Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 June 30

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

Ann E. Harrison

Ann E. Harrison (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Clear

• Comment-actual the original author didn't remove it, but it was someone saying it wasn't it looks like. Anyway I don't know if it should be deleted or not, just wanted to point that out. Wgolf (talk) 23:44, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• @
  WP:G12 (on notability grounds?!?). The original creator responded on the talk page, which is why I was confused. SportingFlyer T·C 23:47, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Please read Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G12 for what to do with clear copyright violations and what to do with unclear ones. Neither involves AFD. Also note that Dgoldentyer (talk · contribs) did violate copyright quite unambiguously the first time around, and that content was speedily deleted. This is not that content. Uncle G (talk) 00:09, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Uncle G: As of a few hours ago, the majority of the text in the article has still been cherry-pick copied from [1]. Much of it just lists where she taught, but there are a couple sentences which are still verbatim copied, and even where she taught is mostly presented in the same order as the article on the Haas website. I don't see anything which would make me believe any sort of copyvio has already been speedy deleted, unless it was hist-reverted in such a way I can't see it. Considering I didn't want to get into an edit war over this, Wgolf suggested AfD, so here we are. SportingFlyer T·C 02:02, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • You will see it by looking at the log for the page. This is Dgoldentyer's second attempt. And Wgolf was wrong to suggest AFD. The instructions are, as you can see, to use Wikipedia:Copyright problems, where the process is different to AFD. The first two hyperlinks in your own nomination point to pages saying this, notice. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 04:44, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes
  WP:Prof. Nothing to do with copyright. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC).[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:42, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:42, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:42, 1 July 2019 (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.

Phyllis Campbell Abbott

Phyllis Campbell Abbott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

It appears that this artist just never received the required coverage to clear

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:44, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:44, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:44, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the sources just aren't to be found. interestingly, the Concordia source in the article has full-text PDFs of numerous very old articles she is mentioned in. However these articles all seem to be trivial/passing mentions. GNG fail.
  talk) 12:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete I like to support articles on historical painters, but I couldn't find any significant coverage here. I searched newspapers.com, and other than her obituary, which provides no new information, she only appears in lists of art exhibitors for events held in Montreal from 1922 to 1935. Curiocurio (talk) 18:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Abstain I am not even sure if I have the right to vote, since I created the article. When I wrote it I hoped other editors would be able to find more information and sources than I was able to find, but I guess that did not happen. Perhaps one day someone will write a book or article about her, but until then, if Wikipedia does not want to rely on the sources that do exist to support the article, then I am not going to argue the point. It does seem a shame to delete, however, since she did have some recognition when she lived, and if she comes down from Wikipedia, it will be even harder to discover that she ever did exist at all. DaringDonna (talk) 19:41, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are most certainly entitled to a !vote. Thanks for your comments.

talk) 19:43, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete Per above i could not find any coverage for her works ,does not meet
  WP:ARTIST, Alex-h (talk) 12:50, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as a copyright violation of copyrighted non-free content by Samvel Karapetyan ("© Samvel Karapetian, 2007") and Afghan Khalilli, janked wholesale by entire paragrahps and copied into Wikipedia. I thought of a possible explanation, and allowed a day for an explanation to be forthcoming. From HulaguKaan's response that possibility clearly is not the case. Böyük Qaramurad Monastery by the same account was copied and pasted wholesale, too. Uncle G (talk) 22:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

İrmaşlı Church

İrmaşlı Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails

• @Etzedek24:, not only blogs, but only academic RAA is also used as a source. The fact is that there is a ruin of old temple, but i am aware that there are few sources, as it needs more investigation. So i think we should keep it, may it could be interesting for people who do not speak Armenian or Azerbaijani HulaguKaan (talk) 22:18, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Afghan Khalilli, whoever that is, used it as a source. You just filched that person's writing wholesale, first person voice, grammatical errors, and all. Then you copied
    Wikipedia:Copyright policy. Copying and pasting is not writing. Copying and pasting other people's copyrighted non-free writing into Wikipedia is antithetical to the goals of the project. Uncle G (talk) 23:39, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Why the rhetorical question? If it's copyvio then we should push to speedily delete. There would be almost no substance to the article with the offending text removed. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 23:55, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is neither rhetorical, nor indeed coming down on either of you like a tonne of bricks. Think about that. Uncle G (talk) 00:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • That note was specifically referring to the message you left on my talk page, but your wider point is taken. The article should be speedied in any case. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 00:33, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Which wasn't coming down on you like a tonne of bricks either. Another thing for you to think about: I am an adminstrator, and could have deleted this on sight. But instead, having done some investigation, I am asking the editor for an explanation, first. Uncle G (talk) 00:46, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• @Uncle G:, please calm down, i feel that you wrote whatever you said with some hysteria. If you see grammatical errors you can fix it, it would be more polite and helpful. I have tried to fix errors. if still there are some errors, please help me to fix them too. I think the idea is to share information, not to delete them due the "bureaucratism". — Preceding unsigned comment added by HulaguKaan (talk • contribs) 2019-07-01T13:39:09 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:39, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:39, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Clearly notable historic building which would obviously be heritage listed if it was in a Western country even if it isn't by Azerbaijan. Copyvio is another issue, but is the topic notable? Yes. . -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:50, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:50, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:50, 1 July 2019 (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.

Sky Racket (video game)

Sky Racket (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Subject does not meet notability criteria for

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 20:47, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 20:47, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• soft delete/draftify - non notable as of yet. Potential it might be with a few reviews after release, so no prejudice for it to be recreated when the game has some reviews Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:04, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify This is TOOSOON but it's possible it could be notable after release. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:34, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In general given how many videogames get preview press and then never are released I am still on the bit too soon bandwagon to change to keep but also recognize that the sources provided below are high quality enough that sticking to draftify isn't quite appropriate at this time either. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:42, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, as the game received funding (half a million BRL) from Ancine (Brazilian National Film Agency) they would be prosecuted by the federal government if they didn't release the product. [3] Pglomba (talk) 16:54, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Found sources: [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 21:12, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Just to be fair to the nominator here, Shacknews coverage happened yesterday, and 4 days after this has started. There is that
  Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:46, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment Pinging
  Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:49, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• keep - meets GNG now. The TOOSOON argument was a good one until now. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:07, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per Bryn, sources helped to pass
  WP:GNG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 22:50, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Looks like time has solved this one. William2001^(talk) 21:59, 6 July 2019 (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 International Workers' Association#IWA today. This is a tough one. There's a rough consensus that it is TOOSOON for this to have an article. On the other hand, there are strong arguments to PRESERVE the info. I am therefore redirecting this to International Workers' Association#IWA today, as the ICL and its origins are mentioned there. That this is an article about a competing organization seems less relevant to me. Given the article's history, I will also protect the page, any admin can change the redirect or restore the article upon motivated request. Any content worth merging elsewhere will still be available from the history. Randykitty (talk) 12:28, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

International Confederation of Labor

International Confederation of Labor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats

)

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

This has twice been turned into a redirect (by

• Redirect Merge to International Workers' Association#IWA today, its most prominent related mention. re: redirect target, as a split from the IWA, I think ICL has a closer relation with that topic than with "syndicalism" as a whole.

As my edit summary went in March, this topic continues to lack

ping}}) czar 23:28, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Edit: Alarichall's added sources do not add enough information to justify a separate article, so their merger to the aforementioned target will suffice. czar 17:24, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• This has been existence for only a year so is probably
  WP:PRESERVE that comes into this. SpinningSpark 11:48, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• WP:PRESERVE applies? That policy is about information that belongs in the encyclopedia, but is presented poorly. That's not the issue here.--Carabinieri (talk) 17:41, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Oh yes it is, that's exactly the issue. The information that the notable IWW and other notable organisations have joined a newly formed federation is certainly information the belongs on Wikpedia, regardless of whether the said federation is notable enough for its own article. That is precisely what PRESERVE is all about, and precisely what that redirect failed to do. SpinningSpark 18:05, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

...and that guideline explicitly discusses merges and redirects. SpinningSpark 18:08, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So what you're saying is that the articles on the member organizations should mention that they joined the ICL? If so, I certainly agree.--Carabinieri (talk) 18:16, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should also be collected all in one place as well as scattered across multiple articles. SpinningSpark 20:14, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the reliable sources that assert the noteworthiness of the subject or its collection of member organizations? czar 23:06, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't need to meet GNG if the information is not on a dedicated page. I raised PRESERVE in connection with redirecting, not in connection with the substantive page. SpinningSpark 18:02, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Spinningspark, maybe I'm just a little slow, but I'm still not exactly sure what outcome you're pushing for. Merging? If so, to what article?--Carabinieri (talk) 20:53, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pushing for the Wikipedia policy of PRESERVEing encyclopaedic information. Whether that is done as a merge, and to which article, is a secondary issue, but

WP:IAR in those circumstances. SpinningSpark 14:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment in addition to the source found by Carabinieri, I've found a couple of other respectable mentions. They're not very substantial, so I don't think they'd save this article from being merged, but I hope that they can stay with the material as useful references if a merge happens. Alarichall (talk) 19:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as
  WP:UNDUE weight in the IWA article. If it gets coverage, recreate it, but until then, there's nothing worth saving. Triptothecottage (talk) 08:11, 2 July 2019 (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 07:06, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seamie O'Boyle

Seamie O'Boyle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non notable local politician CivisHibernius (talk) 20:25, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as does have significant coverage in multiple Irish national press reliable sources, already in the article. His son's article could be merged into this one. Also how is Mícheál Mac Donncha more notable? Atlantic306 (talk) 20:47, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The media coverage referenced in his article was in response to his funeral or his son's co-option. Michael Mac Donncha was Lord Mayor of Dublin. CivisHibernius (talk) 08:22, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:35, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:36, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Let's look at the bolded parts of
  talk) 02:45, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• O'Boyle may pass the
  Phil Bridger (talk) 07:10, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete. The counties of Ireland are not the province or state level for the purposes of NPOL #1 — the counties are still just a unit of local government whose councillors have to meet NPOL #2, no different than counties anywhere else, and are not elevated to any special status over and above other non-Irish counties just because the provinces of Ireland aren't a layer of government in their own rights. But the notability test for local politicians is not passed just because you can show one or two extralocal news stories about his death itself, or because you can cherrypick a quote from the local media which includes the word "national" in the same sentence as his name, and then bold and highlight that word inside the ref tags like you think you're dropping the mic. For a county councillor, the notability test you would have to demonstrate is that he was regularly receiving nationalized coverage for his political work on the council while he was still alive, and none of the sources here represent that at all: other than the death reportage itself, every other reference here is purely local coverage which is much more about his son than him. Bearcat (talk) 16:07, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and per Bearcat. Spleodrach (talk) 18:29, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Bearcat. No proof that the subject has met more than the routine coverage that local politicians generally receive. Best, GPL93 (talk) 01:02, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination, non notable local politician. --SalmanZ (talk) 23:06, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, it is an obituary. He fails NPOL and GNG. Szzuk (talk) 06:28, 8 July 2019 (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.

Blood Communion: A Tale of Prince Lestat

Blood Communion: A Tale of Prince Lestat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 18:23, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Username Needed:*Keep This is the most recent novel in a series of novels (The Vampire Chronicles, by Anne Rice) that have sold over 80 million copies (as of 2008). The Vampire Chronicles series is currently in the early stages of production by Hulu as an online television series, and is scheduled to start shooting in September of this year. Anne Rice as an author is so historically significant that any of her written works may be considered notable, including the most recent entry in her most popular series, The Vampire Chronicles. All of Anne Rice's prior novels, even those outside of The Vampire Chronicles, have their own individual wikipedia pages. Anne Rice and her works have multiple wikipedia pages, including one for Anne Rice as an author, one for The Vampire Chronicles, of which this novel is the most recent volume, and one for Ms. Rice's bibliography. The Hollywood adaptation of Ms. Rice's first volume in The Vampire Chronicles, Interview with the Vampire (1994) earned over 200 million USD at the box office. Later volumes in The Vampire Chronicles were adapted, by Hollywood in 2002 (Queen of the Damned); and in 2006 as a Broadway musical (Lestat), with music by Elton John and Bernie Taupin and book by Linda Woolverton. Ms. Rice's work, especially her Vampire Chronicles, have been the subject of several scholarly publications and popular works of nonfiction. Further, it is not "Too Soon" to create a wikipedia page about this novel, especially since the page does not discuss or speculate regarding any long-term impact of the novel. Percivalfaust (talk) 23:30, 30 June 2019 (UTC) Percivalfaust (talk)[reply]

• But is it
  notable in it's own right? ^{[Username Needed]} 18:00, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

@Username Needed:* Yes, it is notable in it's own right, however, as with many other works, its notability derives in part from its association with a historically significant author, character, and franchise. Its association with both an author whose body of work is historically significant, as well as with a character and franchise (with its own wikipedia page) which are both historically significant, makes this particular novel notable in its own right. Just like a new Stephen King book would be notable, or a new Batman graphic novel would be, even if the work itself was a minor one which did not receive a lot of press. In the case of Stephen King, his new work would be notable due to its association with a historically significant author. In the case of Batman, a new work would be notable due to its association with a historically significant character in a historically significant franchise. This book is the 13th volume in a best-selling series which chronicles a very popular fictional vampire who was played by Tom Cruise in the film adaptation. The novel in question implies, though does not explicitly state, that this may be the final book in the series, at least from the perspective of the main character, Lestat. As another example, Mark Twain's Tom Sawyer Abroad (1894), and Tom Sawyer, Detective (1896), though little known, and arguably trite and minor works in Twain's bibliography especially when compared to the classic novels of Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn which they are sequels of, both still warrant individual wikipedia entries due to their association with a notable author and notable literary characters.Percivalfaust (talk) 19:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC) @Username Needed:* Additionally, please see revised list of External Links for support of the novel's notability. Percivalfaust (talk) 19:17, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• They are not notable by their relation to them, other than the fact that multiple, independent sources have reported them. See
  WP:INHERITED. Published works must be able to prove notability in their own right (by being reported in multiple independent, reliable sources), rather than being by association to another story. Also, you must place asterisks at the beginning (before pings) for wikipedia to pick up on them. ^{[Username Needed]} 19:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, meets
  Kirkus - here, Publishers Weekly - here, The Valdosta Daily Times - here, New York Journal of Books - here, Library Journal, and Booklist - here, British Fantasy Society - here. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, a cursory search confirms what has been stated: there is coverage for this book. Darwin Naz (talk) 23:37, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Notable per
  WP:BK. SL93 (talk) 17:19, 4 July 2019 (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.

Carola Rackete

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected csp |username}}.

Carola Rackete (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Seems to me no more notable than many other people caught in similar circumstances notable for one event. Slatersteven (talk) 17:47, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - First of all, in my opinion
  WP:GNG is, by the way, easily met with the refs present in the article. --MrClog (talk) 18:50, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete, Wikipedia:Notability failed, 193.159.13.205 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:33, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:45, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep She is one of a notable persons in a longrunning issue (saving refugees) that is still not resolved. Until her case (and the whole issue) is resolved, it will be worth knowing about her. History will tell whether this still the case ten years from now. IMHO, a delete-request is premature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:DE:2F3E:5D00:343A:494F:CCAA:8028 (talk) 18:48, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 19:48, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - If there's an article about
  talk) 19:55, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 19:59, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. Rackete has received significant coverage in a variety of reliable sources with sufficient information about her available to avoid a
  WP:BIO1E, which is the only guideline that would argue against her inclusion if the event she was notable for had an article. Which it does not, as far as I can tell. As long as that is the case, this article is allowed under the guidelines. If and when an article about the incident is created, her article should probably be merged there though. Regards SoWhy 20:15, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep She had a profile long before this most recent incident - e.g. July 2018, which, together with coverage for the current incident fulfills our notability requirements. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:31, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The article on Carola Rackete meets the
  WP:BASIC is a sufficient condition of being worthy of an article even if she had to remain a low-profile individual in the future. Kind regards, Frankie8 20:48, 30 June 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Francesco8868 (talk • contribs
  )

• I consider this article for relevant. Saving lives is not a crime but obeying international law on seas. This woman is an example for civil courage and therefore deserves an article on Wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.40.2.144 (talk) 21:20, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I wont tell what my personal opinion is about this person, her descend, her analytics and so on but this amalgame made her perform an act of singularity to hack current international law to check the validity of national law in context of validity or abuse of human rights by creating a case.

Since years there has been no stronger crash test on international human rights issues. deSLA enAFD is requested by political opinion rather than any applicable filtering issues or wiki homeostasis or overcrowding. It is of utmost importance to keep her in a neutral wikipedia bc. obviously known issues in dewiki.

Ossip Groth (talk) 00:11, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete First of all nobody ever heard of her before this incident. Second if we make this page, where does it stop? Are we going to make a page for every person that is for one time in the news because of the migrant issue? This can create a situation where people are making such pages out of protest, like when Trump got elected and every high school protest wanted to be mentioned in WP. Soon we have a proliferation of pages that will be uninteresting at the moment the person is out of the media focus.--AntonHogervorst (talk) 06:33, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please see

Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Wikipedia is a tertiary source. We do not decide or care why reliable secondary sources commit significant coverage to a subject, we just care whether they do. If they do, we include it, even if some of us disagree with the underlying reasons for the coverage (see this AFD for an example of why to keep an article about someone from the opposite political side despite clear disgust voiced by participants about the subject itself). On a side note, Tagishsimon has pointed out that she was interviewed by a reliable source a year before the incident. Regards SoWhy 07:33, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Okay but then Keep, but make it neutral, these sort of pages quickly become solely edited by people in favour of her cause. It should not become a protest against Salvini page. A fanpage. --AntonHogervorst (talk) 19:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reconsideration. It is one of the project's goals to have articles which are comprehensive, facts-based with reliable references per

WP:CONTN

. That's something for our normal ongoing article improvement processes, not for extra-ordinary processes like AfD.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 16:06, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep per media coverage. I think it's a useful entry to have. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is a highly relevant topic with international relevance, covered in all kinds of media in many countries. Hundreds of top reliable and independent references can be provided. Notability is clearly given per
  WP:BEFORE nominating articles for deletion in order not to unnecessarily bind the precious time and energy of other editors which could otherwise do more useful work in main space than wasting it in avoidable discussions. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 10:13, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep - just about meets
  WP:GNG requirements for me. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete, Wikipedia:Notability failed, she got 15 minutes of fame. A one time event individual. Parts from her article could be moved to

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lampedusa_immigrant_reception_center

Da Vinci Nanjing (talk) 17:13, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Carola Rackete is a key character in an international event involving several European governments such as Italy, Germany, and the Netherlands, and also EU representaives are participating in the current debate. Further, I think the circumstances of this incident are quite exceptional, considering the legal situation and the fact that the Sea-Watch 3 and the Italian patrol boat have come near to collision. It is likely that this event will be seen as a landmark in the history of migrations. 131.114.58.49 (talk) 08:15, 2 July 2019 (UTC) Andrea Domenici[reply]

• Keep - Wikipedia:Notability is obvious, there are abundant references.--Medol (talk) 11:09, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia:Notability failed--Lemure Saltante (talk) 11:40, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you think so, then, I think, it is high time for you to actually read the guideline you refer to, in particular

WP:BIO

.

In

WP:GNG

you might put particular attention to: ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material."

And in

WP:BASIC

criteria are as follows: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability".

These criteria are all fulfilled with in-depth media coverage in independent and top reliable sources internationally (hundreds of them!).

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 16:06, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Tagishsimon. --Rosiestep (talk) 13:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think it might be worth pointing out that out criteria is notability, not worthiness or meritoriousness.Slatersteven (talk) 13:48, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While it is always worth to remind us of the criteria of notability, may I remind you of the actual wording in our notability guidelines

WP:BASIC, already discussed further above. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 19:39, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep Significant coverage, previous noteworthiness, WP:GNG clearly met. Highly noteworthy event, abundant sourcing. Tone needs a little work, but that’s just form, not substance. Montanabw^(talk) 15:54, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The fact that the nominator of this AfD has now also nominated the similar Pia Klemp article for deletion, instead of first waiting for the outcome of this AfD and possibly learn a few bits from it, is really bad style, if not unconstructive and possibly agenda motivated. At the very least it shows that the nominator does not care about other opinions and constructive collaboration. Very sad. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 19:39, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have read and commented and changed the Pia Klemp article in German and English. And for both articles (Carole Rackete and Pia Klemp) in both languages I have the same comment: May be it could be relevant but the bias just set my teeth on edge. Okay you are right that it should not matter for deletion. But all those four pages where so fan based, sorry for using such a strong word, I can imagine that someone out of the same irritation puts it on the AfD list.--AntonHogervorst (talk) 21:21, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this will likely get kept, but it really strikes me as a
  WP:NOTNEWS, especially given a lot of her personal life is now up on the article. No problem on restoring the article if coverage is sustained or if she becomes notable for something else. SportingFlyer T·C 20:19, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete - I think that this page is a form of journalism and it is not what Wikipedia is; if a person wants to read some news, he can normally buy a newspaper. 2019-07-03T01:45:43‎
  TheWorm12 (talk
  )

• Keep Obviously this is going towards no concensus, but I will not ehtat the past coverage found by Tagishimon and the current coverage equals basic notability.
  talk) 01:59, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep per Tagishsimon. --NiTen (talk) 05:08, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Guidelines and policies nonwithstanding, I don't believe there is an objective reason for having a separate article for this person. She's only known for current events involving her vessel, and except for some meager biographical information there'll be nothing in her article that isn't a duplicate of things already covered elsewhere. Doesn't mean she can't get an article if/when she continues to make a name for herself of course. 188.108.118.120 (talk) 05:32, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Just the fact that out of all available media reports I have decided to read the Wikipedia article on Ms. Rackete is telling enough, I think. She has become a person of considerable public interest due to the recent incident but I guess very many people believe she is acting in public interest and thus is not only a professional captain of a ship but also an activist which most often means a public figure. Beside that, I see no reason why different criteria would apply for Ms. Rackete than for the captain of Costa Concordia Francesco Schettino or a convicted British PI Glenn Mulcaire, to name just two examples I consider valid for comparison.89.142.47.61 (talk) 06:06, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, the sheer amount of in-depth articles on her and her background go beyond the usual news reporting on such cases. —Nightstallion 08:28, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Replace with a new page related to the event for which he became famous, as in cases of other notable events. I guess that the person is less relevant at the moment than the episode in which he was involved. BTW, the facts are (probably?) still ongoing. --Marco Ciaramella (talk) 11:18, 3 July 2019 (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.

Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of Santiago and All Chile

Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of Santiago and All Chile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is a two-sentence article on the Chilean diocese of a small offshoot of the Greek Orthodox Church (the

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:40, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:41, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 14:29, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Diocese of a major denomination. We keep these. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:54, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'd disagree that the Church of Antioch is a major denomination but, in any case, for my future edification could you point me to the notability guideline by which diocese have inherent notability? I'd been under the impression sub-divisions of religions had to meet the

WP:NCHURCH seems only to apply to church buildings). If there's a guideline I missed, though, it would help me avoid incorrect AfD nominations in the future. Chetsford (talk) 14:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Of course it is. It's one of the ancient divisions of Orthodoxy. Nothing specifically covers dioceses, but given

Orthodox bishops are generally seen as notable I think that logically has to extend to the diocese of which they are head, which it could be argued has far more notability than the person who heads it for a fairly brief period. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:32, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

"I think that logically has to extend to the diocese of which they are head" Per

WP:INHERITORG "An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it." Chetsford (talk) 14:42, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying if we consider the head of the diocese notable by virtue of his office as head of the diocese (as we do) then it's quite clear that the diocese too is notable. That is common sense. I'm not saying the diocese should be considered notable because someone notable was its head. That's a completely different kettle of fish. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:28, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not seeing the difference. I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Chetsford (talk) 14:52, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A bishop is notable because he is a bishop and heads a diocese. His notability is therefore essentially inherited from the diocese, not vice versa. The diocese is not notable because its bishop is notable as an individual (that would be contrary to

WP:INHERITORG); the bishop is notable because of his office as head of the diocese. That's the difference. It would be completely illogical to claim that the bishop was notable because he headed the diocese but the diocese itself was not notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:28, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Like I said, I think we'll have to agree to disagree. I think that's okay, though. Chetsford (talk) 15:42, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Added content from Lebanese christians --E.3 (talk) 11:41, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry from Lebanese Chileans, and also a Russian reference from the Russian page. --E.3 (talk) 11:49, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Question on added sources: It appears you added something called "orthodoxwiki.org" (a Wiki), and the same blog post from the church I mentioned in the nom. Were you able to locate any
  reliable sources or just those? Chetsford (talk) 14:06, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Keep as Necrothesp noted keeping it would follow the general practice on WP for dealing with middle judicatory bodies of churches.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:40, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- The national emanation of a significant denomination, though in this case a rather small one. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:29, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep following the reasoning of Necrothesp. Mccapra (talk) 04:26, 7 July 2019 (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 07:05, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peppermint Creeps

Peppermint Creeps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article about a band, which is not an improvement in either substance or sourcing over the version that got deleted in 2016. There still isn't any notability claim being made here that would pass

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:32, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:32, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete one of the better-written noms I’ve seen in a long while. Nothing else needs to be said. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 16:44, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:49, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails SIGCOV and GNG. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:27, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:39, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Gebreyesus

Ruth Gebreyesus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This author has certainly been published, but more outside notice of one's works is required for authors and journalists per

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:14, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:14, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete has written about many notable subjects, but there is no SIGCOV to establish the subject's notability as a writer.
  talk) 15:18, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 20:28, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 20:28, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete being theculture editor of a small paper does not make one notable. Even being culture editor at the New York Times is not a default show of notability, but it might be showable that such people have had enough coverage to be notable. The only editorship that default shows notability is being editor-in-chief of an impactful academic journal. Even then it may more be because being given such a position is normally reserved for those who are seen as leading figures in some academic circle, and I guess also because the editor-in-cheif controls the flow of the journal, which since it is impactful has impact. Editors of popular magazines and newspapers may and often are notable, but this does not apply to sub-metro area papers especially when it is not even the top editorship.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:13, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I respectfully disagree. See Gebreyesus' participation in this event as a moderator: https://womensoundoff.com/panel-day/ as well as her participation in this publishing effort by
  SFMOMA: https://openspace.sfmoma.org/author/ruthgebreyesus/ --Wil540 art (talk) 18:09, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

That's an event announcement and a boilerplate bio. IF they do point to notability, it is

talk) 18:13, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete fails
  WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:06, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:40, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffery Dimitriou

Jeffery Dimitriou (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:42, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:42, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:23, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:23, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I could not locate a single independent source. Good nomination.
  talk) 02:01, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete I also could not find any sources. Curiocurio (talk) 13:31, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:57, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bhat People

Bhat People (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unsourced and full of POV and fantasy Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:01, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Having done some googling around, I think this page ought to just redirect to

Bhatra. But I'd appreciate it is someone who actually knows about the subject could confirm this! Alarichall (talk) 13:25, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:01, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:01, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:01, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The only source I can find that describes an ethnic group called Bhat is this: [13], but I do not know if it is reliable. I suspect that the shortage of sources on this apparent group might be due to a spelling or translation error. A previous commenter's suggestion of a connection to
  Bhatra seems viable to me, but I also am not an expert in this area. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:24, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - This article is strange in my eyes. There is no term for "Bhat People" as distinct group; it refers merely to the specific connotations of a particular caste within Hindu / Sikh traditions. I would suggest deleting this or rewriting such that it is distinct from Brahmin. Michepman (talk) 16:13, 30 June 2019 (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.

Son of Kashmir: Burhan

Son of Kashmir: Burhan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No indication of

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Huon (talk) 15:41, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Huon (talk) 15:41, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - the majority of the sources that don't mention the film has been removed after the prod, but that doesn't help establish that the film is notable - it only makes more obvious just how poorly sourced the article is. Huon (talk) 15:43, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The Economic Times link is not a valid ref, it doesn't mention anything about the movie. Hip In Pakistan, I'm not sure how reliable it is as a source. Trending Social is definitely not a reliable source. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 23:18, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:42, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indy Khabra

Indy Khabra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The reference/external link does not work, he did not play any games for Port Vale and I cannot find any information on him online EchetusXe 14:27, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. EchetusXe 14:27, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:18, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:18, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:22, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Khabra has played for Enfield Rovers but the only valid FPL teams are Port Vale and Club Atlas. I can't find anything to prove he played for Port Vale (in fact he was removed from the 1-25 Port Vale appearances Wikipedia article) or Club Atlas. GNG is also failed.Dougal18 (talk) 15:58, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I do Port Vale articles and have never heard of him. I would have nominated it for deletion when it first appeared but it wasn't in the Port Vale categorises before now. He has not played for Port Vale.--EchetusXe 22:35, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails
  WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 08:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete I know this guy! played against him, he was in the Port Vale reserve team squad when I played against him. Anyway, playing at my level I hardly think he will pass GNG or NFooty. Govvy (talk) 11:01, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, He has not played in a level to be notable,fails
  WP:GNG Alex-h (talk) 20:51, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Sandstein 06:56, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

National Indian Gaming Association

National Indian Gaming Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the

^📞 22:44, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

^📞 22:44, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Is the main lobbying group for Native American gaming in Washington, so likely an important group, but not enough information to really be its own article as-is without expansion/rescue. A merge of this content to a section in
  chatter) 00:37, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Hmm. You are right.
    ^📞 00:46, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• Sounds reasonable, but I am unsure if it is the best option.
  talk) 13:29, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Here are some links to show notability On the last page here you can see the chairman and the treasurer --> http://www.indiangaming.com/istore/Mar18_2018%20London.pdf More links about activities http://www.gamingmeets.com/event/niga-indian-gaming-2019-tradeshow-and-convention/ https://www.indiangamingtradeshow.com/dsn/wwwurbanexposhowscom/Content/Documents/IndianGaming/Indian%20Gaming%202014%20_Culture%20Night%20Reception%20Release.pdf https://www.fantiniresearch.com/conventions/niga-national-indian-gaming-association-2019-trade-show-convention.html Caribianboss (talk) 00:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I added more content to the page and various external sources to support notability of the National Indian Gaming Association Caribianboss (talk) 05:12, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Masumrezarock100 I believe that at this stage the article is very well referenced and consequently i think it would be prudent for the deleteion proposal to be weived. Caribianboss (talk) 04:01, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I have added a handful of {{cite book}}s, plenty of more where they came from, 600+ mentions in Scholar, no shortage of news coverage. Meets GNG by a mile. On a side note, this discussion should not have been sorted into "list of India-related deletion discussions". Sam Sailor 21:35, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I did that because it has "Indian" word in his title.

  ^📞 21:40, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  "Indian" referes to Native americans (the so-called "red indians" and not to the asiatic people who live in the famous subcontinent. Caribianboss (talk) 03:57, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh I see. Looks like I have a lot to learn.

  ^📞 05:25, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  It should not have been sorted into Companies either. I have removed the transclusion on both Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/India and Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Companies and added the discussion to the two lists below. Sam Sailor 05:29, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 05:21, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 05:21, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Sailor Sailor seems to have added many good sources, so it is a case of HEY.
  talk) 02:05, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. The refs are OK. Szzuk (talk) 20:45, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:15, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LocalLabs

LocalLabs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats

)

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

Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 22:47, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:52, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:52, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:13, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I've notified the PRODder at
  WP:SIGCOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Closeapple (talk • contribs) 05:53, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete: As User:Northamerica1000 said above, yes I am in support of deleting the page. My full comments and argument can be found on the LocalLabs Talk page. Thanks! Bernice Mosley (talk) 23:18, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Topic fails GNG and
  HighKing⁺⁺ 16:57, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:43, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P. J. Jones (American football)

P. J. Jones (American football) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 13:51, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 13:51, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 13:51, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Didn't receive enough national coverage or major awards to meet CFB notability standards and never appeared in an NFL or CFL game. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:49, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nominator ignores the
  WP:GNG, such coverage must extend to multiple publications and so far I'm not finding significant coverage in other publications. (I am not counting reports of his arrest like this and this). If someone finds significant coverage in other reliable sources, I am open to changing my mind. Cbl62 (talk) 01:04, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete a non-notable college football player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:54, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Defensive linemen generally don't get a lot of press, and that seems to be the case here. Subject does not pass
  WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:57, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Fails to meet either
  WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 21:17, 6 July 2019 (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.

Cineme

Cineme (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Virtually uncited for over a decade, (a dead link and a press release), searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show that it meets

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:05, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:23, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. bd2412 T 01:31, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There are a handful of newspaper references, but mostly in the vein of "here's what's happening in Chicago" as opposed to in-depth coverage: [14] [15].agtx 16:25, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:55, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Akhil Bharatiya Khatik Samaj

Akhil Bharatiya Khatik Samaj (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 09:44, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:31, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Bulleted list item

Keep

• Delete, per nom. The article creator's arguments are made in good faith, but are not based in policy. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:45, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Bulleted list item

Improve, rather than deletion of this informative page, you all can help improve this social organisation page.Sunilbutolia (talk) 22:55, 1 July 2019 (UTC)sunilbutolia[reply]

• Delete per nom. The group simply does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards. Best, GPL93 (talk) 11:52, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom. Lacking notability. Barca (talk) 14:05, 3 July 2019 (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.

Suparatana Bencharongkul

Suparatana Bencharongkul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Doesn't meet

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 06:13, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 06:13, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 06:13, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment are there any sources in Thai? Mccapra (talk) 06:30, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The reference is not an ordinary Facebook post but the one from Forbes Thailand Magazine. I have replaced this with the corresponding article from its webpage. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 13:11, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Past versions of this article have been deleted due to being created by a COI sockpuppet. An admin should check to make sure that this version isn't a copy of the deleted ones. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:52, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Meets the
  WP:GNG. Profiled in Forbes Thailand[16], Thairath[17] and Praew[18]. Should be kept if unaffected by the sockpuppetry issue. --Paul_012 (talk) 21:30, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep now that sources have been found by Paul_012. Mccapra (talk) 15:43, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Adequately sourced.--Ipigott (talk) 08:33, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Meets the
  WP:GNG. I think should be kept if unaffected by the sockpuppetry issue. - MA Javadi (talk) 17:17, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. The !votes on this one are really all over the board, but there seems a rough consensus that outright deletion is not a good solution. I am closing this therefore as "no consensus". Possible mergers, redirects, or renames can be discussed on the respective articles' talk pages. Randykitty (talk) 12:14, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neolithic Subpluvial

Neolithic Subpluvial (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats

)

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

The topic and most of the information of this article is already covered by African humid period (Some sources), which is a lot more complete and is under a more commonly applied title: few hits for Neolithic Subpluvial, far more African humid period hits. This title probably would make a fine redirect, though.

There was already a merger discussion in January-February, which ended with a "no consensus" result due to lack of participation. Discussion with the closer, I am reproposing this at AFD as one of the suggestions in the merger discussion by the editor who opposed the merger was that NSp be deleted and only very little content be copied over. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:50, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:58, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:58, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment (veering towards merge). The question is how to deal with and what to call the prehistoric period when the Sahara was not yet a desert. This article and African humid period are covering the same period, but this one from a more humid period than the other. I would question the use of the term "Neolithic", which normally refers to cultures engaging in farming, but the references to human culture refer to hunting and gathering and to fishing, not agriculture. The use of pottery probably implies the people were settled, not nomadic. I am not an expert in this field, but unless there is a widely accepted term, I would suggest merging both to Sahara humid period or some such title. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:55, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Second thoughts -- I see that in the merge discussion there was justified criticism of the length of the target article. I would suggest that the answer is to merge some material from that article to this one, leaving African humid period as a general article on the whole continent, with content on the Sahara (and Sahel) much summarised. Unfortunately this requires an the attention of an expert on the subject, which I am not. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:01, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  The problem I see with merging to Saharan humid period is that that term is essentially unused unlike "African humid period" or even "Neolithic Subpluvial".

  As for merging material from AHP to NSp - since I am familiar with the topic (and actually wrote the AHP article) - I could actually do it but I am not convinced that it would be the right move; Earlier it was thought that it had started about 9,000 years ago, before it was found that it probably began earlier and was interrupted by the Younger Dryas.[42] Alternatively, wet conditions in the Sahara and Sahel began about 10,900–10,500 years ago.[69] in the AHP article strongly implies (although not explicitly states) that early research did not recognize that the humid period began before the Neolithic and thus incorrectly christened it the "Neolithic subpluvial". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:11, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  For the record, I don't necessarily disagree that AHP does merit a split (personally I think an unified article is better as this is one coherent broad topic), I just don't think that NSp has a reason to exist separate from AHP for the reasons given in the nomination (a split of AHP would probably be along the lines of Effects of the African humid period in the Sahara and other section-based splits, not one by time period). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:25, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is a pretty straightforward case of content duplication under a less-common synonym and at lower quality. Based on that, it's an obvious delete (or redirection). Regarding the desirability of splitting African humid period, that's an unrelated issue - if there was to be a split, it very likely should not be to a synonym of the overall topic. (I would also agree with the observation made in the mini merge-discussion that almost half the page size is due to the choice of using short form citation plus bibliography; if you list every source five times, things have a tendency to balloon.) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:48, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep but with solving of any and all problematic issues (duplication, moving to better title, whatever). In complement to previous User:Elmidae remark: yes, this is a pretty straightforward case, only in protectionism of one's own work - yes, African humid period is promoted to "Good" status while Neolithic subpluvial is at "C", and they look like a duplicates - only there is one glaring problem: Neolithic Subpluvial was created in August 2007, while African humid period was created in December 2018‎ and by the same user who nominated NS for deletion, at that!

This means that 11 years prior to User:Jo-Jo decision to create entire article, another article that already covered exactly the same subject already existed, not the other way around as User:Jo-Jo hurried to point out in his nomination intro.

I am sorry but if esteemed user screwed-up by not checking if Wikipedia already dealt with the subject‎ under some other title, regardless of its accuracy, suitability and relevance, then user should seek to alleviate problem without employing such a drastic measure like deletion of preexisting article. From here all emerging problems could be resolved, one way or another.

I strongly suggest that NS gets some thorough check-up and rewrite, if agreed maybe better title (move), and to be turned into an article covering subject more specific locality-wise. This means I agree with User:Peterkingiron second entry on this - I see answer in merging some of the material from Neolithic subpluvial to African humid period, thus making AHP sort of general article on the whole wider subject, while more specific content dealing with the Sahara and Sahel then summarized under AHP, but extended under Neolithic subpluvial or any title of collective choosing.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 22:01, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yeah, I did write AHP but that's because the term is much more commonly used than NS nowadays. Think a case where an old concept gets a new meaning that then becomes much more common. I don't think that "but this page came first" is really a policy/guideline. I am not seeing evidence that NS is used as a Sahara-specific variant of AHP so I'd oppose keeping NS in this form per

WP:OR. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:19, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep - I arrived at this article while searching for prehistoric cultures that existed in the Sahara desert before its complete desertification, such as the
  Wet Sahara and make it about all the periods of time when what we now today as the Sahara was greener and wetter. There's plenty of references that use the term Green Sahara^[2][3][4][5]— Preceding unsigned comment added by PraiseVivec (talk • contribs
  )

@

Neolithic Subpluvial or African humid period? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:24, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Ah, as I reread my comment, I see how it could have been confusing. I was proposing renaming the

Neolithic Subpluvial into Green Sahara, as it would make the article more findable and, by dedicating the article to all the periods that are included in the Green Sahara, not just the most recent (although I suspect that would still make up the lion's share of the article), would also make the overlap with the African humid period less striking. PraiseVivec (talk) 11:03, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for the explanation. I was wondering about writing an article about

Eemian African humid period as well, but desisted as African humid period was already a pain to write. I am not sure if Neolithic Subpluvial would make a good starting page though as it's entirely concerned with the Holocene stage. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:27, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]