Wikipedia : Articles for deletion/Log/2020 July 9

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

A gag band, but beyond once featuring Chris Cornell in their lineup, not a particularly noteworthy gag band. BD2412 T 21:10, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 21:11, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 21:11, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article is most likely
fancruft from some insiders who were there and are still talking about it in social media 33 years later. But the band was short-lived and received no coverage beyond insider geek sources. And by the way, claiming that the band predicted not just one but two global calamities via their jokey music is fanboy Postdiction at its finest. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:28, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per above. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 11:05, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nine shows, one 7" single, six months playing out. "Non-Impressionist Movement" is not a thing. Ditto Tavern not notable. The George Hackett to Andrea Hackett aspect appears to be true, true enough anyway for The Independent to report facts consistent with that narrative, in a story about the strippers' organizing activities in Las Vegas. The band might be good territory for some social history of 1986 Seattle but not successive or productive enough for us. --Lockley (talk) 08:07, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater @ 16:20, 16 July 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

WP:SOFTDELETE. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:14, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply

Operation Mindfuck

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

Despite the claim that this is an important aspect of Discordianism, not much evidence has surfaced to support that. The entire two sentences of this article have already been merged verbatim to Discordianism and I don't see why that shouldn't be sufficient. In the deletion discussion 12 years ago, several people claimed they would add more to the article, but the small bits that were added have all been unsourced and were removed. Definitely seems to lack notability. -- Fyrael (talk) 20:53, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- Fyrael (talk) 20:58, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 21:09, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

I'm not at all sure how one would write much more about it. But given that the nom mentions that the same content exists in other articles, redirect would seem to be the correct course of action, to either the main discordianism article or to the
talk) 01:55, 10 July 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) 19:56, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Balbirer

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

NN actress, played in a handful of bit parts according to IMDB. No reliable sources providing substantive coverage, fails the GNG and WP:BIO. Created by a SPA for whom this was the sole Wikipedia activity, and notability tagged for over a decade. Ravenswing 21:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 21:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 21:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:42, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails
WP:GNG, and lacking good refs. Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(You Asked?) (What I have Done.)} 03:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete
WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Non-notable person. Normal Op (talk) 20:24, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
not a reliable source. Her only three acting gigs were one-named pieces, barely more that Red-Shirts. Bearian (talk) 01:01, 17 July 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) 02:14, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Holistic Information Security Practitioner

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

Alright, enough is enough. Despite never having any sources, this article survived an AfD twelve years ago. There are no reliable sources providing this fuzzy certification the "substantial coverage" to the subject the GNG requires (indeed, there are only four G-news hits even namedropping it). Text reads like a copyvio off of a brochure, and remains unsourced to this day.

Of the three keep proponents in the prior AfD, two -- including the article creator, who claimed to hold the certification himself -- opined that "it exists" was a valid ground to keep, and the third set forth only "Keep but move and add refs" without any ground to keep. Even in 2008, this was a garbage close. Ravenswing 20:48, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 21:14, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 21:14, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete I'm sure it's real, but it seems that hardly anyone cares about it considering the minuscule number of legit GBook hits I get. Mangoe (talk) 22:56, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete Original page author here. I'm not sure how relevant HISP is anymore. It was widely discussed back in 2008 when the page was created, but even the HISP website shows stuff "coming in 2018" so doesn't seem to really be maintained. --mariusstrom 02:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per
WP:V - I was a "keeper" 12 years ago, but we have gotten a lot stricter since. Bearian (talk) 00:57, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:41, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Luchy Donalds

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

It does not appear that any of her films are notable ; ThereforeThe references amount to mere publicity DGG ( talk ) 20:36, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 21:13, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 21:13, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She hasn't been in anything notable and the article is clearly for the sake of publicity. Plus, the sources in the article are trash bin material by Wikipedia's standards of reliable sourcing. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:52, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Doesn’t fulfill
WP:NACTOR. Celestina007 (talk) 07:58, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:35, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A quick Google search shows more hits about her physical characteristics than her career, I think she's only famous for looking pretty. Oaktree b (talk) 02:51, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Infocom. Sandstein 13:36, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

69,105

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

An article about a recurring joke in video games developed by a company. Bulk of article is retelling of appearances in games. I redirected it before, but it was restored, because the main article

WP:VG/RS custom Google search engine brings up zero results. "69,105", "69105", "69 105", etc., all nothing. Looking up 'in-joke', 'recurring joke' and 'Infocom', I get some more. And while "Self-Reflexivity and Humor in Adventure Games" or "Long Lost ‘Zork’ Source Code Uploaded to GitHub, But Few People Understand It" are interesting articles, nothing discusses the occurrence of the "69,105" in-joke. Frankly, I don't think it has to be mentioned at all at Infocom. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 06:07, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply

The lemma is from pre-Google times. A reference in literature is mentioned, I'd assume there are more out there given that Infocom was the leader of the pack. I do have some literature on the topic of adventures but I'm not going through it for an article that's being deleted later on. Kind regards, Grueslayer 07:26, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Izno (talk) 14:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Zero reason this even needs to be an article. This should have been deleted ages ago. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 21:47, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as
WP:TRIVIA. This is worth maybe a sentence in an article about Infocom at its best. A redirect would be completely dubious. Red Phoenix ^talk 23:14, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
- WP:TRIVIA isn't a guideline for notability and so can't be used as a guideline for deletion. (It's a style guide) It even says "This guideline does not suggest the inclusion or exclusion of any information; it only gives style recommendations." - Whisperjanes (talk) 00:58, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
- I think you were actually looking for
  WP:HTRIVIA, which isn't a guideline or policy. - Whisperjanes (talk) 01:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  It is certainly a valid reason for deletion when the whole article is trivia. We don’t have articles full of trivia and trivial subjects on Wikipedia. Red Phoenix ^talk 11:54, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  You mean, like Category:In-jokes, or Category:The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy with my personal highlight, List of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy characters? Kind regards, Grueslayer 13:14, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  Categories aren’t articles, and you picked a very poor example in the Character list which has multiple tags for in-universe and original research.
  WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Red Phoenix ^talk 13:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  Sorry for being vague. I listed those categories because they are full of articles that are full of trivia and trivial subjects. Kind regards, Grueslayer 17:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a line or two to Infocom. Otherwise, delete. BD2412 T 03:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or if not, Merge with
WP:BEFORE test is always sufficient for determining notability. - Whisperjanes (talk) 05:26, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Hi

WP:GNG in the slightest, in my opinion. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 06:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply

WP:BEFORE isn't a perfect process for older topics, but we have to work with what we have. Bringing it up was my attempt at giving notice to editors that it might be harder to find sources, in a hope that others will read it and dig a little deeper than usual. But on second thought (and seeing as no one has come forward with any others sources that are significant), I think merging it (as others have suggested, with maybe a one to a few lines with sources) is about all that can be done, especially since the article seems to be made with so much original research and primary sources. - Whisperjanes (talk) 00:35, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply

Delete as
verified. I'm wary of redirecting it if one editor is just going to override consensus, but I defer to the consensus if a redirect is still appropriate. Jontesta (talk) 19:09, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:36, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to the clearly bad sourcing. I'd probably gone with merge, but I don't see the point if it will just be reversed like it was already. Plus, merging would still require sources to back up whatever is merged. Which the topic doesn't seem to have. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the Infocom article. There's enough instances and okay-ish background to merit a mention in context,but that stuff ain't worth an article - especially not with that sourcing. BTW, danger of reversion isn't really an issue; an AfD merge outcome is just as good an argument to undo those as it is to speedy an article recreation after a delete outcome. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:45, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we are
publish original research. Bearian (talk) 01:03, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Lacks
?) Would be trivia if merged to the Infocom article. czar 04:07, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge Not sufficient independant coverage to warrant it's own separate article. -Kj cheetham (talk) 07:40, 17 July 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 Atlassian. There is consensus that references do not satisfy our requirements for companies and should not be a standalone article. A redirect to Atlassian is a valid alternative to deletion, however. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:19, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bamboo (software)

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

Typical Corporate Brochure. Wiki is not White paper. No need for separate article for this product. Atlassian company page already exists to cover this. Light2021 (talk) 05:56, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent

reliable sources

.

Pouclet, Romain (2014). "Automated builds with Bamboo". Pro iOS Continuous Integration. New York:
ISBN 978-1-4842-0124-4
. Retrieved 2020-07-06.

河村康博 (2017-09-27). "第19回　CIツール「Bamboo」で開発プロセスの生産性を上げる（前編）" [The 19th CI tool "Bamboo" to improve the productivity of the development process (Part 1)] (in Japanese). jp:技術評論社. Archived from the original on 2020-07-06. Retrieved 2020-07-06.
Jacobs, Samantha; Wortman, Kristin A. (2016). "Solar Probe Plus Spacecraft Flight Software Requirements Verification Test Framework". 2016 IEEE Aerospace Conference.
ISBN 978-1-4673-7676-1
. Retrieved 2020-07-06.

Muhamad, Fachrul Pralienka Bani; Sarno, Riyanarto; Ahmadiyah, Adhatus Solichah; Rochimah, Siti (2016). "Visual GUI testing in continuous integration environment". 2016 International Conference on Information & Communication Technology and Systems (ICTS).
ISBN 978-1-5090-1381-4
. Retrieved 2020-07-06.

Taheritanjani, Sajjad; Krusche, Stephan; Brügge, Bernd (2016). "A Comparison between Commercial and Open Source Reference Implementations for the Rugby Process Model" (PDF). Technical University of Munich. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2020-07-06. Retrieved 2020-07-06. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
Krill, Paul (2011-02-16). "Atlassian eyes agile teams with Bamboo tool upgrade". InfoWorld. Archived from the original on 2020-07-06. Retrieved 2020-07-06.
Krill, Paul (2016-05-19). "Beyond Jenkins: 7 devops tools". InfoWorld. Archived from the original on 2020-07-06. Retrieved 2020-07-06.

Sources with quotes

Pouclet, Romain (2014). "Automated builds with Bamboo". Pro iOS Continuous Integration. New York:
ISBN 978-1-4842-0124-4
. Retrieved 2020-07-06.
The book notes:
Bamboo is a commercial product created by an Australian company named Atlassian, also responsible for products like Confluence and, of course, Jira. If you've already been looking for a bug tracker, you've probably run into Jira at least once and may be using it at your company. If that's the case, then you will be happy to know that Bamboo is deeply integrated with Jira, making it super easy to create issues from a failing build, for example.
...
If you were expecting a software based on a less-bloated platform you will be disappointed: Bamboo is written in Java. ...
...
With Bamboo, fetching the content from the repository is a task itself, a task you can configure if you want. There aren't many options for you to play with, but you can tell Bamboo to remove the content and re-clone the whole project every time you build your application. For an application as small as the GitHub Jobs one is, that would not make a huge difference but with big projects with huge resources and dependencies, this could significantly increase the duration of the build. You should leave this option unchecked for most of your builds.

河村康博 (2017-09-27). "第19回　CIツール「Bamboo」で開発プロセスの生産性を上げる（前編）" [The 19th CI tool "Bamboo" to improve the productivity of the development process (Part 1)] (in Japanese). jp:技術評論社. Archived from the original on 2020-07-06. Retrieved 2020-07-06.
From Google Translate:
There are many CI systems in the world such as Jenkins and Travis CI, but this article focuses on Bamboo, a commercial Web application provided by Atlassian. In addition, I will explain Bitbucket and JIRA as the version control system and issue management system linked with Bamboo.
...
Let Bamboo do the work
Build & test
Bamboo sets up a build execution plan in a hierarchical structure called "stages", " jobs", and " tasks" . This may sound a little complicated, but once you learn it, you can set the build execution plan with an intuitive UI using a Web browser, so be sure to remember it ( Fig. 1 ⁠ ).
task
It is a concept that refers to individual processes such as "check out the source code" and " build with ⁠Mavem 3.x " . Tasks cannot be executed in parallel and are executed in the set order.
Jacobs, Samantha; Wortman, Kristin A. (2016). "Solar Probe Plus Spacecraft Flight Software Requirements Verification Test Framework". 2016 IEEE Aerospace Conference.
ISBN 978-1-4673-7676-1
. Retrieved 2020-07-06.
The article notes:

Atlassian Bamboo was integrated as a test harness to the heritage Test Framework for use on SPP to create, schedule and initiate execution of test suites. Bamboo also provides a mechanism to automate the configuration management repository check-out process, to provide easy accessibility to test execution reports and to disseminate execution status to test engineers.
What is Atlassian Bamboo?
Atlassian Bamboo is a continuous integration server used during software development to automate the release management process (e.g., compile, test, package, deploy) for software applications [8]. The Bamboo capability to trigger functional tests from a source repository is used to build and schedule SPP SpFSW test suite executions.
After the test package is built and executed, the deployment feature of Bamboo is used to make the test execution artifacts available for viewing via a web server. Bamboo is also capable of generating email notifications to a distribution list containing execution status information retrieved for the completed jobs. Version and initiator information about the scheduled ‘job’ is provided on the Bamboo application interface.
...
Under each Bamboo test plan there is a default job that check-outs the necessary folders from the GForge Subversion test script repository and invokes the main or application-level driver script for the desired test suite execution. For each ‘job’, relevant artifacts are generated, gathered and stored on the Bamboo Server for future use. These test artifacts are retrievable for viewing by the test engineers through the Bamboo Server web interface.

Muhamad, Fachrul Pralienka Bani; Sarno, Riyanarto; Ahmadiyah, Adhatus Solichah; Rochimah, Siti (2016). "Visual GUI testing in continuous integration environment". 2016 International Conference on Information & Communication Technology and Systems (ICTS).
ISBN 978-1-5090-1381-4
. Retrieved 2020-07-06.
The article notes:

Bamboo
Bamboo is one of Atlassian products that support CI. It can be installed on a local machine or over the Internet. These tools are semi-paid, because it provides a trial in a few days. For GUI testing, this tool does not provide a plugin for using tools of SikuliX and JAutomate. But, there are several guides on the internet which makes Bamboo possible to perform GUI testing. It needs a deep investigation for implementing GUI testing in Bamboo with windows environment.
...
Bamboo and SikuliX
Since bamboo does not provide a plugin for SikuliX, it would require further investigation regarding the combination of these tools. In some internet sources said about the possibility of testing GUI. To integrate both tools, author needs to create repository trigger in Bamboo and push the code into repository so that Bamboo can pull the code and build the code.
Bamboo and JAutomate
It similar with the combination of Bamboo and SikuliX, it needs deep configuration in Bamboo for implementing GUI testing. This build process is possible through the unit testing and direct from JAutomate source script.

Taheritanjani, Sajjad; Krusche, Stephan; Brügge, Bernd (2016). "A Comparison between Commercial and Open Source Reference Implementations for the Rugby Process Model" (PDF). Technical University of Munich. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2020-07-06. Retrieved 2020-07-06. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
The article notes:

In this section, we will compare three CI solutions: Bamboo from Atlassian Tools, Travis CI from GitHub and Jenkins. All these three tools are commonly use by developers in different projects. The basic principle behind all of them is the detection of changes in the code repository and triggering a set of Jobs or tasks.
...
The main concept in Bamboo build is Plan. A Plan defines everything about our continuous integration build process in Bamboo. By default, it has a single Stage, but we can use it to group Jobs into multiple stages. A Plan processes a series of one or more Stages that are run sequentially using the same repository. It also specifies how the build is triggered, and the triggering dependencies between the plan and other Plans in the Project. Every Plan belongs to a Project. A Stage maps Jobs to individual steps within a build process of Plan. For example, we may have a Plan build process that contains an Integration step followed by several Test steps and a Delivery step. We can create separate Bamboo Stages to represent each of these steps. By default, a Stage has a single Job, but we can use it to group multiple Jobs. A Stage processes its Jobs in parallel. It must successfully complete all its Jobs before the next Stage in the Plan can be processed. A Job is a single build unit within a Plan. One or more Jobs can be organized into one or more Stages. The Jobs in a Stage can all be run at the same time, if enough Bamboo agents are available. A Job is made up of one or more Tasks. A Task is a small discrete unit of work, such as source code checkout or running a script.
...
A deployment project in Bamboo is a container for holding the software project which is deployed. Besides, plan branches represent a build for a branch in the version control system. When the plan branch build succeeds, it can be automatically or manually merged back into master. Bamboo deployments allow a plan branch to be deployed to a test environment and the feature source code can be tested and evaluated in a real server environment before the code is merged back to master. In Jenkins, there are available plugins to support deployment and branches as well, while in Travis they are supported by Travis’ configuration file. Concluding, all tools support deployment and branches. However, in Bamboo, when build jobs call deployments, it is not possible to go back to the build job to perform some post-deployment tasks. In addition, inability to provide input parameters, especially for deployment jobs, is a problem in Bamboo as well.
Krill, Paul (2011-02-16). "Atlassian eyes agile teams with Bamboo tool upgrade". InfoWorld. Archived from the original on 2020-07-06. Retrieved 2020-07-06.
The article notes:

Bamboo has been used with Amazon's Elastic Compute Cloud to scale large builds in a cloud environment, Atlassian said. The company also is revealing that it has acquired two plug-ins: Jira Workflow Designer, which plugs into Jira and visualizes a workflow, and Bamboo Release Management, which links to Bamboo and combines Bamboo and Jira to automate software release management. The plug-ins were acquired from Sysbliss and will now be offered for free. They had been commercially sold before.
Krill, Paul (2016-05-19). "Beyond Jenkins: 7 devops tools". InfoWorld. Archived from the original on 2020-07-06. Retrieved 2020-07-06.
The article enotes:

Atlassian Bamboo offers a wealth of capabilities, ranging from building and deploying Docker containers to running applications on Amazon Web Services. Dedicated agents can be used to run hot fixes and critical builds immediately. Scalability has been viewed as a thorn in Jenkins’ side; here, Randall Ward, CEO of Appfire, an Atlassian business partner that provides add-ons and services, sees an advantage for Bamboo.
...
Bamboo features code visibility, enabling users to see a full roll-up of code changes since the latest previous deployment. It integrates with other Atlassian products, including the Bitbucket Git code management solution, Jira project management solution, and HipChat team chat application.

There is sufficient coverage in

reliable sources to allow Bamboo to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

Cunard (talk) 08:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply

Related AfDs of other Atlassian products: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Confluence (software) (3rd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jira (software). Cunard (talk) 08:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, are you reading those press articles yourself? Problem with this article is - it does not require separate page when the company page already exist. Wikipedia is not a Press, not a blog and definitely not a white paper or brochure for the companies. All articles are motivated by Press/ Digital marketing team. Secondly you can just mention the weblink and all people can ready them. you cover entire discussion with COPY+PASTE from the article and take the full discussion space. Thank you.

Do you call this notability of press? "Atlassian Bamboo offers a wealth of capabilities, ranging from building and deploying Docker containers to running applications on Amazon Web Services. Dedicated agents can be used to run hot fixes and critical builds immediately". Light2021 (talk) 10:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My guess from this and other AfDs Cunard has been involved in is that the answer to your first question is a hard, resounding no. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:35, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly a promo article that lacks the multiple in-depth reliable sources that it would need to be notable. I'm not seeing anything that would warrant not deleting it. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article is neutrally written. It has a factual description of how Bamboo works. It contains a "Comparisons" section that describes the advantages and disadvantages of using Bamboo. There is enough material about Bamboo to justify a standalone article.

Bamboo has been covered in multiple books and journal articles. An editor quoted "Atlassian Bamboo offers a wealth of capabilities, ranging from building and deploying Docker containers to running applications on Amazon Web Services. Dedicated agents can be used to run hot fixes and critical builds immediately" to dispute an InfoWorld article. This is a review from the InfoWorld author and does not detract from the source's reliability.

Here are additional book sources that provides analysis about Bamboo:

Gonzalez, David (2017). "Bamboo". Implementing Modern DevOps: Enabling IT organizations to deliver faster and smarter. Birmingham:
ISBN 978-1-78646-687-7
. Retrieved 2020-07-10.

Tak, Rohin; Modi, Jhalak (2018). Mobile DevOps: Deliver continuous integration and deployment within your mobile applications. Birmingham:
ISBN 978-1-78829-624-3
. Retrieved 2020-07-10.

Sources with quotes

Gonzalez, David (2017). "Bamboo". Implementing Modern DevOps: Enabling IT organizations to deliver faster and smarter. Birmingham:
ISBN 978-1-78646-687-7
. Retrieved 2020-07-10.
The book notes:

Bamboo

Bamboo is a proprietary CI server developed by Atlassian. ... Bamboo is their proposal for CI activities, and it is quite popular as it integrates fairly well with their other products.
...
You can check the logs of the job to see how many tests were successful and other useful information. If you explore this even further, you can see how Bamboo also offers different types of tasks, such as mocha test runners, which allows Bamboo to understand the result of the tests. At the moment, with the current configuration, if any of the tests fails, Bamboo won't be able to understand which one failed. I'd suggest you to play around with different configurations and even different applications to get yourself familiar with it. As you can see by yourself, the interface is very friendly, and usually, it is quite simple to achieve your desired setup by creating new tasks.
...
In general, Bamboo can deal with every situation, and it has adapted to the modern times: we can even build Docker images and push them to remote registries once the tests have passed in order to be deployed later on. Bamboo is also able to take actions in the post-build phase, for example, alerting us if the build failed overnight with an email or other communication channels.

Tak, Rohin; Modi, Jhalak (2018). Mobile DevOps: Deliver continuous integration and deployment within your mobile applications. Birmingham:
ISBN 978-1-78829-624-3
. Retrieved 2020-07-10.
The book notes:
Bamboo

Bamboo is a CI server used by software teams worldwide to automate the process of release management for applications and general software. It allows teams to establish a streamlined pipeline for build delivery. Mobile developers can deploy their apps back to the Apple store or Google Play automatically. Being an Atlassian tool, it has native support for Jira and BitBucket, and you can even import your Jenkins configurations into Bamboo easily.
Its key features are as follows:
- Unlike Jenkins, Bamboo has built-in Git branching workflows
- Because it is built by Atlassian, it has built-in integration for Jira and Bitbucket
- Bamboo also supports automated merging to avoid conflicts and differences between the working branch and master branch
- Test automation in Bamboo produces a continuous flow from build, to test, even to releasing the application to the customer when ready
- Built-in support for Jira makes bug tracking in a specific release, and even builds, automated and easily trackable

Cunard (talk) 09:21, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cunard: Your convoluting something being written neutrally for it being written promotionally. They are two separate things, that are treated differently in Wikipedia, and I never said anything about the articles neutrality. I said it was promotional. That's it. It has nothing to do with neutrality. Also, something can be factually correct but still be an advertisement. They aren't mutually exclusive and again Wikipedia treats them differently. You mixing those things up, intentionally or not, and ref-bombing more trivial sources really isn't helpful to this in the slightest. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:04, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia:Spam guideline says, "Wikispam articles are usually noted for sales-oriented language and external links to a commercial website. However, a differentiation should be made between spam articles and legitimate articles about commercial entities." I reviewed the article and consider it largely not to be using "sales-oriented language". I can remove any "sales-oriented language" that editors find.

Cunard (talk) 10:34, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again your miss qouting me.o one except you has said anything about the article being spam. Spam and promotion are completely different and having noyhing to do with each other. Neither does "sales-oriented language." Which again, your the only one talking about. Stop bringing up things that aren't relevant to the AfD, discussion, and no one is saying anything about. Adamant1 (talk) 11:29, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete That there are reliable sources is not enough. The sources must provide significant coverage. For example, the book chapter cited spends one short paragraph describing Bamboo before launching into a tutorial for how to set it up. This is not enough material to write an article with. Fails
WP:GNG. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 00:17, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

A book article and a peer-reviewed conference paper provide substantial coverage about Bamboo:
The "Automated builds with Bamboo" chapter (pages 93–116) in the
ISBN 978-1-4673-7676-1. Retrieved 2020-07-06.
These two sources are sufficient to establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
Cunard (talk) 05:27, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply

Comment: Deletion is not a policy-based approach per
Bamboo (software) can be merged to its developer Atlassian. The content should not be deleted.
Cunard (talk) 05:27, 15 July 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

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:40, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply

514 Undiscovered

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

Article about a community channel (the Canadian equivalent of public access television) television series, not

WP:SPA named "Aewiki" and one of the show's presenters has the initials A.E. Bearcat (talk) 03:44, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:44, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:44, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 05:23, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:35, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus.

No prejudice against speedy renomination per relatively low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:44, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply

Younes Jaele

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

Jaese has created a company which is famous and notable but I could not find sources about him, most sources are interviews with him about the company, from what I see he doesn't pass GNG Mardetanha (talk) 15:12, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:15, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:15, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 05:21, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:35, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Shirin Asal Food Industrial Group as he is the founder. SL93 (talk) 23:46, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: a simple Google search showed several independent secondary sources in which the subject received significant coverage. Maco Paco (talk 11:48, 15 July 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. For the record, it would help clarify discussion as to *which* sources a !voter feels meets independent, reliable, in-depth coverage. That said, there is reasonable evidence the other editors who argued "delete" have reviewed all presented sources and found them wanting. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:07, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brando Chiesa

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

Sources are press releases, not editorial. Quote: "Disclaimer: This is a company press release. No HT Group journalist is involved in the creation of this content." Exactly. No independent, reliable sources were used in the creation of this article. Vexations (talk) 18:34, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:51, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:51, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. All refs are advertising. Johnbod (talk) 00:08, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all I saw were bogus sources. Example: "He is a severe talent which is getting worldwide recognition for his designs and his Instagram account is followed by top Hollywood stars and all his fans wait for his post as they know it will be different than last and new too."
talk) 00:10, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Yes I saw maximum bogus sources(bogus declaration just for the record) but there two realable source i found then i clear all links. All coming members please help for improved the article IndiaBulez (talk) 07:59, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
IndiaBulez, you should change "Don't Delete" to "Keep". There's a piece of software that keeps track of these (not)votes that may get confused. The (human) closer of this discussion will still understand it, of course. Vexations (talk) 16:49, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Vexations, Thank you sir.IndiaBulez (talk) 04:00, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 04:52, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:35, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. PR --Devokewater (talk) 21:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to the extremely questionable sourcing in the article and the triviality of the coverage in a few of them. There is one or two sources that might meet
WP:GNG, but I don't personally think they would be enough on their own. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:43, 9 July 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 Hyborian Age#Nations and landmarks. Tone 14:37, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cimmeria (Conan)

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing

WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant English-language coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. The PROD was removed with no rationale, so here we go. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:52, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:52, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:52, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 03:22, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Cimmeria is the homeland of Conan — he's known in some circles as "Conan the Cimmerian" — so naturally the subject has been discussed quite a bit in the literary criticism of Robert E. Howard's work.
- Howard wrote a poem called "
  Cimmeria", which was first published in the Winter 1965 issue of The Howard Collector (according to the 2003 volume The Coming of Conan the Cimmerian
  ).
- The Robert E. Howard Guide by Patrice Louinet (Skelos Press, 2018) discusses Cimmeria on several pages.
- Robert E. Howard: A Literary Biography edited by Bob McClain (Pulp Hero Press, 2018) also discusses Cimmeria, including the influence of Howard's hometown in Texas on the creation of the fictional land.
- The Internet Archive has a smattering of issues of The Howard Collector, and there's some discussion of Cimmeria in the Spring 1972 issue and the Spring 1971 issue. Neither is an amazing example, but I think they establish that it's likely that other issues went more in-depth on the main character's homeland.

I believes that this demonstrates notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 04:00, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- - Can you tell me how did you access The Robert E. Howard Guide and Robert E. Howard: A Literary Biography? Neither has a preview on Google Books. I'd be happy to withdraw this nom if I can verify that there are sources that discuss the topic in depth and that go beyond a PLOT summary. PS. The existence of
    Cimmeria (poem) can skew the search results, did you verify that the works you mention discuss the fictional land, and not the poem? And as for The Howard Collector, isn't it a primary source - a compilation of posthumously edited and published works by the author? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:36, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]

I provided links above to both of those books' Amazon pages. Click "Look Inside" and then search for "cimmeria". The Howard Collector is not a primary source; it's a literary magazine that includes essays about Howard's work. — Toughpigs (talk) 04:50, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for teaching me a new trick (Amazon preview). The Robert E. Howard Guide First Edition contains a paragraph on page 133 about Cimmeria, but it is a pure plot summary. All other mentions of this term in the book that I see are inconsequential, usually related to Conan's "full name", i.e. Conan of Cimmeria". the other book is even worse, it mentions the poem Cimmeria on page 137, but does not discuss. On page 139 it quotes Conan describing Cimmeria in few sentences, and there is no analysis of this PLOT at all. Again, all other mentions of the name Cimemria in those books are inconsequential. I stand by my analysis that no source discusses this plot element beyond a very basic plot summary (btw, as far as I can tell, Cimmeria is not a setting of any book or story of Conan, and it has never been even described in depth by Howard, outside a few mentions in passing). As for WP:FANCRUFT here; no scholar has analyzed the land of Cimmeria, because there is nothing to analyze, the extent of its description in primary sources is few sentences, and trying to make an article out of this is an exercise in futility (and fancrufting). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:32, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment "as far as I can tell, Cimmeria is not a setting of any book or story of Conan" It is the setting of Conan of Venarium (2003) by Harry Turtledove, which expands on an Aquilonian invasion of Cimmeria mentioned by Howard. Cimmeria is also the setting of several Conan tales in the Marvel Comics publications on Conan. Dimadick (talk) 15:24, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominator has not followed
alternatives to deletion. Apart from articles about Conan and its authors, there are also several other articles about Cimmeria. As the material is quite complex, it's best to keep this aspect separate for clarity and simplicity. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
BEFORE has been followed. Neither I nor anyone here has found a single source that discusses the topic in-depth. Prove me wrong by showing a source that discusses this concept in a paragraph or more and is not purely a summary of a plot. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Toughpigs has the sources covered well enough. The point about
alternatives to deletion. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:28, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

The sources don't meet GNG/RS (mentions in passing). As for alternatives, there is no referenced content to merge, but I am not opposed to soft deletion (redirect) if this is what you mean. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:43, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And now the nominator violates
WP:SIGCOV. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:40, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Look Andrew, when your arguments are refuted, you criticize the person, it looks like you are trying to deny them the right to participate in the discussion.... Not very impressive, really.GizzyCatBella 🍁 04:10, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well,
WP:BLUDGEON does say that when an individual responds to every single comment that disagrees with them, as Piotrus is doing here, it indicates that they're more interested in "winning" than they are in reasoned discussion. I suggest that Piotrus steps back, allows other editors to look at the article and the sources, and make their own judgment. — Toughpigs (talk) 04:38, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
This
WP:BLUDGEON is only an essay that appears to talk about choking free speech possibly used to silence critics when one runs out of actual reasoning does not seem like the best link to cite in any discussion, in my opinion. I am still not impressed by the failure of some people to address actual explanations given here. - GizzyCatBella🍁 08:15, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

When someone challenges my !vote I have found that, unless I respond, that some closers suppose that the challenge negates the !vote. If my views are still valid, it is therefore necessary to reiterate and reinforce them. In this case, I am very sure that the topic is notable, that we have adequate sources to document and develop this and so the primary policy here is
WP:ATD which states that, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." My !vote stands, by Crom! Andrew🐉(talk) 09:02, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete or Merge - fictional land of the Conan the Barbarian? Maybe merge to Conan the Barbarian but a separate article? GizzyCatBella🍁 16:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merger is not done by deletion as, if the page is deleted, it is no longer available for reference and attribution. See
WP:MAD for details. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:02, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

I've added “or Merge” to the my previous comment above. - GizzyCatBella🍁 11:14, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Conan is the single most most famous barbarian in fiction. As such, his homeland is notable as the archetypal barbarian homeland, the one on which other fictional depictions of barbarian homelands are often based. His homeland and its culture is such an important part of his character that he is often known as Conan the Cimmerian. This is comparable to fictional homelands of other major fictional characters such as Krypton (comics), Tatooine, The Shire, Wakanda. Like those other locations, Cimmeria has appeared not only in literature, but also on other forms of media such as film and TV. —Lowellian (reply) 20:30, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTINHERITED. We are not proposing to delete the Conan article, but about his homeland, which is not discussed in sources in depth. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

I didn't claim that notability was inherited from Conan. I argued that Cimmeria has garnered its own notability by becoming the archetypal barbarian homeland, appearing in many media formats and inspiring works of fiction other than Conan, with comparability to other notable fictional homelands. —Lowellian (reply) 06:30, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any sources for this assertion? Which reliable source states that " Cimmeria has become the archetypal barbarian homeland"? From what I see, this is our own original research conclusion, given the article still has no sources, and no source presented here states this. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:43, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
WP:NOTINHERITED. Devonian Wombat (talk) 05:16, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment. It is worth noting that Conan wikia/fandom's page on this (https://conan.fandom.com/wiki/Cimmeria) seems to overlap with ours; it is also likewise unreferenced (correction: it is actually referenced to
WP:GOOGLEHITS are not cutting it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:43, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to Hyborian Age as non-notable fictional cruft that is more suited for Wikia/Fandom. It has a mention in that article, which seems to be the best place for it._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:48, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a topic that has insufficient coverage in reliable third party sources to meet the
reliable for all but the least controversial material. This is also an unlikely search term, but I wouldn't object to a redirect if it helps produce a consensus. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:59, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. The nomination improperly dismisses out of hand the large body of pre-Internet commentary on the author and his fiction, which includes nontrivial commentary on the sources and historical models for settings like this and the racial/racist political elements of the work. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 15:13, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What commentary? Could you cite it? The article is still unrererence and has no 'further reading' section, if this is kept at the very least we should ensure this is referenced. (Polish Wikipedia, which is more inclusionst for fiction topics in general, will nevertheless delete articles that have zero sources...). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:35, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:35, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge per discussion between Piotrus and Toughpigs. It's not that the current article has no sources. It's that the only sources that can be found are official guides and other fan service, and what little coverage is just plot summary. The other !keep votes assert notability without any sources. If there is reliable coverage that Howard's setting has racist overtones, it can always be added to another notable article. Jontesta (talk) 20:50, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would call Robert E. Howard: A Literary Biography a work of literary criticism, not "fan service". Works of literary and media criticism become "fancruft" when you don't have respect for the work. — Toughpigs (talk) 21:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to the possible merge targets listed in the AfD discussion. I have no preference for which one, but the article isn't worth keeping due to the lack of in-depth coverage. That doesn't mean there isn't anything worth saving though, just that what is worth saving doesn't warrant its own article IMO. The new source provided by Toughpigs doesn't change that. Otherwise, it's worthy of deletion based on needing a fundamental re-write to meet Wikipedia's standards. Which isn't going to happen anyway with only a single in-depth source. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:10, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hyborian Age#Nations and landmarks - The location's notability is tied entirely to the notability of the franchise as a whole, and there is not enough in reliable sources that goes beyond plot summary that would make this a needed spinout article from the main article on the setting as a whole. It is already covered a bit in that article, and more can be added based on the bits of sourced information Toughpigs brought up in this AFD. Since that sourced information is not actually in this article, though, an actual merger is not needed at this point. Rorshacma (talk) 23:20, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Piotrus et al. I had originally thought to redirect to
original reasearch. You can tell by all the "perhaps derived from" and similar, without any attempt at sourcing. I think that whole section is ripe for removal or rewrite, so redirecting anything there seems to me to be futile and a bad idea. Reyk _YO! 15:44, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to
WP:SIGCOV for this location and it's already discussed at Hyborian Age as the main article for the Conan setting. I see the delete comments and they're right that the target isn't well written either. A merge is fine but would need a rewrite. A delete wouldn't be that different from a redirect since the real search term is Cimmeria which can be pointed anywhere. Archrogue (talk) 18:57, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:43, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Hollow Trees

The Hollow Trees (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)

NN band, fails the GNG and WP:BAND; insufficient independent sourcing providing the "substantial coverage" to the subject that the GNG requires. Beyond that, it's so blatantly promotional throughout that it reaches TNT level. Notability tagged for over a decade, and article creator is a SPA for whom creating and maintaining this article is the sole Wikipedia activity. Ravenswing 20:25, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 20:25, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no real RS to be found. Caro7200 (talk) 20:29, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Devokewater (talk) 21:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under G11 unambiguous advertising. --Lockley (talk) 18:18, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:46, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Global Open University

Global Open University (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's a hoax, degree-mill. As per media reports, the university was recognized by UGC just for 2008-09 academic session to provide distance education courses. Neurofreak (talk) 19:51, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 20:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 20:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The articles has listed two recently deleted hoax institutes as its constituent units, Indian Institute of Ecology and Environment and World Laparoscopy Hospital to provide degree certificates. This university along with these two institutes are operated by the same person, Priya Ranjan Trivedi. The university and it's owner are apparently under scanner for running a fake degree racket.^[1]^[2]

Speedy delete Per
Hoax. There is lack of sources. I can't find them. ~ Junior5a (Talk) Cont 16:34, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy delete due to hoax concerns. Ideally, should be removed ASAP Spiderone 08:40, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per
talk) 19:45, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 14:39, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Life Mel Honey

Life Mel Honey (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)

Three unreliable / promotional sources, with a brief mention as a hoax in a science blog. There isn't enough verifiable information to support an article. And even as is, elevating this hoax on Wikipedia does a disservice to readers. Jontesta (talk) 19:25, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 19:25, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:41, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is some RS available and some reason to believe that the subject is notable. Lightburst (talk) 03:46, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' The "reliable source" given above is UK Daily/Sunday Express, which - is not one (I suggest installing the source quality highlighter to avoid such blunders); and nebulous "reasons to believe subject is notable" may be great at the Article Rescue Squadron but not at AfD. Of the sources given in the article, the only reliable one (Guardian) hashes it over as a scam. Not seeing sufficient coverage by suitable sources here. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 02:03, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Elmidae: You should definitely do your own research rather than taking shots at me. If I find time I will locate other sources. For now I am rather upset by your disparaging remarks and I will log off this thing. Lightburst (talk) 15:35, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Locating reliable sources regarding Life-Mel.

U.S. National Library of Medicine National Institute of Health

Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Neutropenia by Special Honey Intake Published in Medical Oncology, vol. 23, no. 4, 549-552, 2006

Book which cites the above study. Diabetes Without Drugs

MDPI: Honey and Cancer: Current Status and Future Directions

Israel 21C

Jewish Post of New York

Additionally there are many sources which speak to the many health benefits of honey - honey is generally considered to be a supplement -and that is where one needs to exercise good judgement regarding claims. Lightburst (talk) 16:41, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Let's leave out the passing mentions: The Porcza study (one half-sentence), which incidentally you have in there twice, and the book. That leaves the Zidan study and the two magazine articles. Yup, that's probably good enough for notability. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:22, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the Med Oncology paper, Zidan et al, which is indexed not published by the U.S. National Library of Medicine National Institute of Health, is a pilot study without a control group from a general medical unit not an academic one. The journal itself is fine, but the paper isn't reliable for any substantive claims. Nor of course are its mentions in the press etc. The other possible RS don't mention this particular brand of honey and shouldn't be used to support it. The Guardian blog describes this product rather well. As quackery. Also, though the producers say their company didn't fund the trial, that doesn't exactly exclude any other conflict of interest. Pretty much any doctor with time on their hands and honey to sell - or with a friend who has honey to sell - could produce a "study" like this. It's worthless and so is this article. Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:45, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trying hard to justify keeping any mention of this product in an encyclopedia: the only acceptable source here is the Guardian article. If we are to keep, it might be appropriate to present a stub clearly describing the overpromotion of the brand and the unreliable nature of the claims. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:42, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have attempted to rescue the article. Getting rid of the promotional material and the irrelevancies and the misunderstandings took a while. As the article now stands I'd still !vote for delete, but with less pressure on the keys than previously. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:53, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Per our talk page discussion I have erased the pilot studies and other information discussed above and on the talk page. I have reinstated other items like the infobox, logo and the claims section. My hope is that we allow the rest of the article until the AfD is decided. Lightburst (talk) 16:20, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Per our talk page discussion, I propose to revert to my last version and await the result here on the only defensible version so far. Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You want to delete the article here, but also want to delete most of it and leave it as a pointless stub during the AFD. The current version has reliable sources backing up all the information as it is written. Dream Focus 19:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - reads like an advert and a single study does not a honey notable make. Honey may well have some beneficial uses, but using those purported benefits to make this one honey brand seem notable fails
WP:NOTINHERITED. Appears to be snake-oil and fails GNG. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 20:07, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - and advertisement for a non-notable company. Graham Beards (talk) 20:40, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP The Guardian gives it ample coverage but calls it a scam. https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2008/aug/12/sexsellsbutfearand Then I see https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/is-honey-a-cureall-or-is-it-hype-dzf65gdptmz shows only a 1/4th of the article about it, the rest you have to pay to subscribe to see. It gets coverage at https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/health/959980/cancer-treatment-life-mel-honey-this-morning-dr-chris And if you search Wikipedia for www.express.co.uk it gets 23,438 results. I see nowhere on the Reliable Sources discussion board where it was determined if was not considered reliable source. Dream Focus 23:36, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per the news articles in Israel21c, the Guardian, and the Telegraph, I would say that the product fulfils
WP:GNG. The health claims are one thing, but the product itself is obviously notable as a product. The last time this article was nominated for deletion, the vote was overwhelmingly to keep, and for good reason. Company notability has nothing to do with the validity of health claims. Patiodweller (talk) 00:24, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - Per the news articles in Israel21c, the Guardian, and the Telegraph, I would say that the product satisfies
WP:GNG. Clearly notable. You may not like the health claims, but the company and its product are notable. This article dispassionately discusses the "scam" aspect. WP:Verifiability, not WP:Truth. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:28, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Yes, it exists and can be verified, but the honey's sole claim to notability rests in its health benefits for cancer patients. The whole tone and point of the article is promotional. I can't see where that Israel21c piece is any help -- it reads exactly like a press release with no hint of skepticism, no contrary opinion, no disclaimers. If this were a type of honey some of the arguments above might hold water, but this is a brand, with dubious health claims. Allowing wikipedia to promote it feels skeevy. --Lockley (talk) 04:03, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A notable product, WP:nproduct, according to reliable news sources. Delete any specific unproven claims, but keep this article as a product of note.Behindthekeys (talk) 19:06, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The Daily Express is a far-right tabloid, whose current articles include such gems as "World War 3: China closes in on military partnership with Iran in terrifying warning to US", "'Suicidal' BBC Laura Kuenssberg's claim mobile charges will surge post-Brexit dismantled", and "Bible verses about coronavirus: What does the Bible say about COVID-19?". I have no opinion on this particular AFD at the moment, but I hope we aren't trying to legitimize the Daily Express as a reliable source here. Rorshacma (talk) 21:43, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The articles that actually go in-depth on the product, that are not obviously promotional, are from highly questionable sources, bordering on promoting pseudoscience. The only one that does not is the Guardian piece, whose whole purpose is to discredit every claim that could potentially make the product notable. Rorshacma (talk) 00:27, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Grauniad article is a blog, not a bylined piece. The n=30 paper is primary for the fact of its existence and fails MEDRS for its content. Vitamin Global and bee lore are not RS. That leaves only the Telegraph article, which is obvious churnalism. This is bollocks, but it's not notable bollocks. Guy (help!) 22:25, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: JzG was canvassed to this AfD. Lightburst (talk) 23:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guy is a particularly well-respected editor, active in
WP:FRINGE matters. His comment makes it clear that there aren't enough acceptably-reliable sources to justify an article even about the dodgy promotion. If a strong consensus here nevertheless suggests Keep, the article should be a redirect to Apitherapy. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
If the consensus is to keep then it should be kept, not eliminated anyway and replaced with a redirect. And you deliberately canvassed someone you knew would agree with you on this, otherwise you would not have contacted him. Dream Focus 13:10, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I contacted him because I knew he'd give a sound opinion based on a wealth of experience. Actually I was rather hoping he'd endorse at least an improved version. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:02, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I found http://www.jewishpost.com/archives/news/Medicinal-Honey-from-Israel-May-Hold-Promise-for-Chemo-Patients.html Dream Focus 13:26, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More, very obvious, promotional material and churnalism. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:02, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Any reliable sources you disagree with must be "churnalism" apparently. Should we alter the general notability guidelines to say that reliable sources don't count if you don't like what they say? Dream Focus 14:19, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Analysis of sources for reliability is rather the point of this AfD, and in fact is basic to good editing here. And no, promotional material regurgitated does not thereby become respectable journalism. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:55, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Daily Express is generally unreliable per
WP:RSP. The Jewish Post of New York item linked to just above recycles a claim from the Daily Express and says, The Jewish Post staff does not have the proper scientific nor medical background to critically evaluate this product. XOR'easter (talk) 00:06, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Sources exist, but even the best of them do not rise to
the level of quality necessary for medical topics, and so we have no material to build an article upon. XOR'easter (talk) 04:58, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete -
run of the mill health supplements. Bearian (talk) 01:06, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Non-notable organisation. Number 5 7 11:52, 18 July 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 Moved to draft. Consensus is that this might be TOOSOON for an article but could have elements worth perserving in draft space. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:32, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Garfield Nickelodeon series

Untitled Garfield Nickelodeon series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:NTV, barely sourced at all, and currently very minimal information to warrant an article right now. Article should be moved to draftspace until further information is released. Magitroopa (talk) 19:24, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 20:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Devokewater (talk) 21:18, 13 July 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 13:31, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pinner and Grammarians RFC

Pinner and Grammarians RFC (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)

Even after reading last AfD (2011, no consensus) I cannot see any evidence of this meeting the notability criteria for sports teams. Boleyn (talk) 18:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article was kept at afd in 2011 on the basis that it played in an RFU organized league. This is, however, an extremely low bar as most sunday leagues in football and rugby are organized or at least recognized by their respective governing bodies. However, with no guidleine to say that this is incorrect, it is hard to argue against this. Several of the teams that are in the same league also have articles, so if this is deleted, they will have to be nominated as well. This exposes the need for a guideline on whether rugby teams are notable or not, consistent with other sports. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 22:13, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I happened to have stumbled across this article, so am not a regular rugby editor, but I don't see how it makes either
Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 10:49, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 04:13, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unit 2 Games

Unit 2 Games (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)

Current sourcing is includes affiliated sources, press releases and some passing mentions, but nothing that meets the requirements of
WP:NCORP. I looked for better sourcing online, but didn't find anything that would meet the expectations. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your feedback. Unit 2 Games is the creator of the upcoming Stadia game Crayta, about which I'm currently also writing a WP article. I thought the sources on gamesindustry.biz and The Verge would be sufficient to meet Notability requirements (significant, independent, reliable and secondary). As for the Press release and press kit: they are only referenced for basic company details which iirc is passable as a source in that case. Could you please more specifically explain why you think the sources aren't sufficient? Then I can see if I can improve them. For what it's worth; I also think a certain amount of notability will arise once Crayta comes out July 1st and independent reviews start coming out. Yogarine (talk) 22:01, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The gamesindustry.biz source is a rehashed press release - routine coverage padded out with a few quotes from the CEO. The Verge article only mentions the company in a couple of sentences. Neither of these approach
WP:TOOSOON, we wait until the sources are there before we write an article. Since you've indicated that you're also writing about the game, can I ask you to declare whether you have any connection with the company? GirthSummit _(blether) 10:52, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks for the feedback! I've already removed the mention of the investment because indeed there is no source but a press release. I also added an additional reference to GamesRadar+ that includes an interview with Unit 2 Games. If that's not enough, then I guess that currently most of the sourceable notability comes from the game the company is releasing (even if, on a personal note, the company has an interesting history and focusses on inclusivity and employee wellbeing).
There are plenty of other sources about Crayta specifically, although most of those only mention the company in passing, if at all, or are not reputable or independent enough to be included as sources. Is the notability of a game enough to warrant an article for the game's developer, or does that mean that this this article should redirect to the game's article until the company itself has had more significant coverage? If it's the latter, then that does confuse me somewhat considering articles like Rebellion Warwick seem less notable and yet do exist.
Finally, no, I don't have any connection with the company. I'm just excited for Crayta and figured it was notable enough to deserve an article. I created the Unit 2 Games article first for completeness and so I can link to it in the Crayta article. Yogarine (talk) 13:20, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So, interviews don't really contribute towards notability - anything coming out of the mouths of the people involved in the company is primary, rather than secondary. This is discussed in more detail at
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS), Wikipedia has loads of articles that ought to be deleted, so if you don't think the sources there establish notability then by all means nominate it for deletion. Thanks for confirming you have no connection with the subject. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:35, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Thank's for clearing that up. For what it's worth, Unit 2 Games was named one of the best places to work by gamesindustry.biz, although I doubt that changes much in the context of this discussion.
So, I guess I'll keep an eye open for substantial, secondary sources as they come out. Can you perhaps give some examples of sources I should look out for? E.g. sources that assert notability for similar articles. Thank you very much for taking the time to explain these things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yogarine (talk • contribs) 15:48, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional article for the upcoming beta. Fails
WP:ORGIND. scope_creep^Talk 16:04, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

fwiw, this article is hardly promotional, nor is it for an upcoming beta. The game they are releasing is an official release. Yogarine (talk) 01:46, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 08:15, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since this AfD started, Crayta has been released and the company now has extensive news coverage. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:25, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:45, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doing a search for Unit 2 Games comes up with a lot of stuff on Crayta that only mentions them in passing. If Crayta is notable, then there should be an article for it, but notability isn't inherited and having an article about Crayta masquerading as one about Unit 2 Games isn't really the way to go about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with the analysis of sources above. I am also unable to locate any
HighKing⁺⁺ 14:46, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom --Devokewater (talk) 21:19, 13 July 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 per
(non-admin closure) —— § erial 10:27, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Warren Bradley (politician)

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

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

OTRS request - full detail at AfD Darren-M talk 18:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Darren-M talk 18:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

VRTS ticket # 2020070710012291 has been received requesting that this article be deleted. The requester states that the article was set up maliciously, that the content is out of date, and that the content is damaging his likelihood of further employment. As a gesture of good faith, I have advised the requester that I will list the article at AfD. I have set expectations with the requester that such deletions are a matter for community consensus, that being listed here is by no means an indication that the article will indeed be deleted, and that I suspect the deletion may be unlikely to succeed. The requester has agreed for me to share this detail in order to raise this request. Darren-M talk 18:20, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
query - Darren, has the requester withdrawn his belligerent and blustering legal threat which got him NLT blocked? (See User talk:Warren2922; that was before we blocked him for sockpuppeting to get around the NLT block.) --Orange Mike | Talk 22:07, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep
talk) 18:46, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. A former ~~mayor~~ leader of a major UK city would almost definitely pass Wikipedia:Notability (politics)#Local politicians, even without the coverage in regional and national media surrounding the perjury conviction. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 19:03, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A person in a similar position who never made the news might be a more marginal case, but the subject made himself notable enough to garner significant news coverage: once notable, always notable. We do not judge the article by speculated motivation of the person who initially created it, but rather by its current condition. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:22, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per
WP:DUCK applies. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 20:26, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Seems to meet notability. Controversial issues are sourced with reliable sources. I don't see BLP violations here, either, and certainly no reason for deletion. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:16, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The page is relevant and we don't remove it because the subject doesn't like the details. Any editorial concerns can be addressed but the coverage/subject is notable. -- Dane ^talk 01:31, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The precise reason for the requested nomination makes it notable. A politician in his capacity convicted for perjury and that has received ample media coverage leads to notability. If the subject is concerned about his future chances of employment, he shouldn't have done it in the first place. We have presented the facts using NPOV. Oaktree b (talk) 03:04, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to meet notability.
talk) 19:51, 12 July 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 13:35, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vinod Kumar Dwivedi

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Vinod Kumar Dwivedi

Articles for deletion/Vinod Kumar Dwivedi nomination

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

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

The subject of article lacks
WP:NN. Being merely a Musical Artist doesn't prove his notability. The article does not cite any independent coverage in reliable sources. Lal Singh Chadda (talk) 11:15, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 18:10, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 18:54, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 18:54, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet our inclusion guidelines for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:26, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article is not important and also this article does not meet our inclusion guidelines for musicians.Lal Singh Chadda (talk) 08:32, 11 July 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by लाल सिंह चड्डा (talk • contribs) [reply]

Delete per all of the above Spiderone 08:43, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Devokewater (talk) 21:20, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:SIGCOV. This is basically a run of the musician, who has not toured widely, nor won major awards, nor recorded hit records. Coverage is shallow. Bearian (talk) 01:12, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:50, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kingsley (YouTuber)

Kingsley (YouTuber) (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 youtuber, most of the citations are unreliable and a large part of the article is written like an advertisement. Eternal Shadow Talk 16:28, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Eternal Shadow Talk 16:28, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, Although it have most of the references which are from YouTube but some of them seem to be Reliable one which makes it pass
Wp:BASIC. Stonertone (talk) 16:54, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete The sourcing just isn't there for this to be notable. There are some none YouTube references, but they are all trivial and/or interviews. Which don't work for notability. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:46, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 18:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — per rationale provided by Adamant1 & Eternal Shadow. Celestina007 (talk) 20:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is a total lack of reliable, in-depth, 3rd party secondary source independent coverage needed to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:03, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable --Devokewater (talk) 21:21, 13 July 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) 19:46, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Allegiant (finance services)

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

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

This article was deleted on 23 May 2020 after my PROD. It was restored a month later following a

WP:NCORP." AllyD (talk) 15:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 15:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 15:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 15:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, insufficient notability. Balle010 (talk) 16:37, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable Devokewater (talk)

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. Keep by consensus after improvements. Drmies (talk) 22:44, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Bascombe

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

primary source (user-generated content on Facebook or Twitter, the self-published websites of organizations that he's directly affiliated with, etc.) that is not support for notability at all. This is not how you make a musician or an actor notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Bearcat (talk) 15:03, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:03, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:03, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have added Bascombe's songwriters credits to the article. Will continue to try to improve the article. Vannessajg (talk) 19:24, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Listing songwriting credits isn't what's going to make the difference. Showing a

reliable source media coverage about him, existing independently of his name merely being mentioned in coverage about the band, is what's going to make the difference. Bearcat (talk) 22:32, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply

of The Delfonics has a stand alone page as well. My point is that the names I mentioned go hand in hand with the groups they are in. In the classic soul/R&B world the group members are known by name and/or group. Preserving their names are just as important as preserving the groups name, due to having paved the way for artists today.

Like all Classic Soul/R&B groups of the 1970's and 1980's. The name of the group is what identify the artists in the groups as well. The groups/singers/artists of that era have become legendary. For instance,

Bubba Knight of Gladys Knight & The Pips didn't have a solo career, and he has a stand alone page and all of the sources that are referenced on his page are linked to Gladys Knight & The Pips articles. Randy Cain

Please let me know which links are directly going to the subjects twitter, Facebook and website pages. I did have the organization's link that he is a board member of just to show he was a member. I have since removed that. I was trying to make sure that I didn't use Stuart Bascombe's or Black Ivory's websites, FB and twitter pages. I am new to editing and creating pages, so I may be using the wrong sites for references. Thanking you in advance. Vannessajg (talk) 02:52, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for
talk) 00:02, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Logs: 2020-05 ✗ Draft:Stuart Bascombe

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 15:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is sourced and while it could be a lot shorter I think it'd be wrong to wipe it from Wiki. Balle010 (talk) 16:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect > Black Ivory.Djflem (talk) 16:30, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At the suggestion of Balle010, I shortened the article by removing the acting and songwriter credits sections.Vannessajg (talk) 05:40, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have cleaned it somewhat but could do with more as a majority of sources are listing sites. But reported to be occasionally brilliant. Noteworthy. scope_creep^Talk 22:43, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:10, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Khalid Ali-M Aldawsari

AfDs for this article:

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

The article is mainly sourced to primary sources, which is against Wikipedia guidelines. We do not source to charging documents by law enforcement, but to secondary coverage in published accounts. What we have is not enough to show notability. Not everyone charged with trying to do a bombing is notable. We do not have articles on most people who actually succeeded in doing bombings, articles need to be built on coverage that meets GNG and this article clearly does not meet GNG. John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:05, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While there may be further secondary sources (see e.g. New York Times[8]), articles fails
WP:CRIM ("A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person.") as the subject is known only in connection with this criminal event and Terrorism in the United States covers the material in this biography. BananaCarrot152 (talk) 01:51, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 15:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as stated above, articles fails
WP:CRIM Balle010 (talk) 16:52, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete At this point the subject does not reach WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 11:33, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 14:39, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Molesworth Institute

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

A hoax (or, longstanding in-joke among some librarians) largely presented as fact. Questionable notability. HaeB (talk) 03:57, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From [9]: "[ Norman D. Stevens ] enjoys being a prankster. He delights in obtaining listings for the [Molesworth] institute or staff members, including himself, Nigel Molesworth, and Timothy Peason, in standard reference books [...] Stevens published an entry on the Molesworth Institute on Wikipedia. The Wikipedia editors questioned some of the information and added to the page an external link to an 'article citing hoax in Who's Who in Library Servies as the source of the name Molesworth.'"

Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:17, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Hoax. "absurdist informatics, disjunctive librarianship, and word play" indeed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:56, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, have left a message on comedy wikiproject talkpage notifying them of this afd. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:07, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, theres an entry in the Encyclopedia of Library History (allbeit by Stevens), Archives of Library Research from the Molesworth Institute (1985) is held by around 120 libraries and has been reviewed in the Library and Information Science Annual (here), Molesworth Institute "members" (possibly stevens only?) have made presentations at Association for Information Science and Technology SIG/CON conferences (see here), The Serials Librarian has an article "The Molesworth Institute Library Reopens", there is an indepth article on Stevens and the institute in The Laughing Librarian: A History of American Library Humor here, reckon at the very least this is deserving of a "redirect/merge" to stevens. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this hoax has been covered in in reliable sources (such as the one discussed by HaeB); then this could still be worthy of an article, with potentially a move to Molesworth Institute hoax. Otherwise a listing at
~~WP:HOAXLIST would of course be appropriate (as this would then become the most enduring hoax there...). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:59, 5 July 2020 (UTC)~~ blocked as sockpuppet ~ Amkgp 💬 14:07, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. It is a hoax library with its own article in Wikipedia. As it stands, it is a delete as it is the hoax presented as fact. Perhaps a future article on the
~~WP:HOAXLIST. Britishfinance (talk) 23:30, 7 July 2020 (UTC)~~[reply
]

Keep per
WP:HEY by Cunard and XOR'easter below. Article is no longer misleading and there is enough GNG to keep it. Britishfinance (talk) 11:16, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline with the sources presented in this discussion and additional sources I found and added to the article. I rewrote the article to remove promotional material and to make it clear that the Molesworth Institute is a fictional institute, not a real institute.
Cunard (talk) 11:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Cunard, I could see a potential for it as Molesworth Institute (hoax library), and with the text re-written to reflect the true facts (there is some GNG for this), but as currently written, it is a hoax being presented as a fact (i.e. a real library)? thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 14:51, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 15:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is not the Molesworth Institute (hoax library) page. I'd favor creating that page. Balle010 (talk) 16:50, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I removed a couple paragraphs that were written from an "in-universe" perspective (taking the hoax as fact). What remains might better be treated at Norman D. Stevens. On the other hand, the description in The Laughing Librarian is pretty extensive, so it's possible the article could be built back up again, making more clear what's part of the joke. XOR'easter (talk) 17:41, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for removing that in-universe material that took the hoax as fact. Cunard (talk) 11:04, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Britishfinance (talk · contribs), Balle010 (talk · contribs), and XOR'easter (talk · contribs), I have further expanded the article with information from the sources (though there is much more content that can be added from The Laughing Librarian). The article says, "The Molesworth Institute is a fictional organization started with the aim of furthering library comedy", so it's not misleading readers into thinking it might be a real institute as it had been before. I am fine with renaming to Molesworth Institute (hoax library) if that changes editors' positions, but would adding a disambiguator to the title be compliant with the Wikipedia:Disambiguation guideline given that the current title does not "refe[r] to more than one subject covered by Wikipedia"?
Cunard (talk) 11:04, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Very nice job Cunard, and agree/appreciate the renaming as well. I have changed my !vote to keep. Britishfinance (talk) 11:16, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Changing my vote to keep as well! Balle010 (talk) 16:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Decently sourced for an article about a long-running joke, and clear on the point that it's a joke. XOR'easter (talk) 18:27, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's properly cited with links to notable peer-reviewed journals. Almost a library industry cultural phenomenon at this point, it ceased being a "prank" years ago. From what I understand it's the equivalent of the "Who's On First" sketch to the library world. Oaktree b (talk) 03:20, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. After improvements any previous in-universe quality has been well scrubbed off. Nice work, gotta say. --Lockley (talk) 07:42, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:54, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Gharebaghi

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

All primary sources. Can't identify him nor see why he is notable. Fails

WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 15:32, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 16:06, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 16:06, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find any independent coverage of these publications or patents. Balle010 (talk) 16:45, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unable to locate any third party reliable coverage either. — Infogapp1 (talk) 18:32, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails
WP:NACADEMIC due to not meeting any of it's notability criteria. The person might meet the criteria due to their few research papers being cited in books or other places somewhere, but it's highly doubtful. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:56, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom --Devokewater (talk) 21:23, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:55, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michelangelo Galliani

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

Written by a single-purpose account that claims to be the copyright holder for the subject's work, likely an autobiography. Lots of sources, non-notable wards, but no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Vexations (talk) 15:28, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 15:45, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 15:45, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete given the apparent COI and lack of independent sources. Balle010 (talk) 16:40, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this one is hard to assess as most sources are in Italian. Downsides: the previous collections list included a lot of unverifiable material, which I removed. Possible upsides: I found a few mentions in the press, but I can't assess their value that well, as I have to do so through Google translate. The article is horribly promotional. 18:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Delete a non-notable sculptor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:09, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not pass notability criteria for artists. The fact that it is a promotional COI or AUTOBIO lowers credibility. Looks like a NARTIST and GNG fail. Netherzone (talk) 00:27, 11 July 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) 02:33, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Snowboarder (film)

AfDs for this article:

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

I couldn't find much coverage for this. it certainly don't pass

WP:NFILM

, I think.

ping me) 15:14, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply

ping me) 15:14, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply

ping me) 15:14, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply

ping me) 15:14, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply

ping me) 15:14, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply

Delete Isn't notable due to a lack of the serious sourcing that would be enough to pass
WP:NFILM. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:26, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete — Per rationale provided by Adamant1. Celestina007 (talk) 20:35, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G2; "Super base was released in 2021 by The queen of rap known as Nicki Minaj." doesn't need a whole afd. Moneytrees🌴^{Talk🌲Help out at CCI!} 18:41, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nicki minaj sample songs

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

Only one song, doesn't look like a proper article. I don't know if this is an A10 or not. Also somewhat promotional. For reference, as of 15:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC), the only content is "Super base was released in 2021 by The queen of rap known as Nicki Minaj". ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 15:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 15:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obviously not notable. The title of the article is bad, the "article" is just one sentence which is also nonsense. It could've been speedy deleted imo. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 16:13, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agreeing with all reasons given above. Balle010 (talk) 16:37, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete The current content makes this an A10 of Super Bass. Adam9007 (talk) 18:16, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:56, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Frank-Joachim Grossmann

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

The article, written by an editor who identifies as the subject on commons, per https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Schota17 is largerly based on two sources: https://www.rheinpfalz.de/lokal/speyer_artikel a local newspaper with a section dedicated to the town of

WP:NOTWEBHOST we're an encyclopedia, not a webhost for a resume. Vexations (talk) 14:24, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 14:28, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 14:28, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Nothing in the article or the citations demonstrates notability, and I can't find anything online which suggests he might pass
WP: NOTLINKEDIN. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 18:22, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Wikipedia must be vigilant in destroying autobiographies lest they overwhelm and distort the project.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:53, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Another COI/AUTOBIO of a non-notable artist. Does not pass GNG nor NARTISt. Netherzone (talk) 00:29, 11 July 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 Charlotte Sevier. Clear consensus that this guy is not notable, redirecting to his spouse per ATD. (non-admin closure) Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:08, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Henry Sevier

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

Fails

WP:NPEOPLE in general. Reference only seems to mention the subject a few times, which may constitute a trivial mention. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 14:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 14:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 14:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 14:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 14:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No claim to notability, poor single source, hardly any content. Charlotte Sevier is much more developed and possibly a redirect target. --Lockley (talk) 03:06, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Charlotte Sevier. Siddsg (talk) 10:39, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater (talk) 21:24, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 11:02, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alassana Jatta

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails

WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable --Devokewater (talk) 21:17, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, player on non-professional level. Geschichte (talk) 21:27, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:07, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:09, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above Spiderone 08:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:51, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Storehippo

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

Unable to find significant in-depth coverage in independent and reliable sources for this company. Fails NCORP. The article history shows that it was probably created by a COI editor.

talk) 11:39, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply

talk) 11:39, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply

talk) 11:39, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply

talk) 11:39, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply

talk) 11:39, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply

Delete per nom. I can't find anything online about this company other than promotional coverage. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 12:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article originally created by
notability. AllyD (talk) 14:47, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per all of the above Spiderone 08:43, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete UPE. And promotional writing. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:52, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Phonic Athletic

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

Ephemeral garage band, fails the GNG and WP:BAND. No reliable sources added in over a decade (or ever), no independent notability for any of its members or "associated acts." Created by a SPA for whom pushing this band was his sole Wikipedia activity. Ravenswing 11:35, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 12:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 12:02, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - falls far short of
WP:BAND. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 12:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Another absolutely non-notable band. I searched first without the quotation marks and I did not found anything besides Wikipedia and Facebook. The rest of the results were not about the band, just sites where these three words appear. Then I searched with quotation marks included but the results are not any better: Wikipedia, Facebook, lots of Wikipedia mirrors and very trivial mentions/name checks. No coverage, no reliable sources, in fact no sources whatsoever. We should really stop single purpose accounts because they do nothing but advertise/promote things, and they don't give a hoot about notability. How this article has managed to stay here since 2009 is a complete mystery to me. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 15:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:48, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Flame Boiz (producer)

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

Fails about every known

WP:GNG. Celestina007 (talk) 11:26, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 11:26, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 11:26, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 11:26, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 11:26, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 11:26, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 13:31, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable.
talk 15:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Fails
WP:SIGCOV. Lapablo (talk) 15:56, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: Barely found anything about him. Easily fails
WP:ANYBIO. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:50, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Presenter umuju

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

Very non notable article on a subject who falls terribly below

WP:GNG. A before search shows 0 evidence of notability in any manner. Celestina007 (talk) 11:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 11:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 11:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 11:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 11:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Definitely no way this meets notability. Fails
WP:RS. Lapablo (talk) 11:26, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 13:32, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable.
talk 15:20, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as a failure of GNG and BIO. Java Hurricane 14:02, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything him. Easily fails
WP:BIO. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 13:48, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:58, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anatoliy Karpenko

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

Subject does not meet the GNG, and no evidence that he meets any notability criteria has been proffered in over a decade. Article was created shortly before the editor's indef block for account abuse. Ravenswing 11:17, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable.
bee  11:22, 9 July 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by K6bee9 (talk • contribs) [reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:28, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:28, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Being the world's one-time fiftieth best ski jumper falls far short of notability. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 13:41, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails General notability guideline as per above and also has no news coverage whatsoever. CreativeNorth (talk) 14:14, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:47, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Donna Briggs

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

25 year old celebrity interviewer. Sourced to homepage, facebook, and talent agency. Independent sources are lacking per my check. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 11:16, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks proper sources & references. Seems to be a promo.
bee  11:23, 9 July 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by K6bee9 (talk • contribs) [reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Promotional article created by SPA, no evidence of notability. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 12:17, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete absolutely no reliable 3rd party source coverage of her.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 14:28, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Duffy

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

this article has no sourcing. i tried to search some sources myself unsuccessfully. AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 15:14, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bodybuilding-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:19, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough sources to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:12, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:45, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:49, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:51, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I was not able to find any reliable sources on this person. Fails
WP:GNG. Ealuscerwen (talk) 01:05, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep -- The problem with sourcing might be a result of Duffy's name: he's mostly known as Bull Stanton - it's his gay porn pseudonym - even among bodybuilding fans. There are many sources that could be used in the article and that could prove his article should not be removed. I will improve the article over the next few days, so please don't delete it. AngelOfDestiny (talk) 19:23, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Giving more time so the changes and sources being added by AOD can be assessed more thoroughly here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:06, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AngelOfDestiny: if you have good sources to prove notability I would withdraw the nomination. thank you for your contribute. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 22:36, 1 July 2020 (UTC) hi @AngelOfDestiny:, the sources added so far do not prove any notability. do you have more sources?. thank you. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 08:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean, they not prove any notability? It's clearly stated that he was: 1) a first widely acclaimed bodybuilder to appear in gay pornography, which is remarkable; 2) the US professional bodybuilding champion - not state-level, nationwide. Also: a widely celebrated fitness cover model, and a well-know 90s porn star. If he was only one of those things, yes, it might not be enough but all things considered he's clearly eligible for a Wikipedia article. Beverly Hills Housewives have their own articles - Christian Duffy is okay, too. AngelOfDestiny (talk) 11:07, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:SPORTSPERSON we need secondary sources to state what you say. so far we only have a few primary sources. the idea behind it is that to prove that an achievement is truly relevant we need a secondary source to talk about it. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 10:39, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply

@AlejandroLeloirRey: Look, if you want me to find analyses or academic writings on a '90s bodybuilding champion, there's not much I can do. Bodybuilding already is a niche sport. The sources I found about Christian Duffy are pretty much all there is on the internet. It clearly gives all the information anyone interested in him should gather, and if that's not enough, I literally can't provide more. AngelOfDestiny (talk) 14:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AngelOfDestiny: you said that he was on the cover of a few important magazines, I would than be surprised if none of them has ever written a bio. we don't need much but just a couple of good sources. this is not to satisfy me but to satisfy the guidelines for notability. as I said if you and your achievement are notable someone must have written something about it. this is an enciclopedia after all and if we want wikipedia to be taken seriously and be considered reliable we can not rely on anything but good sources, otherwise the whole project will be considered a joke. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 13:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AlejandroLeloirRey: He was on the cover of the most important bodybuilding magazines but that was before the internet era. Today that would equal with a series of articles on websites of Flex, IronMan or Muscular Development. But it was before mid-90s so everything remains in those printed magazine - which I do not own. Obviously, I can't win this one; I can't provide any sources you want from me. I still think those given are legit. There are tons of bodybuilding-related biographies on Wikipedia and a lot of them are from the "golden age" of bodybuilding ('70s, '80s, '90s). Most of them have the same type of sourcing like this page and there's no drama involved. AngelOfDestiny (talk) 16:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AngelOfDestiny: do you believe we can have the exact number or date those magazines were issued? if so we might write to the magazine and try to get a copy of the article. that would take time but i would withdraw the nomination and see if we can prove notability through them... would you be willing to do that? --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 16:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AlejandroLeloirRey: I can tell you're judging Duffy on a base of his porn star achievements. He did not win any porn industry awards but is notable as a bodybuilder-turned-gay porn actor, and as an athlete he achieved enough to have his own Wikipedia article. US-level champion on behalf of the NPC federation is a big deal and a definitely a notable success. AngelOfDestiny (talk) 11:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:SPORTSPERSON --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 09:19, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply

Keep -- Obiously an accomplished bodybuilding figure, successful enough to being a cover model for the most important bodybuilding magazines in the United States. Famous for his gay pornography work even among bodybuilding aficionados, and probably the very first athlete of such masculine sports to openly admit both his porn history and sexual orientation (homo- or bisexual). Should be kept definitely. Adriano16 (talk) 11:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Adriano16: basing on your personal perception of this subject or on sources? I am tired of people taking AFD as a voting process, we should present facts based on sources not what we think about the subject. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 09:24, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment In order to help those who are adding sources to save the article I will give you my opinion about the sources that have been found so far. 1) this is an interview and generally interviews are not considered to prove notability as they are primary sources. nevertheless, this one is a good interview so I believe that it has some weight but it is not enough. 2),3),4),6),7) totally primary sources, they only proves he wan some competitions, this type of sources have almost no weight at all into proving notability. 5) this is only something that someone has posted. 8) this is a very short bio (about 4-5 lines) stuffed with pictures. this has no weight into proving notability. 9) another interview, see 1. 10),11) mere mentions, they do not says nothing about the subject. 12) it's 2 pics of the subject. 13) IMDb is not reliable, this source should not even be used. 13) another interview and it reads "advertisement". now, if you want to keep this article, in my opinion, you should either add more sources or tell why my judgment on these sources is wrong and point out exactly which sources you believe prove notability. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 13:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
comment So far no one showed a reliable source and the arguments for keep are based on the fact that they are sure that somewhere more sources exists. are this type of argument considered here? --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 11:18, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:17, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment @Gene93k: i think there is a problem with the relisting. it doesn't appear in the correct date. can you check if everything is ok? thank you.--AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 09:17, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The 8 July 2020 relisting did not show up in the daily log.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, • Gene93k (talk) 10:52, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No proper references available.
bee  11:26, 9 July 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by K6bee9 (talk • contribs) [reply
]

Keep -- Per
WP:SPORTCRIT Accomplished bodybuilding figure: cover model for the most important bodybuilding magazines in the United States. Search term of Bull Stanton reveals even more SIGCOV Lightburst (talk) 19:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

@Lightburst: cool, basin on which sources please? --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 20:26, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the sources are sufficient for notability. Neither is the fact that he was on a cover of "the most important" bodybuilding magazines in the United States. Since pictures are not in-depth coverage. Which is required for notability. Plus, notability isn't inherited anyway. So being on the cover of anything, no matter how "important" it is, doesn't automatically qualify someone for an article. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:36, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
comment this article was relisted because AngelOfDestiny said he could find some reliable sources but he needed some extratime. well, no reliable extensive covers of the subject have been shown so far and all the keep votes are based on the fact that "there might be more sources"... might... may be I can fly...--AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 10:16, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't mind a little good faith "criticism", I'm sure everyone can figure that out the crux of this by reading through the discussion. So, there isn't a need to comment after every other vote. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:06, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, you are right. it is just that I saw it happening a few times. someone pop out and says wait, give me time, I have some good sources and than he adds a few (or many) bad sources. but, yes you are right. sorry. (i am AlejandroLeloirRey) --79.35.212.95 (talk) 08:15, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He gets chronicled in Jack Fritscher Gay San Francisco: Eyewitness Drummer, and is listed in Superstars: Gay Adult Video Guide. So even on his gay porn career, he is probably notable. See no reason to delete this. Britishfinance (talk) 12:04, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. He also gets three pages in
Michael Alago's autobiography, which I have used to expand the article. Britishfinance (talk) 13:35, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Thank you for your contribution. I never knew sources like that existed in the first place and they really benefit the article. AngelOfDestiny (talk) 16:18, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:01, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bella Karoli

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

Fails

WP:SIGCOV. Can't find anything on the subject. scope_creep^Talk 09:35, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 09:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 09:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 09:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of GNG. I didn't find anything at all on one listed book, no reviews on the other (and one book isn't likely to give a pass of
WP:TNT applies if nothing else to this undersourced and autobiographical-appearing article. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:52, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nomination. There's absolutely nothing to demonstrate that the subject of this page has achieved notability. Looking at the content and edit history, it
quacks like an autobiography. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 12:41, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete a non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:32, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Clearly fails notability guidelines. — Goszei (talk) 01:02, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If deleted, it should be redirected to Béla Károlyi, as its a misspellings appearing in a number of English language sources. --Rob (talk) 01:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not found. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:32, 10 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Books appear to be self-published and (more importantly) unreviewed, and the article (judging from a mess of repetitive bare-url citations) appears to be purely self-sourced. No notability evident. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:51, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As others have said, doesn't appear to be notable at this stage. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:07, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per all. -Hatchens (talk) 03:11, 14 July 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. No consensus to delete this article, and after two relists, no challenge to the keeps.

(non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 18:26, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply

Wake Up Ladies: Very Complicated

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

too soon, short article and need more reference PradaSaetiew (talk) 21:45, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 22:00, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:04, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:04, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I started the article and I'd like to clear up some points here re: article is (1) too short, (2) too soon and (3) needs more reference. For (1), I'm not sure if there is a specific amount of words needed for an article when
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball
, this and the other TV programmes being AFD'ed were already announced including the artists who are taking part of the series which leads me to (3) the additional references (as published in Thai reliable sources) are as follows:

It would have also been better if concerns raised were discussed on the page's talk page and

WP:BEFORE was done. Other articles being AFD'ed in relation to this are Devil Sister, Military of Love, The Gifted: Graduation‎, Oh My Boss, Friend Zone 2: Dangerous Area and A Tale of Thousand Stars. — Emperork (talk) 03:54, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply

*Comment: Too soon and not Notability.--PradaSaetiew (talk) 09:47, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:31, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It was established at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Friend Zone 2: Dangerous Area that nobody actually knows the premiere date for this show, or the others nominated with the same rationale. The only real rationale given is TOOSOON, but the nominator doesn't know how soon it will actually be. "Short article" and "Not notability" are not acceptable rationales. Keep on all of these thoughtless nominations. — Toughpigs (talk) 02:03, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:10, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:44, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Tale of Thousand Stars

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

Short article, too soon and need more reference PradaSaetiew (talk) 20:48, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 21:13, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:15, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:15, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Keep: I started the article and I'd like to clear up some points here re: article is (1) too short, (2) too soon and (3) needs more reference. For (1), I'm not sure if there is a specific amount of words needed for an article when
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball
, this and the other TV programmes being AFD'ed were already announced including the artists who are taking part of the series which leads me to (3) the additional references (as published in Thai reliable sources) are as follows:

It would have also been better if concerns raised were discussed on the page's talk page and

WP:BEFORE was done. Other articles being AFD'ed in relation to this are Devil Sister, Military of Love, The Gifted: Graduation‎, Oh My Boss, Friend Zone 2: Dangerous Area and Wake Up Ladies: Very Complicated. — Emperork (talk) 03:54, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply

*Comment: Too soon and not Notability.--PradaSaetiew (talk) 09:53, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:33, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It was established at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Friend Zone 2: Dangerous Area that nobody actually knows the premiere date for this show, or the others nominated with the same rationale. The only real rationale given is TOOSOON, but the nominator doesn't know how soon it will actually be. "Short article" and "Not notability" are not acceptable rationales. Keep on all of these thoughtless nominations. — Toughpigs (talk) 02:03, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:10, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coleg Morgannwg

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

This university existed up until 2013 when it merged with Ystrad Mynach College to become Coleg y Cymoedd, but how does it meet

WP:NOTABILITY besides a notable alumni being a Meteorologist for BBC Wales. Pahiy (talk) 19:57, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 19:57, 21 June 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 19:57, 21 June 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 19:57, 21 June 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Keep. CFEs are clearly notable institutions. Why propose this for deletion and not all the other CFEs in Category:Further education colleges in the United Kingdom? No consistency there. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:59, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect into Coleg y Cymoedd where it's a natural fit. That meteorologist shows up over there too. --Lockley (talk) 23:18, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:09, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No consensus to delete, however, does not preclude a possible merge with

(non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 18:32, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply

(Still) 2gether: The Series

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

It's just 5 special episodes of

2gether: The Series (Thai TV series) not a new series or new story, no need to create a new aticle for this because it's same article and details, so we should remove it or merge them together, add about this 5 special episodes in the main article of this series same as Thai Wikipedia page, and you can checking about this special episode details in Thai medias or official details from GMMTV in Thai. So the only one English referrence in this page it's just a translated from Philippines fan who can't understand in Thai, not from English details from GMMTV or Thai English medias. PradaSaetiew (talk) 06:15, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply

2gether: The Series (Thai TV series)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 06:38, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:40, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:40, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Noting that this would be the 2nd nomination of this article. The 2 other sources came from
2gether: The Series (Thai TV series) and its director — this one is to be directed by Aof Noppharnach 1 2 and not by Weerachit Thongjila anymore, I would assume that this would be considered as a spin-off despite having only 5 episodes. — Emperork (talk) 04:38, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: :@

not a new series or story.

I didn't talk about who are the director, i just talk about this 5 special episodes it's just a special episode for

2gether: The Series (Thai TV series) not a new series or new season, so we can add this too short details in the main article. Anyway your sources like Twitter or IG it's not from GMMTV.--PradaSaetiew (talk) 09:27, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply

Comment: we can merge this page to
2gether: The Series (Thai TV series).--PradaSaetiew (talk) 10:01, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Do not make bolded
!votes on discussions you start. --Paul_012 (talk) 19:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment English reference appears legit. PUSH [11] (the site and organization of the writer of the article) is apparently entertainment news site of ABS-CBN Corporation company which operates TV channels. There is also partnership deal between ABS-CBN and GMM as well [12] --Lerdsuwa (talk) 07:33, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Given how it's closely related, I don't see why this shouldn't be merged into the main series article. This could have been discussed as an editorial issue without need to resort to AfD. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:11, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 14:30, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:06, 9 July 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 move to draft. This article was created by a

articles for creation. As this did not happen, the article has been returned to draft space and requires AfC approval prior to any move back to mainspace. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:41, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply

Hamis Kiggundu

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

This should really be a G11 speedy, however the author seems convinced this belongs in article space without engaging in dialogue and accepting the AfC process. The subject of the article is potentially notable - but it needs substantial work (and probably time) to remove promotional puffery and identify reliable sources to verify most of the statements of about his life. The sources are an array of mere business listing sites, mentions in passing and questionable news outlets (some of which my defenses show bearing malware...). There are some unanswered COI concerns as the author seems to have embarked on creating an array of articles about this person, his business interests and some family members. Some family facts are not mentioned in any sources... they must have come from somehwere. There are a few rejected/deleted AfCs at

WP:TNT). _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 10:47, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 10:47, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 10:47, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~KeepDeleteNeutralDraftify~~ ~~(revised my opinion. See comment below) (and once more) (and again)~~(see after the (first) re-list. I am striking all the comments I made before that.After some thought I fall back on the fact that the gentleman has notability despite your wise and accurate comments on the references. I consider that the references need a great deal of tidying, paring down, and filtering for quality. Fiddle Faddle 10:58, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtrent: I see where you're coming from. This is a borderline call. It is probably easy enough to reduce the article to a minimum viable stub. However, I refuse to edit/improve articles that have the slightest whiff of COI/PAID as this would mean that I use my volunteer time for someone else to get paid. Call me weird, I would much rather see this nuked and then I'd write a stub from scratch - with the illusion that payment may then be withheld.... _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 11:19, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jake Brockman: I also have no intention of working in this borderline article. The rationale for my opinion on keeping is very thin indeed, but I interpret WP policy as driving my !vote. I appreciate that I may be incorrect. I have flagged it for work on the referencing assuming it is kept. Fiddle Faddle 11:29, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have revised my opinion. I have seen so many articles around this gentleman created by the same editor that I suspect a paid campaign (broadly construed) to create notability surrounding him. I have placed a warning in the creators talk page to that effect. I have abided by

~~WP:AGF and considered this carefully. If the gentleman is notable let someone else create the article(s).~~ Fiddle Faddle 11:46, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply

The editor has left a clear explanation on their talk page. I no longer suspect paid editorship.Fiddle Faddle 19:09, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Justifying my final(!) !vote, I feel that there is sufficient potential in this article to put it into Draft: space for a major edit. It needs to be slimmed down. A great number if Wikilinks need to go. Irrelevant 'references' must go. The creating editor needs time to work on this without being under the time pressure of AfD. Fiddle Faddle 20:51, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@

Draft:Hamis Kiggundu.. Not sure what a second draft would accomplish. The article space version could be merged into it so we maintain the history. AfC would have to be strictly adhered by before moving back. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 23:35, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply

@Jake Brockman: I have no issue with that outcome. I hadn't noticed/remembered there was a drat waiting in the wings Fiddle Faddle 06:40, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (article author). Hello My Seniors Here: Jake Brockman ,Faddle i have a very big Challenge here, I am a Web designer and Content creator, i have been working on some of the websites for this gentleman Hamis Kiggundu through some agencies. In fact i have very many companies and prominent businessmen and Ugandan Government officials projects i have been working on. However, after checking on Wikipedia, i could not find any information or pages regarding them, apart from a mention which found in the page for Nakivubo Stadium about Hamis Kiggundu which just had (Ham Kiggundu) but without any citations and confirmation external links, i got information from google and other sources then consequently did the necessary editing (Citation and External links) though i saw it was since cleaned by User:Jake Brockman. I was also guided somewhere to avoid indicating the financial/ monetary net worth by one of you on some article List of Ugandans by net worth which i have since understood.

Now the only challenge is that the pictures i use here( Wiki Commons) are some of the very Pictures that i use when putting up their sites, the are raw files are always very very heavy and in a diff format: i work on them then generate jpeg/jpg and png formats which i always customize for my personal, some i find the downloaded and reused in the press, but i don't find it offensive given the fact that they always work for the benefit of my third party customers, most of who i have never even met personal. Now you have tagged them for deleting at wiki commons, and i believe at the end of the day i will be flagged or blocked perhaps something worse. i really have many articles for companies, government officials and other business people which i have and ready to work on, some i was still gathering enough information for citations and external links. But i am now frustrated. I was thinking that when these articles are here without any conflict, i have a way of benefiting in future, Now, look at this guys articles, that i have been trying to make. For sure i have tried to do the needful every time i find a notification, the last edits i made, it tried my best to put as many citations as is could, perhaps even if you make a search about him. This is a 36 year old kid with properties around the city center of Kampala, the Guy is working on a mass Agro Processing project of about $200M, He is already having 500 villas with each going for about $500,000 , he was factories, an international School, among very many other business, (try to make a search), the guy has even spread to the UK and US, try to check out (375 Moston Lane, ManchesterM40 9NB, England)^[3], that's his property!!!! the guy has a logistic company in Dallas(Ham International Express Logistics LLC)^[4] and another one California^[5] , others in South Africa i failed to get information hence did not write about them. Honestly This guy is Inspiration. I started giving stalking him online after reading his book, and i learnt alot during this lock-down. It is really not fair for you to say that i am paid to write about him, when it is my dream to really meet him. The guys who give me his work have always denied me the opportunity to meet him. Perhaps i can not make more articles when the first one has issues, i won't be serious at all, i have not even made a month on Wiki media and i always come here when less from from my work, but this kind of first experience has really not been good for me, I request that you please check that article and tell me what to correct about it, so that i make others with good experience. Other than this, i can not sign that i am being paid when have never even met any associates and discuss about him. This means that even the other articles I am planning to make will have the same problems, or perhaps if i Insist i will be deleted or blocked.

It is my Humble request that your give me guidance towards becoming a better contribute. I wish to be like you one day and i really look forward to working with you here. thank you. Mark Mulwanyi (talk) 18:44, 21 June 2020 (UTC)MarkMark Mulwanyi (talk) 18:44, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mark Mulwanyi, thank you for your comprehensive response. Wikipedia editing can – at least at first – be rather complex as there are many rules and guidelines which take time to fully explore. It is a journey, at least that is/was my experience. I don’t want to go into all details; however neutrality and balance are key principles which are driven through rules and guidelines about notability, conflicts of interest and neutrality, to name a few.

I take conflicted and/or potentially paid editing very seriously. Wikipedia guidelines state that any conflict or external relationship must be disclosed. Editing and page creation is encouraged through the AfC process and suggestion of edits via talk pages.

There are a number of points that don’t add up. In this diff you state that “I do not work for Hamis Kiggundu and never interacted with him personally, However, i have been designing websites for his companies.” On your talk page you consider yourself a social media marketer. just above, you provide further detail and state that your may have worked for Kiggundu through agencies. This may be considered additional detail, it may also be considered contradictory to earlier statements.

You certainly seem to have some exclusive access to contents, if you are able to upload pictures from his website with and without background that a "normal" editor would not have.

If you have worked for Kiggundu through agencies, this does make you a

WP:PAID contributor. Even if you do not do those edits for Kiggundu as part of an assignment today, you still have a strong financial stake: either by way of marketing for your own skills or as some kind of pitch for future work. I can only suggest to make all required disclosures and strictly and transparently follow the process for PAID editors, but ideally stay away from subjects where conflicts may arise, such as this one._pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 00:50, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply

References

Comment I have revised my opinion once more, to be neutral in this discussion. The gentleman of the article is likely to be notable, but I feel I am standing too close to the to have a useful opinion in the deletion discussion. @Mark Mulwanyi: No-one here is your senior. Wikipedia is an assembly of equals who consent to rules and create those rules. I've left you quite a bit of help on your talk page. Most of this should be discussed there. Note to closing admin I think we can view the creating editor's comment as a !vote to keep the article. They may not yet realise that this is a consensus forming exercise, not a ballot. Fiddle Faddle 18:55, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral verging on delete. This article needs heavy pruning or even
WP:REFBOMBING I have seen - which AFD participant is going to assess all 75 citations to sift any wheat from the chaff? The Hamis Kiggundu#Court Battle section is pure trivia, about a lawsuit which was filed in February 2020 and hasn't come to court yet. Narky Blert (talk) 14:21, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment I have been known to check every reference in the past, listing them and making a comment about each. If it survives I may do that. What about pruning the court battle which has not yet come to pass section entirely and taking a new view? Fiddle Faddle 15:19, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have migrated the Court Battle section to the article's talk page in the hope that that may help the survival chances of the article Fiddle Faddle 10:57, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm learning much and consequently improving. Thinking about completely eliminating that Migrated section. Narky Blert, Thank you very much for your assistance and guidance, Faddle. Mark Mulwanyi (talk) 20:26, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral verging on delete. I'd theoretically like for the article to stay, but if it does, it is in need of some serious editing. The information is disorganized, the prose needs heavy copy editing for grammar and tone, and (as has been addressed) the references are a bit of a mess. That being said,
WP:TNT might be in order. Noahfgodard (talk) 03:54, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Updating my opinion: The more I read about the possibility of paid editing here and the more I think about the current state of the article, the more in favor I am of
WP:TNT. Noahfgodard (talk) 04:17, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note I believe that without abandoning
WP:BEFORE this should be *Kept on grounds that: (1) Noahfgodard , User:RJFJR and many others have done reasonable cleanup, Sofar. (2) Hamis Kiggundu apparently has significant press coverage and he is an author of a book which also has significant press coverage, an award, and is on a national curriculum. (3) With guidance from Jake Brockman , Faddle and other I have Disclosed COI on my talk page, and every created page upon studying and understanding some Wikipedia policies hence i kindly request that you should not consider Deletion is as cleanup please!, Thank you very much. Mark Mulwanyi (talk) 19:26, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Very borderline and leaning to Delete; try one more relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 15:10, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the talk page of this deletion discussion I have performed an analysis for the first six references in the version stated there (permalink quoted). Please visit the talk page here to check my work, perhaps to add your own analysis.

A fair summary is that there is sufficient verification of sufficient elements of this article to ensure its being kept. The referencing overall quality, assuming this sample carries forward to al of the references, is 50% worthwhile and 50% poor to very poor. I chose the first six because that gives editors an easy view. I accept that a fuller analysis of all the 56 (current) references may produce a different view.

I consider this article passes the criteria for a living person. It requires a substantial cleanup of the wording, the content and the references, but this is not a discussion about cleaning the article up. Fiddle Faddle 17:07, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:06, 9 July 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. No consensus to delete this article, and a good consensus that the sources provided at sufficiently independent for notability

(non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 12:35, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply

Tsune Ishida Nachie

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

A non-notable subject that does not meet Wikipdia's standards for notability, such as

WP:BASIC. Source searches have not provided signficant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:51, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:51, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article was "red-listed" as being important enough to be created during Wikipedia Asian Month 2018, I don't see how it can't be notable. Oaktree b (talk) 18:22, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject is notable, even if the references are minimal and Deseret News is generally not an accepted source. One strong source can be enough. --Micky (talk) 02:26, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:27, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Religious subjects have no presumed notability on English Wikipedia. As such, one source is not enough, and minimal references that do not provide significant coverage do not establish notability. Also, Deseret News is actually considered to be a reliable source; it is the Church News that accompanies it as a supplement which is a primary source, because it is published directly by the LDS church. @Oaktree b and Micericky: could you provide two independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage about the subject here? Significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources is required to establish notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:54, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is not notable because religious subjects have any presumed notability. Rather, the 2 reliable sources provided other than Deseret News indicate notability. As well, I stand corrected on Deseret News, so that is a third reliable source that provides good coverage. As for whether one source is enough, I have seen articles get AfDs and be kept with 1-3 sources, especially for deceased, historical figures. We have more coverage on the average Joe today than we did on notable figures in the past. If the article was red-listed, that is also worth considering. I stand behind my !vote. --Micky (talk) 03:11, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:28, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The three sources presently in the article (perm link) are from Deseret News, Keepapitchinin and Find a Grave:

Deseret News is a reliable source.
Keepapitchinin is a blog run by a single person, and I feel that its reliability may be questionable.
Find a Grave is not considered to be a reliable source, as per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, where it states that, "The content on Find a Grave is user-generated, and is therefore considered generally unreliable."

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:45, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The internet seems to suggest that a whole chapter of Women of Faith in the Latter Days vol. 3 is about Nachie. This would constitute some considerable coverage but I cannot access the book. BUT it is published by Deseret, so would not constitute as a second independent source. (It may also be worthwhile to have a Japanese speaker search some Japanese sources to see if there are any.) Samsmachado (talk) 04:16, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since the Deseret News article was published long after her death it is clearly indepdent from her. The nominator has shown a clear animus against The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, consistently nominating articles with many sources while ignoring much less sourced articles related to other religious groups. The sourcing is sufficient to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:55, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The bias against any religious subject show above is truly absurd. If something is published by a commercial publisher after the death of the subject than it should be able to be counted as a reliable source. The attempts to blackout whole swaths of sourcing going on here is truly absurd.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:58, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – @Johnpacklambert: The ad hominem personal attack above is a cheap shot, and is entirely false and incorrect. I have nominated articles for deletion for a myriad of topics. As I stated above, there is no presumed notability on English Wikipedia for religious subjects. If you or others feel that this should be changed, then a discussion can be started on a notability guideline talk page, such as Wikipedia talk:Notability (people).

The only potential bias here is a situation where people may be making up their own notability guidelines, such as stating that one source for this subject is "enough", for notability to be decreed as inherent. This is incorrect, because again, this subject has no presumed notability on English Wikipedia. Religious subjects do not get a free pass for an article simply based upon the virtue of their status as being a relgious subject.

I have no bias against religious subjects whatsoever. If a religious subject meets notability guidelines, then hey, that's great, no problem whatsoever. Excellent. This Afd nomination is about this subject nominated herein, Tsune Ishida Nachie, and is not a forum for the above user to spout personal (incorrect) opinions about the nominator, nor should it be. Such ad hominem arguments are logically fallacious from the start, and do not address the notability concerns presented herein.

Again, if you want presumed notability for religious subjects, then start a discussion and an RfC proposing such, and perhaps the community will agree with it. Blaming a nominator of an article for deletion will not create the presumed notability that you appear to desire.

So I ask again, are there even two independent, reliable sources that provide actual

significant coverage

about the subject? If there is, I will gladly withdraw this nomination upon their provision, if they exist. I haven't found such required sources to establish notability for this subject.

Please stop casting

WP:AVOIDYOU

, part of the NPA page.

Sure, I have an interest in the LDS church, but this does not mean that I am biased against it as you have mistakenly stated. Nor does this interest mean that I am then supposedly somehow "ignoring" other topics. I am not required to read articles about other topics if do not want to, and its very suggestion is absurd. In following my interest in LDS topics, sometimes I come across articles about topics and subjects that may lack notability. This is sometimes suggested by articles that are heavily reliant upon primary sources to verify most of their content, and also lacking in independent sources. Furthermore, I perform significant

WP:PROD

such articles, but in some cases, a wider community discussion where input from others is encouraged is more beneficial than prodding. The AfD process can provide more accuracy, which thus can provide a more accurate encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers.

Again, two independent, reliable sources that provide significant coverage, that's all I ask. No passing mentions, no blogs, no primary sources, just two actual usable sources that establish notability per Wikipedia's standards, rather than your own. If the subject is so readily notable, then said sources should be easy to find. However, it does not appear that the subject has gained enough interest from independent, reliable sources for notability to be established, per Wikipedia's standards. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:23, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Deseret News has been accepted as a reliable source for years. The book published by the University of Illinois Press is also a reliable source. Therefore, the article passes
Join WP Japan! 17:31, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep The added sources help this subject pass notability. There is a chapter on her in Women of Faith in the Latter Days vol. 3, which I used to replace the blog entry (the author of the the chapter and the blog entry is the same). I suppose the question is whether Deseret News, Deseret publishing, and the University of Illinois press source are "independent" of her. I would say they are independent of her, but we may disagree. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 18:35, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @
  Join WP Japan! 18:44, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  - The digital edition I used did not have page numbers. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 19:44, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Makes sense. Thanks! ···
      Join WP Japan! 15:36, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
      ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:35, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:58, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@
Join WP Japan! 13:26, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Sources clearly demonstrate that this was an important individual shaping the history of a faith with millions of adherents. Sure, most of the sources are religiously tied to the subject, but are independent of the subject even if NPOV should be watched. I see no current NPOV issues with the article. We have a useful encyclopedia article with a)no copyvio problems and b) with Verifiable information well beyond a definition, which was why GNG was created in the first place. How does deleting then improve the encyclopedia? 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:11, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The "delete" arguments are stronger. The "keep"s only address whether he is a published author, which is not the decisive factor in terms of notability. Moreover, this is an autobiography, which

WP:COI prohibits. Mr. Simonsen should wait for other people to find him sufficiently important to write an article about. Sandstein 14:22, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply

Terje Gerotti Simonsen