Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 June 4

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 3 June	5 June >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:42, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Analilia Mejia

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

Fails WP:GNG. While there is no clear notability standard for political advisors, the "Political figures not elected to public office" section of WP:POLOUTCOMES is applicable here. While Mejia has received a passing mention in articles about the Sanders campaign, she has not been the subject of significant coverage about her independently. One does not gain notability by being attached to a failed presidential campaign. KidAd (talk) 23:03, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- This was on my watchlist for some reason (probably because I was going to nominate it myself). Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED applies here. I don't see significant coverage of this person outside of local sources.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:18, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:14, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:14, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:14, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not every single operative in a campaign is notable, that is about the only notability test that would make her notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:29, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet the requirements of WP:GNG. No evidence of notability independent of Sanders. Andrew³²⁷ 14:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:29, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete— per above all. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 22:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. (non-admin closure)   Kadzi   (talk) 21:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Self-Portrait (Sofonisba Anguissola)

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

Doesn't seem to be a notable painting, with strange references. Appears on List_of_paintings_by_Sofonisba_Anguissola which I believe is suitable, rather than a whole article.   Kadzi   (talk) 23:00, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions.   Kadzi   (talk) 23:00, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep In the Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna. The work is written about in textbooks and peer reviewed books. I just added a few, and the link to the collection page. Please look WP:BEFORE you leap, as things aren't always what that seem to be from the page itself. Theredproject (talk) 23:39, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep noted work by very famous artist. Discussed in additional sources here and here. Mccapra (talk) 03:31, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm sorry to see that a new NPP got caught up in this. Here's some context: At the time of nomination, the sources were listed as
"SOPHONISBA ANGUSSOLA VIRGO SEIPSAM FECIT 1554". and
Inventario GG 285.
One could be forgiven for finding these "strange". They're worse than strange, they're useless. The first is merely a transcription of what everybody can already read on the painting itself. The second is not a citation, "Inventario" refers to the Inventory Number that the museum uses: GG means Gemäldegalerie. So the reference is this: https://www.khm.at/objektdb/detail/66/ And just how in the world is the "general reader" for whom we write this encyclopedia supposed to know this?
Unfortunately, this article is just one of a large number of very poorly sourced articles translated from Italian. Its creator is unresponsive to suggestions for improvement and has dismissed such complaints as from "the reference police" [1] I have given up trying to reason with them and decided that fixing the references is the best way to deal with this. Unfortunately, it requires more effort to fix than to translate these articles. I'd be a favor of blocking their creator for creating more work for others than what they're doing themselves. Vexations (talk) 10:58, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:04, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:04, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is no issue with keeping this well-sourced article on an old painting; the painting is in a collection and numerous authors have written about it.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:42, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (Other's have created redirects removing need for AfD) (non-admin closure)   Kadzi   (talk) 22:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Castle Nectar

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

Unsourced, one source appears in the Talk page but is not available. Operation Castle has this listed along with other bombs, and appears notable but not near ready enough for an article. Considered move to draft but Draft:Castle Nectar already is in use and this appears to be a direct copy from the draft to the mainspace.   Kadzi   (talk) 22:42, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.   Kadzi   (talk) 22:42, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note I may be closing this one, appears article creator has recreated the page from a previous afd discussion. Have added a CSD tag to the article. Stand by.   Kadzi   (talk) 22:45, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:34, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Aynscomb-Harris

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

Insufficient WP:RS with non trivial coverage to satisfy GNG or NARTIST. We have Who's Who, after the point at which it became a vanity publication. And an catalog of Royal Academy exhibitions that Verify an exhibition, but almost certainly would only be passing coverage. Of the solo exhibitions, none are at venues that are in themselves notable as art venues. Heal's is a furniture store, that also had a gallery - the gallery has a small section on the article that says the venue was significant between 1914-1939, at which point the subject was two years old. Ogilvy & Mather is an ad firm, that might have a gallery (it isn't mentioned on the article) but that gallery's notability isn't inherited. Lastly, Exhibition history includes Vanity Galleries. Yes, there is a chance of print sources from the 70's or 80's but I'm seeing very little evidence of that in my database searches. Who's Who is cited with the claim that he was in these collections: Oxfordshire Education Committee, The National Bank of Detroit, Marks & Spencer LTD, Holbourn Aeros, Cado Furniture, G Plan Furniture, Gatx Shipping, Metropolitan Water Board, Rank Leisure Hotels, British Airways, Chase Manhattan Bank. None of them are museums or galleries. We don't accept corporate collections as establishing N. Theredproject (talk) 22:22, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 22:22, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 22:22, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 22:22, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have not found good coverage, but there is some evidence of him being a "reputable" artist. The National Gallery of Canada started a file on him. And there is this painting listed in Art-uk.org, but it is not in a museum collection. The Who's-who encyclopedia listings look a little dubious to me as I saw the same listing twice in differently titled encyclopediae. I'll bet that an old newspaper search would turn up items. At the moment, GNG fail.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ThatMontrealIP (talk • contribs)

That artist file is an interesting find. It prompted me to check the collection itself, but he isn't in there [2]. Theredproject (talk) 00:12, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I would not expect him to be. That Artists in Canada listing has a lot of people in it. I think it is run out of the National Gallery Library. It's probably 10M away form the curatorial office there, but 100KM away in terms of selectivity. On a practical level it just tells you who has a file on the artist, and perhaps a few biographical details. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:16, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not finding any WP:RS. I checked Newspapers.com but nothing there. Curiocurio (talk) 00:31, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV. Who's Who in Art is not reliable; it's like Who's Who Among Teachers. (Wait, did I just dis myself?) Bearian (talk) 02:28, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient reliable sources indicating subject's reliability. Andrew³²⁷ 14:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mz7 (talk) 02:02, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gigi Rigamonti

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

The sources are either Promotional, not RS, merely passing coverage or don't even mention the subject himself. Exhibition history includes Vanity Galleries. The "Enciclopedia d'Arte Italiana" doesn't contain an entry on him.[3] It seems the citation is misleading, and is actually to the entry on Arturo Schwarz. The icing on the cake is that his page was deleted from it wiki. [4] Theredproject (talk) 22:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 22:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 22:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 22:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find a single RS in an independent search.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:24, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno, that's Arturo Schwarz talking about Gigi Rigamonti in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LW_I7jM5qtw Vexations (talk) 19:00, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete As Vexations pointed out, Arturo Schwarz is presenting his work at an opening, and even says it was him who encouraged Rigamonti do hold the show in the first place. Schwarz is also co-author of a book about Rigamonti's work. That being said, even searching Italian news i found very little on Rigamonti beyond his cruise ship installation and a 2015 exhibition at a B&B/art gallery. His page on Italian Wikipedia was deleted in 2016 after little debate. Main arguments being that it read like a resume and was largely filled with irrelevant info. Mtheletter (talk) 19:45, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - he's exhibited in major art capitals (New York, Milan), but at decidedly secondary galleries. Bearian (talk) 02:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mz7 (talk) 02:06, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Pauley

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

Insufficient WP:RS with non trivial coverage to satisfy GNG or NARTIST. NYT article only says "And Stephen Pauley, in the show’s most striking and unorthodox work, carves paintinglike reliefs from panels of dark granite." ~~and the WaPo article doesn't seem to exist outside of this article, and his own CV. I couldn't find it, or any reference to him on the WaPo site [5].~~ The WaPo article is only one paragraph in a review of an MFA group show -- promising, but not enough for N. Exhibition history includes Vanity Galleries. Theredproject (talk) 21:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 21:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 21:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 21:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning delete The article has been around since 2009, but gets hardly any views - 1550 in 5 years. A large addition of probable COI in 2014 (Brooklyn ip who only ever edited this article). Johnbod (talk) 22:03, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The nominator stated that "the WaPo article doesn't seem to exist outside of this article, and his own CV. I couldn't find it, or any reference to him on the WaPo site". However, the article from The Washington Post can be found here. I found it with the first Google search I did for the article. MarkZusab (talk) 22:16, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MarkZusab: Wild. I searched Google, WaPo and Onesearch, and literally got nothing. Thank you for finding the link. Theredproject (talk) 23:42, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Baltimore Sun's article seems to be this: https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-2005-06-21-0506210236-story.html Vexations (talk) 18:42, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Vexations, yes, another passing reference to the same one work from the same MFA group show. “ The intriguing companion exhibition in the second-floor gallery of recent works by Steve Pauley, whose images of commonplace objects -- advertising fliers, graffiti and other ephemera -- are given monumental permanence in stone sculptures, rounds out the center's offerings.” Not enough, IMHO for N. Theredproject (talk) 18:57, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Theredproject, Ah, no it's not enough. Agree that there isn't sufficient critical attention in independent, reliable sources to sustain an article. Delete Vexations (talk) 19:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable artist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:30, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per WP:SIGCOV - there's some coverage but it's not in depth. Also, he's exhibited in New York, a major art capital, but in secondary galleries (Broadway Gallery, St. Mary the Virgin Church's church hall, some spaces in Brooklyn). Bearian (talk) 02:34, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bearian, FYI for future reference, Broadway Gallery was a known Vanity Gallery. Pay to play. Doesn't establish N. In fact, does quite the opposite ;-) Theredproject (talk) 00:10, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are some sources discussing this article but not enough to establish notability. Andrew³²⁷ 14:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mz7 (talk) 02:07, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gerry Mayer

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

Insufficient WP:RS to satisfy GNG or NARTIST. Exhibition history includes Vanity Galleries. Theredproject (talk) 21:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 21:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 21:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 21:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 01:56, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete artists who pay to exhibit at the Broadway Gallery (part of the World Art Media pay-to-exhibit empire) are not notable. The publicity they have received is advertising. Vexations (talk) 18:29, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - yet another artist who's exhibited in art capitals, but in secondary galleries. Bearian (talk) 02:35, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. A valid rationale for deletion is not present. For example, per WP:NEXIST, notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:46, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Serrapio

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

No references as of January 2013 You have | Failed | This Universe | 21:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. You have | Failed | This Universe | 21:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. You have | Failed | This Universe | 21:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: added content and references. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:40, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND. Mccapra (talk) 03:38, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've sourced some of the statistical claims, and it clearly meets WP:GEOLAND by virtue of having a population statistic listed by the National Statistics Institute of Spain. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 10:45, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - along with all the other templated parishes.--Ipigott (talk) 14:35, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep see WP:GEOLAND..CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:19, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - real place, real parish. Bearian (talk) 02:36, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mz7 (talk) 02:10, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dieter Borst

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

Insufficient WP:RS to satisfy GNG or NARTIST. And a preponderance of Vanity Galleries. Theredproject (talk) 21:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 21:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 21:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 21:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a book about his work, Dieter Borst:Arbeiten auf Papier but it is published by de:Books on Demand, which means it's self-published. Vanity galleries, vanity publishers, not notable. Vexations (talk) 18:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mz7 (talk) 02:12, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Alexander Figueroa

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

Almost no WP:RS to even VERIFY the claims, and certainly not enough to satisfy NARTIST. Much of the article makes dubious unsourced claims that other artists were inspired by his work. A number of Vanity Galleries. It seems that a 2015 AFD discussion hinged around coverage in NY Arts Magazine, which is a vanity publication and the article for NYArts was itself just deleted. Theredproject (talk) 21:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 21:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 21:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 21:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete many of the sources do not even mention the subject of the article. Vexations (talk) 16:30, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too much local and promotional coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:16, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This artist is internationally and nationally known for his artistry, but besides being multi-published for his art and music in magazines, online, print, radio, and television, his band has also long been an advocate for black artists, LGBT, and all minorities and people of color. His band has been very vocal during the ongoing Black Lives Matter movement. I feel this is targeted harassment from groups of white supremacy. Calling it like I see it. End of discussion.WeAreAllStars (talk) 19:28, 7 June 2020 (UTC) — WeAreAllStars (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. striking comments by blocked sock.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WeAreAllStars, I take the charge of white supremacy very seriously, and will re-review my assessment of the subject's notability. It's certainly subjective, and I could be wrong but, they don't look like a person of color to me. Vexations (talk) 11:51, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have completed my review and stand by my original conclusion, but would like to add that the article is unambiguously promotional and misleading. The last section contains a lot of original research that is in no way supported by the sources. It's a list of claims of plagiarism by better-know artists, but none of the sources actually mention that. I have added a list of all the sources ever used in the article. It is important to note that the subject is not mentioned in most of the independent, reliable sources in that list with the possible exception of plymouthmag.com. Vexations (talk) 18:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WeAreAllStars (talk · contribs) I see that your only contributions to Wikipedia have been creating this article, and aggressively defending the article for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Band Famous (2nd nomination). I took a look at your talk page, and noticed that you have been sanctioned by two editors for "wiki-tantrums and outright lies" over this subject and warned not to continue in that vein without expecting to be hard blocked. User talk:WeAreAllStars#Wikihounding. Please explain your relationship to Jacob Alexander Figueroa -- are you Jacob Alexander Figueroa, or do you have a relationshiop with Jacob Alexander Figueroa that would be in violation of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guidelines? Please make your arguments without conspiratorial WP:PERSONALATTACKS. If you repeat anything of that matter, I will request a hard block. You know nothing about any of us, and if you did, you would realize how wrong your ad hominem attack was. Theredproject (talk) 14:38, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WeAreAllStars I have filed an incident report regarding your continued personal attacks and defamations. [6] Theredproject (talk) 18:44, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WeAreAllStars is now blocked. Theredproject (talk) 21:47, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article caught my eye under articles proposed for deletion, so I did some digging to see if I could help weigh in on this matter. A bit of researching revealing that there is national and international coverage on this artist and on his band and venue. His band/software/venue (seemingly the band is simultaneously all of these) just added a musician named Annale featuring Musiq Soulchild to their online radio, and Musiq Soulchild is a huge musician! Seems pretty notable to me! I'm really not sure why people are trying to delete this artist? This looks to me like page vandalism and harassment, as viewing the history of the page shows previous spam and harassment (view the history yourself to verify). It appears that someone had accused this artist and/or his band of pan-handling and that they make soft-core porn? How bizarre. Looking at this artist's social media and The Band Famous social media reveals that they have been vocal and advocates for the Black Lives Matter movement ongoing. The band was just recently endorsed by rock and roll Hall Of Fame, Grammy-winning B.J. Thomas, and it seems that he has been supporting this band and this artist for years. You can see his support for The Band Famous on his twitter profile! Anyway, I say keep! Michelle Lanette (talk) 04:39, 8 June 2020 (UTC) — Musicislife777 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

A note to the closing admin Musicislife777 (talk · contribs) has made three edits. Their first was to their user page, and their second was to this page (9 minutes later, about the time it likely took to write this comment). Their suggestion that they happened to be browsing articles nominated for deletion is false, and made in bad faith. Theredproject (talk) 16:02, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Musicislife777 has been blocked as a sock of WeAreAllStars. – ².O.^Boxing 20:25, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak DeleteThere may be something of substance behind this page, but in order to remain on Wikipedia it would need significant improvement. The writing style is that of a press release and fails NPOV. There is also a huge amount of irrelevant information that would need to be removed (ex: "This benefit music festival also hosted the world's first ever Pokémon Go ranked PvP tournament for charity, with famous Pokémon Go YouTubers PkmnmasterHolly who is featured on a Samsung Galaxy billboard in New York City."). Tangents like these seem like a way to pad the page to make it seem more important. Mtheletter (talk) 20:04, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is not a question of the things a person has done, it is a question of the quality of the sourcing he does or doesn't have about the things he's done. This article, however, is reference bombed overwhelmingly to unreliable sources that are'not support for notability, such as YouTube and Vimeo videos, Yelp reviews, Twitter and Instagram posts, podcasts, Google Maps, Tumblr blogs and the self-published websites of people or organizations he's directly affiliated with — and even the few citations that are actually to media still aren't cutting it, as very few of them are about Jacob Alexander Figueroa in any non-trivial way: most of them are here solely to verify tangential facts about other people without even mentioning Figueroa's name at all, and even the ones that do mention Figueroa also largely just namecheck his existence without saying anything particularly substantive or notable that would count toward getting him over WP:GNG. Wikipedia is not a free PR platform on which people are entitled to have articles just because they're technically verifiable as existing: to earn an article on here, a person has to be the subject of a significant volume of journalistic coverage in real media, which independently analyzes and verifies and attests to the significance of his work, and virtually none of the sources here represent what's required.
I should also note that the page creator tried to canvass me to come defend the article on the grounds of alleged homophobia — but y'all know I'm an openly gay man, and I'm not seeing a homophobia problem here: I'm seeing a "lack of valid notability-supporting reliable sourcing" problem. Notability is not a thing people get to give themselves by being directly involved in the creation of their own sources: it's a thing journalists have to anoint them with by writing third party content about them in newspapers, magazines and books. I'm willing to reconsider this if somebody can actually show much better sources that make his notability much more plainly apparent, but the sources present in this version simply aren't cutting the mustard. Bearcat (talk) 21:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not have a powerful enough tool to cut through the reference bombing in this article. Tried half the stuff in the garage, but no luck. I think the only technique that would fix this article is WP:TNT. As a last resort in understanding exactly what this subject does, in order to assess notability , I tried an external web search. I could not find anything of note. TNT is what is needed here-- but I think it would be better to just delete it and let an uninvolved person recreate it sometime in the future. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:23, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ThatMontrealIP, I wrote a simple python script, just for that purpose. That's how we have a link to all the references ever used in the article on its talk page. And I guarantee, I've read every-single-one of them. Vexations (talk) 22:31, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Vexations: that is excellent, thank you, I will check out the Python script. This much reference bombing tends to say more about the notability than the actual references do.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:34, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mz7 (talk) 02:12, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Frost (artist)

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

Fails GNG and NARTIST. Almost completely unverifiable. NYARTS is a Vanity Galleries. Is in the Griffith University Art Collection [7] which isn't even mentioned on Griffith University so unclear if that would work towards satisfying 4(d) but doesn't matter because not in https://artbank.ca/ as claimed. Theredproject (talk) 21:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 21:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 21:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 21:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was unable to find coverage in independent, reliable sources. Vexations (talk) 16:11, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 03:53, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: the closest I could find to a reliable source was this article in Lodown Magazine (I'm surprised that a news article about the painting being slashed could not easily be found). If the article is kept, it should be cut back to a stub, with unreferenced information removed. Meticulo (talk) 05:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable artist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:27, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - never exhibited in a primary art gallery or in the permanent space of an art museum. Lots of people get on the news shows. Bearian (talk) 02:38, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to 2006 Minnesota Twins season. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:56, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Piranhas (baseball)

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

Not notable for a standalone page. Content would belong at 2006 Minnesota Twins season. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:36, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:36, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:36, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Merge content to 2006 Minnesota Twins season. Spanneraol (talk) 23:45, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the content into 2006 Minnesota Twins season.TH1980 (talk) 03:03, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the content into 2006 Minnesota Twins season.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:42, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Veluz

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. The one line of text in the article tells you everything Mr. Veluz is famous for, and everything you will find out about him. One minor chart placing on a specialist Billboard chart, and that's it – nothing about the artist himself. I suppose a redirect to Send Me an Angel (Real Life song)#Cover versions is a possibility, but I don't see much value in a redirect to an article containing a different artist's name, because it's an unrealistic search term for Mr. Veluz himself, and there's no real information to redirect to. Richard3120 (talk) 21:26, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 21:26, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 21:26, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:02, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deletefails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO as of now upcoming but notable at this point.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The CRIME /IE arguments trump GNG ones. This should be covered at the article about the crime. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:45, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Laurence Powell

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

Per WP:CRIME, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E. No standalone notability to warrant an article of their own. All coverage of the subject revolves solely around the rodney king beating. The subject has not gone on to become notable for anything else. Continuing coverage of the subject looks to only be WP:ROUTINE where are they now type stuff that covers all the figures of the incident and not this subject individually (e.g., [8]). Sulfurboy (talk) 21:27, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Sulfurboy (talk) 21:27, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Sulfurboy (talk) 21:27, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Rodney King. KidAd (talk) 23:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now - this AfD is surely only being brought about because of the discussion on the AfD of Derek Chauvin. This page and Stacey Koon are part of the discussion. That deletion is being reviewed. Any decision here should wait until that review is finished. Kire1975 (talk) 02:13, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We don't keep pages because a separate deletion is under review. Further, that deletion review is an examination of procedural issues and is not a consideration that would change any sort of notability standard. If you have a policy based reason for a keep or can demonstrate clearly how this passes notability guidelines, I'd love to hear it. However, I'm not seeing anything here and the subject was allowed years to cultivate standalone notability. There is none. Sulfurboy (talk) 17:55, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:1E says,

If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. The assassins of major political leaders, such as Gavrilo Princip, fit into this category, as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role.

When the role played by an individual in the event is less significant, an independent article may not be needed, and a redirect is appropriate. For example, George Holliday, who videotaped the Rodney King beating, redirects to Rodney King. On the other hand, if an event is of sufficient importance, even relatively minor participants may require their own articles, for example, Howard Brennan, a witness to the JFK assassination.

The events around King are hugely important. This article clearly meets the standard set by Haward Brennan.Casprings (talk) 19:14, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:CRIME, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E all apply here, as noted, unless someone can add substantive sources that discuss anything notable he's done that's independent of the King case. Outrage doesn't trump BLP, even for this. Guy (help!) 20:34, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or Redirect per Guy. If there's no other coverage, it's WP:CRIME/WP:BLP1E. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:34, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JzG and Rhododendrites: What are you talking about there is a coverage problem? Per the links provided above, there is signficant coverage in both books and academic articles. See https://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q=%22Laurence+Powell%22+-wikipedia and https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Laurence+Powell%22 . Not to mention the other sources. Let's remember, notability is determined by available sources and not current sources in an article. This clearly meets the standard for a stand along article under WP:1E.Casprings (talk) 16:22, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're not responding to the pages we both linked to. It's not a question of amount of coverage. If that were the case I'd say "fails GNG" or whatnot. The issue is WP:CRIME and WP:BLP1E (not necessarily WP:1E). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:32, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Casprings, Wikipedia is, by design, conservative about biographies. We should never be the first place on the internet to have a biography of anyone, so we don't allow biographies of people who did one shitty thing once. Guy (help!) 18:17, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JzGCare to cite the policy source for, "We should never be the first place on the internet to have a biography of anyone." I think the relavent policy is WP:1E and in the end, it is a subjective call. Is the event of enough historical importance, as judged by coverage by WP:RS, that participates might require an article. I think the answer is yes here.Casprings (talk) 20:34, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:47, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RS Mensae

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

Apparently created because of an unusually large radius, but the reference for this claim states that the star is a foreground object and likely not this large at all. Otherwise fails WP:NASTRO and WP:GNG. Lithopsian (talk) 20:50, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Pi (Talk to me!) 21:10, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unusual properties of this star are speculative and not well established. Fails WP:NASTRO. Aldebarium (talk) 20:19, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Cobra (G.I. Joe)#Bases. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:25, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cobra Island

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

Fictional location in the GI Joe series. Only secondary source in the article is Pearson's "Unauthorized Guide", but as it's only used to cite in-universe information, it doesn't instill confidence in me that the work discusses out-of universe significance. A WP:BEFORE search turns up nothing substantial in reliable sources that indicates out-of-universe importance. Just because a location is important in it's fictional universe doesn't mean it's a GNG pass. Hog Farm (talk) 20:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 20:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 20:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 20:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islands-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 20:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Cobra (G.I. Joe). BOZ (talk) 01:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cobra (G.I. Joe)#Bases, where it is already covered. The fictional location has no notability independent of the fictional group that has its base there, and has no reliably sourced information that would be useful to merge. Rorshacma (talk) 01:45, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per above. Dronebogus (talk) 04:10, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 02:39, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cobra (G.I. Joe)#Bases. It seems that this entire article focuses on what the base looks like and really doesn't have any outside context. There is so much writing that is a plot summary, rather than anything else. 🌴Koridas🌴 (Negotiate) 04:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Calico System. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:27, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Love Will Kill All (EP)

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

Non notable EP. Couldn't find any significant coverage or reliable sources. Fails GNG. JohnmgKing (talk) 20:31, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. JohnmgKing (talk) 20:31, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. JohnmgKing (talk) 20:31, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. JohnmgKing (talk) 20:31, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Calico System: Barely found anything about the EP. Easily fails WP:NMUSIC. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 01:21, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to More Than Life. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:34, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Take All of Me (song)

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

The song is not notable enough to have its own article. Fails GNG. JohnmgKing (talk) 20:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. JohnmgKing (talk) 20:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. JohnmgKing (talk) 20:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed. Outside of the known artists, there is no indication that this song in particular was anything that made them notable, nor is it notable on its own. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Marty Sampson or More Than Life: Barely found anything about the song, except for an article which mentions it. My vote stands. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 07:15, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:50, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Haus of Gaga

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

I honestly don't see any reason for the existense of this article. It is largely undersourced, and the sources that are available do not provide enough information that could majorly improve the article. Also, almost every source is WP:Primary, and the article has a "Major sourcing issues" template on top of it since 2014. There is nothing substantial here, basically the whole article could be summarized in a couple of sentences and merged into the page of Lady Gaga. – Sricsi (talk) 19:42, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. "The Haus of Gaga is modeled after Andy Warhol's Factory and emulates the creative atmosphere it is known for." Only, you know, the Factory was made up of notable people... Caro7200 (talk) 20:26, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:39, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:39, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:39, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:39, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:50, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arat Hosseini

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

Is this six-year-old "Iranian athlete" notable? – bradv🍁 19:22, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No Bradv. This six year old "Iranian athlete" is not notable. (Delete in case whoever closes this is a bit thick). Nick (talk) 19:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:Per consensus: (NB: I'm thick). To a degree per WP:NEWSORG this is possibly Human-interest story/Junk food news. I'm very suspicious of Instagram/Youtube/Facebook count metrics due to possible bot manipulation. WP:BLP1E may apply, perhaps especially as young age. As against that WP:SUSTAINED coverage over four years. I certainly don't like poorly developed BLP's going into mainspace, and creator should be encouraged to use WP:AFC in my opinion. I judged WP:A7 by the recent WP:NPP Dr. Kadzi to have been probably acceptable for the state of the article at the time of application as I commented at the article talk page; but less sustainable by the time examined by an admin for deletion whereupon WP:AFD is probably the best course (Full WP:BEFORE not required in this CSD->AFD case though the policies/guidelines of concern are supposed to be mentioned in the nomination per the AFD awareness notice on creators talk page). At present I'm happy to go with the consensus that emerges. Thankyou. 20:22, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Revisited my reasoning which is sufficient for delete as leads to a WP:GNG failure after noting creators actions on their talk page. There are sources present which are sufficient to counter a "WP:VAGUEWAVE fails WP:GNG" but given creators attitude its appropriate for a WP:THREE to be well presented to move me from a delete !vote. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't pass the WP:GNG. Less Unless (talk) 20:33, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC. KidAd (talk) 23:08, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:16, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:16, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Remain I created this article because he is an athlete. so of his works, we can't do in our ages! (age is not matter for this article) I'm from Iran and maybe some of you didn't know about him or never heard his name, but with google his name, you can see the hundred of the realizable sources. because of his is an athlete, famous in public and covered by tons of news must be Remain. Please before left a comment, first search on the web. Thanks, Aflantwo (talk) 15:05, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No policy cited above. Also, see WP:GOOGLEHITS and WP:ILIKEIT. KidAd (talk) 18:15, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I removed the speedy notice thinking the subject was an adult now. But no, it's a BLP of a child. Absolutely not up to scratch for BLP of a minor - David Gerard (talk) 18:21, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have not seen anything more ludicous than an article on a six-year-old "athlete".John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:16, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we almost always delete BLPs of children who are only remotely notable. Despite the false claim otherwise, age does matter. Bearian (talk) 02:41, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Valley2city^‽ 18:07, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Crisscross method

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

This is a how-to article describing a technique for writing chemical formulas. It seems like an almost trivial method, with just a single source (a textbook that mentions it on one page). It does not seem that this method is notable enough to satisfy WP:N (and WP:NOTTEXTBOOK). I asked for opinions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry#Crisscross method and got an agreement that AfD would be appropriate. —Bkell (talk) 19:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion Fails WP:N and is of limited applicability even within the chemistry scope it discusses. Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 10:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:28, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in present form. A quick check on Scholar shows that there are at least a dozen methodologies spanning computer science, chemistry, mathematics, image processing, medicine... that all come under the name of "crisscross". I suspect it would be possible to write an article giving short treatments of all these, but that would look substantially different from this chemistry-only one, and require a good deal of work, starting with a blank slate. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:35, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Highly trivial, a mundane mneumonic not a scientific process. Reywas92^Talk 20:46, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fluff suitable for a middle- or high-school textbook, perhaps, but not here. XOR'easter (talk) 19:34, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:SIGCOV. Also, this is used more in mathematics than chemistry. FWIW, I've taught middle school science and math. Bearian (talk) 02:43, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:49, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of games represented in the Super Smash Bros. series

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

Absolutely massive list that just consists of trivial facts (WP:GAMECRUFT; WP:NOTCATALOG). I tried to boldly merge into the characters in the Super Smash Bros. series list but was reverted by the article's creator, so I'm taking it here. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:10, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is not in the WP:VGSCOPE. Probably appropriate for SmashWiki, if not already documented there. --Izno (talk) 21:51, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:19, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:20, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the inappropriate content section of the video game Manual of Style, specifically #7 in the section. This is definitely a fancrufty article that is superfluous to the kind of content we host here. That said-- it's surprisingly well-created content by Insertinternethere which just really should exist at a Wikia site instead. I really hope that they continue to edit Wikipedia and learn from this experience instead of experiencing frustration from it. Nomader (talk) 22:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, there was definitely a lot of effort put into this, it's simply not a fit for Wikipedia. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 00:40, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - completely unencyclopedic. Please transfer to a wikia, if it didn’t already originate from there. Sergecross73 msg me 01:08, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article showcases the impact of the Super Smash Bros. series as a whole. The article shows how ever expanding the Super Smash Bros. games are and how many franchises they have touched. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (Oinkers42) (talk • contribs) 04:38, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I admire all the work that was obviously put into this page but I fail to see the specific relevance that all this information is supposed to attach to. Delete Nevermore27 (talk) 04:47, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is already covered in the Characters in the Super Smash Bros. series. There aren't so many entries that you couldn't sum this up in there or in the main article. Jontesta (talk) 01:22, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT - I'm not even sure if the particular topic of video game representation is notable on its own to warrant its own list. It might be, but the bigger problem is the ridiculously unnecessary amount of detail that was put into the thing as a whole; it looks like something from a magazine or a Wikia page and it flies in the face of WP:VGSCOPE. This article was recently created (about a week ago), so there aren't a lot of revisions to go through; I checked each major revision (which, of about 29 revisions on the page, there are only 2-3 significant ones) and none of them pass VGSCOPE. I see in this particular diff that the article author tried to trim down the amount of detail by removing some of the item entries and synthetizing the topics instead, but the entire article is still far too detailed. I applaud the creator's effort that they put into the article, but this is just completely out of scope of an encyclopedia. --letcreate123 (talk) 22:25, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A huge collection of trivia and fandom analysis, violating WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE if not anything else. Gaioa (T C L) 13:16, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is just a massive amount of trivia -- Whpq (talk) 15:33, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. A7 material - running for office is not a credible claim of significance. creffett (talk) 18:03, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rocky Tuseed

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Former student-politician who ran for office but was not elected. GPL93 (talk) 19:04, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 19:04, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 19:04, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete This looks like Speedy to me. Why are we here? User has a history of creating this kind of deletable articles and has been warned. -- Alexf^(talk) 11:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:47, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Ryan (investor)

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

Apart from the obvious already tagged issues, I believe that this article fails the WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS Wikipedia policies. The article has 2 sources cited right now; one of them is dead and a non-third party source, while only the other one is a third-party source. After a Google search, I couldn't find notable third-party sources regarding Mr. Ryan (apart from some technical podcasts). I propose that the article is deleted from Wikipedia. Thinklad.x (talk) 18:42, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable stock owner.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:43, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Navotas#Barangays. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:48, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Barangays of Navotas

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

I created this page without right thinking. Also this page and I (who created it) are marred by the "debate" at its talk page. I think things will go better if this page goes deleted, as part of my process of semi-retiring. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:37, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:11, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:11, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:11, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question Would all the information fit in Navotas#Barangays or can you expand the article to be like all the others of its type listed at Category:Lists of barangays in Philippine cities and municipalities? Dream Focus 02:43, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article only needs some cleanup, but it's good enough to be kept with reliable sources indicated there. Its portion can be summarized. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 06:33, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:14, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect/merge to Navotas#Barangays. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 08:26, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect (with no prejudice towards recreation at a later date if the situation warrants it). This article has some information and sources that should be added to Navotas whatever the decision here. The table here is more informative (although we don't need to merge the decorative pictures and the 2010 column should be left of the 2015 column), and the former barangays have sources here whereas they are unsourced in the Navotas article. Given the current short length of both these articles, the information here would easily fit within the scope of Navotas. It can be split off if it expands to detail that would be undue for the Navotas article. CMD (talk) 10:57, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Juliette Han (talk) 10:10, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hybrid (2007 film)

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

This article about a made-for-TV movie has no sources beyond links to IMDB and the production company's website, and the movie does not meet any of the criteria of WP:NFILM. RL0919 (talk) 17:57, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. RL0919 (talk) 17:57, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. RL0919 (talk) 17:57, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Seems to be notable enough. There are source available online including: The Werewolf Filmography: 300+ Movies Indie Horrors! The Not-To-Be-Missed, The Acceptable, and The Forgettable Encyclopedia of Television Film Directors Hybrid (DVD). ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 18:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Encyclopedia of Television Film Directors only lists the movie as one of the director's films, which is just a passing mention. Horror.com is a fansite. So I don't think either of those contributes anything to notability. The first two might. --RL0919 (talk) 18:26, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe that CAPTAIN MEDUSA sources make it pass GNG.★Trekker (talk) 14:04, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:14, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NEXIST and WP:ARTN: The two published books quoted above (The Werewolf Filmography and Indie Horrors!) show coverage in reliable sources. I added those links in a Further reading section so that editors who want to improve the article can use them as sources. I also deleted the plot summary which was entirely copyvio from IMDb, so obviously there's still a lot of work to do in order to get this to an even passable-quality article, but WP:ARTN says that the current poor quality of the article does not detract from the subject's notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:59, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as reliable book sources have been identified and added to the article so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is no longer necessary, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:34, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to University of Wisconsin–Madison. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:49, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wisconsin Institute for Creative Writing

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

There's a lot of info here, but it's mostly from the program's website. Fuddle (talk) 17:52, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first Wiki article, so thanks for your feedback. I was under the impression that as long as there were 3-5 citations from other sources, it would be enough. Is it a matter of content balance? Should I remove some of the information attributed to the subject's webpage, and/or must I find more info elsewhere for attribution? Please let me know how best to improve it. Goosey2222 (talk) 18:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC)Goosey2222[reply]

@Goosey2222: Others can explain it better, but a good start is Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Don't be discouraged. Fuddle (talk) 19:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with University of Wisconsin–Madison none of the sources can be used as the majority is primary, 2 others are non independent as well. It can't pass notability for a standalone article but as there are many notable fellows, the program can be mentioned in the university's article. Less Unless (talk) 20:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:21, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:21, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:48, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gbets

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

Just as before, there is no meaningful coverage or independent reliable sources that have significant coverage. This is a a promotional and likely paid for article that fails NCORP/NWEB. Searching archives gave nothing as well. Praxidicae (talk) 17:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Pi (Talk to me!) 18:22, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Pi (Talk to me!) 18:22, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SPAM. Not even wrong. Bearian (talk) 02:44, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The keep arguments on sourcing were by assertion and were refuted by detailed discussion of sources by the delete side Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:51, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Pensworth Reagor

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

This article is mostly built off one source. The TCU Magazine source is a student publication. The Reagor Lynn Method has coverage from Lockheed Martin press releases and not much else. The subject fails WP:NACADEMIC. Kbabej (talk) 20:31, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 20:33, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 14:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 14:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep. As a program that honors less than 1% of the Lockheed technical staff [9] the Lockheed Technical Fellow honor appears to be close to the sort of thing we count for WP:PROF#C3, although obviously not in as academic a context. And in being based on the Agnes Scott College profile and the TCU magazine piece, the article has a plausible case for the multiple in-depth sources required by WP:GNG, but independence is dubious in both cases because of her alumna status. There's also a little more coverage at [10] and [11] but as a blog post and a press release from her employer they don't much strengthen the case for GNG. This source is a little better. And this one is primary for the award she won, but independent of her almae matres and employer. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:05, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can see the relationship to WP:PROF as her research has made a significant impact to fuzzy logic as seen in her award from the WIA. I believe that if fuzzy logic meets WP:GNG then her connection to the topic through awards shows a notable status. Any coverage which is dubious is really support via WP:PSTS to the core connections to her notability. The WIA award was presented to her from the Associate Director of Technology for the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.^[1] Bioforce12 (talk) 04:51, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:SOCKSTRIKE; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Milesr3. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:32, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.womeninaerospace.org/events/gallery/2005awards.html

Weak delete. Notability is not inherited from that of fuzzy logic. The method that she invented has little coverage, and what little there is is incidental. I'm uncertain whether internal company award (even from a company as big as Lockheed Martin) is more like WP:NPROF C3 or C5. Whichever, the case is weak, and should be supported by some evidence of impact. I don't see much mention of the Lynn Reagor method outside of profiles of the subject; Datascape is harder to search for, but I didn't find anything. I'm watching this AfD in case better evidence of notability is uncovered. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:08, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to be known only in-company. GS cites don't come to much. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:58, 28 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Keep There is a couple of uni articles on her, there is a gbook ref, magazine ref and I think there is probably more if a deep search is done. I think passes WP:THREE, WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 11:12, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Unless winning the annual Outstanding Achievement Award from the Women in Aerospace organization grants notability on its own, I'm not seeing how she's notable. The university articles and Lockheed awards are not independent and the only other thing mentioned is that award. She has only a few citations in Google Scholar. I'll wait to vote until others have had a chance to enlighten me. Papaursa (talk) 23:39, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm thinking along the same lines as Papaursa, but verging towards a weak delete. Kj cheetham (talk) 10:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did another search for sources and I still couldn't find significant independent coverage that shows me that she meets WP:GNG or any other notability criteria. She definitely fails to meet WP:NPROF and I don't believe her award is sufficient to confer automatic notability. All independent coverage is related to the one award (WP:BIO1E). Papaursa (talk) 01:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:36, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment that Lockheed Martin Fellows were one of the classes of people used to seed the initial class of SIAM fellows.[12] (She apparently wasn't a SIAM member, so isn't a fellow, but otherwise would be.) This supports David Eppstein's WP:NPROF C3 very weak keep argument. I'm not persuaded by this in the near absence of evidence for C1 (which C3 is supposed to be a shortcut for), but perhaps others will be. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I agree with most comments above that the question of whether she passes any particular notability guideline is borderline, but unlike most BLPs in that situation there is clearly enough sourcing out there to write a good short biography. And that's what the article is: a short biography whose deletion would not improve the encyclopedia in any identifiable way. Since I should probably hang some WP:JARGON on this argument, I am saying that I agree with scope_creep that the sourcing here meets WP:SIGCOV. --JBL (talk) 21:28, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please show me the significant independent coverage of her that is besides her award (hence my mention of BIO1E)? I'm willing to change my vote, but I'd like someone to show me the coverage required to show notability. I find an unsupported claim that "there is clearly enough sourcing out there to write a good short biography" unconvincing and not part of any WP notability criteria. WP:ILIKEIT is not enough of an argument for me. Papaursa (talk) 01:09, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mz7 (talk) 02:17, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mezhür Higher Secondary School

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

~~non notable school. no mention in any Rs MistyGraceWhite (talk) 20:00, 17 May 2020 (UTC)~~ struck confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:37, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:41, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NSCHOOL Spiderone 10:27, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Please keep. This article can surely be improved. There are some coverage on media and it is generally more difficult to source an article from a remoter part of the world, and the fact that it is a notable school in Nagaland. Anonymousme (talk) 17:28, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to admin - Keep vote is from article creator Spiderone 20:19, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:10, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sock's claim that there is "no mention in any RS" is highly misleading. See [13][14][15]. I understand these sources are pretty far from significant coverage but you should note that the school was known as "Kohima English School", until recently. For older name you can find significant coverage in multiple sources. [16],[17],[18] Lorstaking 03:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fun 100

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

Article about a band, not reliably sourced as having any significant claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The strongest notability claim in evidence here is having had mid-level hits on Canada's campus radio charts -- but NMUSIC #2 is only passed by IFPI-certified charts on the order of Billboard, not by ChartAttack or earshot or CBC Radio 3. Otherwise, there's almost nothing else of substance stated here, and other than the WP:BADCHARTS the only other reference here is an unrecoverable dead link from a shortlived alt-weekly in their own hometown -- and even that is being used solely to support a statement that the band got coverage in that publication, rather than any useful or potentially noteworthy information about the band, and one piece of coverage is not enough all by itself to hand them a WP:GNG based exemption from having to pass any actual NMUSIC criteria.
Note as well that the result of the first discussion is not a definitive veto over reconsidering this now, as Wikipedia's inclusion and sourcing standards are a lot different in 2020 than they were in 2006. Bearcat (talk) 17:33, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:33, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:33, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not the easiest band name to search for, so sorry if I missed something, but couldn't really find many RS. Caro7200 (talk) 17:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Walton Group Inc.

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

Advert for non-notable small PR firm in small city; no assertion or evidence of actual notability. Orange Mike | Talk 17:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a simple Google search identifies no profiles of the company - only announcements of recent hires into account management positions, and one notice of the company moving. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above, the topic lacks the level of coverage needed to establish the topic as meeting WP:NCORP. In addition, no sources indicate how Walton (or the Walton) is individually noteworthy when compared to other, similar companies. Couple this with the article creator's possible connection to the topic (WP:NOTPROMO) and this is an easy delete. SamHolt6 (talk) 18:17, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NCORP. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:27, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NCORP per above --DannyS712 (talk) 11:21, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Created by a WP:COI editor and fails WP:NCORP as I was unable to find many results on Google and likely fails WP:NCORP 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 10:43, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of retailers in the United Kingdom

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

We already have lists for supermarkets, discounters, convenience stores etc. This list is non specific and fails to actually link to half of the retailers anyway. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 16:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 June 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:13, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. We already have sublists for specific types of retailers. There are no List of retailers in articles for other countries as well. Ajf773 (talk) 20:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It not only doesn't have the wlinks as the nominator points out, it's not especially close to complete, either ~ nor is it likely to be, as it's too arbitrary a list; happy days, Lindsay^Hello 20:40, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. – DarkGlow (talk) 22:33, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I really do not see the purpose of this. As the nominator points out there are specific lists available. Dunarc (talk) 19:46, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 19:40, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rahkla, Rakvere Parish

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

Fails WP:GNG. No third party sources provided. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

speedy keep: existing village in Estonia--Estopedist1 (talk) 11:19, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:NGEO: "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low." ExRat (talk) 19:18, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clear pass of WP:GEOLAND. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:20, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Even though the discussion has almost run for a full 7 days, the deletion rationale contradicts common sense with respect to WP:NGEO so heavily that no other reasonable editor would recommend deleting the article on this ground. (non-admin closure) Juliette Han (talk) 10:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trí Phải

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

No references provided. The article doesn't have stats beyond basic information. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:20, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:GNG --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:27, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:20, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:20, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close - invalid deletion rationale..† Encyclopædius 15:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:GNG. Happy now? --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:27, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't fail GNG though (and it is verifiable). Read Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features)...† Encyclopædius 15:55, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Check w:vi:Trí Phải. This is a significant settlement with a population of 12,970 as of 2005. Passes WP:NGEO. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Passes WP:NGEO. No compliance with WP:Before. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:27, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Subject passes WP:GEOLAND#1 Populated legally recognized place. Lightburst (talk) 23:36, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep a legally recognized populated place with a population of over 10,000 -- this is a slam-dunk WP:GEOLAND pass. No reason for this to linger here for 7 days. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 09:30, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Even before Encyclopædius added references this would've been a speedy keep. Verified population center easily passing WP:GEOLAND.Oakshade (talk) 19:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clear pass of WP:GEOLAND. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:20, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The "keep" opinions do not address the lack of sources, which dooms any topic, noble or not. Sandstein 20:46, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Archduchess Maria Beatrix of Austria-Este

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

This article had two sources, both unreliable. Google finds 62 hits for the article title quoted, mostly namechecks. I don't know if even the title is correct, and it's hard to tell because of the tendency of noble houses to reuse names. Maria Beatrix countess of Montizon gets 43 unique hits. I just don't think this is an independently notable subject. Guy (help!) 15:20, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a royal geneology website. We do not keep articles on people whose only claim to fame is connections with not in power claimants and displaced royal houses.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:13, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the best article title. It's ambiguous with her grandmother (and great-grandmother) Maria Beatrice d'Este, Duchess of Massa, and should probably be a redirect there. DrKay (talk) 09:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable person. Smeat75 (talk) 14:17, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep John Pack Lambert’s comment is completely wrong. During her life the Habsburg’s ruled Austria-Hungry, her father was the ruling Duke of Modena so she is not some non notable modern day descendant of a displaced not in power royal house, but instead someone at the heart of the Carlist Wars as a wife and mother of claimants. The other language Wikipedia’s have better sourced and written articles that can be used to improve this one. - dwc lr (talk) 14:58, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but needs improvement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:4360:AD9A:53FC:71F1:A392 (talk) 19:15, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 19:39, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ellakvere

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

Possibly fails WP:NGEO. No third party sources provided. Also, there are no data beyond just basic stats. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:17, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:17, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:17, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tyw7, why didn't you just do one click to the Estonian ariticle where you would've seen third party sources provided instead of starting an AfD?Oakshade (talk) 19:25, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "No third party sources provided" is not grounds for deletion. Nominator neglected to do WP:BEFORE. I don't speak Estonian, and I easily found "Estonia's largest garlic grows in the village of Ellakvere". Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Eastmain, I've done before but I only found links to weather reports and Wiki-clones. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:30, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. And the Estonian Wikipedia's article at et:Ellakvere has additional text than can be added. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:14, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

speedy keep: existing village in Estonia--Estopedist1 (talk) 11:18, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:NGEO: "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low." ExRat (talk) 19:01, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clear pass of WP:GEOLAND. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:19, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:44, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pia Borgli

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

Possibly non-notable actress. Can't find third-party source for the actress. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:14, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:14, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:14, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:14, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:14, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:27, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The first source is dead, the second source has absolutely nothing to do with the actress, and the last two sources fail WP:CITEIMDB. This proves that she isn't notable in any way. 🌴Koridas🌴 (Negotiate) 07:55, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Bahrain-Indonesia relations. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:52, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of ambassadors of Indonesia to Bahrain

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

Possibly unnecessary list. Only have 1 person listed. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some quick googling indicates the list is out of date; there has been at least one other appointment to this position. It will also necessarily grow over time, so I don't see the point in just having to recreate it later. Alternately, it could be merged into Bahrain–Indonesia relations and then WP:SPLIT back out when size merits it. In any event, deletion should not be considered a valid option here per WP:ATD. postdlf (talk) 16:30, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Postdlf. It could be redirected to Bahrain–Indonesia relations but there is not deletion needed.★Trekker (talk) 21:17, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Bahrain-Indonesia relations, there is no reason to have a split, since these two articles combined equate to around 5k bytes. It would take something like 500 years for there to be enough ambassadors for this to be a valid split. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:27, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Bahrain–Indonesia relations for now until the list gets better and larger. Capitals00 (talk) 08:54, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:52, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kapil Dev (actor)

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

This actor is an unsourced supporting actor that fails to establish notability. This actor was not famous. He has acted in a couple films in the lead roles, but I couldn't find any sources about him. He may be notable, but kindly add sources. TamilMirchi (talk) 20:26, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 20:26, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 20:26, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 20:26, 27 May 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)} 14:57, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:39, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:54, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Connoisseur Selection

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

No sources. Fails GNG. A few possible mentions on cigar forums, but certainly no significant coverage or reliable sources for this product line. JohnmgKing (talk) 14:45, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. JohnmgKing (talk) 14:45, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nicaragua-related deletion discussions. JohnmgKing (talk) 14:45, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As author of this article, I vote for deletion. It is no longer relevant. Glacierman (talk) 15:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I tried looking the brand up. But I found absolutely nothing. This is a non-notable and unpopular cigar brand that does not deserve it's own article. 🌴Koridas🌴 (Negotiate) 07:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:55, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Halfway (2009 film)

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

Non-notable movie with no references; not rated by Rotten Tomatoes or by any other mainstream review site Why? I Ask 14:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. user:Why? I Ask 14:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Delete -The only reliable source I could find is this one. I couldn't find any website, and no books ever mention the subject. 🌴Koridas🌴 (Negotiate) 18:15, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Eriko Kitagawa#Filmography. -- Whpq (talk) 16:02, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to 2020 Portland, Oregon mayoral election. Rough consensus seems to be that she's not quite over the notability bar yet - the minority of "keep" opinions don't identify which sources are supposed to establish notability. Redirection is a sensible alternative to deletion here given that this is a likely search term, and it allows merging content from the history to the extent editors deem it appropriate. Sandstein 10:38, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Iannarone

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

WP:BLP of a person notable only as an as yet non-winning candidate for mayor of her city, not properly referenced as passing any of our inclusion tests. A person has to hold a notable office, not just run for one, to qualify for an article under WP:NPOL -- to get an article as a candidate, she would have to either (a) demonstrate that she had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten her an article independently of the candidacy (the Cynthia Nixon test), or (b) show a depth and range and volume of nationalizing media coverage that makes her candidacy much more special than the thousands of other aspiring mayoral candidates across the United States (the Christine O'Donnell test). But this makes no claim that would have gotten her an article independent of the candidacy, and is referenced entirely to primary sources (her own campaign website, raw tables of election results) that are not support for notability at all. No prejudice against recreation on or after November 3 if she wins, since her notability claim will have changed from "candidate" to "officeholder", but nothing here is legitimate grounds for a Wikipedia article about her to already exist today. Bearcat (talk) 14:12, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:12, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:12, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I vote keep per GNG. I live in Portland and hear her name in the news. A search at Google News yields over 2,000 results. Sure, many of these are likely to be passing or brief mentions of her candidacy, but there are also pieces like this which are specifically about her. I think editors just need more time to flesh out her entry. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:24, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Non-winning mayoral candidates do not pass GNG just because local campaign coverage exists. Local campaign coverage always exists in every city that has mayoral elections and media — so if the existence of campaign coverage were all it took to exempt a candidate from having to pass NPOL, then our established consensus that candidates are not notable just for being candidates would be inherently meaningless, because every candidate in every election could always exempt themselves from NPOL on the grounds of having campaign coverage. So making a candidate notable enough for special treatment over and above other candidates is not a question of showing that campaign coverage exists — it's a question of showing that her campaign coverage has exploded to a degree that would get her candidacy over the ten year test for enduring significance. In other words, the question that has to be answered is whether there's a substantive reason why the world will still need this article to exist in 2030 even if she loses, not just whether she has campaign coverage. Bearcat (talk) 14:30, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. AlessandroTiandelli333 has shared more sources below. There's enough to draft a bio (if short) of her career and personal life, IMO. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep If she was only getting coverage for her campaign then her page should be deleted, but she has also got a bit of coverage as a restauranteur, so she passes WP:GNG: [19] [20] [21] [22] [23]. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 15:03, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge > 2020 Portland, Oregon mayoral election, (brief bio & earlier run in 2016 Portland, Oregon mayoral election should be mentioned there). (Otherwise, redirect perWikipedia:R, useful redirect and search term.)Djflem (talk) 15:16, 4 June 2020 (UTC) see below[reply]
Redirect to 2020 Portland, Oregon mayoral election as a plausible search term. Election pages can be a good place for reliably sourced information about candidates. --Enos733 (talk) 15:26, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, and therefore a partial merge with some info is preferable.Djflem (talk) 16:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, or merge somewhere as suggested. Johnbod (talk) 16:08, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge without prejudice. This very much seems like a borderline case, we can certainly dredge up things related to her restaurant, her activism, and her city planning stuff from PSU, but it's clear the main key to her notability will be contingent on becoming mayor (or not). So I think it should either be kept without prejudice to discussing or deleting post-election, or it should be merged without prejudice to being split after the election if it works out. (also: declaring a personal bias (not COI) towards her, discount my thoughts if necessary) tedder (talk) 16:27, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mayoral candidates don't clear the threshold when most mayors don't. Owning a bakery etc... also doesn't go beyond a local interest story. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete people who run unsuccessfully for mayor are not notable. We would have to find sourcing far from the Portland media market to show her as notable. Local mayoral candidates are always going to get coverage, but we have absolutely decided not all mayoral candidates are notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:31, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If she's best known for losing two mayoral elections, as our article claims, then she's not notable per WP:NPOL. Maybe she has some other claim to notability, and the article can be rewritten to say that she's known for that instead, but I'm not seeing it. Her now-closed cafe might plausibly be notable, but that's still not evidence that she is herself. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:22, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As a Portlander who is following this race, and has worked on Wikipedia articles for many local politicians, I'm unsure. It does seem likely that, given enough digging, enough high quality sources exist to clear the WP:GNG threshold. But it will take work to find those sources, and work to synthesize them into a proper article that clearly establishes her significance. I'll watch this discussion, and if there's significant improvement to the article I'll probably vote keep. But as it currently stands, it's not nearly up to our standards. (I did enjoy the sentence: "She's a self-described neighbor of Jarrett Walker, and the two have brainstormed transportation solutions, including after a chance brainstorming session that started on a TriMet bus." With four footnotes, no less!) For a decent example of a Portland mayoral candidate article for a candidate who didn't win, I'd look at Sho Dozono. The contrast is pretty readily apparent. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 20:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- One point contributing to her notability that could be expanded is her impact on the national discourse around antifa. The Washington Times article is cited, but the Playboy article that started it is not. (It was also mentioned in Willamette Week.) -Pete Forsyth (talk) 20:59, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From "national" coverage mentioned she passes GNG Wikipedia:BASIC.

Washington, DC: Valerie Richardson, Valerie Richardson (June 2, 2020). "'I am antifa': Sarah Iannarone forces runoff in bid to become Portland's mayor". The Washington Times.

New York City: "Portland Mayoral Candidates: Sarah Iannarone". WNYC: Think Out Loud. April 17, 2020. (interview, with intro with content)

Playboy: Farrley, Donovan (December 19, 2020). "Antifa in Focus". Playboy.

Bloomberg Media: Andrew Small (24 August 2018). "Let's Rethink What a 'Bike Lane' Is". CityLab. Retrieved 4 June 2020. Djflem (talk) 21:15, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY and WP:GNG. Playboy, Washington Times, WNYC picking up local OPB interview are sufficient in my view. There's still work to be done to improve the article...but ain't that always how it goes. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 17:27, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Local coverage being reaggregated by other sources through syndication is not a notability booster. For "Playboy, Washington Times, WNYC" to speak to her notability, they would have to have assigned their own writers or journalists to produce new content about her, not just rebroadcast or republish content previously produced by a different media outlet in Portland. And at any rate, candidates aren't automatically special the moment you can show that they've had a one, two or three source blip of nationalized coverage in a WP:BLP1E context — to make a candidate notable enough for permanent inclusion in an international encyclopedia, what needs to be shown is that her candidacy passes the ten year test for enduring significance: that is, her candidacy was so important that even if she loses, people will still remember her name and be looking for information about her in 2030 anyway. Bearcat (talk) 12:02, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wikipedia:HEY & RS sources added to article to merge or 2020 Portland, Oregon mayoral election Djflem (talk) 07:27, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, appears to pass WP:GNG so WP:NPOL is irrelevant, remember that NPOL only comes into play if a subject doesnt pass GNG... If they pass GNG thats the end of the story, they’re notable. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:25, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, candidates are not exempted from having to pass NPOL just because some coverage of the election campaign happens to exist — coverage of every election campaign in every place that has elections always exists, so if that were how it worked then every candidate would always be exempted from having to pass NPOL and NPOL itself would be inherently meaningless. GNG does not just count the number of footnotes present in the article, keeping everybody who has more than two and ignoring all other considerations — GNG most certainly does take into account the context of what the person is getting covered for, and deem some types of coverage (such as campaign coverage of a non-winning candidate for political office who has no other claim of preexisting notability for other reasons outside the election campaign) as not notability-making contexts. And besides, even with new sources added, far too many of them are Twitter tweets and other primary sources that are not support for notability at all. Bearcat (talk) 11:53, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, I agree that Wikipedia:HEY & RS sources helped. I’d also be ok to merge and redirect to 2020 Portland, Oregon mayoral election. I concur that if WP:GNG is met (and I think it is), then WP:NPOL is not needed. Montanabw^(talk) 16:23, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She's only really locally notable for being a mayoral candidate. Even though she's been outspoken recently on antifa, that's mainly a direct result of her candidacy. If she wins the election, we can restore the article. SportingFlyer T·C 03:15, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And that coverage is NOT Wikipedia:ROUTINE, as discussed: Wikipedia:What is and is not routine coverage Djflem (talk) 08:05, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That essay only discusses presidential elections, and says nothing whatsoever about elections at the municipal level. Every candidate for mayor in every town and city that has mayors can always show evidence of campaign coverage — so such coverage most certainly is routine if it doesn't establish a credible reason why her candidacy is somehow more special than everybody else's candidacies. Bearcat (talk) 18:59, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does mention presidential election, under the subheader, "examples". It says nothing about "every" other things mentioned above. As a matter of fact, Wikipedia:ROUTINE doesn't either, whereas GNG states: People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject, which is the case here.Djflem (talk) 20:54, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — For now i’d say this is quite too soon, if she does emerge victorious then perharps the article may be refunded to the article creator. Celestina007 (talk) 20:41, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:44, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rupani Footwear

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

Article has long been unsourced. I cannot find any reliable sources and certainly no significant secondary source coverage. Doesn't seem to pass WP:ORG

The article was created 10 years ago by an user with 'Rupani' in his username- predictably the article spoke of the 'quality' of Rupani Footwear. Though the promotional material was removed, for some reason, the article was never deleted. JohnmgKing (talk) 14:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. JohnmgKing (talk) 14:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. JohnmgKing (talk) 14:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. JohnmgKing (talk) 14:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of any notability, Google News only brings up one result which is more or less a directory other than that nothing, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 14:19, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The page was restored after an A7 speedy-deletion at the request of the WP:SPA article creator and then moved back into mainspace. Searches find nothing better than a brief in-role quote from a company director in industry reactions to a Budget; no evidence of notability. AllyD (talk) 14:57, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above Spiderone 20:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:43, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Storj Labs

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

Not notable. Promotional. Fuddle (talk) 13:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Fuddle (talk) 13:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 14:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article on a start-up company, describing their product's features and sourced from announcements with quotations and interview Q&As from the CEO, etc. The best sources appear to be the Forbes item from 20 May, in which several paragraphs summarise the product proposition, and Thomas Claburn's piece in The Register ("Got a few spare terabytes of storage sitting around unused? Tardigrade can turn that into crypto-bucks: Just not very many – don't go all Bitcoin farming on this", 14 May 2020). While these are more independent reviews, I would still see them as start-up proposition evaluations and insufficient to demonstrate attained WP:NCORP notability. AllyD (talk) 14:27, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per AllyD. Does not appear to be notable. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 21:30, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per AllyD, doesn't meet WP:GNG --DannyS712 (talk) 02:33, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough coverage to meet WP:NCORP. Jmertel23 (talk) 17:27, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:43, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moving Tales

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

Not notable. Unreferenced since 2011. Fuddle (talk) 13:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some good sources including New York Times and New Yorker. Moving Tales were early producers of interactive storytelling so worth considering. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YoJimboJames (talk • contribs) 14:24, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Fuddle (talk) 13:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 13:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 13:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ahh, I was planning to nominate this for AFD today, but I see Fuddle beat me to it. There are indeed some good sources like the NYT, the New Yorker and Kirkus, but they're not about the company, they're about one of the company's books: [24][25][26] The book is probably notable; the company is not, as there is no in-depth coverage of it and notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. The author of the article is a single-purpose account who since 2011 has done nothing but try to publish articles related to Matthew-Talbot Kelly. Spicy (talk) 14:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Also removing it from the glossary as unverifiable. No German sources using this word can be found, and the word does not even make sense in German; it may have been made up on Wikipedia. Sandstein 20:41, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Istjude

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

Article on a purported Nazi piece of jargon has been unreferenced since its creation, I looked for sources and could not find anything at all. Given that this literally just means “Is Jew”, I feel that something along these lines could have been used, but it definitely is not a notable topic by itself Devonian Wombat (talk) 13:22, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 13:49, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 13:49, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I first wanted it to be merged with the Glossary of Nazi Germany, but the word is already there here. Less Unless (talk) 20:57, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect As per above, mentioned in glossary, redirect to the glossary. Zoozaz1 (talk) 03:33, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:38, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Krischer

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

Not notable. Fuddle (talk) 13:23, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Fuddle (talk) 13:23, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is more to a prosecutor than one prosecution. If that is all that ever got attention we should mention him in context of that notale and botched prosecution, not have a seperate article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:16, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per crime is a clear example of 1 event notability. Not notable for any other reason, therefore does not get its own article. Games of the world (talk) 11:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:38, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Daniel

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

Not notable. Fuddle (talk) 13:19, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Fuddle (talk) 13:19, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable academic. Not everyone who creates a Youtube channel becomes notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:33, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found and added a reliable secondary source about his podcast, and corrected his description to say that he's a psychology instructor rather than a professor based on some less-independent sources from his employer. But that's still well below what we need for WP:GNG, and with Google scholar listing three publications for Todd E. Daniel with citation counts 4, 1, 0, WP:PROF seems far out of reach. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:12, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to George Floyd protests#May 30. The NOTNEWS argument appears valid and this can easily be undone if there is enduring coverage over an extended period of time. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:58, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 shootings of Oakland police officers

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

WP:NOTNEWS also , if this linked with the riots it may be more suitable elsewhere.   Kadzi   (talk) 13:14, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.   Kadzi   (talk) 13:14, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, there is no indication this minor act of violence will gain any lasting coverage. Article also has severe NPOV issues. Devonian Wombat (talk) 13:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge The topic is also covered at George_Floyd_protests#Deaths but there's a proposal to split that page. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:03, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Investigation is still on-going, more information may be published in the foreseeable future, along with increased attention. Give it time. SchizoidNightmares (talk) 05:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & Merge into the deaths section as said above. Idan (talk) 07:42, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Investigation ongoing, FBI decleared this shooting as a terrorist attack. User:Gianluigi02 (talk), 5 June 2020
Keep We could witness rapid development regarding this as there is an ongoing investigation about the incident. Abishe (talk) 19:20, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cannot have new page for each victim to any riot on Earth, through tragic, not notable enough.Sgnpkd (talk) 22:50, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now as WP:TOOSOON. Notable content is already at George_Floyd_protests#May_30, where it is an appropriate and DUE inclusion. Although sources are abundant, it is too early to tell whether this will ultimately be resolved as a WP:ROUTINE matter. The investigation and protests are ongoing, so the notability of this incident may increase, but for the time being it doesn't need its own page. FourViolas (talk) 23:58, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP It is getting news coverage from many different areas, not just local news. Could be a notable case. Dream Focus 00:56, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: Wikipedia:Current events noticeboard. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:44, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now - Per Dream Focus. Besides, these are federal officers we're talking about, as opposed to your local police. I think that's a standout detail that's going to elevate this case's notability. We'll see what other details come out of the case when they're found. Love of Corey (talk) 07:03, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - At this time this is part of historic protests and violence in America. If anything re-nominate in a years time for reassessment. Good sourcing as well. Is within WP:GNG right now.BabbaQ (talk) 09:07, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep given the national coverage - not just a local news item, has enough coverage to meet WP:GNG --DannyS712 (talk) 14:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It has just come to my attention that this incident could be linked to a later shooting on June 6, which killed a Santa Cruz deputy and injured another one. If this is true, this is going to elevate the notability of this article even more. Love of Corey (talk) 01:04, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect - Keep, or redirect with history to Federal_Protective_Service_(United_States)#21st_century. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:05, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If the connection between the initial shooting and the Santa Cruz one is confirmed, this makes this case very much notable, as riot or no riot, it is rare for someone to shoot multiple police officers, flee the scene, and shoot/wound more of them a week later. -HawthOffHead (talk) 03:48, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Valid if related to the circumstances connected to the death of Floyd. --Foghe (talk) 16:43, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'd say keep based on the sources in the article. The shooting has become an FBI investigation and it became significant across the country. 🌴Koridas🌴 (Negotiate) 18:38, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Certainly meets depth and diversity criteria of WP:COVERAGE, and the continued coverage more than a week after the fact suggests it meets the persistence criterion. userdude 20:59, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's news. Everything related to George Floyd on wikipedia gets trapped in an endless cycle of deletion requests and then requests to split, then a deletion request, request to split. This time the reason is "NotNews" when it is very clearly news. If it's deleted, it will just be reviewed and then started up again in a couple of days if it doesn't pass. Kire1975 (talk) 11:09, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"NotNews" doesn't mean something is "not news," it means Wikipedia is not a newpaper. We don't keep articles because "it's news."-- P-K3 (talk) 13:23, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This particular act of violence was used by Donald Trump in his remarks of June 1^[1]. That alone is sufficient grounds to establish notability. I don't agree Devonian Wombat, who wrote that this is a "minor act of violence". The killing of police officers is one of the reasons why it is so hard to stop killing by police officers. Oaklandguy (talk) 17:00, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge/redirect to where it may be appropriate. People being shot in the US is sadly unexceptional, even if it makes the news; see WP:NOTNEWS. The short time since the event makes lasting importance hard to assess. Sandstein 20:37, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable event and will be proven more irrelevant as time goes by. Sgnpkd (talk) 01:56, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 16:14, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Cubert White Jr.

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

This article has been around since 2008, but has no refs, and reads like a resume. My guess is that he is notable, as the iMDB entry for him is huge. But I am not sure what can be saved. I think WP:TNT maybe necessary, or draftify. Even though he may be notable, I just think we shouldn't allow articles like this to stay in mainspace until someone has time to clean them up. --David Tornheim (talk) 12:24, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --David Tornheim (talk) 12:24, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. --David Tornheim (talk) 12:24, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete basically ony sourced to IMDb, nothing coming even close to showing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:02, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because there are no WP:RS. All I could find was IMDB. Regardless of whether it meets N, none of this is verifiable.Theredproject (talk) 16:36, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is nothing that even hints at notability. Vexations (talk) 16:04, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Did his friends or family create his page? Donaldd23 (talk) 20:17, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 16:04, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Raju Yadav (Bihar)

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

Only winners of state or national level legislative elections are presumed notable; those who lose such elections need to meet WP:GNG, the subject does not. Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator, has not won any significant election to satisfy GNG JW 1961 Talk 13:42, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they did not win — to earn a Wikipedia article, he would have to either (a) demonstrate that he had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten him into Wikipedia regardless of the candidacy, or (b) show a depth and range and volume of reliable source coverage that credibly marks his candidacy as much more special than everybody else's candidacies. But neither of those things are in evidence here at all. Bearcat (talk) 14:18, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable political candidate.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:27, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Per nom & Johnpacklambert. Subject of article of article is a non notable political aspirant. Celestina007 (talk) 19:12, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unremarkable political candidate. LefcentrerightDiscuss 12:57, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above Spiderone 20:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails our notability requirements. - Sitush (talk) 21:30, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 10:48, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leah Wood

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

Nothing to establish notability other than her father. Notability isn't inherited. Her singing career has no evidence of being successful or notable as only 3 singles listed and no chart success with any of them. Touring with Bowie does not make a person notable enough for an article. Donaldd23 (talk) 11:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 11:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 11:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We don't judge notability by a person's success: we judge it based on significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Leah Wood has certainly received a lot of press coverage; the question is if it's significant, or simply routine. pburka (talk) 14:45, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I must agree with the nominator. Leah Wood's music has received no significant reviews or other reliable media coverage as required at WP:NMUSICIAN, and her own works and brief stint with David Bowie only appear in the routine industry listings. Her personal life gets some coverage in the tabloid-style media, such as celebrity wedding and birth announcements, but these are always framed as providing another relative for Ron Wood, and notability is not inheritable in Wikipedia. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:02, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subject lacks significant reviews that would be needed to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 10:48, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Artiknos

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

I can find no sources whatsoever that suggest that this town exists, and the limited article text strongly suggests that it does not pass Wikipedia notability requirements. LegesRomanorum (talk) 22:28, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my rationale at this deletion discussion about a functionally identical article. CJK09 (talk) 04:41, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome. A formerly populated place from antiquity is presumptively notable, and the Barrington Atlas is sufficient support for that—plus whatever epigraphic "and other evidence" the atlas relies upon is presumably available, even if it can't be easily located over the internet. Being able to locate this place and distinguish it from similarly-named or located places is sufficient reason for it to have either a stub of its own, or a redirect to a page grouping similarly small items on ancient settlements in this area. P Aculeius (talk) 14:16, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I agree rationale of last contribution. It is useful to have at least a stub on such places; or at worst a redirect, due to merging. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:58, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 04:23, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Appolena. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:40, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This will never be more than a stub, doesn't merit an Wikipedia article. --Cornellier (talk) 14:52, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And what is wrong with a stub on a topic that passes WP:GEOLAND? How is having nothing better? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 09:26, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Juliette Han (talk) 11:59, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Publishing Resource Center

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

The local nature of this wouldn't not pass notability standards under WP:NONPROFIT. There are many brief coverage such as this Oregonian piece, but all in all, it's not convincing that it meets WP:CORPDEPTH. I thought about merge and redirect to Chloe Eudaly, however seeing that she was just a co-founder, I didn't feel that's quite proper. Graywalls (talk) 20:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 20:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 20:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

clarify With some additional searching, I see no indication that this organization could qualify as "Nationally well-known local organizations" either. With their activities being local, it wouldn't be able to pass WP:NONPROFIT's requirement that it meets WP:SIRS as well as being national or international in scale of activity. Graywalls (talk) 16:26, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. I'm finding multiple reliable sources covering IPRC and confirming a variety of the statistics we like to see for bios of such organizations, including membership counts, key personnel, collection size, major milestones such as relocations, etc. These are found in publications like Willamette Week, Portland Monthly, and The Oregonian, which is the largest newspaper in Oregon and the second largest in the Pacific Northwest by circulation. Good enough for me! I've even expanded the page up to 20 sources, Start-class at least. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 06:20, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:13, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 09:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unambiguous keep per improvements, including 10x expansion (from 2 to 20) in number of footnotes, since nomination. Nicely done. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 21:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. There is some good coverage of this organization in local papers, but WP:AUD is still a concern. I think coverage such as this from The Oregonian is enough to solidify notability, but it's still a borderline case. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 17:23, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AUD issue is also my take on this. The OPB pieces don't meet WP:ORGDEPTH because they're fairly brief coverage. The relocation due to rent increase is an article in the Portland section of Oregonlive. I searched prior discussions for "metro section" and this discussion suggest the Metro section doesn't carry the same weight as other sections. It's up in the air if "Portland" section should be treated as metro section. I don't think that this organization is nationally notable. Graywalls (talk) 20:19, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I took a look at IPRC's WorldCat entry, and I found a few books published/printed by them—including Little Advantages, How to Transition on Sixty-Three Cents a Day, and Zine librarian zine—which are held by libraries across the United States. That, in combination with the organization's own library holdings and the Oregonian coverage, is a plausible case for at least regional significance. I understand the position you're coming from though; as I said, I think notability is borderline. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 21:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's coverage in the Portland Mercury, The Oregonian, Portland Monthly, Willamette Week, Portland Business Journal, Oregon Public Broadcasting, etc. Of the aforementioned sources, multiple are statewide sources (The Oregonian and Oregon Public Broadcasting, arguably others as well) which passes concerns for WP:AUD. --Kbabej (talk) 18:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. – Joe (talk) 12:17, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of American copy editors

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

A list with just six people on, all of whom are also included in a similarly named category. Superfluous with no evidence of why this should have an individual page. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:57, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:57, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:57, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:57, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:LISTPURP and WP:NOTDUP. The category has 12 people included at present, so I don't know why the nominator is believing this list could only contain six when it can obviously be expanded. The list is also already annotated with a description for each entry, clearly a function the category cannot perform. postdlf (talk) 15:54, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Many of those twelve have their own notability issues, or copy editing is a tiny part of their career (for example Hugh Hefner. I think realistically there are no more than 3-4 notable subjects which doesn’t make a notable list. Could potentially be selectively merged into Copy editing or List of American print journalists Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:40, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your new arguments would still mean this AFD is at best premature. If an article belongs in the category, it belongs in this list. And so long as applicable articles exist, we are going to list them. If most of the category’s entries get deleted, then you might have an argument that there are too few to merit a list. But that hasn’t happened. postdlf (talk) 12:08, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete too much grouping people by a non-notable part of their career. This can if need be be a category, but lists of professions where the vast majority in the profession are not notable serve no purpose.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- You're actually reversing the category and list standards. Categories must be WP:DEFINING, lists do not have to be. Nor is there a requirement that "the vast majority in the profession [be] notable", only that there are enough notable entries to merit a list. postdlf (talk) 17:22, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~Actually, that’s not correct~~. If the subject is a BLP, it must be notable to be included on a list, as per WP:LISTPEOPLE. Non-notable BLPs must be removed. I will do some further work to assess the notability of the subjects and potentially nominate some of them for deletion as well. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:50, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Amending some of the above as I misread the comment. But my point about the notability of some of the subjects still stands. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:53, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, no it doesn't, one because it's irrelevant as no one is advocating that any copy editor who ever lived be included in this (just those who merit articles), and two the guideline you linked to doesn't actually say what you're claiming it says. It certainly is typical (and I think best practice) for lists of people by profession that only notable people are included, but there's no general requirement to remove non-notable people from lists. postdlf (talk) 21:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        I disagree. I’ve seen many examples where non-notable people are removed from such lists. But I will leave it to editors to assess how these guidelines apply in this scenario. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 08:37, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 09:24, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Qualifies for an article per WP:NOTDUP, relative to Category:American copy editors. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:00, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant to the category. Copyeditors are not an independently notable profession. Stifle (talk) 10:49, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 10:24, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adriatic Institute for Public Policy

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

No claim of notability, and coverage in secondary sources is generally limited to quoting various statements coming from the organization from time to time, falling short of WP:GNG and WP:ORG in particular. GregorB (talk) 19:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:09, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:09, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:24, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - Hatchens (talk) 01:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Zoom Corporation#Digital recorders. Tone 10:25, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zoom H6 Handy Recorder

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

References are mostly press releases. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. scope_creep^Talk 17:57, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary). --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-01 ✍️ create

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per Cewbot.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, qedk (t 愛 c) 07:00, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Zoom Corporation#Digital recorders as a viable search term and preferable alternative to deletion. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 01:51, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 10:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elnaz Golrokh

AfDs for this article:

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

Two years after the initial deletion she doesn’t still appear notable. Per here, being popular for posting pictures on Instagram without a scarf isn’t synonymous with notability. A before shows she is mentioned in at least two reliable sources, the aforementioned & this one but both do not satisfy WP:GNG. She is also a musician but fails to satisfy WP:MUSICBIO. Celestina007 (talk) 09:03, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:03, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:03, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:03, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:03, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no statement of notability   Kadzi   (talk) 11:18, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it lacks WP:MUSICBIO ~ Amkgp ✉ 12:30, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As a model she got caught up in a bigger story -- oppression of Iranian models who refuse to dress the way the regime wants -- but that does not mean she is notable in herself. Under her many endeavors she has not received significant and reliable coverage that is specifically about her, as required for notability in Wikipedia. And since this article makes no claim of notability, it may be an attempted promotion. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:33, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Doomsdayer520, you are most apt. In my honest opinion it is definitely a promo article. Celestina007 (talk) 18:46, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable singer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:18, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Remain I created this article, she is famous singer in Iran not only for her songs! because of her margins. maybe some of you never heard her name but he is famous in Iran and because of US boycotts in Iran, our singers can't publish the music on international platform. Please before left a any comment first google her name and review the sources. Thanks, Aflantwo (talk) 15:09, 5 June 2020 (UTC)Aflantwo[reply]
Delete Completely non-notable singer; fails WP:GNG. KidAd (talk) 18:19, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Juliette Han (talk) 10:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deir

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

Deir, oh deir. One Arabic word definition does not a dab (or any) page make. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:49, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, there's a whole bunch more articles that should be disambiguated from here, including one that is an acronym, not Arabic. I'll put together a collection. -- Beland (talk) 16:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Clarityfiend: There are a bunch more that I would add from [27] if we want to keep this page. If we don't want to keep this as a disambiguation page, it was originally created as a redirect to Deir ez-Zor. I'd rather redirect there than delete completely and put a hatnote for draft environmental impact report. But do you think this type of expansion justifies keeping the page? -- Beland (talk) 17:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you clearly don't understand what a dab page is for. Those entries you ~~want to add~~ added violate WP:partial title match. A redirect to Deir ez-Zor makes no sense (why that one and not one of the hundreds of other places that start with Deir?). Finally, "draft environmental impact report" is not even mentioned in the linked article. ~~A redirect to Department of Employment and Industrial Relations would seem to be the only legitimate option.~~ Naah, that would be DEIR. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:37, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair argument, but I feel like I'm being called a stupid person. I've made a lot of disambiguation pages; it's just unclear to me which words in some of these places are used as a shorter version of the name, as I'm not familiar with the local cultures. I added a note about DEIR to Environmental impact statement and redirected there. EIS and EIR are the same thing by different names in different jurisdictions; DEIRs are typically prepared for the public comment part of the process. -- Beland (talk) 14:06, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You added that note but without any sources supporting that the abbreviations were used: I've sourced them, and have now added draft environmental impact report to my draft dab page at Talk:Deir. PamD 19:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 20:49, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 20:49, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The buildings and cities are partial-name matches, and neither Environmental impact assessment—the redirect target to 'Draft environmental impact report'—nor Environmental impact statement use the acronym or the spelled-out form. The latter page includes 'DEIS', but not 'DEIR'. Cnilep (talk) 00:53, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Striking !vote per PamD. Cnilep (talk) 04:44, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, much modified. I've put a draft at Talk:Deir. There's a man with the surname, and a couple of usages which are the sort I'd include in any dab page: not partial match but (a) Ad Deir, equivalent of "The ..." and (b) Tell Deir, where "Tell" is a generic term (see infobox: "type: Tell"), like "river". Then we can help the reader by providing a couple of useful links in the "See also". If there was any evidence of DEIR being used as an abbreviation, include it in the same page. PamD 11:44, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And the seventh-largest city in Syria, Deir ez-Zor is apparently also known as "Ad-Deir", so deserves a mention on the dab page. (That name was added to the article some time in 2011, bolded, though no-one bothered to make a redirect from it at the time - I checked in case it had been recently shoehorned in apropos of this discussion!) PamD 11:58, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep PamD's modified version. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:44, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 10:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham Great

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

Subject fails WP:GNG and has no adequate reliable source. On a search the result is close to nothing. I believe its just WP:TOOSOON. Lapablo (talk) 08:26, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lapablo (talk) 08:26, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Lapablo (talk) 08:26, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Lapablo (talk) 08:26, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — @Lapablo, am I seeing this correctly or does it appear as though the afd notice is absent from the article itself? Celestina007 (talk) 08:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — non notable individual who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. Celestina007 (talk) 08:42, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 June 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:45, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable writer and postor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:55, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I created this page knowing fully well that the topic meets WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOVas seen in the sources used.

He is featured in the following

This Day a top Nigerian newspaper. See this https://www.thisdaylive.com/index.php/2019/05/24/cleric-charges-churches-to-bridge-religious-political-divide/

Daily Times (Nigeria), another top Nigerian newspaper. See this https://dailytimes.ng/mike-aremu-segun-obe-others-lights-greats-next-level-album-concert/

Both of these newspapers have their wikipedia pages.

OSUNCitizen, another semi-top Nigerian newspaper See this http://osuncitizen.com/2017/08/27/the-inspiring-story-of-abraham-great-nigerian-born-uk-based-pastor-and-motivational-speaker/

His write-ups, published books and musical piceses are also featured in top sources as seen on the page.

By the above, I guess, the topic meets the basic notability requirements.UcXg (talk) 19:20, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. None of his songs or albums have been discussed in reliable sources. Majority of the article's sources are promotional links to the subject's music. The three sources mentioned by UcXg do not confer notability. The first two are not about the subject and the last one isn't independent of him. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 13:07, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 10:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nikunj Jain

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

A non notable Indian entrepreneur. Nothing but passing mentions. It lacks significant coverage in reliable sources and i was unable to find no evidence of independent notability. According to sources, the subject was involved in Cryptocurrency Ponzi Scheme, which gave him several media coverage. Rinat Shakenov (talk) 05:12, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 June 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:30, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Dps04 (talk) 06:15, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dps04 (talk) 06:15, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable Indian businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 10:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shweta Mehta

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR Princepratap1234 (talk) 04:49, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Princepratap1234 (talk) 05:37, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Princepratap1234 (talk) 05:37, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India -related deletion discussions. Princepratap1234 (talk) 05:37, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:25, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 10:28, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harman Singha

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR Princepratap1234 (talk) 04:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Princepratap1234 (talk) 05:40, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Princepratap1234 (talk) 05:40, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Princepratap1234 (talk) 05:40, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:19, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 10:28, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mineral Slide, California

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

As far as I can tell, this was a mine, not a town, with emphasis on "was". The topo maps show this as a "site", with nothing there, but I've found numerous mentions of a mine of this name— routine mentions, I would add. Mangoe (talk) 03:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. My search on Newspapers.com turns ups mentions of a "Mineral Slide mine", but not enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. No indication this was ever a legally recognized community, as required by WP:GEOLAND. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 21:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 21:38, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 21:38, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable locale mislabeled as a "populated place" in GNIS and further misconstrued as an "unincorporated community" here. –dlthewave ☎ 05:50, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 10:29, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kobby Kyei

AfDs for this article:

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

Unsourced BLP. Subject of the article totally fails WP:GNG. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 03:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 03:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 09:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 09:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it’s not unsourced, though the sources may not be reliable. Mccapra (talk) 09:45, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article lacks any sources that would lead to passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:24, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 10:29, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ntelabi

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject of the article currently fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. Previously deleted in 2017 and still no improvement in his career as a musician to warrant a Wikipedia article. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 03:10, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 03:10, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 03:10, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable rapper.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:26, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable entertainer. Article should have stayed deleted. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:09, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:15, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel T. Lewis

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

Might not pass wp:POLITICIAN. His major claims to fame include unsuccessfully running for state house and US senate, which are not yardsticks for notability. Bneu2013 (talk) 03:03, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 03:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 03:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He did run for governor as well, but you're right to say that failed political candidates are not inherently notable. The only significant coverage I can find if from local news: 1, 2, which are of questionable reliability and in any event not much more than local coverage. Fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG -- Dps04 (talk) 05:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsuccessful candidates are not notable just for being candidates per se, so the tests he would have to pass to qualify for an article are that either (a) he already had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten him an article regardless of his candidacy, or (b) he can be referenced to a depth and range and volume of reliable source coverage that marks his candidacy out as much more special than everybody else's candidacies. But neither of those are in evidence here: being chairman of a political party's local chapter in one city is not a meaningful notability claim, and the referencing is almost entirely to primary sources with no evidence whatsoever that he passes the coverage test. Also, the article was created by a user named "Lewisdt2", so there was a clear WP:COI here. Bearcat (talk) 13:27, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete county level party chairs for any party are not notable, let alone for a party with no political power. Trounced 3rd party candidates for office are also not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:17, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination.--Mpen320 (talk) 07:03, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing more than an local politician and unsuccessful 3rd party candidate. LefcentrerightDiscuss 13:00, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to be an autobiography as well as failing GNG and NPOL. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete failed candidate does not meet WP:NPOL. Bkissin (talk) 17:28, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 06:34, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian de la Fuente

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

Non-notable, fails GNG or NFOOTY. Not enough coverage yet. A BEFORE search yields just a few routine profiles. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 02:42, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 02:42, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 02:42, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:59, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:00, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:50, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:14, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 10:29, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ashna Kishore

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Even IMDB only lists her appearing in two series - and at most one of them was a significant role, but sources don't support that. Just doesn't meet notability. Ravensfire (talk) 02:40, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Deletion: Tagged the page for speedy deletion. Not a notable actor. These kind of articles on non-notable actors/artists are encouraging more such creation of articles of non-notable actors in last few months by a group of inexperienced users. Drat8sub (talk) 02:54, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Drat8sub, It was already tagged and then removed by an admin - there's a claim to notability, it's bogus and doesn't meet the standards, but the vague claim is there. Ravensfire (talk) 03:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire (talk) 03:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire (talk) 03:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sourcing is not even remotely close to passing notablity, clearly does not have multiple signficant roles in notable productions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:14, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:05, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sri lanka see more do more

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:NBOOK. Only reference is a Press release and the editor has refused to answer COI requests despite being an SPA GPL93 (talk) 02:20, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 02:20, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 02:20, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not meeting WP:NBOOK, appears to be a non-notable travel/memoir of a non-notable author.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 02:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability, does not meet WP:BKCRIT...aligning with WP:BOOKSTORE. Drat8sub (talk) 03:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Note lack of capitalisation, renamed to get around similarly named article already moved to Draft space for non-notability; sourced to a press release which cites the author as source for the press release. Pure PROMO.--Goldsztajn (talk) 12:10, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article defines spam and author gaming system with re-title. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 18:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:34, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all of the above Spiderone 20:34, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails the requirements of WP:NBOOK. Dan arndt (talk) 00:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 10:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hołownia coat of arms

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

Contains two empty sections and has no references. You Have | Failed | This Universe | 02:18, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. You Have | Failed | This Universe | 02:18, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. You Have | Failed | This Universe | 02:18, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. It's not a hoax, but I don't see why it would be notable. I nominated the Polish article on pl wiki for their AfD, but pl wiki is very inclusionist, so it may be kept there with an argument that 'all coat of arms are notable because they are'. Time will tell. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Are there any notablity guidelines for Heraldic Shields on this site? You have | Failed | This Universe | 05:51, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without any reliable source, one cannot create and keep articles. Drat8sub (talk) 14:39, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The coat of arms ought to be an illustration in an article on the Hołownia family. I presume the other nobles who used the arms were descendants of the family. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:02, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think the section of the article on Notable Bearers explains why this is not notable for Wikipedia. Zoozaz1 (talk) 03:46, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ Trump, Donald. "Statement by the President". whitehouse.gov. Retrieved 11 June 2020.

[1] ttps://www.womeninaerospace.org/events/gallery/2005awards.html

[2] Trump, Donald. "Statement by the President". whitehouse.gov. Retrieved 11 June 2020.

[1]

[1]