enough without mentioning her positions and what not. Bgrus22 (talk) 10:19, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree there are a lot of articles re her and the gallery. But they lack the depth that might start to count as significant coverage. I note from the edit history of the article that the gallery's own article was deleted a while back. asnac (talk) 12:32, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the article on her businesspartner, Penny Pilkington, was deleted as a creation by a blocked editor, Donnie Juanito) [log. That same editor has also contributed to this article with sockpuppets; 10 edits by User:Bzrp, 3 edits by User:Artesanal, 1 edit by User:Nypoo. Additionally, we have 3 edits by SPA User:Wendy2127 and 1 by blocked editor and likely UPE User:Susan_Spaid and 1 edit by sockmaster User:Slowking4 This is embarrassing enough that we'd be doing the subject a favour by removing the article. Vexations (talk) 14:04, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, It is a red flag to be sure, but the quality of the edits are what should be considered. A broken clock is right twice a day and if these edits were originally done in good faith, edits done later in bad faith would not invalidate the original good edits. Bgrus22 (talk) 01:07, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Bgrus22, Ah, but no, these edits were NOT originally done in good faith. See [25] Now imagine that it is now public knowledge that you're the subject and you thought you that a) you should have a Wikipedia article b) nobody was going to write one about you unless you paid them. Then you were too cheap to hire someone who was any good, so you hired a cheap agency that was so incompetent that they got caught. Wouldn't you prefer to just forget about having a fake article and make it go away? It's the kind thing to do. Vexations (talk) 11:31, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:00, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:00, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:00, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:00, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:05, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:10, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio 16:17, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 15:27, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sahra Şaş

[edit]
Sahra Şaş (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 is a non notable actress who doesn’t satisfy WP:NACTOR seeing as she doesn’t apper to satisfy any criterion from NACTOR as she hasn’t & doesn’t feature in any significant roles in the movies she has featured in. A before search only directs me to primary sources. Furthermore even in the sources provided in Turkish almost all appear to be a Q & A hence not independent of her. whilst the other sources used in the article do not appear to have any editorial oversight nor a reputation for fact checking hence all unreliable sources. Celestina007 20:23, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 20:23, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 20:23, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 20:23, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 20:23, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 20:23, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 20:26, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yeah, it seems you are right, it doesn’t have enough reliable sources, so delete the page Tahaaleem (talk) 04:01, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete First, I want to start by talking about the sources. They don't appear to be Q & A, but rather short biographies published by Turkish newspapers / networks. However, the thing that still makes me concerned is that the article doesn't satisfy the criteria set by WP:NACTOR, as mentioned by Celestina007. She hasn't had any significant, or in other words leading roles, and she doesn't have a "cult" following. So the article can be deleted. Keivan.fTalk 04:21, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Dear Wikipedia volunteers, I know her because I’m turkish and I’ve heard her name. But that’s doesn’t matter. There are lot of sources. 1 2 3 4 I think enough to notable. Please think it again. Baran Ahmet 06:14, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well, I can read and write in Turkish, and as you can say I’m interested in the Turkish media and music industry. Never in my life I’ve heard her name. But as you said our personal opinions on her don’t necessarily matter. The problem is that she’s a Z-listed actress, with no major roles, awards, or fan base. And yes, there have been short biographies of her published here and there, but that still doesn’t grant her notability. Keivan.fTalk 08:46, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is coverage to some extent, no one denied that, but when looking at her filmography you can clearly see that she hasn’t had any “major” roles or awards. Not to mention that she doesn’t have a large “cult” following either. She’s at the start of her career and maybe in a few years she’ll be a prominent actor, but at the moment she doesn’t meet the criteria for a standalone article to be honest. Keivan.fTalk 17:00, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio 16:16, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Overall consensus is that WP:GNG or WP:NBIO are not met. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:21, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisFix

[edit]
ChrisFix (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 be a notable individual. Bulk of sources are from his YouTube channel. Only significant coverage seems to be from his college's newspaper. only (talk) 00:30, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Only: Please use the correct formatting if you are going to ask for a deletion. Also make sure you put your stance on the article's deletion at the beginning of your post: Keep, Delete, etc. Sneasel talk 16:57, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What incorrect format have I used? And my nomination statement above is my reason for deletion; I don't have to put the word "delete" in bold for it to be understood to be my stance. I've been on Wikipedia for something like 14 years and an admin for most of that time... I generally understand how AFDs work, but if I've done something wrong, please tell me what I've done incorrectly. only (talk) 17:04, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:24, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:24, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep User only does not seem to grasp the prominence Chrisfix has online. If the article for Chrisfix were to be deleted then many other Youtuber's pages must be deleted. Chrisfix pass Wikipedia:NBIO. As of right now, he has over 6 million followers on Youtube. As for the sources, User only should take the time to clean up the article instead of tagging for deletion. Here's a couple sources that can be used: Source 1, Source 2, Source 3. Sneasel talk 16:57, 29 July 2020 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: SneaselxLv94 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
I don't think any of these 3 links show notability through reliable sources. The first two appear to be blogs which are considered to be generally unreliable; the third is not a substantive focus on him in its inclusion on a list of 8 different channels. Please show what specifically he meets in the WP:NBIO criteria via reliable sources. Saying "he has 6 million followers" isn't really showing he's meeting criteria. only (talk) 17:11, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article has several source citations and is updated frequently using social blade live counts and other published articles. This Wikipedia article should not be deleted, as it contains reputable information and is updated regularly with cited information. User only 's suggestion that he is not "notable" because of the citations does not reflect the YouTuber's notability but rather the lack of citations that have been added from reputable websites, of which there are many (i.e. Popular Mechanics, Forbes). I have started to add such citations.--WikiWikiClick (talk) 21:36, 6 August 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiWikiClick (talk • contribs) 03:35, 6 August 2020 (UTC) — WikiWikiClick (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The Popular Mechanics mention is on a page with about 25 different YouTube channels. It is not a much more than a paragraph about this YouTube channel so not a great source to establish notability. only (talk) 21:44, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User only Thank you for your response. There are multiple Popular Mechanic articles; please note the one I just added, which is entirely dedicated to the YouTuber. Also, I'm unsure of how to add references to the following, but he was featured in a print copy of Popular Mechanics as well as a printed Irish newspaper [1]. Also, ChrisFix is the world's largest automotive DIY YouTuber; I'm not sure how you can become more notable than quite literally ranking at the top of influencers in a category. He is referenced in articles all over the world--I am currently adding references to those articles, but I want to make sure that I do it properly on the main page./282252372064731WikiWikiClick (talk) 22:45, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:57, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you Ritchie333 for updating this thread. Please note that only 's original concern was that the YouTuber is not notable. While I believe that I have made multiple improvements since the article was first published, I would like others to also consider Wikipedia’s basic criteria in regard to a few of the sources that have been cited. Wikipedia’s basic criteria states, “If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability” [2] . I have updated and improved (and will continue to update and improve, as time avails) this article with multiple reputable and reliable secondary sources, including Popular Mechanics, AutoWeek, The Kerryman, and The Daily Targum to continue to prove that there is sufficient sourcing available for this article. I currently have a list of sources that I am compiling and vetting; the aforementioned sources will be added to the article in the upcoming days, as I write content that fits Wikipedia's guidelines and style. Please advise how I (and other editors) can continue to improve this article. Thank you.WikiWikiClick (talk) 04:26, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.pressreader.com/ireland/the-kerryman-north-kerry/20190626/282252372064731
  2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)
  • Delete Sourcing is very poor and does not demonstrate a pass of WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. The consensus at many previous AFDs has been that high subscriber counts are not enough to demonstrate notability on their own; see the chart of AFD outcomes at Wikipedia:WikiProject_YouTube/Notability where Youtubers with upwards of 10 million followers have been deleted due to lack of WP:RS coverage.
A brief paragraph about a video he made, with no information about him that is actually usable for an encyclopedia - which is what the few citations to decent sources like Popular Science and Autoweek are - is not significant coverage. Student newspapers are not generally considered to be reliable sources. There is a mention of a Forbes reference above - the only relevant result I found searching for "forbes chrisfix" was this, which is not an actual Forbes article but a Forbes contributor piece which is essentially a random person's blog post with no editorial oversight (see WP:FORBES), and even if it were it wouldn't be SIGCOV anyway. This on Yahoo is a reprint of an article from Carmudi which is a commercial website and evidently not a reliable source. The other sources presented here and in the article are either a) his own social media, a primary source that does not contribute to notability; b) unreliable blog sources which should never be used in biographies of living persons; or c) passing mentions. Spicy (talk) 05:49, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Kerryman article [36] should not be ignored, as it is a reputable source that is about the YouTuber. Also, the Kerryman article verifies the YouTuber's accomplishments and recognition abroad. Likewise, the Daily Targum article should not be overlooked, as it provides significant coverage from a reliable source independent of the subject. I'm unsure of how the Daily Targum article could be deemed unreliable by the previous editor. The Daily Targum is the second-oldest (and one of the largest) college newspapers in the United States and reaches thousands of people in both print and digital form daily. About the Daily Targum: "The Daily Targum has been a repeat recipient of the Columbia Scholastic Press Association's Gold Crown Award, the highest recognition a college newspaper can be awarded in the United States, and the Associated College Press's Best In Show award" [37]. talk:WikiWikiClick#top|talk]] WikiWikiClick (talk) 16:58, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio 16:15, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficient sources exist.--RZuo (talk) 22:51, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. FPL discussions have not led to a formally published consensus at WP:FPL, and whilst GNG concerns raised have not been cleared up, I'm not seeing a clear consensus one way or the other and with no further comments since the last relisting, I'm not seein appetite to continue the discussion at this point. Perhaps a relist once the FPL point has been formally resolved. Fenix down (talk) 10:42, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

George Richards (Southern League footballer)

[edit]
George Richards (Southern League footballer) (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:NFOOTBALL, as he did not play in a professional league. Lettlerhello 21:56, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello 21:56, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello 21:56, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello 21:56, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In registering themselves as a limited company and acquiring a permanent home, Rovers were pressing their claim for a place in the newly flourishing professional Southern League, which had been formed in 1894.

— Byrne, Stephen; Jay, Mike (2014). Bristol Rovers: The Official Definitive History. Stroud: Amberley. ISBN 978-1-4456-3619-1.
The Southern League website also states that it was set up as a rival to the Football League, which was based in the north of England and midlands, though unfortunately that page doesn't state explicitly that the first division was professional. — GasHeadSteve [TALK] 12:22, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. — GasHeadSteve [TALK] 09:12, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The way the football notability guidelines are being applied has absurd results. We need to scrap the overly sealous attention on "fully professional" status, and start paying more attention to the level of sourcing, which in this case does not justify a free standing article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:10, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • WRT your first sentence, WP:ATH lists "having played in a fully pro league" as a notability benchmark for a number of sports, not just football. Is there any evidence that football is "worse" than other sports for having articles on "one game wonders"? Rudy Ahlin, for example, has an article despite only ever playing a single game of professional ice hockey and I am sure there are many more in the same situation. I realise this is a bit WP:OSE, but it seems unfair to characterise this apparent "absurdity" as something specific to football.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:45, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I personally think JPL should be topic banned from these AfDs, every time he adds comments it's the same thing. I don't think he is interested in analysing the subject matter. Govvy (talk) 13:05, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is par for the course reaction of the extremist who want to turn Wikipedia into a sports encyclopedia only. They attack anyone who questions the unending devotion to sports. Also the claim about fully pro is not true, in most other sports there is discernment used, and we do not accept every pro league every where as leading to a default sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:26, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I strongly disagree with the suggestion made above by Govvy. It's irrelevant to the discussion, it's in the wrong place, and as far as its substance is concerned the suggestion is made arbitrarily and without substantiation. Please take it up to WP:AN if you feel so strongly about it. -The Gnome (talk) 09:08, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on basis that SFL was fully-pro per source above. If agreed here, needs adding to WP:FPL. GiantSnowman 14:18, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I wonder if the article can be improved or not, Phil Sour's Tottenham Hotspur The Official Illustrated History 1882–1995 also in an off-hand way said that Tottenham turned professional when entering in the Southern League. However that doesn't quite indicate that the Southern League was fully-professional or not. I've see other sources refer to the Southern League being professional during the period up to the 1920s. However there would need to be further investigation. Govvy (talk) 13:53, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the impression that SFL players did not meet the notability requirements? I've avoided creating articles on players who only played in the SFL for some time due to this. This discussion from 2008 seems to largely dismiss the idea of the SFL being fully professional. Kosack (talk) 07:53, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've been looking for sources to confirm (or disprove) the professionalism of the Southern League, but haven't managed so far to find anything 100% conclusive either way. I've summarised a few quotes and peices of evidence that I've found while browsing on the British Newspaper Archive below:
  1. The Edinburgh Evening News on 6 June 1895 stated "Almost all the clubs in the Southern Football League are now professional", so we can infer from that it was not fully professional in 1895, but the player in question on this AfD played from 1911 to 1913.
  2. The Yorkshire Post & Leeds Intelligencer (19 July 1915) reported on the Southern League deciding to revert to amateur status during World War I, stating "The feasability of running teams on amateur lines, and of getting men who hitherto have earned their living by the game, to play for nothing is strongly questioned by some clubs". This would imply professionalism at this point.
  3. The Central Somerset Gazette (9 July 1915) also reported on the suspension of professional football during the first world war, agreed upon during a conference of the English, Scottish, Irish and Southern leagues, possibly implying a degree of parity between the Southern league and Football League.
  4. The Birmingham Daily Gazette (8 March 1910) reported on a joint conference of the Football League and Southern League to agree upon the rules governing the payment of players (maximum wage of £5 per week) and what cut of any transfer fee should be paid to players. Again, the joint nature of this conference and the joint statement released at the end of it implies (to me at least) professionalism of the Southern League on a par with that of the Football League.
  5. In the list of the week's football results in the Chelmsford Chronicle (8 January 1909) the Southern League results are listed in the "professional leagues" section of the page.
As I said above, none of this is 100% conclusive proof of full professionalism but combined I feel it is indicative of it. — GasHeadSteve [TALK] 12:26, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Honestly, if people are disputing whether the league in which this fellow played was professional, we're much better off considering whether the subject meets the GNG -- which per NSPORTS he would have to meet in any case. I see no evidence that he does so. Ravenswing 07:25, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 16:10, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 09:27, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic nepotism

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

This term was pulled out of obscurity by marginalized evolutionary psychologists and fringe academics as an apologia for racism. We don't need this kind of WP:POVFORK/WP:COATRACK. Ethnocentrism describes the mainstream explanation without resorting to this kind of pseudoscholarship which is itself discussed on Race and intelligence and related articles that can properly contextualize this sort of argumentation. jps (talk) 16:03, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 16:03, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. This appears to be a rather poor article but the term gets some hits in Google Scholar so it is a plausible search term. If this is just an existing topic, or an element of an existing topic, that we already cover better under a different name then redirect to that. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:36, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Obscure concept advanced by fringe authors Rushton, Salter and Vanhanen. Searches mostly return primary sources; this POV hasn't received mainstream attention to justify an article. –dlthewave ☎ 17:33, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:59, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SPEEDYKEEP#1. The nominator has withdrawn their nomination and there are no other arguments for deletion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:35, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Skyfaring: A Journey with a Pilot

[edit]
Skyfaring: A Journey with a Pilot (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:BOOKCRIT. Period. Hatchens (talk) 15:59, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator: After going through the reasons mentioned in this AfD discussion, I would like to withdraw my AfD nomination and request concerned authroity for a quick closure. -Hatchens (talk) 18:15, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:59, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Agree with the book having sufficient notability to be featured as a book. In addition, the book has also been in shortlists of prominence, further adding to the book's notability. Ktin (talk) 17:30, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:38, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator, no outstanding !delete votes Eddie891 Talk Work 12:16, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Vanhoenacker

[edit]
Mark Vanhoenacker (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:PROMO: Content made for Advertising of this person's book - Skyfaring: A Journey with a Pilot. Fails WP:GNG, WP:BLP. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. Hatchens (talk) 15:55, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator: After going through the reasons mentioned in this AfD discussion, I would like to withdraw my AfD nomination and request concerned authroity for a quick closure. -Hatchens (talk) 18:14, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 15:55, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 15:55, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 15:55, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Will let the AfD run. But, I wanted to call out two things, the page was created well after the book's launch (2015). I was the creator of this page back in 2017, and specifically responding to the Paid-edit charge, I self-certify that there has been absolutely no payments for any of my online actions, including editing any articles on Wikipedia. The same has been posted on my page as well. Ktin (talk) 16:53, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The subject of this article has significant coverage in reliable media, and passes the requirements for WP:GNG and WP:NOTABILITY. Coverage of his work is by independent sources, reliable sources, and is more than just a passing mention, and there are multiple such sources of repute. Furthermore, this article has been written to ensure that the language is absolutely consistent of WP:NPOV and is factual, and not infringing on WP:PROMO.
Just a brief snapshot of the extent of this subject's presence in reliable media. A combination of all of these factors, will tell us that this is an subject worth 'keep'ing. Furthermore, there is an assertion being made in the nomination that this article exists only for promoting a book from the subject, the coverage below can clearly prove that the author's notability is not predicated on the book, though the book was a bestseller fwiw, back in 2015.
Publication Articles / Results Type
Financial Times 307 Coverage + Aviation Columns + Book Reviews https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aft.com+%22mark+vanhoenacker%22
The Guardian 42 Coverage + Book Reviews https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Atheguardian.com+%22mark+vanhoenacker%22
The Economist 49 Coverage + Book Reviews https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aeconomist.com+%22mark+vanhoenacker%22
New York Times 160 Coverage + Aviation Columns + Book Reviews https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Anytimes.com+%22mark+vanhoenacker%22
PS: The number of articles (count) in the above table is not to be misinterpreted as me emphasizing counts in favor of significance. However, clicking on the links on the RHS should give a view of the nature of in-depth / significant articles on the subject's area of expertise.
Ktin (talk) 21:59, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The subject seems to be quite prolific, and there are lots of sources including those identified above. However, many of these are interviews or articles that he's written (I note that he's been an FT columnist, for instance), and so aren't independent sources. However, given that his first book has received significant media attention, I think he might meet WP:AUTHOR criterion 4c. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:08, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 09:29, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Renaissance Washington DC Downtown Hotel

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

This is just a regular hotel - nothing notable about it as compared to any other downtown hotel. Wikiwriter700 (talk) 14:38, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:16, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:20, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 09:28, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cynthia Bach

[edit]
Cynthia Bach (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 notable per WP:ARTIST or as a business person. Extremely weak sourcing, mainly to trade magazines which are themselves a form of advertising. The creator has removed the PROD I added, together with some of the promotional language, all the unremarkable awards, and some of the weakest sources, which is nice, but I don't see that they have replaced the sources with anything better.[38] The exhibitions don't confer notability either, unless I'm missing something — I don't see any mention of Bach in any of the four sources offered in the "Exhibitions" section. Having an exhibit at the Smithsonion does of course sound impressive, but it turns out to mean a single piece, donated by the biographee. Bishonen | tålk 14:01, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:17, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Like the nom, all I could find of note was this item in the Smithsonian natural history museum collection. The fact that the piece in the Smithsonian was donated isn't that significant, as it's a two-way street: museums do not accept donations of items they are not interested in. If they did, everyone would donate to them and their collections would be full of junk. In any case it is not enough. I saw no independent secondary coverage; all I could find was fluffy promotional copy. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:33, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning Keep - what does a contemporary jeweller have to do to be notable, I wonder? In this area "fluffy promotional copy" is about all there is - as with clothes designers. The Alumni magazine piece is long, & I think adequately independent. It also shows a pic of a shortish piece in People magazine. Johnbod (talk) 16:42, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod: I agree she is not entirely unknown. But there isn't enough coverage in my view. Regarding the alumni magazine, have you ever seen a profile in any alumni magazine that was negative? They are always fluffy and promotional. Alumni magazines exist to paint a beautiful picture of graduates, with the ultimate goal of soliciting donations to the school.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:49, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Of course alumni magazines, like most colour magazines, are nearly always positive, but in terms of notability there's the people they choose to cover, vesrus all they others they don't. Johnbod (talk) 17:44, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request: "Bach has been featured in multiple fashion magazines and museum exhibitions." Feature is a verb much loved by Wikipedia editors and, it has often seemed to me, almost devoid of meaning. If her work has been critically described in those fashion mags or displayed in museum collections, then I'd expect to see editorial/curatorial commentary summarized (and, where appropriate, quoted) within the article. Question (perhaps just idle curiosity): I'd lazily assumed that the creators of order-made jewelry both designed it and made it. She's described as (co-) designer and there seems to be no mention of the fabrication; are the designs implemented in some factory in China or similar? -- Hoary (talk) 00:07, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hoary, the problem is that in this branch of the applied arts, there is no editorial or curatorial structure and its basically seen now as a wing of the fashion industry, hence the promo guff mentioned above. But that's not to say the creators or their work lack intrinsic merit, its just that is hard to judge relative value given the lack of informed, critical evaluation. Ceoil (talk) 00:19, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For the record I am also Leaning Keep, but still thinking, your question re fabrication is important. Ceoil (talk) 00:22, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hoary: Maybe you have already concluded this, but I don't think it's possible to assess this in terms of the typical art circuit (curators, exhibitions, critics), as she seems to have only had two exhibitions. One of the shows was a touring show that went to three museums. All in all, I would say she's a commercial jeweller who has had some minor/limited exposure in the art and culture world. That would account for the lack of critical commentary. You might also notice that the Smithsonian piece is not in the Art part of the institution, but rather in the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History. Re: fabrication of the work by the artists, this isn't that important, methinks. Henry Moore's studio assistants produced much of his work, as is extremely common in contemporary art practice. And she is a craftsperson providing product to Neiman Marcus, so it makes sense that she would have some kind of production line going. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:11, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ceoil, I'm not knocking her achievements; I just don't see evidence for these. I confess to not having read the alumni magazine profile: it's impossibly gushy. I'm happy to ignore the gush/guff; but are there no intelligent, palatable alternatives? -- Hoary (talk) 05:51, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:34, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:34, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:34, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. For all I know, she may be highly noteworthy; but the only evidence so far offered for this has been PR stuff (yes, including the university alumni magazine). -- Hoary (talk) 02:32, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The available sources are promotional and not sufficient to demonstrate notability. Something that isn't simply advertising for her brand might be useful to demonstrate notability, if such a source exists.JohnmgKing (talk) 19:50, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete somewhat regretfully. Re Hoary above - "I'm not knocking her achievements; I just don't see evidence for these.". Ceoil (talk) 22:32, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mainly due to lack of reliable sources with in-depth coverage. Delete arguments are much stronger than keep, many of which have been refuted. Tone 09:38, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Louis Ferdinand of Prussia (1944–1977)

[edit]
Prince Louis Ferdinand of Prussia (1944–1977) (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 via WP:GNG or otherwise. Coverage consists solely of minor mentions from genealogy sites. — MarkH21talk 06:50, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21talk 06:50, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21talk 06:50, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, it refers to his father. Thank you for the correction. Ekem (talk) 12:45, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning toward delete. 2 of the four references are to a blog on royalty news by someone calling themselves "Monarchist and Legitimist". While the news clippings hosted on the blog might show notability, it would be vastly preferable if the original news articles could be tracked down to verify they're legitimate. The rk-9 source is good I guess, although rather single-eventy. JoelleJay (talk) 03:30, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:CCC and WP:SIGCOV. The long-standing consensus has been to keep the heirs and pretenders to major thrones. This has been hashed out many times at AfD, and I don't see that changing. WP:NBIO allows such articles. In any case, the sources in the article show significant coverage. Unreliable sources can be taken out in ordinary editing. Bearian (talk) 15:42, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The long-standing consensus has been to keep the heirs and pretenders to major thrones This is completely circular, "the consensus is X because the consensus is X" -- if the consensus were really X, you would be able to point to something (e.g., a notability guideline) that codified it. --JBL (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:58, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Royalty are an acknowledged exception to WP:NOTINHERITED. There is usefulness in having a compete set of entries on hereditary peers, even if some peers are less prominent or noteworthy than others, even when the article must of necessity remain something of a stub. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geoffrey Somerset, 6th Baron Raglan. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:12, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hawkeye7: Geoffrey Somerset is actually a baron (i.e., he is from a country that has noble titles with some legal standing, and he holds one of them). The same is not true of the subject of this article. --JBL (talk) 01:46, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The subject of this article is not and does not claim to be a hereditary peer. — MarkH21talk 06:21, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Then why are we calling him Prince Louis Ferdinand of Prussia? And what's the difference? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:18, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hawkeye7: Hereditary peers are legally recognized nobility in the United Kingdom. The Prince of Prussia was not a legally recognized title in Germany during this person's lifetime, and this person was not legally recognized nobility in any country during his lifetime. Yes, the article shouldn’t be calling him Prince of Prussia. The article shouldn’t even exist by the notability guidelines. — MarkH21talk 02:37, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Hawkeye7, I think you would have to ask this question of a monarchist; I agree with MarkH21 that the title of the article itself is inappropriate. --JBL (talk) 20:48, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I delayed weighing in on this a long time because I figured surely there exist a couple of articles that someone would turn up that cover this guy in enough depth to pass GNG, as suggested by Devonian Wombat. But after more than a week, the extremely poor quality of the other Keep opinions has convinced me that that must be wrong, and that this article should be deleted. Collectively, those six keep votes offer nothing. Yes, he is a member of a family that once included monarchs of a kingdom. But that kingdom didn't exist when he was born, and the nations that replaced it did not preserve their aristocratic orders, so all this banging on about how important the House of Hohenzollern is is completely irrelevant to the notability of this person, as it bears no relationship to any policy, guideline, or other widely shared consensus. The 151 articles mentioned by ClearBreeze (since indef'd, and deservedly so) don't appear to actually exist (note that this guy has the same name as his father, who certainly was notable). The actual sources on the article are complete garbage, and the vast majority of the article itself is monarchist fancruft that violates WP:NOTGENEALOGY. I looked at the German Wikipedia article, and the same appears to be true there; at least, I don't believe that any of the sources on that article simultaneously (1) are reliable and (2) include anything more substantive than passing mention of the subject. (I did this with Google Translate, possibly I have made an error or oversight, in which case I very much welcome polite correction.)
    Finally, I want to note that if the article is kept then the only reasonable course of action with respect to WP:NOTGENEALOGY is to strip away the utterly pointless trivia of which non-aristocrat begat which other non-aristocrat, leaving a stub about someone who was the child of someone notable, apparently got married, and then sadly died at a very young age; there is only one paragraph of encyclopedic material in the sources I've seen. --JBL (talk) 00:47, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No sources to indicate notability. Smeat75 (talk) 11:26, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, heir of a major royal throne is clearly notable. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 20:26, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Le sigh. --JBL (talk) 20:48, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    He wasn't heir to a major royal throne except in a fantasy world. Smeat75 (talk) 18:24, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Prince Louis Ferdinand of Prussia was the heir to the defunct thrones of Prussia and of the German Empire, and he was the father of the current head of the House of Hohenzollern, Georg Friedrich, Prince of Prussia. -- West Virginian (talk) 21:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This was originally closed as No Consensus, which was contested at Deletion Review. The result of that discussion was to relist for another week.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 13:12, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The original close on this discussion raised the question of whether the sources at the de.WP article on this topic might confer notability. In my !vote above, I mentioned that I analyzed them and that they do not, but I did not go into detail. Now that this has been reopened and relisted, here is a more detailed analysis. At present, the de.WP article contains 9 references.
    1. is the same as reference 3 in the current en.WP article; it is a photo of a magazine article of unclear origin (hence unclear reliability) hosted on a wordpress blog, presumably a copyright violation. This Louis Ferdinand is not the subject of the magazine article; it mentions him in the penultimate paragraph, and says nothing about him beyond who his immediate family members are.
    2. is hosted on the same monarchist blog, which is clearly not a RS. (It is the same blog, though not the same blog post, as reference 2 in the en.WP article.)
    3. is cited on de.WP for the claim that he was promoted to lieutenant after his accident, before his death. I do not have access to the full book, but Google Books allows me to search inside and to view snippets, and so I am reasonably confident that this citation is accurate and summarizes the unique sentence about LF in the book. (It is page 56; the name Louis Ferdinand appears on page 65, as well, but I believe that's his father; it also does not say anything substantive.)
    4. is an article about the wedding of the son of LF; LF is mentioned in passing (two sentences total) only to confirm the extremely basic details that he was born, married, and died, in order to set context to discuss other people.
    5. is the same article as 4.
    6. is no longer visible to me on Google Books, but I believe from memory that it is a three-line genealogical entry in a book devoted to such things.
    7. is about his son, here is everything it has to say about LF: "Shortly after his first year of life, his father, Louis Ferdinand Prince of Prussia, died after an accident during a military exercise."
    8. is equivalent to 7.
    9. is the same as reference 4 in the en.WP article; it is a website of some sort of unofficial organization of military reservists that seems to be named after LF; it does not contain in-depth coverage of LF, is certainly not a RS, and it would be evidence of significance only if there were a secondary source commenting on it.
  • In total, this amounts to 0 reliable sources with in-depth coverage of the subject our article. --JBL (talk) 14:29, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there shouldn't be any presumption of notability for members of ex-royal families. For members of actual royal families there is reason to believe coverage will exist, however former royals have far less reason to attract coverage. I don't see anything in the article or the above suggesting that the subject passes WP:N, in particular monarchist blogs aren't usable as sources. I'm happy with a redirect/merge to an article on the family. Hut 8.5 17:42, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no consensus that cases like this are notable. It might be different if he was a notable pretender. However he was just the link between two heads of the house of Hohenzollern, even actual heads might not be notable. His death in a car crash might have attracted some press coverage, but we do not have stand-alone articles on Henri Paul or Jeremy Thorpe's first wife Caroline, two people whose deaths in car crashes also attracted some media attention. PatGallacher (talk) 18:25, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Necrothesp and dwc lr - Oleryhlolsson (talk) 22:24, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oleryhlolsson: To clarify, do you believe the subject of this article would be notable, even if 0 reliable sources exist that cover him in-depth? And if not, can you provide one reliable source that does cover him in-depth? --JBL (talk) 21:10, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect fails WP:GNG. (t · c) buidhe 00:23, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A now historic heir of the pretender to the German throne, he is notable in a notable royal/exroyal family, in the main line of its head. Stubify if required due to lack of comment, but this lack of comment is due a simple life and early death. Do not merge to father or son, that would be an ugly structure. Merging to his house is possible, but with so many members, with so many lesser members having had longer more commented lives, the best structure is to have spunout stubs of the central individuals. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:31, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like the closer to take particular note that this comment (1) agrees with the delete !voters about the lack of sources, and (2) suggests merging as an acceptable outcome. --JBL (talk) 21:10, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedians consider a deletion review. Spot the admin.
  • Delete. This is essentially real person fan fiction written in an in-universe style, conflating a real person (who existed but does not seem to have done anything notable) with a fictional character: a "prince" of a long-defunct monarchy that seems to live on only as an exercise in live-action roleplaying. As with other overly detailed fictional material, such as the genealogy of Frodo Baggins, the place for it is a fan wiki, not Wikipedia. Sandstein 07:03, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Er you are aware that our article on Frodo Baggins contains a detailed genealogy? Just checking. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:42, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per SmokeyJoe, Necrothesp, dwc lr, Oleryhlolsson and important link in the heritage of an imporant German family. --Richiepip (talk) 19:51, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Richiepip: To clarify, do you believe the subject of this article would be notable, even if 0 reliable sources exist that cover him in-depth? And if not, can you provide one reliable source that does cover him in-depth? --JBL (talk) 21:10, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Continuing evaluation of sources: Oleryhlolsson has added LF's (short) NY Times obituary to the en.WP article. First, thanks -- it's obviously a better source than the monarchy blogs and tabloid trash. Second, it highlights the inherent problem with this article, because even his obituary says nothing interesting about him! So the updated count is still 0 RS with in-depth coverage.
    Although it is not related to our notion of notability, I also think it is instructive to take a look at the other obituaries published alongside LF's: I count six of them (so seven total), ranging in length from half to twice as long as LF's. Wikipedia has an article about exactly one of these people: George Brown Barbour, whose obit is by far the longest of those that appear (and includes a photo). I would call this a much better indication of what notability is about than the silliness about inherent notability of not-acutally-nobility found in nearly all the keep !votes. --JBL (talk) 23:23, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:22, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Juge Juge Ami Tomari

[edit]
Juge Juge Ami Tomari (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 film with no evidence of release, or even evidence filming was complete, per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 09:54, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:02, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:02, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It is open to editors to discuss the potential for a merge, redirect, or other editorial actions on the talk page, or indeed to just go ahead and do them. Stifle (talk) 15:34, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vogue Institute of Art & Design

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

This article is a straightaway PR/Advertising WP:PROMO, made by a dubious ID that went live a month ago to get this page active. Besides that, the entity itself lacks WP:SIGCOV and has no significant encyclopedic value in the first place. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. Hatchens (talk) 03:10, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 03:10, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The creator of this article is User:Randfiskin is also involved in launching (trying to work up on) non-notable wiki pages in a very short period such as Cyber Peace Foundation (CPF), V-NOVA and Draft:Vibhav Kant Upadhyay which have been earlier either deleted or moved to draft space for various reasons. Though the ID itself was made in 2017, it went active on July 1, 2020, by performing its first edit at Juli Berwald's page. As per my basic understanding, this ID is probably involved in "Paid Edits/WP:PAID" without disclosure. Kindly note, due diligence is required. (Similar comment has been added to the other AfDs). -Hatchens (talk) 03:12, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: All the claims are baseless and there is no evidence of paid. Note this account is created in March 2020 and the user is only interested to deleting the articles no matter whether it is notable or not you may check the history.
Special Note: This user is attacking the article and playing with good articles. Most of his nominations are false and saved as "Keep" or "Speedy Keep". Such as IILM Institute for Higher Education, Care Hospitals, Krishna Shankar, Ansal University, Radio Mango, Zambar Restaurent, Baseer Ali, Liam Brennan, Dinesh Parmar, Biplob, Rachel Goenka, Pramati Technologies, Sayantani Guhathakurta, Shivin Narang, Artech, Audrish Banerjee, and there is a long list of "Keep" result. This account must be blocked immediately. He is destroying good articles on Wikipedia. Randfiskin (talk) 05:36, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Randfiskin, your allegation is duly accepted. If an article passes the AfD on its merit, then well and good. If not, then it gets deleted as per the consensus. That's why I have initiated this AfD discussion. Let everyone chip in and let the sanity prevail. (Same comment has been added to other two AfD nominations - Cyber Peace Foundation and V-NOVA). -Hatchens (talk) 06:01, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again baseless comment which has no meaning. While creator has rights to vote or comment on his own article. This is the same comment posted on all other discussion.Randfiskin (talk) 06:12, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Dear Randfiskin. This comment is for those who will chip in their views. It is not meant to stop you but to notify others. Now what else I can write, if you are defending all your three created articles (including - V-NOVA and Cyber_Peace_Foundation_(CPF)) in the same manner. I know it's very hard for you, kindly adjust for the greater good. So, my request is don't be aggressive. Kindly, stay calm and freely participate in this AfD discussion. -Hatchens (talk) 06:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question for Randfiskin, you state the article passes WP:NACADEMIC. Can you explain how this article passes this guideline?
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:51, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep and remove he spam (which I have just done). This is no worse than the many hundred similar articles on college in India and elsewhere ( I know this is a ver y weak argument---what we ought to do is deal with the other similar articles also, but I see no point in singling this one out) ; normally I would say merge with Bengaluru North University if it is affiliated with it, except that article gives me the impression that the reorganization of the institute is still in flux, or at least very unclear form the material now available to us. DGG ( talk ) 03:00, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:12, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the fence We depend on whether the Deccan Herald is WP:RS. If it is, despite the very gossip column nature of the coverage then I would have to say that we keep the article. If it is not then I shift to deletion. The majority of the references are highly borderline. The verify that it exists, but not that it is notable. I often agree with DGG, though I differ mildly here. I think we need to insist that poor articles are improved or removed, and that we have to start somewhere.
    Perhaps the nominator woudl enquire at WP:RSN and let us know about the DECCAN HERALD. I will be happy to stop sitting on the fence given that information Fiddle Faddle 11:18, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Timtrent, I checked with WP:RSN. No such great discussion on Deccan Herald. Here are the links, which I pulled out - 1, and 2. I suppose it can be counted as a local news source. - Hatchens (talk) 11:35, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Hatchens, If we have to count it as a local news source, while I dislike the style of journalism, I think we have to treat it as reliable. Unless you can discover differently I have to come down on the side of Keep Fiddle Faddle 11:42, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Timtrent, I appreciate your "take" on this and it actually gave me the clarity too. Thanks for being part of my learning process. - Hatchens (talk) 11:47, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think Tim Trent and I agree that nobody is ever oblidged to improve an article of this nature. Whether one chooses to do depends on many thing,, including not just interest in the field, but time available. Most such articles I see l don't attempt to keep from deletion, there isn't time or energy enough to do otherwise. But once it has been fixed, the article as fixed is the one that should be judged, regardless of what was originally submitted. DGG ( talk ) 04:14, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:51, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:03, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Salvio 11:25, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Millie McKenzie

[edit]
Millie McKenzie (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 don't think this wrestler is particularly notable - the references don't particularly point that way - and one match in NXT UK doesn't scream notability. A BEFORE search didn't bring up anything all that interesting that screamed notability. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:55, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:55, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:57, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:57, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete She is a WWE reject and the places she worked in aren't notable enough to merit her own article. Maybe in a few years she might attain enough notability she can get her own article,as of now she hasn't done anything notable. I also don't think Sendai Girls' Pro Wrestling has much notability, there are various more notable wrestling promotions all over the world that do not have their own articles. There are countless more notable wrestlers than her who do not have their own article yet. Dilbaggg (talk) 12:42, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:30, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment User:Coolabahapple I don't see why this needs to be included in women related discussion just because she is a women, does that mean every article involving women no matter how low its notability is needs to be related to women related discussion? Do every male wrestler gets named in men related discussion? Just a simple query, nothing else. Dilbaggg (talk) 14:50, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
first up i reckon the more editors that are made aware of afds the better, i add afds to relevant afd lists so that editors who have them and/or wikiproject announcements on their watchlists are notified of the afd, as this article is a women bio i have added it to the women afd list, on your point about a "men afd list" i am unaware of there being one (see Category:Wikipedia deletion sorting), you may wish to follow this up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Deletion sorting. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:05, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
She's also English, so it's included in England related discussions. The categorization is completely proper, and I thank Coolabahapple for their valuable work sorting AfDs. pburka (talk) 21:50, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:21, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Keculah

[edit]
Henry Keculah (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)

Paid for trash lacking in-depth coverage. Created by now blocked UPE. Only other major edits are by COI contributor. I would have G5'd it... but the not blocked COI contributor has made additions. Of the existing sources: 1: Interview, 2. Interview 3. Mostly quotes of him, but could be usable. 4. Local 5. Local 6. Promo 7. Government document?? 8. Local 9. brief mention only 10. Student paper, 11. Interview. Summary: of the 11 current sources, maybe 1 could help show notability. A BEFORE turned up...well just similar local/promo/interview stuff, nothing substantial. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:04, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:04, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:58, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 09:39, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Revival Soy

[edit]
Revival Soy (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 soy supplement. They apparently like to donate samples of their products to scientific studies (see, e.g., [42]) but I'm not seeing WP:SIGCOV of the company. Refs to those studies are a large quantity of the refs in the article; the others are largely to unreliable "bizjournals.com". I found a single article in the Winston-Salem Journal from October 26, 2003 called "Soy Successful" which is about the company, but (1) I don't have access to the whole thing; and (2) I don't think this one article is enough for notability. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 06:29, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 06:29, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 06:29, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 06:29, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This certainly reads like an advertisement - and the references appear to be original research. The author has only edited one article here. Other references are few and far between in places like the history of soy foods and flours, etcetera. Whiteguru (talk) 08:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:07, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria sur le Parc

[edit]
Victoria sur le Parc (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 planned condominium development project that might finish sometime in 2023. Any questions?   // Timothy :: talk  06:24, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  06:24, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 13:01, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Salvio 11:26, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Denis Gagné

[edit]
Denis Gagné (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. I checked the sources and they're either WP:ROUTINE announcements of concerts with no significant coverage of Gagné, or else of doubtful reliability [43] or appear to be written by the subject.[44] Unsuccessfully prodded by Cahk. (t · c) buidhe 06:22, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:59, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:59, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 09:40, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Transworld Educare

[edit]
Transworld Educare (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)

inadequate reliable refs for notability --the refs are basically PR, and so is the article. DGG ( talk ) 05:51, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:00, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:00, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:00, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:21, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TechTalkTV

[edit]
TechTalkTV (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 WP:BEFORE web search of "Saleem Karnachi" reveals no independent reliable sources; of "TechTalkTV Saleem Karnachi" gives only a single page of search results; and of "TechTalkTV" shows only passing mentions with a nod to the YouTube channel that leaked the info that the pages are talking about. In terms of the article being a biography, the subject doesn't have the WP:SIGCOV to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NBIO's WP:BASIC, nor the additional criteria of WP:ANYBIO. In terms of the article being about web content, the subject doesn't appear to satisfy WP:WEBCRIT. WP:TOOSOON. Lopifalko (talk) 05:39, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lopifalko (talk) 05:39, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lopifalko (talk) 05:39, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Lopifalko (talk) 05:39, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lopifalko (talk) 05:39, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:19, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Friedrich Wilhelm of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg

[edit]
Prince Friedrich Wilhelm of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is nothing more than a genealogical record. The topic fails WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. There are no reliable sources independent of the subject that cover anything directly and indepth about this individual because they have done absolutely nothing notable. Being related to a public figure is not notable WP:INVALIDBIO WP:NOTINHERITED. Wikipedia is WP:NOTGENEALOGY of non-notable members in royal families.   // Timothy :: talk  05:34, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  05:34, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  05:34, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - A German/European prince that resettled in Costa Rica, that is rather unusual. Wikipedia will become a little more dull and less broad in perspective if there isn't room for an article like this! :-) Oleryhlolsson (talk) 08:45, 15 August 2020 (UTC) Sorry, this comment was made on the wrong page. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 14:15, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per sources discovered. Information added to article. (non-admin closure)   // Timothy :: talk  02:21, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Duchess Donata of Mecklenburg

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

This is nothing more than a genealogical record. The topic fails WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. There are no reliable sources independent of the subject that cover anything directly and indepth about this individual because they have done absolutely nothing notable. Being related to a public figure is not notable WP:INVALIDBIO WP:NOTINHERITED. Wikipedia is WP:NOTGENEALOGY of non-notable members in royal families.   // Timothy :: talk  05:25, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  05:25, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  05:25, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  05:25, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - "Duchess Donata of Mecklenburg ..... is the senior remaining member of the House of Mecklenburg-Schwerin. Since there are no males left in the family" that should pretty much say all what is needed to be said; We have come very close to the end of a aprox. thousand year old family. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 08:02, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 15:38, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GAle GAtes et al.

[edit]
GAle GAtes et al. (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, now defunct, theatre company. Sources are vague and hardly refer to Gales gales et al, and don't really refer to it at all. Delete or at best, possible merge to Michael Counts. Has a very slight WP:TONE problem to boot.   Kadzi   (talk) 10:32, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:44, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:44, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:44, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a pioneer in the field that received significant coverage in major media outlets and scholarly journals. Meets thresholds in Wikipedia:Common claims of significance or importance of having a notable founder in Michael Counts and multiple notable members including Tom Fruin, Cynthia Hopkins, Kate Moran and Sam Gold (WP:CCSI#ORG). It is a rare achievement for a performance company to be reviewed in theater and art publications of record as was the case with this company. To call the sources vague is perplexing: the only way this criticism makes sense is if you read the headlines/titles only and not the articles themselves, and it is extremely rare for the highest quality newspapers and journals to mention names of performance companies in the headline of a review. To suggest merging the company's profile with the page of its founder is like suggesting that the page of the Talking Heads (also defunct) be merged with David Byrne's. -Kbaker121 (talk) 13:47, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:14, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 04:46, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to Keep based on sources discussed below. Delete It matters not at all that the company has notable founders, notability is not inherited. Similarly, reviews of performances (rare or otherwise) does nothing to establish the notability of the company unless the review contains in-depth information on the *company* which is the topic of this article. What is required are sources/references containing significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and those sources must also contain independent content and not interviews with company members talking about the company, or company announcements or press releases, etc. None of the references meet the criteria and I am unable to locate any that do. As such, topic fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 19:28, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Far from mattering not at all, according to WP: CCSI having a notable founder and notable members does matter in considerations of significance or importance. If there were a requirement for a performance review to include in-depth information on the company in order to establish notability, that would disqualify the overwhelming majority of reviews - and thus deprive theater and art professionals and enthusiasts of a wealth of invaluable and time-honored primary sources of information. The job of reviewers is to make a critical evaluation of a performance, not the company - in notable media such as The New York Times, these very different areas of interest are with extremely rare exceptions covered separately. In short, the exclusionary criteria that are being proposed here are incompatible with how the theater and art worlds actually work and how they themselves establish notability. Were the criteria described on this thread applied to the Wikipedia page for a theater company I know well and which is of unquestionable notability, it would be deleted. - Kbaker121 (talk) 15:03, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Response You're misinterpreting and misquoting WP:CCSI which in turn relies on this RfC on reasons to refuse a Speedy Deletion A7. This isn't a speedy deletion A7 examination, this is an AfD where we go into detail on notability. Also, CCSI is an essay and doesn't carry the same weight as a guideline like WP:NCORP. You also say "the job of reviewers is to make a critical evaluation of a performance, not the company" which is true and explains why reviews don't (usually) establish the notability of the production company or the theatre although they may assist in establishing the notability of a performance or a show. The criteria for references to establishing the notability of organizations and companies is very straight-forward - find something that discusses the company in detail with original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. If the topic is notable, somebody, somewhere, will have written about it. HighKing++ 11:42, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I think the sources Kbaker121 cites above are convincing for notability, especially when combined with having a notable founder and notable members. The article should be improved not deleted.   // Timothy :: talk  18:20, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar 05:51, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Allegra Edwards

[edit]
Allegra Edwards (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:NACTOR scope_creepTalk 22:46, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:00, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:00, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:00, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:31, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 09:45, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jovo

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Jovo (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 at all, the only external links are the official websites. Doesn't seem to have notability. GhostP. talk 03:58, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:50, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Walwal20 talk ▾ contribs 21:48, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Matti Jutila

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

This fails the WP:BASIC criteria of notability for persons, and possibly also fails all the criteria of notability for academics WP:NACADEMIC, even when performing a short google search.

Edit: See discussion below for comments on Dr. Jutila's scholar work. Also adding that Dr. Matti Jutila's page has a low visualizations count. Walwal20 talk ▾ contribs 03:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Walwal20 talk ▾ contribs 03:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Xxanthippe I believe that goes slightly far from passing criteria 1, as it is not an above-average number of citations. I also could not identify works that significantly impacted any area. Number of citations might be a matter of personal perception; if it helps with objectivity, I'd name prof. Rodrigo Mello and prof Yoshito Hirata as authors with more citations and that do not hold an article for themselves, and arguably also fail notability criteria. I'd like to add that Dr. Matti Jutila's page has a low visualizations count. Will add this to the nomination text. Walwal20 talk ▾ contribs 04:06, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It could be above the average number of citations for a low cited-field like pure mathematics. I look for guidance from comments from those with mathematics experience. I don't see why the number of citations should be a matter of personal perception. The data are sourced from reliable databases. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:50, 15 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:08, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think the discussion about citations above may be confused, in two ways: first, there is someone else with the same name at the same university whose citations match the citation counts given [46] but I don't think it's for the same person; the other particulars like discipline and academic rank don't match in any way. And second, you can't use citations to compare people in different disciplines with very different citation practices, like Mello and Hirata; that would be like saying basketball is better than formula 1 racing because they score more points per game. (Also see WP:WAX.) Anyway, my keep is based not so much on citations and #C1 (although for pure mathematics Jutila's citation counts are pretty good, I think good enough to pass: 201 for his monograph Lectures on a Method in the Theory of Exponential Sums, 131 for "On the Mean Value of L (1/2, χ) FW Real Characters", 103 for "On Linnik's constant", 74 for "Riemann's zeta-function and the divisor problem", 69 for "Primes in short intervals", etc), but on his membership in the Finnish Academy of Science and Letters and WP:PROF#C3. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:18, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:05, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying the two authors. Looking at the mathematics papers (mostly single author) I get an h-index of 18. Quite enough to pass WP:Prof#C1 for pure mathematics. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:00, 15 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]
@David Eppstein I have to agree that WP:PROF#C3 is fulfilled by his membership in that century-old academy. I intend to withdraw the nomination once I confirm that fact in their website, which unfortunately is giving me a 404 error right now. Walwal20 talk ▾ contribs 07:03, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing the English-language part of their site is broken, but it's on the Finnish side at https://www.acadsci.fi/jasenet/ryhmat-ja-osastot.html (which works in translation for me and is simple enough in structure that I'm confident of the translation). —David Eppstein (talk) 07:13, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that will do. Thanks Walwal20 talk ▾ contribs 21:43, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 09:46, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Francis A. Wade

[edit]
Francis A. Wade (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 found no significant reliable coverage per WP:BIO. SL93 (talk) 02:58, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:00, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:00, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:00, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Mystara#The Savage Coast. czar 05:50, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Savage Coast

[edit]
Savage Coast (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 non-notable WP:CONTENTFORK of The Savage Coast. It's difficult to find substantial coverage of this as a location, and indeed even the unsourced description of shows there's not much to say. Without significant coverage in reliable sources, this cannot meet the WP:GNG, and cannot avoid the problems of WP:NOT#PLOT. What little there is to say is already covered at existing articles about the games / books. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:56, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:56, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Daranios (talk) 19:55, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:18, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Avsar Enamel

[edit]
Avsar Enamel (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 notable. evrifaessa ❯❯❯ talk 09:26, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. evrifaessa ❯❯❯ talk 09:26, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:27, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 10:45, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see some coverage of "Avşar Emaye", which I think is the same company; I'm not sure it's enough for notability. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:06, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:50, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wall Street Crash (group)

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

Does not seem to meet WP:NMUSIC; most sources given are either primary or general music and musician databases. Nathan2055talk - contribs 07:30, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:30, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:30, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't find much, so sticking with weak keep, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 18:31, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:11, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Natg19, I have looked for some references for their albums, since they are inactive now for a long time, finding reference is possibly getting difficult. But they do not seem to violate WP:BAND altogether. Msgelhorn (talk) 10:53, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I remember them well from their many TV appearances. I wasn't a fan at all, but they are definitely notable. 1980s coverage isn't well represented from Google searches, but there's quite a bit in the British Newspaper Archive, including several articles on the group from The Stage, and sources confirming that they had their own prime-time BBC1 show in June 1981 (The Music of Wall Street Crash) and appeared on the Royal Variety Performance and the Morecambe & Wise Christmas Special. --Michig (talk) 08:43, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 09:47, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Duke Friedrich of Württemberg

[edit]
Duke Friedrich of Württemberg (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 serious claim to notability, member of former royal house which was deposed well before he was born, and may have been of limited importance even before it was deposed, was never even head of this house. PatGallacher (talk) 00:52, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:06, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:06, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - "Friedrich Philipp Carl Franz Maria Herzog von Württemberg ..... was the heir to the headship of the House of Württemberg." this should be pretty clear, that he for a period of time was titular head of this family and dynasty - unless there is an error in the informations in the article? (For that reason I don't realy understand the remark used in the nomination "was never even head of this house"??). Oleryhlolsson (talk) 08:53, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, now I see and understand - though I still think that a deceased "heir to the headship" is notable. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 08:56, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Withdrawn. Sourcing is sufficient for my opinion of notability. (non-admin closure) Hog Farm Bacon 02:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kiln (band)

[edit]
Kiln (band) (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)

Apparently non-notable ambient band. This has been in CAT:NN since 2010. I guess this could technically pass WP:NBAND #5 if Ghostly International counts as "one of the more important indie labels", but passing one NBAND criteria is only an indication that a subject may be notable. Well, anyway, I'm not finding substantial coverage in reliable sources that would pas WP:GNG, although there is a lot of search engine noise. Hog Farm Bacon 00:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 00:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 00:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 00:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't find much more so sticking with weak keep, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:09, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:28, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are Entertainment Weekly, Pitchfork, OC Weekly reviews for Dusker. An Exclaim! review for another album... Caro7200 (talk) 19:02, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:47, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 06:42, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Knickerbocker Gang

[edit]
The Knickerbocker Gang (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. Only primary source: only IMDb. Can't find any sources on the subject of this article. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 19:50, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 19:50, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 19:50, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has an article in five other language Wikipedias. The essential facts check out in English and the best sources are likely to be in German. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:26, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Quite aside from that "having articles on other Wikipedias" satisfies no notability criterion on this Wikipedia, actually looking at those other articles quickly reveals that four of the five are completely unsourced, and the fifth sourced only to the author's own website. If there is indeed significant coverage in secondary sources in German, let's see it. No prejudice against a redirect to the author's article; the pertinent information is already there, and a merge wouldn't be necessary. Ravenswing 02:01, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative keep. This would be a stronger keep, but I'm limited in what I can access as far as German language sourcing goes. I've left a note for the Austrian WikiProject (and may for the German one as well) to see if they can help with sourcing. There was quite a bit of coverage for the adult novel published in 2017, which mentions how popular and widespread the series has been. It seems extremely likely that coverage is out there, just not on the Internet. In the meantime, I believe that the coverage for the adult novel is enough to establish notability for the series. Given that the adult novel wouldn't have gained the coverage without the series being so beloved and notable, I think it'd be best for there to be a series page rather than a single page for the adult novel. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:54, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the German article, it has two references. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 14:26, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But if you look at the sources beyond what is cited by Wikipedia, such as those found by this search, you find far more than 2 sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:17, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:43, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The books have been translated into 19 languages ​​and published in several countries, translated from the German Wikipedia. It's a proof of notability (and I can confirm that the series is translated in French under the title Les K). And as Andrew said, the best sources are likely to be in German. --Deansfa (talk) 01:06, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative keep. A German-language search for "Die Knickerbocker-Bande" turns up coverage such as [47][48][49][50][51]. Some of these news sources appear to be focused on the author, Thomas Brezina, with information about the Knickerbocker series mixed in. I would prefer to see more in the way of book reviews that are specifically focused on the series. However, based on the popularity of the books I'm confident that more sources exist that can be used to improve the article. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 03:33, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article does not need to be deleted, but needs a clean-up and more referencing. BGzest (talk) 04:47, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:22, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ChristianAdamG

[edit]
ChristianAdamG (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. Article claims subject is a rapper but he fails to satisfy any criterion from WP:MUSICBIO. A before search shows nothing concrete to substantiate notability claims. Celestina007 00:14, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 00:14, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 00:14, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 00:14, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 00:14, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hako9, Yep! yep! that too! Celestina007 13:08, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_August_15&oldid=975623665"