Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 May 4

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 3 May	5 May >

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maxwell Huckabee

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

Non notable former child actor. WP:BEFORE shows no substantial coverage. Was the subject of an AfD in 2010, with no sources added to the article since then. IMDb doesn’t credit any roles since 2012. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:46, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:46, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:46, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:46, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:46, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a throughoughly non-notable child actor. It has never had a source other than IMDb, and has been tagged as undersourced for ten years. We should not let such sub-standard articles last so long, although we have lots of just as poorly sourced articles that have been around 14 or more years instead of this at only 10. We need to stop being an IMDb mirror.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:02, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: If the subject had had a greater filmography, I would have said that the two recurring roles in notable TV shows were a good start to making out WP:NACTOR—but he seems to have dropped off the radar several years ago and has had few other acting credits. There is a little bit of coverage out there, but most of it simply states that he was replaced by other actors for one of his roles. There is also some seemingly local and non-acted-related coverage (like this: https://easyreadernews.com/st-patricks-5k-verzbicas-higley/) which does mention the subject's two main roles, but isn't enough for WP:GNG, in my opinion. Dflaw4 (talk) 05:32, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to NSDAP/AO. Sandstein 10:22, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nazi Party of Costa Rica

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

Subject fails WP:NORG which was modified since the last AfD and criteria significantly tightened. Subject was a fringe micro-party that was never legally recognized and had no access to the ballot. There is nowhere near adequate coverage to ring the WP:N bell. See also this related AfD... Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Socialist Party of Costa Rica. Ad Orientem (talk) 22:40, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to NSDAP/AO, and add a short passage on the NSDAP/AO in Costa Rica. There doesn't appear to have existed any such party in Costa Rica, but rather a local branch of NSDAP/AO. --Soman (talk) 23:34, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That seems reasonable. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:03, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:03, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:03, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Costa Rica-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:40, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Although an alternative proposal for draftification has been raised, there is virtually no content in the article to preserve. BD2412 T 01:04, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oversimplified

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

I am moving the article, since "Oversimplified" (with a lower-cased "s") is not the proper spelling of the channel name. Just to let you know, I'm just following the guide to deletion. TylerNguyen1 (talk) 07:35, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence of notability, unsourced single line stub. Slatersteven (talk) 22:34, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no coverage in reliable sources. This is in WP:A7 territory. Hog Farm (talk) 22:50, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but there is some issue with the page curation tool that is not autofilling (I had to create this AFD page by hand), so am a bit down on CSDing right now.Slatersteven (talk) 22:52, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This page is just about a youtuber who is relevant enough (over 1 million subscribers) to be featured. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niobaker123890 (talk • contribs) 22:54, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then there should be some RS saying how notable not being in the top 5000 youtubers is.Slatersteven (talk) 09:55, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy A7 —{ Cryptic Canadian } 23:26, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it is verifiable that this is a YouTuber with over 3 million subscribers, so an A7 Speedy is probably not appropriate here. Nevertheless, I could not find any secondary coverage of this channel, so it clearly fails GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:25, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:55, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:55, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is written in the present tense and so is a biography of a living person and is unreferenced. Notability is only an issue if a reference is added while the AFD is running. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a YouTube channel ("about" the channel uses "we" so possibly not even one person, although this is written as a biography) with no significant coverage, not notable. Schazjmd (talk) 00:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am moving the article, since "Oversimplified" (with a lower-cased "s") is not the proper spelling of the channel name. Just to let you know, I'm just following the guide to deletion. TylerNguyen1 (talk) 07:35, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article lacks secondary reliable sources, does not meet WP:GNG. Nika2020 (talk) 19:41, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy/Draftify We could improve the article if we make it a draft, to prepare it until it meets article standards. TylerNguyen1 (talk) 04:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Magic Time (Van Morrison album). Article was redirected during the AfD. Nomination subsequently withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Jack Frost (talk) 05:34, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Magic Time (Van Morrison song)

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

Fails WP:NSONG. Not a single, so I couldn't find any reviews or context outside of the album. Sourced to a Van Morrison fan site which apparently tracks song plays (although it doesn't say from where, and this wouldn't be an indication of notability anyway), and a track listing to prove it's on an album. A redirect wouldn't be useful as this is the title track of the parent album, and a search would bring up that album before this song anyway. Richard3120 (talk) 22:13, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 22:14, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 22:14, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Looks like it's been redirected. I agree with Richard3120 that it's not a terribly notable song outside of being well-received within the context of the album. I suppose notability would be strengthened if more RS were found that highlighted how often Van plays it, how it's regarded as one of his better later songs, etc., per the unredirected article. I didn't find that. Caro7200 (talk) 12:44, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If it's been redirected there's no point carrying on with this discussion – I'll withdraw the nomination for now and see if it stays redirected, I can always open up another AfD in the future if necessary. Richard3120 (talk) 14:50, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with retarget, oppose delete. It fails WP:NSONG, but the redirect populates wholly different categories to the album, and such categories are useful search tools. Narky Blert (talk) 04:13, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Wow, feels like a lifetime ago ol' Willy was on his rampage of terror. bibliomaniac 1 5 03:52, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chen Lee water suspension

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

Aside from the reference to Genii (magazine)'s Magicpedia, which I'm unsure if it's reliable or not, I cannot find any references to this trick in reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. Hog Farm (talk) 20:59, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 20:59, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2005-08 move to → Chen Lee water suspension on wheels on wheels!

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Bearing in mind that AfD is not a vote, as closer I need to evaluate the policy-based strength of arguments. The arguments to keep are not supported by sufficient coverage in reliable sources. I expect that some editors would prefer that this be relisted, but relisting will not cause independent reliable sources or general notability to appear out of the ether. No prejudice against restoring to draft if it is believed that stronger sources will develop or be found. BD2412 T 01:12, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mika Tan

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

Fails WP:BIO - listed sources in the article are primary or unreliable. Google News, Books, and Scholar reveal trivial coverage. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:23, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:32, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:32, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:32, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:32, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:33, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:33, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:34, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:34, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - no notable Ghits, so very likely does not pass WP:BIO as mentioned. May also fail WP:GNG. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 19:52, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Easily meets WP:NACTOR That aside, try google books and scholar searches for her published works in biology from her days in academia. --John B123 (talk) 20:04, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How does she meet WP:NACTOR and how much academic work could she have put out in pursuing her bachelor degree? We don't even have her real name to make this association. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:20, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Has a large fan base", "Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment". Presumably the works were during her post-graduate studies.--John B123 (talk) 20:40, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What evidence in reliable sources demonstrate those factors? The article doesn't even mention any post-graduate studies. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:58, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You've missed the point, which is not that I'm suggesting WP:NACADEMIC is applicable, but that sometimes you need to search beyond multiple pages of porn site results. --John B123 (talk) 21:14, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, I meant the evidence that she complies with BIO, particularly WP:ENT. If you or someone else provide the evidence, the article is more likely to be kept. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:28, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to your edit summary of "I'm not going to go looking for it", I would remind you that one of the prerequisites of nominating an article for deletion is "First do the necessary homework and look for sources yourself". --John B123 (talk) 21:38, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did looking at Scholar Books and News. I'm not doing any more beyond that. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:42, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:44, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:45, 4 May 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Keep meets GNG, even if nom is unwilling to follow WP:Before. Gleeanon409 (talk) 09:22, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEFORE needs to identify good sources. The references are article fail the non-trivial reliable secondary source test (the subject's former website, blogs, press releases, interviews and award rosters). My own searches yielded trivial mentions and false positive matches. The nominator has asked, and I'm asking again, what are the good sources that support claims of notability? • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ENT. The nominator's assessment of cited and available sources is correct. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - once again !keep voters casting aspersions on AfD nominators unfairly. WP:BEFORE is not an exhaustive process and just because one source has been found, doesn’t mean the nominator didn’t look. Having said that, !keep voters have presented no new sources nor explained why they believe the current sourcing is adequate (it isn’t). WP:AGF in future please. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 00:02, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep based on the Complex article and everything else present in the article. Seemingly notable in their taboo field. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 02:02, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Complex article is an opinion piece with per-item links to related paid content. The writer specializes in lists of top-x things in pop culture. There are several performers on this list were deleted at AfD even before PORNBIO was taken down. Is top 50 a meaningfully selective cut for this niche of the industry? • Gene93k (talk) 04:10, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable pornographic performer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:ENT 'prolific contributions'. Ipsign (talk) 15:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Ipsign What reliable sources is this based on? Cardiffbear88 (talk) 15:44, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - For the purposes of filmography, I'd take (multiple corroborating) movie databases as reliable enough. Multiple awards also point into the very same direction. Ipsign (talk) 16:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Clarification: I mean movie DB via links which are already in the article (293 credits in the smallest one is IMO enough to say she is "prolific"). Ipsign (talk) 14:59, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Porn films are produced quickly and in massive numbers. For that reason, "prolificness" was struck from the PORNBIO in ~2006–2007. Without independent reliable sources that acknowledge this as significant, it does not contribute to notability, especially a claim per WP:ENT. Film databases don't even state significance, never mind prove it. Porn is pervasive, and most of it is unremarkable. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - a) 293 is "prolific" even by porn standards, ergo it satisfies WP:ENT. b) as none of WP:N policies mention "porn" now, saying"porn is pervasive" is not a valid argument; current policies are intentionally written in the way that it doesn't matter whether we are speaking about porn - or about, say, opera; in spite of common prejudices, from WP:N point of view it all qualifies as entertainment, and policies are the same. Ipsign (talk) 18:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Porn is entertainment that largely lacks coverage by independent reliable sources. That's why PORNBIO was taken down and why claims of satisfy WP:ENT or WP:ANYBIO generally fail. Notability needs the acknowledgement of independent reliable sources. IMDb doesn't satisfy that requirement for mainstream actors. Wikipedia excused porn from most RS requirements for a long time. That was bad policy. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of any notability unfortunately, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 14:06, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. bibliomaniac 1 5 03:53, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Door Ki Awaaz

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

Unsourced except for an IMDb page (which is considered unreliable on its own). Therefore, the article does not meet WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. WP:BEFORE check failed to find anything of note. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 19:11, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 19:11, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 19:11, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I conducted a search and couldn't find anything notable. The most in-depth discussion I saw was for a happy birthday song in the movie. The Hindi page has nothing useful either: https://hi.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%A4%A6%E0%A5%82%E0%A4%B0_%E0%A4%95%E0%A5%80_%E0%A4%86%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%9C%E0%A4%BC. I posted a notice on the talk page for the India/Translation wikiproject, but I don't think it's active. If nothing turns up, the other language pages for this should be deleted too. I have no idea how Wikipedia works on other languages, however... Ikjbagl (talk) 01:10, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. Eh, whatever. This is why I prefer not to deal with AfD. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 20:16, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Country (novel)

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

Here is my PROD statement: "No evidence of notability, especially considering that the author of the subject, C. B. McKenzie, does not have an article.", and here is the PROD declination statement: "Declined Prod as Tony Hillerman Award winner - http://thrillbegins.com/2018/11/19/hillerman/. Neutral on AfD deciding it's not a notable award.". I'm also not seeing any evidence of the award's notability, so my original statement stands regarding the concern pertaining to the author of this subject not having an article themselves. Steel1943 (talk) 19:06, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:37, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:37, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and I'm tempted to add Speedy. Did you even look for reviews as part of BEFORE? It has a starred review from Kirkus! Just because the author doesn't have a biographical article on this site doesn't mean there can't be articles on his or her books. What an awful way to assess the notability of topics. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 19:45, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Phuraloung

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

This article, previously located at Phuraloung and All Assam Phuralong Society, is unclear on what subject it's exactly supposed to cover. Most of it seems to be about the organization/movement, which doesn't seem to satisfy the notability guidelines. It was draftified by Winged Blades of Godric in January 2019, but I think it deserves to go through AfD in case other editors have better ideas of how to deal with the subject. Paul_012 (talk) 19:03, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Paul_012 (talk) 19:03, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Paul_012 (talk) 19:03, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support: This page serves no purpose. Chaipau (talk) 19:06, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lacking Notability and as said above, serves no purpose. Santoshdts (talk) 19:18, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per comments above. Also, article created by sockpuppeteer. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 19:39, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above Spiderone 11:49, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Reading the article, this is a religious cultural group relating to the Tai Ahom people. The article is also clearly sourced with a wide variety of sources that satisfy the notability guidelines. To restate. the article is both verifiable and notable, and the arguments to delete it are very thin and haven't sufficiently refuted it's notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.57.141 (talk) 08:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:20, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marmalade Game Studio

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

Not seeing any demonstrated notability for this game developer. The company appears to be thoroughly Run-of-the-mill. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:50, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:50, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:50, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete WP:MILL indeed. Graywalls (talk) 20:13, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nominator, it's a Run-of-the-mill. Nika2020 (talk) 19:44, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Procedural keep - no prejudice against speedy renomination separately. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:20, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ponte Velha de Padastros

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

Uncited, non-notable, mostly single-liners. Should probably be redirected to List of bridges in Portugal, but that has been reverted so some discussion is needed. Lithopsian (talk) 18:39, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also bundling the following pages:

Lithopsian (talk) 18:55, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep. I object to the mass bundling of articles in this way. It is true that the en.wiki articles lack sources but at least in some cases there is a corresponding pt.wiki article with plenty of sources. It’s lazy editing to create en.wiki articles without sourcing, but where pt.wiki shows that there are sources, the articles meet our notability requirements. If there are articles in this list for bridges that are genuinely not notable then by all means let’s delete them, but not take them all as a job lot. Mccapra (talk) 19:16, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:36, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep I also object to the mass bundling, especially since I doubt that every single one of these have been checked for sources. I took one of these articles, Ponte de Segura, and made a little bit of research. I found a number of academic sources that discuss the bridge in depth, which isn't surprising since this is a Roman bridge from around centuries I/II. I added them to the article and I'll try to expand it a bit in the coming days. I don't know if all the bridges meet WP:GNG (probably not), but a mass bundling like this prevents people from trying to do the same work I did for Ponte de Segura. RetiredDuke (talk) 23:53, 4 May 2020 (UTC) Edit to add: I've also added sources to Ponte Ferroviária do Pocinho, it's a centenary road-rail bridge that is discussed in the context of the railroad network in Portugal. RetiredDuke (talk) 14:54, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural redirect All articles written with automated script without sources or assertion of notability, I oppose the mass bunding of stub creation in this way. Existence of an article in another language does not mean that it automatically passes notability on en.wiki. If there are articles in this list for bridges that are genuinely notable then by all means an actual human can write them, but not have them all as a job lot. Semi-automated creation did not have the approval of BFRA as required from here. Reywas92^Talk 00:01, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not arguing that the existence of an article on another wiki is a definer of notability on en.wiki. I’m saying that where an article on another wiki plainly has multiple independent reliable sources, as some of these do, they should not be swept up in a mass deletion. Unfortunately a number of en.wiki editors translate articles from other wikis and just leave them as unsourced stubs, expecting someone else to do the work of adding or finding references. I think this is very bad behaviour, but it doesn’t have a bearing on the notability of the topic. Mccapra (talk) 02:08, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of the 26 articles, 10 do not have connected pt articles; of the remaining 16, only 6 have sources, whose quality I did not assess. While these may be notable, your point is why this should be a procedural redirect that can be created as an actual article at any time, similar to WP:SOFTDELETE, since there's nothing even to sweep up besides a "Name is a bridge in place". These have all been a single line with no details or claim of notability for over a decade now, and pt sources are still accessible for those interested in these 6 (Pocinho, Velha do Vouga, Vilela, Vilar de Mouros, Varziela, Lagoncinha) rather than having them sit there without content or sources until 2030. Else keep just these and delete/redirect the rest. Reywas92^Talk 05:30, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with a lot of what you say, but I think that it is non-sensical to make a mass AfD for 26 articles with varying degrees of notability and expect to just come out of it with a blanket decision for the lot of them. I agree that they should not exist without sources for eternity, but the nominator should make smaller bundles of like 3/4 articles so that people can at least look at them properly and engage if they want to. Otherwise what even are we discussing if most people won't even open all of the articles. RetiredDuke (talk) 08:53, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - A nonsensical amount of AfDs with varying degrees of ability to ascertain notability. For example the 2nd Century Roman built Ponte de Segura is most certainly notable. Oakshade (talk) 05:34, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The word Ponte means bridge, you will find English sources if you use Bridge after the name of the bridge. Out of these articles there are five including Ponte de Segura that can pass GNG, but you have bundeled them all togather, which forces us to either vote delete on all or keep on all. If you make an AFD for each sepreately, it will be easier to vote. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 09:40, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep per apples and oranges. This nomination is a bit of a WP:TRAINWRECK per some disparate articles selected. Also, the high number of nominations makes the performance of individual source searches for each separate article to determine notability or lack thereof very time-consuming. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:01, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, includes bridges being notable enough for having a page. SportsOlympic (talk) 09:23, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:23, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:23, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:23, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, another bundle with a ridiculous number of articles to consider, also, "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article.", and as editors above appear to have quite easily found sources for some of them, a lack of WP:BEFORE? Coolabahapple (talk) 00:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep The fact that Ponte Ferroviária do Pocinho seems to be clearly notable means this completely falls over. Some of these probably are able to be deleted, and they may even be able to be bundled, but that would require clarity in what sort of WP:BEFORE search has been done. SportingFlyer T·C 01:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Upon closer inspection, the vast majority of these are probably notable and can be developed into proper articles. SportingFlyer T·C 01:48, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nominated by a sockpuppet, and closed per WP:CSK. – bradv🍁 23:34, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tang Sauce

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

Subject obviously fails notability tests. Practically no reliable, secondary sources to attest for notability. Coverage of the subject is virtually non-existent. Charmanderblue (talk) 18:09, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:00, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:00, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nominated by a sockpuppet, and closed per WP:CSK. – bradv🍁 23:34, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Young Jr.

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

Puffery to compensate for blatant lack of notability as per WP:GNG. Interview with the subject in an obscure magazine dated 2011 is the only source provided to establish notability of the subject as a 'nationally recognized African-American cartoonist and animator'. Coverage on the subject's person online is nearly non-existent, neither is there anything to suggest that 'Scruples', which by the article's suggestion is his notable work, is significant in its own right. With the notability of his persona or works out of the picture, what remains is that he had created the World's Longest Comic Strip in 1999. This sounds like an achievement deserving of entry into the The Guinness Book of Records, not an encyclopedia. Charmanderblue (talk) 17:55, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:03, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:03, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:03, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:03, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:04, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per WP:NTEMP! Coverage by Hartford Courant, NBC Connecticut and Patch is not puffery.

°Reprint of Hartford Courant

°NBC Connecticut

°Patch — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.211.53.246 (talk) 12:26, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 02:03, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ek Phool Ek Bhool

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

An article about a Bollywood film sourced only to WP:IMDb. An earlier version was deleted in 2015. A WP:BEFORE search turned up nothing. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Narky Blert (talk) 17:50, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:04, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:04, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find any (English language) articles to support notability Spiderone 15:33, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Alex-h (talk) 11:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Antila (✉) 10:02, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:18, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cindy Chiu

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

Non notable actor. Seems to have only ever played minor or uncredited roles. WP:BEFORE shows no evidence of substantial coverage. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it is time to be rid of articles sourced only to IMDb. I am also hoping that removing these undersourced articles will delay us having 1 million articles that are biographies of living people, but I am getting less and less hope of avoiding that happening.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:44, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: Aside from her role in Bring It On: All or Nothing, the subject's other roles do not meet the requirements of WP:NACTOR, in my opinion. There is also very little coverage on the subject in English sources. There do appear to be some Taiwanese sources, however, and the only saving grace here would be if someone can assess them and argue that they make out WP:GNG. Otherwise, deletion seems appropriate. Dflaw4 (talk) 05:03, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:00, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas J. Strickland

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

No WP:RS to VERIFY GNG or NARTIST, I could only find a passing mention in a Florida paper, and an exhibition listing in a travel section of the NYT. Also, lists 'Who's Who' which is a big red flag. I searched academic databases, via OneSearch. Of note, this article was created in 2011 by a User:Strklnd which implies a WP:COI. It was flagged for notability the day after creation, but hasn't improved in 9 years. Theredproject (talk) 17:23, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 17:23, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 17:23, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 17:23, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete he does appear in Who's Who in America several times, but that's it. I saw no secondary coverage. WP:ARTIST fail.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:31, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete apart from the Who's Who, the coverage is meagre. I could find only two unimpressive newspaper articles which I added. Curiocurio (talk) 23:35, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I’ve looked a couple of times in recent months because he comes up on so many dealers’ sites and image searches I couldn’t believe nothing was written about him, but if it was, I can’t find it. Mccapra (talk) 02:19, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The subject of this article does not meet notability guidelines WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST. All I could find were listings on auction sites, which do not count towards significant coverage. Netherzone (talk) 16:45, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:52, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dawn Maxey

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

A non notable actor. Only played minor roles. WP:BEFORE shows zero substantial coverage Cardiffbear88 (talk) 16:59, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 16:59, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 16:59, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 16:59, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 16:59, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 16:59, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 16:59, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 16:59, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning delete. She was actually well-reviewed in a 1995 Evergreen Park, Illinois, stage production of Steel Magnolias, but that won't make the cut either. BD2412 T 17:22, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a totally non-notable actress. The article has to go just on no reliable sourcing for a BLP grounds. The review of one stage apparance is not enough to save the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:25, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of sources. If you find sources for the early life section to give us a biographical sketch beyond movie reviews, ping me.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:07, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: With her role in Steel Magnolias, and other supporting roles in notable films and TV shows, I think the subject meets WP:NACTOR. There are quite a few hits at newspapers.com. I've applied to have a few articles clipped, because I believe they might constitute WP:SIGCOV. Dflaw4 (talk) 04:44, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the sources I have provided below only make for a weak WP:GNG argument, so the best I can do is a borderline "Weak Keep" vote. Dflaw4 (talk) 12:49, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here are a couple of articles. I haven't had the chance to look them over yet, and would appreciate feedback from others: here, Here. Dflaw4 (talk) 06:05, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Here are a few more sources: #1, #2 and #3. Dflaw4 (talk) 12:35, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unfortunately, the only sourcing available suggests that they fail NACTOR and GNG, consisting as it does almost solely of passing mentions. serial ^# 13:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I want this article back. 2601:143:C500:1B10:9C9E:D6EC:4BD6:7625 (talk) 03:40, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:51, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Demhat Agit

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

Possible memorial page about a spokesman and functionary for the PKK with no claim of notability. Mccapra (talk) 16:52, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 16:52, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 16:52, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 16:52, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing anything here that satisfies WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 17:51, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per WP:MEMORIAL. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 11:21, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Move content [Author of the page]: we may need a page "List of PKK members" or something like it, so information is not destroyed. If Turkey and Turkish army set up dedicated drone attacks to kill these men, there surely have some notoriety to deserve Wikipedia coverage. In any case, please don't "delete" the page, move it to my userpsace. Yug (talk) 12:44, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:MEMORIAL. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:21, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to A Question of Balance. (non-admin closure) Jack Frost (talk) 05:36, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And the Tide Rushes In

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

Not a notable enough song to justify its own page. As much as I love this song I can't find much about it in terms of notability. Not a single from the album either. Cogaidh (talk) 16:14, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:41, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There are not enough RS that discuss this song. Caro7200 (talk) 16:57, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to A Question of Balance as {{R from song}}. Keep the categories. Narky Blert (talk) 21:21, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:50, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Official Mixtape Awards

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

This article currently includes three sources that are all dead or mis-copied. A search for sources on this event reveals two brief news articles that covered it for all the wrong reasons: [1], [2]. Otherwise there is no significant and reliable media coverage specifically on this event or its influence for anyone who won an award, and all other media mentions tend to be brief announcements of someone being nominated. Even those tend to be in unreliable blogs, social media, and artists' self-promotional sites. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:12, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:12, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:12, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:05, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2012-02 ✗ G11

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:29, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

StoweGood

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

there are 0 sources about "StoweGood" and since it's been contested via deletion, i'm nominating it on the basis that it should be deleted and then redirected. Praxidicae (talk) 15:35, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:40, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:40, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or possibly redirect to Karen Taylor-Good) - This is a side project by two artists who are possibly notable as individuals, but the duo act has not received the significant and reliable coverage that is necessarily for notability. Also, one of them is indeed Grammy-nominated but that is relevant for the individual, not this band. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:00, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then Merge what is relevant to Karen Taylor-Good. Most likely a case of WP:TOOSOON. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:11, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:29, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Magneto Dayo

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

Not notable. No significant coverage in independent reliable sources, aside from a write-up on his collaboration album in the Daily Press. Known for being the rumored ex-boyfriend of V-Nasty, but notability is not inherited. Record World Magazine is not a suitable record chart for Wikipedia. — Newslinger talk 15:22, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 15:22, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 15:22, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough coverage to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INHERIT and does not likely meet WP:GNG. dibbydib ^boop or _snoop 06:50, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:28, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Natasha Anwar

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

Little coverage, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 15:09, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:20, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:20, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:21, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:56, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:21, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. She did publish a few papers. This is not a valid reason for creating the page. My very best wishes (talk) 01:22, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:48, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cheryl Edwards

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Subject is mentioned in passing in this New Yorker coverage of an arbitration case. This entire article is based off a single unusable Blogspot source from 2005 [3], the blog only contains four other blogposts. – Thjarkur (talk) 14:59, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:01, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:01, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:01, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:01, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:02, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:02, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:06, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found an article where she talked about Against the Ropes. Other than that, I barely found anything about her. Easily fails WP:BIO. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:27, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as I'm finding some things by searching for her name, the other writer's name, the various projects she's worked on. I will access newspaper databases to get some more. I don't agree that the blog post is unusable (we can edit the article and move the post to an external link) and anyway, there are more sources now. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 17:16, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. When I was working on Duane Adler (whose career start overlaps with hers), this person was red-linked. I was curious to create an article for her too and did some research but could not find significant coverage. I ultimately removed her red links from Adler's article. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:15, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:46, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saeed Ahmad Nagra

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

Fails WP:NPROF, no coverage after his death. Störm (talk) 14:56, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:59, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:00, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:59, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 07:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Big Five personality traits. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 13:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Big Five Aspect Scales

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

A very similar page was deleted (after discussion) a little over one year ago. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Big Five Aspects Scale. Note that the present article was created in 2012, well before the other article was deleted in 2018. I mention this fact so that a fellow editor does not assign nefarious motivations to the present article's author(s). (I have made such assumptions before. It's only human.) ¶ Please see the discussion about the previous article (The Big Five Aspects Scale). The rationales for deletion offered during that discussion also apply to the present article. Briefly, this article—an unassessed stub created eight years ago—detracts from Wikipedia rather than adding valuable content. The Big Five Aspect Scales is a legitimate psychological assessment instrument, albeit not widely used. For example, the leading instrument for assessing Big Five personality traits is the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R). An exact match (no patents; no citations; all years) Google Scholar search for "Big Five Aspect Scales" yields 74 items; for "NEO Personality Inventory", 23600; and for "NEO-PI-R", 41800. ¶ If someone wants to transform this stub into a C-class article (or higher), I would not object. - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 20:00, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This discussion page was created without the {{afd2}} template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no opinion of my own at this time. @Markworthen: For future nominations, please fully follow the procedures at WP:AFDHOWTO. Thanks. --Finngall ^talk 14:28, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Finngall. I'm usually meticulous about reading instructions, but clearly I was not scrupulous when I did this one. I apologize for the inconvenience. Best Regards - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 15:35, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 15:35, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 15:36, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 15:36, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Big Five personality traits. Unnecessary fork with little added content. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:43, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RVBN

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

No coverage in independent sources, no songs that have charted in reputable lists. – Thjarkur (talk) 14:25, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 14:25, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 14:25, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable DJ.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:44, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:21, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abhinit Gupta

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

black hat seo spam sources, no meaningful coverage, fails everything. Praxidicae (talk) 13:27, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:51, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:51, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Promotional and not for Wikipedia. Mccapra (talk) 16:32, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an overly promotional article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:49, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. - Hatchens (talk) 07:33, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above Spiderone 11:50, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Although I'm undecided about this, I would say that three of the sources on the article (Patrika, News18, and Hotstar) are popular sources in our area. Aren't these enough to not delete the article and edit it for its promotional tone rather? Lightbluerain (talk) 18:08, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

News18 is just PR spam, so no. Praxidicae (talk) 02:32, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteMostly local and trivial coverage. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 13:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
keep notable personalitymore reliable sources are in hindi also am working on its neutrality and notabilityEasytostable (talk) 01:51, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely PROMO. --Goldsztajn (talk) 09:17, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article is not anymore promotional to its current version and clearly meeting wikipedia G.N.GEasytostable (talk) 21:39, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep per WP:SNOW, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:33, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 in music

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

This is a poorly sourced page which does not establish notability of inclusion of the content whilst many of the bands or awards are notable they are already sufficiently covered elsewhere. Per WP:NOT, wikipedia is not a memorial to bands that have disbanded, nor is is a collection of lists from other pages. The whole section of these pages is poorly sourced, full of redlinks and largely orphaned. Consensus is that these pages are no longer linked on albums and songs. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 13:11, 4 May 2020 (UTC) I'd like to ask that all of these pages are considered for deletion. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 13:12, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 13:11, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No Save This Article please. 68.102.42.216 (talk) 14:20, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I really don't understand the nomination, we have these articles going back years, needs some cleanup, but the title is perfectly searchable. Govvy (talk) 16:39, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AfD is not for cleanup. Use the article's talkpage to tighten inclusion criteria, and address sourcing with those who work on the article. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:40, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Any issues on the articles I feel can definitely be fixed. I think that this should be closed per WP:SNOW. Jcoolbro (talk) (c) 16:49, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. The most recent entry of the 426 in Category:Music by year. Narky Blert (talk) 21:26, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Others here have touched on most of what I would say about this page: There are over 400 of these music by year articles, AfD is not clean-up, and its not clear why this year in particular should be deleted but the others kept. The only reason there are redlinks on this page is because subpages for certain countries have not been created for this year yet. There should be a bit more meat on these pages, though, similar to the main year pages. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 21:34, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - AfD is not cleanup. We have an article for "x in music" for the last couple hundred years. Clearly a functioning outline. Hog Farm (talk) 00:56, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) b uidhe 13:12, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sadat Hossain

AfDs for this article:

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

Sources are interviews, press releases, regular news about the release of a book or the film, trivial mention of the subject which does not satisfy notability under WP:ANYBIO or WP:AUTHOR. Perhaps WP:TOOSOON. ~ Nahid ^Talk 11:42, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ~ Nahid ^Talk 11:42, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ~ Nahid ^Talk 11:42, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. ~ Nahid ^Talk 11:42, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, previous keep was mostly based on the film the subject directed but the film itself fails WP:NFILM as all the sources there are regular press coverage, nothing significant. ~ Nahid ^Talk 11:47, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, The article meets the criteria of WP:CREATIVE as WP:AUTHOR & WP:DIRECTOR beacuse he is the director of Gohiner Gaan feature film, documentary, short films and third best selling writer 2019 in Bangladesh which is independent and notable work. Also has a several mainstream media covergae and review of his books and films. It also meets the criteria of WP:GNG as it is on press release, significant covergae and from relibale source. It also meets the WP:ANYBIO criteria about well-known and significant award or honor such as Humayun Ahmed Literary Award. ~ Jubair Sayeed Linas (talk) 13:44, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has significant coverage in reliable sources such as Daily Observer, Dhaka Tribune, Independent and others including features about him and full reviews of his books so passes WP:GNG and deletion is not necessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 17:12, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I don't see what Wikipedia stands to gain from removing this well-sourced article about a widely published author and film-maker. Alarichall (talk) 07:55, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:28, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Mitchell (comedian)

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

I've not been able to find significant coverage of this comedian. WP:BEFORE gave me an interview in the South Wales Argus and an article by Mitchell in the Guardian. I have added these to the article but don't think they help with notability. Tacyarg (talk) 10:49, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Poor coverage, blatant lack of notability. Should stay in draft space as per WP:TOOSOON. Charmanderblue (talk) 12:45, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 10:49, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 10:49, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 10:49, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 10:49, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable comedian.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:23, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:40, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ramaz Abesadze

AfDs for this article:

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

Article fails Notability (academics) guidelines Pratat (talk) 10:04, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:03, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:03, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as unsourced BLP. Looks like it was already deleted in 2013 and recreated, still with no sources. Mccapra (talk) 16:36, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:30, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Culver City High School. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 13:11, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Culver City Academy of Visual and Performing Arts

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

Promotional. Only reference is its own website. Rathfelder (talk) 09:24, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 09:24, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:04, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:04, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:04, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sub-programs within a high school are almost never notable on their own.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:24, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - overtly promotional treatment of an entirely non notable subject. John from Idegon (talk) 22:19, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge / Redirect to Culver City High School - The program is not independently notable. Appropriate encyclopedic content should be merged into the article for the parent school with a redirect to the parent school. Alansohn (talk) 02:25, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There is a consensus that the provided sources do not establish notability under our guidelines. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:37, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Leijten

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

Non-notable American football coach, fails WP:GNG. Head coach for international American football teams, none of which can be considered "top level" of the sport. Can only find routine coverage about his hirings and firings. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:03, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:03, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:03, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:03, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:03, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable football coach.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:14, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep though the article is out of date. Meets GNG per [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. Decent number of sources in German. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 20:39, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's difficult to determine whether the German articles meet WP:GNG - the English language one mentions he was coaching a second division team, and probably isn't independent. They all seem transactional, coverage doesn't seem sustained, and none of his accomplishments would come close to WP:NGRIDIRON, so on the balance a strong delete. SportingFlyer T·C 18:44, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The Dresden Monarchs are a first division team. Also the German articles aren't merely transactional. There are more sources as well, such as in books [9] [10]. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 14:46, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam-2727 (talk) 18:04, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The 3 numbered references are all archived, indicating lack of importance. Final 2 un-numbered referwences no longer link as NFL Europa closed in 2007. Teraplane (talk) 01:07, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:NGRIDIRON and I don't see the coverage necessary to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 02:14, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SOFT delete Here are my opinions of the sources provided by SportingFlyer:

American Football International - this looks kind of useful?

Football Austria - useful?

Report-d - not very useful, looks like a fan saying they don't like him]

WZ - seems like a blog post, not useful

dnn - trivial/news mention

Overall, I think the first two are the most useful in establishing notability, but they aren't quite there yet. Sources on the page now do not demonstrate notablity. Ikjbagl (talk) 05:59, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need some more discussion on the last two sources presented by Editorofthewiki.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:55, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Both of the sources highlighted by Ijkbag1 are about Leijten's signing as Dusseldorf head coach with the second one including a list of every job he's ever had. Usually signings are treated as routine sports reporting. I'm also concerned about whether these fall under WP:ONEEVENT. Papaursa (talk) 16:05, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Not all of the sources are about the one event. There are several sources available in the German press, in addition to what I listed. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 17:23, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, but Ikjbagl's sources plus the 5 sources you listed above, are all about him either being hired or fired from either Dusseldorf or Dresden. Still seems like routine sports reporting. Coaching in the German American football league's top division is not equivalent to coaching in the NFL. Papaursa (talk) 18:26, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware it isn't like coaching in the NFL, but I wouldn't classify them as "routine" - they go into detail on his coaching career, rather than simply saying "Leijten was hired bla bla bla." This isn't about his hiring or firing. Neither is this. Or this, though it could be considered "routine." ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 20:35, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the first website is necessarily a reliable source for the purposes of notability, and to say Bleacher Report has a mixed reputation would be nowhere close to hyperbole. The wz.de article is just a passing mention for a routine youth sports article. SportingFlyer T·C 22:48, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:14, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mapin Publishing

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

Non-notable organization. No credible sources are available to justify WP:GNG. Hatchens (talk) 08:52, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 08:52, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 08:52, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:NORG, and looking at the creator's edit history, they've added Mapin as a source to other things, which suggests promotional editing. Graywalls (talk) 20:15, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:33, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I added a DNAIndia piece from 2010 as a reference which describes the company's history, though in an as-told-to format. Aside from that, there are passing mentions relative to particular books, confirm this as a firm going about its business, but I think more coverage specifically about the company would be needed for WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 07:54, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:29, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Isaiah Feliciano

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

No indication of importance, no refs (website link doesn't work), appears promotional, creator also made article about wife. Notability doesn't attach & wife's is questionable regardless. "Associated acts" are not associated with him. Would need serious sourcing to approach WP:GNG. JamesG5 (talk) 07:04, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per both WP:A7 and WP:G11, since this is unambiguous promotion that also fails to provide any claim to significance. It is also an unsourced BLP. Devonian Wombat (talk) 08:08, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:12, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:12, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:12, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:13, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. At this point, serves as a promotional article. Lapablo (talk) 10:48, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Speedy Delete as policy allows. The reason the article has no sources is because there aren't any. Good luck to the kid as his uploads his stuff to the usual social media and streaming sites, but Wikipedia is not one one of them. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:55, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable early career singer. Wikipedia is not MySpace.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:05, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Moldavian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 13:10, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moldavian Autonomous Oblast

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

The page nominated is a sort of accidental hoax. The Moldavian AO never existed - neither de jure nor de facto. Per this, on 7 March most of the CP(b)U Politburo membership indeed agreed that creation of oblast is "politically desirable", but also asked Soviet Ukrainian government bodies to examine certain questions regarding the possible oblast foundation (numbers of Moldavian population, its density, relationship with other ethnicies, etc) and further asked the Russian Politburo not to make ultimate decision until additional consideration of that question by the Ukrainian Politburo. So, at this particuar stage it was merely a proposal, and by the time the autonomy created it was created as Moldavian ASSR, not autonomous oblast. This document, purpoted to relate to AO subdivision, relates in fact to ASSR division, as is evident from text ("міста Балти з частиною Балтського району, що тяготіє до нього — до складу Автономної Молдавської Радянської Соціялістичної Республіки"). See also ru:Википедия:К_удалению/3_июля_2018#Молдавская_автономная_область and uk:Вікіпедія:Статті-кандидати на вилучення/24 квітня 2019#Молдавська Автономна Область. So, I propose to delete this page as a hoax. Seryo93 (talk) 06:56, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Seryo93 (talk) 06:56, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. Seryo93 (talk) 06:56, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Seryo93 (talk) 06:56, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

REdirect -- not quite a hoax. There was evidently a real proposal, but in the end USSR decided to establish an ASSR not an oblast. The explanation given by nom should probably be used to fill out (if necessary) the article on the ASSR and redirect to Moldavian ASSR. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:50, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Peterkingiron, redirect is also a solution that I would agree with. Seryo93 (talk) 18:03, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Autonomous Oblast was never actually founded. It was no more than a proposal and in the end another entity came into being. Redirect can be a good idea. Loraine (talk) 12:42, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It seems, that "Moldavian AO project" was realised in a creation of the Moldavian ASSR (see article Moldavian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic). This article should remains only as redirection, as proposed previous users--Noel baran (talk) 04:21, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:23, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Red Dead Redemption characters

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

I've recently tried to expand this article as much as possible, and in doing so have confirmed that it does not have enough sources to demonstrate notability. Only 6 of the 24 sections within the article have any commentary on the characters' development (mostly only one or two sentences)—the other 18 sections consist entirely of plot information, violating WP:VGSCOPE #5 and #6. Most of the necessary information is already included in Development of Red Dead Redemption. A similar nomination last month led to redirects to the relevant article (in this case, Red Dead Redemption), which is always an option, but honestly I think deletion here is justified. – Rhain ☔ 06:30, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. – Rhain ☔ 06:30, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. – Rhain ☔ 06:30, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. IceWelder [✉] 06:35, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 07:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily passes WP:LISTN. For example, see

and many more. Policies which indicate that we should not delete include WP:ATD; WP:NOTPAPER and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:57, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Davidson: I don't think any of those sources demonstrate notability per WP:LISTN. The first two sources are just lists of characters in this game who returned for the prequel. The third source is literally just a story recap. The final two are not written about this game. And all of these sources are written in the context of Red Dead Redemption 2, not this game; the characters do not inherit notability. Not to mention that the sources could only be used to cite story elements (i.e. WP:GAMECRUFT), not development and reception information. I'd also argue that WP:PRESERVE is not a relevant policy here since, as mentioned in the nomination, I've made attempts to expand the article as much as possible. – Rhain ☔ 14:38, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator seems to be suggesting that it's ok to have List of Red Dead Redemption 2 characters but not this similar list. That's silly because the one key point of the sources is that there's overlap between the two. And policies such as WP:PRESERVE certainly do apply whereas WP:GAMECRUFT is junk – merely an opinionated essay. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:51, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Davidson: List of Red Dead Redemption characters and List of Red Dead Redemption 2 characters are vastly different lists. The former consists almost entirely of rehashing the plot from different perspectives, whereas the latter has detailed (and sourced) information regarding the development and reception of the game's main characters. There certainly isn't overlap between the two lots of sources, firstly because the games only share a handful of characters, and secondly because the characters do not inherit notability. Red Dead Redemption's character list must demonstrate notability in its own right. I personally don't think WP:PRESERVE applies here anymore, since I've already tried to fix the problem. And I recommend you take another look at WP:GAMECRUFT: it is not "merely an opinionated essay", it is a guideline that is part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. – Rhain ☔ 16:59, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 13:26, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, sourcing provided above only contributed to notability for the second game, this list does not pass LISTN per NOTINHERITED. The article also fails WP:PLOT, since it is written from an entirely in-universe point of view. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:38, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nika2020 (talk) 19:26, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP References have been found. Reliable sources give significant coverage to this, so it passes the general notability guidelines. It doesn't have to be considered a list article, you could remove the "list of" from the title, and it'd still be notable just any regular article based on passing the GNG. Dream Focus 23:43, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dream Focus: I'm yet to see these references that have been found. I've expanded as much as I can, but it still fails to pass notability guidelines. The article is just a massive retelling of the game's plot. – Rhain ☔ 00:30, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are references in the article. I was mostly referring to the coverage Andrew🐉 found and posted above. Did you click any of those links? Dream Focus 05:54, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dream Focus: I'm aware of the references in the article, as I added them, but only five are used outside of the opening two sections (which are copied from elsewhere anyway). Yes, I did click Andrew's links; did you read any of my responses? All of the sources only contribute notability to the second game, not this one: the first two sources are lists of characters who returned for the prequel, the third is just a story recap, and the last two aren't even relevant to this game. And none of them would change the fact that the article is just a massive retelling of the game's plot. – Rhain ☔ 06:42, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.thegamer.com/evolution-characters-red-dead-redemption-2/ shows information about 10 characters from this game that were also in the sequel. That's significant coverage in a reliable source about the contents of this article. Other articles do also give information about the characters found in this game. Dream Focus 07:15, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dream Focus: I know, but that article only demonstrates notability in context of the second game. It's also not very "significant coverage", nor is it considered a reliable source. If you have found other articles that give enough information to warrant notability, please feel free to share, but in its current state, the article currently consists of WP:GAMECRUFT. If all of the excessive plot information was removed, the article would consist of 400 words, 300 of which are copied from Development of Red Dead Redemption. The remaining 100 words can be moved across. – Rhain ☔ 08:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It shows information of the characters in the first game also. That much written about each character is in fact quite "significant coverage". Also thegamer meets all requirements for a reliable source, it just hasn't been discussed and added yet. I have started a discussion about it at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#THEGAMER. And this isn't a merge discussion its a deletion discussion. Dream Focus 13:51, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dream Focus: I know, but the whole article only exists in the context of the second game, not the notability of the first game’s characters—they do not inherit notability. I appreciate you starting the discussion, but even if the site is deemed reliable, it’s still only one source. And what will it be used to cite? The fact that John Marston returned in Red Dead Redemption 2? – Rhain ☔ 14:14, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge: Maybe the characters from the second game are notable, but that doesn't transfer to the first game's characters. A lot of these sources are only talking about them in the context of the second game. It's normal for some games to experience a breakthrough on their sequel, and with it the characters. As a suggestion, you could write a short section about the non-notable story elements in the first game, and have that section link to the more notable story elements from the second game. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:32, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was able to find this coverage on the topic: [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]. There is also the offical guide which may help with sourcing which can be seen here [18]. There is probably more coverage to be found in print magazines considering the game was released in 2010. Regards Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 14:47, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Same problems as with Andrew's sources above. #2, #4, #5 are articles about carryovers from RDR to RDR2, of which #2 is based on then-rumours; #1, #3, #8 are in-universe summaries; #6 is reception, in which characters are just lightly discussed; and #7 is an unrelated analysis. The same arguments from above apply; the sources given for this game are insufficient to retain a separate list of this kind. This is different from the list about RDR2's characters, as it includes, among many other things, plenty of development content. IceWelder [✉] 19:04, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Red Dead Redemption The above sources do provide some notability (even if some are about characters returning in the prequel) but not enough for a standalone list. Redirects are cheap there is no inherrant disadvantage to having one and if in the future someone is able to find in-depth coverage of these characters (in old print magazine or retrospectives) it can be put back into mainspace. IceWelder, CR4ZE Would you considering changing your !votes to redirects as opposed to outright deletion? Regards Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 14:02, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Spy-cicle: This game came out nearly 10 years ago (and I mean, its 10-year anniversary is next week!) so I doubt that if the sourcing hasn't existed for the past decade, it's then suddenly going to appear somewhere in the future. Having said that, I won't change my vote per se, but I'm not opposed to a redirect page at all. — CR4ZE (T • C) 14:11, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I'd rather not. From my experience, articles of this origin are often the target of anonymous users that continuously re-create the list, claiming that it was "valuable Wiki-content", although it is clearly not. This is results in unnecessary standoffs between IPs and maintainers (as was the case several times for a lists of radio stations in various GTA games). By default, therefore, I favour deletion, so that, if required, a clean, historyless redirect could be created thereafter. That said, I am not opposed to having a redirect in general, but I wouldn't change my vote just to keep the current history. Also note that the main Red Dead Redemption articles does not include a list of characters, making a redirect by that name misleading. IceWelder [✉] 14:22, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A good point about redirect pages, IceWelder. I'll advocate for that at my current GTA V characters AFD if consensus moves towards a redirect there as well. — CR4ZE (T • C) 14:26, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This is actually the reason I've not suggested redirection; if the redirect exists, a new or IP editor is bound to come along and recreate the list entirely of plot summaries. I wasn't entirely happy with how the GTA characters AfD went this way, because if the sourcing still doesn't exist for 15–19 year old games, it almost certainly never will. I think the same applies here. If new sources pop up, they can be added to the game page and/or development article. – Rhain ☔ 23:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I've pondered this for a while and was even entertaining the idea of a new article, List of Red Dead characters, and merging both this and List of Red Dead Redemption 2 characters together. However, it's clear as Rhain has stated above that they are very different lists, and there's no notable content here that couldn't very easily be integrated in the Red Dead Redemption or John Marston articles—of which, any such content already has been. The sourcing—even that provided by Andrew Davidson and Spy-cicle above—simply doesn't exist for this article to stand on its own two feet; if it was anywhere near the quality of the RDR2 characters article, my opinion would be very different. — CR4ZE (T • C) 13:42, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, given Rhain's editing history and focus, I have no doubt when they say that sources are lacking and do not establish notability. If they were there, this would be at FLC already. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:25, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:14, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Project Revise (band)

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

Fails WP:BAND. No significant coverage in reliable sources. Sanyam.wikime (talk) 04:24, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sanyam.wikime (talk) 04:25, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Sanyam.wikime (talk) 04:25, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Sanyam.wikime (talk) 04:25, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's an EP review on Kerrang! from last month [19] but that's about it. Seems like it might be WP:TOOSOON. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 08:58, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In agreement with the previous voter. The band has a couple of minor album reviews but otherwise it indeed seems to be too soon for a Wikipedia article. When searching, note that "Project Revise" is also a term from the medical profession. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:52, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not convinced the sourcing establishes notability. The Kerrang review is a step in the right direction, but 'Use for Once' magazine doesn't look like an RS to me, and a now-unavailable local radio snippet introducing 'unsigned, undiscovered and under-the-radar music' doesn't really cut it for me. I also note that the author's account name matches the name of an Instagram account that offers 'music promotion and PR services' - this might be a case of improperly declared paid editing. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Brobdingnagian Bards. (non-admin closure) Dps04 (talk) 04:39, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Memories of Middle Earth

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. The source in the article is from the band who produced this album, and primary sources don't establish notability. I found a few press releases, sales sites, and an AllMusic page that consists solely of a track listing. It exists, but it is not notable. Hog Farm (talk) 00:07, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 00:07, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 00:07, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable album.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:16, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Brobdingnagian Bards as {{R from album}}. Keep the categories. Narky Blert (talk) 21:31, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Brobdingnagian Bards: Barely found anything about the album, aside from AllMusic. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 05:26, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Brobdingnagian Bards. Nika2020 (talk) 19:24, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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