Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 June 19

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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:16, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Richmond Road Runners Club

Richmond Road Runners Club (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)

Most of the citations here are from the org, itself. Two citations about who the group invited to speak says nothing about the club. You can find local routine news coverage announcing club events but nothing in depth about the club. While this article tries to assert that people around this club are notable, there's no claim that the club is notable. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:57, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:57, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:57, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, clear fail of
  WP:NCORP. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:26, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete agreed this fails
  WP:NCORP. --Micky (talk) 00:43, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:09, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:54, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - There is nothing to substantiate that this club has any notability whatsoever. NCORP fail. Netherzone (talk) 18:29, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No significant coverage to establish notability. Fails
  WP:ORG. - Whpq (talk) 20:40, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

Kentucky–Vanderbilt football rivalry

Kentucky–Vanderbilt football rivalry (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)

Existing citations focus narrowly on the 1921 game, while the nominal article topic is unsourced. UW Dawgs (talk) 22:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nom, fails GNG policy. UW Dawgs (talk) 22:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:57, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:57, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:57, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, this is not notable. --Micky (talk) 00:44, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:07, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The same reasons can go to South Carolina–Texas A&M football rivalry.--Jpp858 (talk) 03:46, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Yet another example of SEC fans' liberal use of the word rivalry.–UCO2009bluejay (talk) 17:14, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Plenty of significant coverage of this as a rivalry. It also has many of the classic characteristics of a historically notable series, including (a) lengthy history - 125 years dating back to 1896, (b) frequency of play - 92 total matches, (c) geographic proximity - 200 miles between the campuses, (d) border states, (e) closely competitive - record evenly split at 46–42–4; and (f) fan base animosity. Examples of coverage: (1) this from 1968 ("Vandy-Kentucky Rivalry On"); (2) this from 1959 (reviewing history and noting, "The Vanderbilt-Kentucky rivalry ... couldn't be closer, point-wise."); (3) this from 1963 ("The Kentucky-Vanderbilt rivalry is marked by upsets and the unexpected ..."); (4) this from 1973 ("The truth ... is the ferocity of the Kentucky-Vanderbilt college football rivalry, an ancient celebration of ill feeling ..."); (5) this from 1950 ("Vanderbilt, Kentucky Resume Football Rivalry In 1953"); (6) this from 1950 ("It's a natural rivalry, an annual stadium-filler here and at Lexington."); (7) this from 1949 ("Kentucky and Vanderbilt, football rivals since 1896"); (8) this from 1939 ("Kentucky Downs Vanderbilt Rival"); (9) this from 1998 ("Kentucky dumps rival Vanderbilt"). Cbl62 (talk) 18:49, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Cbl62. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:37, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Enough of the above sources actually mention a "rivalry", along with the other points mentioned by Cbl62, to make the reference and article. Unlike the the article on the "South Carolina–Texas A&M football rivalry", that has bare mention. -- Otr500 (talk) 04:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep per Cbl62. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 16:48, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is an actual rivaly, per the sources above. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 20:13, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Meets
  WP:GNG, per Cbl62's sources. Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:28, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:30, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

East Carolina–UCF football rivalry

East Carolina–UCF football rivalry (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)

• Delete as nom, fails GNG. UW Dawgs (talk) 22:34, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:32, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:32, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:32, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete there's not a single reference in the article which discusses this as a rivalry at all. A search brings up mostly links back to Wikipedia, and the best source I can find says this is a rivalry because it's on Wikipedia, which, ahem. SportingFlyer T·C 22:40, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete could have been bundled with the other, no? --Micky (talk) 00:45, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:06, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per SportingFlyer....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:45, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment- this source[1] identifies it as ECU's biggest conference rivalry. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 23:08, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

Creatures (1990 video game)

Creatures (1990 video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I cannot find any reliable sources for this. Fails

This, too: Creatures II: Torture Trouble. Much the same, unless those magazine pages can be considered reliable. PJvanMill (talk) 22:18, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Keep Meets
  Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:48, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

My main concern here is whether these sources can be considered generally reliable. The Eurogamer one is user-generated, so I think that's out. The other ones all don't look very reliable to me, but maybe I'm biased against colourful things and some of those magazines do have a repuation for fact-checking. PJvanMill (talk) 00:13, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eurogamer article was written by Spanner Spencer, now a staff at

Jovanmilic97 (talk) 07:12, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I think you're biased against colorful things. These are five computer magazines from 1990-1991 reviewing the game, which clearly demonstrates that the game was considered notable at the time. — Toughpigs (talk) 00:21, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was just a reservation I had, not a complete rejection. PJvanMill (talk) 11:22, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the sources identified by Jovanmilic97. — Toughpigs (talk) 00:11, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The sources are good and could better serve this article by being added into it. As proper citations, not further reading. --Micky (talk) 00:48, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per all the sources provided, above. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:26, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP Both games have reliable sources giving them significant coverage. Dream Focus 14:08, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as nom, this is sufficient for the GNG after all. PJvanMill (talk) 11:22, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The American School Library

The American School Library (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Subject fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:06, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:06, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 00:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per
  WP:NEXIST
  . I've found coverage in the following:
  • American Annals of Education (1838) pages 519-522
  • The Connecticut Common School Journal and Annals of Education (1841) page 196
  • United States Congressional Serial Set: Volume 340 (1841) page 235
  • "The American Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge" in The Native American (March 9, 1939) page 4
  • Wax Tablets of the Mind: Cognitive Studies of Memory and Literacy in Classical Antiquity by Jocelyn Penny Small, Taylor & Francis (2003), page 50

I believe that this demonstrates notability. I'm going to add these to the article in a Further reading section, so that editors who want to improve the article can use these as resources. — Toughpigs (talk) 00:04, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:SIGCOV. There's little point in adding a list of sources to the "further reading." If you can't be bothered to improve the article then I posit it's not worth saving. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:20, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

What an odd thing to say. These are contemporary sources that talk about the American School Library for pages and pages, which is clearly significant coverage. Whether I personally can "be bothered to improve the article" in the last fifteen minutes doesn't reflect on the subject's notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 00:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As it turns out, I decided that I could be bothered, and I've essentially rewritten the article. The entire history of the Society and its ill-fated Library is covered in detail in The American Journal of Education vol 15 (1865), and it turns out it's a pretty interesting story. — Toughpigs (talk) 03:56, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Sure the sources above need to be added into the article but remember
  WP:DINC. --Micky (talk) 00:51, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:04, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Many of the sources do constitute significant coverage. Zoozaz1 (talk) 02:19, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep by
  talk) 22:29, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep With the sources that have recently been added, especially by User:Toughpigs, notability seems clear. --Macrakis (talk) 16:07, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:11, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Maryott

Brian Maryott (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 politician. Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:49, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:49, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails
  WP:PROMO as it lists his campaign policy positions. SportingFlyer T·C 22:51, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Draftify it fails
  WP:NPOL for long. --Micky (talk) 00:52, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:02, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• We can always restore it if he wins. It's also been written by a number of redlinked editors with similar random usernames who haven't worked on any other articles, so has likely been paid for. SportingFlyer T·C 01:58, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This article fails fails
  WP:NPOL. His position locally is not inherently notable and there are no unusual happenings (super long tenure, extraordinary event) that would create notability.--Mpen320 (talk) 02:45, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, without prejudice against recreation on or after election day if he wins. People do not get articles just for being candidates in elections they have not yet won —
  WP:NPOL requires holding a notable office, not just running for one — but being mayor of a small town in the 33K population range is not "inherently" notable either, so that doesn't get him over the "preexisting notability for other reasons independent of the candidacy" test, and the depth of media coverage shown here is nowhere near enough to get him over the "his candidacy is more special than everybody else's candidacies" test either. But we also don't keep articles about candidates in draftspace pending the election results, either, because that just turns draftspace into the repository of campaign brochures for unelected candidates that our rules were intentionally designed to prevent mainspace from becoming. If he wins in November, administrators have the ability to undelete the article at that time with one punch on one button, so "don't lose the work because he might win" is not a compelling reason to waive our rules. Bearcat (talk) 11:28, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Subject was mayor of
  WP:NPOL if there is sufficient and national or international coverage of the subject outside of the subject's 2018 and 2020 campaigns. I agree that the article can be recreated in November if they win, but merely being a candidate on a ballot for a national office or being a mayor of a small town is not sufficient to pass our notability standards. In any event, I do not believe the "political positions" section is appropriate for Wikipedia, as our project is not a repository of campaign brochures. --Enos733 (talk) 18:19, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete unelected candidates for congress are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:03, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails
  WP:NPOL and reads like campaign literature. Best, GPL93 (talk) 23:13, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Surely fails
  WP:NPOL where "an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability". LandonRules ^(Talk) 17:45, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:13, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Georgetown College–Kentucky men's basketball rivalry

Georgetown College–Kentucky men's basketball rivalry (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)

• Delete as nom, fails GNG. UW Dawgs (talk) 21:36, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:51, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:51, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non notable rivalry. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:44, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete None of these rivalries as I'm working through the AfDs are notable. --Micky (talk) 00:53, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:01, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. SportingFlyer T·C 15:34, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Fails
  WP:GNG. Ejgreen77 (talk) 05:09, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that added sources point towards notability. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:18, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Hopeson

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

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

fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Joeykai (talk) 21:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable singer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:24, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 21:37, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 21:37, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 21:38, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete - per nom
  talk) 21:40, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete an impressive looking article, but I'm not seeing independent coverage, sorry.
  Stuartyeates (talk) 23:02, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong Keep I've added two more independent sources. I'm in no sense a fan of gospel music, but from reading the article and googling, this is someone who has had a significant presence in the Ghanaian music industry, with a notable career and a history of chairing industry bodies. We shouldn't expect a Ghanaian musician to have the same kind of reporting that US musicians have, and gospel music is significant in modern Ghanaian culture. --Slashme (talk) 16:08, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Diana Hopeson is a notable Ghanaian musician. I agree that the article has issues with references and the community should be given time to clean it up, but I don't think it should be deleted. -Masssly (talk) 21:18, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Notable per
  WP:ANYBIO#Criteria1, won national industry award, chaired national organizations. Ijon (talk) 22:21, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, as winner of a National Honors Award, I've not the least doubt about her notability. Darwin ^Ahoy! 22:23, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep If not all, most of the issues raised concerning this article have been fixed and hence does not deserve to be deleted Celestinesucess (talk) 22:56, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Remember
  WP:DINC. It has been cleaned up and likely never needed an AfD to do so. --Micky (talk) 01:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:58, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep This article is clearly notable since she has headed the musician union of Ghana and has received national awards. I believe the article needs more work to clean it and not necessarily delete it.Owula kpakpo (talk) 11:14, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article does not appear to me to be problematic, and she appears to be relevant in Ghanian music culture. The several pages cited appear to reflect this. With that said, the article, I do not believe, is a stub, despite it being designated as such, and should acquire a discography section. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 06:37, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was keep. There is a clear consensus that this content should be in Wikipedia somewhere (whether kept or merged), and the majority of support is for keeping, with possible merge targets split between two articles (often a sign that the subject has multiple potential bases of notability). BD2412 T 03:16, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Teressa Raiford

Teressa Raiford (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)

Inadequately referenced article about a person notable only as a non-winning candidate for political office at the local level and founder of a local organization. As always, neither of these are "inherent" notability freebies -- a mayoral candidate has to win the election, not just run in it, to secure notability from a mayoral election per se, and founders of local organizations need to show a lot more coverage than just technical verification that they exist before they're nationally notable for that. But three of the four sources here are just routine campaign coverage in small weekly hyperlocals in her own local media market, which is not enough coverage to get a person over

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:20, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:20, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge >

• Delete per nom. --Micky (talk) 01:07, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:56, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Just added some more to her page and that's just scratching the surface plenty of stuff available on Google which makes her notable. Unfortunately I've run out of time. User:Davidstewartharvey

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:51, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge into Don't Shoot Portland. She's notable as an activist, not as a political candidate. A quick Google search shows that the organization is notable: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. pburka (talk) 17:00, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - plenty of news coverage featuring her, that should make it practical to expand the article. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:53, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge her activism into
  WP:NOTINHERITED. If I've missed sources on her activism I'm happy to reconsider. SportingFlyer T·C 22:46, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep definately notable, meets wp.gng as there is enough coverage. It does not matter if she is a failed political candidate or an activist. Don't Shoot would not exist if she had not founded it, and the political career is linked with her activism. Just looks like anti blm to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.159.239.150 (talk) 07:48, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• It does matter, as we only keep failed candidates unless they're otherwise notable or if their campaign was especially noteworthy. She could be otherwise notable, but the coverage I found directly relates to the organisation she founded, that's why I suggested a merge instead of an outright delete. SportingFlyer T·C 17:33, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Failed candidates may not be normally accepted, but these are the addition to her being an activist and give back story to someone who active. Don't shoot portland is not mentioned without comments from Railford, there is no evidence on their page or the net there anything more than a one person organisation. Also the criminal conviction that was quashed and subsequent failed claim case show notability. Merger would mean we would lose this information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.159.239.150 (talk) 18:12, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd actually say your argument that she's closely tied to Don't Shoot Portland is actually a strong merge argument. SportingFlyer T·C 19:05, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• CommentJust to say that I should have mention WP:Basic in my Keep vote.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 07:27, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:31, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Mitchell (musician)

Harry Mitchell (musician) (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)

Semi-advertorialized

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:06, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:06, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Seems self-promotional not encyclopedic. --Micky (talk) 01:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:55, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It is true that the article seems promotional and would need a major rewrite, but I don't like Bearcat's distinction between "streaming" and "real media". For musicians of this performer's generation and appealing principally to his generation, streaming *is* the best way to measure their popularity, and "real media" as defined above has no impact or meaning to that generation at all. By enforcing what to the young is a meaningless distinction, you're encouraging a bias against new artists and a bias in favour of a particular style of rock which is hypocritical, because the same criteria well within my memory would have elevated only classical and excluded rock entirely. Granted this artist is not (yet) a major name even to his own generation, but when an unquestionably notable and successful artist such as Tion Wayne can be nominated for deletion, something is very wrong. RobinCarmody (talk) 18:38, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Our notability standards always require third party coverage in

WP:NMUSIC. Neither artists of Mitchell's generation nor artists of colour have any inherent age or racially based problems getting covered by the media: Lizzo has media coverage, Lil Nas X has media coverage, Johnny Orlando has media coverage, and on and so forth. Bearcat (talk) 20:30, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment. I might add that it is disproportionately black artists who do best on streaming, which adds a whole other set of dangerous implications to Bearcat's argument. RobinCarmody (talk) 18:42, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I believe artists of his generation are still covered in "real" media. Without coverage in RS, fails NMUSIC. MB 02:49, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 23:03, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

Alphonso Inc

Alphonso Inc (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 organization falling short of

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:04, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:04, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:04, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:04, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:04, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. The one "keep" does not address the sourcing / notability issue. Sandstein 07:32, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Free Scotland Party

Free Scotland Party (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)

Political parties are not automatically notable by their creation. This party does not prove notability, only participation. Only has proof of receiving votes in the elections they have stood in and barely any notable coverage before or after general elections. Wikipedia is not a Gazetteer of Political Parties and this article does not prove that the content is any more than created to promote rather than describe. Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:12, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:12, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of importance and notability in article. Sources indicate proof of existence rather than support of notability. doktorb _words^deeds 21:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and insufficient notability in sources. --Micky (talk) 01:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:53, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Nothing has changed since previous nomination was withdrawn. Deletion will mean that anyone reading about the elections in which it stood will be able to find out from Wikipedia about the major parties, which they probably know anyway, but nothing about the small ones. Read an article; be none the wiser! The purpose of an encyclopaedia is to provide knowledge, especially when that is not available anywhere else. Emeraude (talk) 08:46, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Just to comment that if this article should be kept, then surely the recently deleted Scottish Family Party article (which is still a registered party with the Electoral Commission) should have been kept too if there is going to be consistency with smaller political parties on Wikipedia? There is a lot more recent news coverage from reliable sources
  WP:RS about the Scottish Family Party than the Free Scotland Party. The Scottish Family Party discussion can is available here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Scottish_Family_Party

• Weak delete. There was clearly some local coverage of the party from the sources used in the page. Unfortunately, these are no longer easily visible to assess the significance of; though based on the material in the article these sources support it seems unlikely that they represent in-depth coverage of the party. There is also some book coverage, but this appears to amount to: the party represented a more extreme form of nationalism than the SNP, it was founded by Nugent, it opposed membership of the European Union. I don't think that adds up to significant coverage as required by the GNG. Ralbegen (talk) 09:13, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

Fishing Party (Scotland)

Fishing Party (Scotland) (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)

Political parties are not automatically notable by their creation. This party does not prove notability, only participation. Only has proof of receiving votes in the elections they have stood in and barely any notable coverage before or after general election. Wikipedia is not a Gazetteer of Political Parties and this article does not prove that the content is any more than created to promote rather than describe. Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article does not prove notability, either prior to, during, or after elections, and many of the sources merely prove the party exists rather than supplies evidence of importance. doktorb _words^deeds 21:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The amount of non-notable political party articles needing deletion is excessive... --Micky (talk) 01:26, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:52, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are 8 sources in the article, each independent, reliable, secondary, and containing significant coverage, except for two. This clearly passes
  WP:GNG Zoozaz1 (talk) 02:27, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Nothing has changed since the last AFD: with eight independent reliable sources providing significant coverage this clearly meets
  WP:GNG. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:27, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep There has been a previous AFD in respect of this article (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fishing Party (Scotland)) where the result was Keep and there have been no changes since this time. I therefore do not believe that we should go against the previous consensus. Also, and just my view (and probably not relevant), political parties (including minor parties) are exactly the kind of information that should be included in a comprehensive encyclopedia.Tracland (talk) 08:46, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Agree absolutely. Emeraude (talk) 08:47, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. The coverage is sufficient to meet the GNG. I'm a little hesitant that there doesn't appear to be any significant coverage outside the 2003-4 period (there's a trivial mention here) which shows a lack of
  WP:PERSISTENCE that I think casts doubt on the suitability of the subject for an encyclopedia article. I would feel more comfortable supporting keeping this article if there was independent RS significant coverage from, say, any time after 2010. Ralbegen (talk) 09:21, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I think that's covered by
  WP:NOTTEMPORARY which says 'once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage'. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:59, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment Just to comment that if this article should be kept, then surely the recently deleted Scottish Family Party article (which is still a registered party with the Electoral Commission) should have been kept too if there is going to be consistency with smaller political parties on Wikipedia? There is a lot more recent news coverage from reliable sources
  WP:RS about the Scottish Family Party than the Fishing Party. The Scottish Family Party discussion can is available here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Scottish_Family_Party
• Comment A quick note. Just having links to the BBC and Electoral Commission does not mean they are notable or important. It means that they exist. Keep votes have to justify why an article has to exist without proof of notability. doktorb _words^deeds 13:16, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi @Doktorbuk:, smaller political parties are treated consistently to the standard of relevant notability guidelines: the GNG and ORG. This party has a number of reliable national news sources writing articles that are just about it. That meets the GNG presumption of notability. Small political parties which don't receive comparable coverage fall short, which is presumably why the Scottish Family Party was deleted. The article has sufficient significant coverage in independent RSes that are already used as references in the article to meet a basic notability threshold. Ralbegen (talk) 20:16, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete and redirect to Universal House of Justice. Sandstein 07:33, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Khan

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

)

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

Fails

Delete and provide redirect to Universal House of Justice. The same was done for many other members of this institution. Membership alone does not confer notability. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 22:22, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Universal House of Justice. --Micky (talk) 01:28, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:51, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:21, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 16:25, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 16:25, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:33, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Siam Nasir

Siam Nasir (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)

Trivial mention and some of those sources fail

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ~ Nahid ^Talk 20:31, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. ~ Nahid ^Talk 20:31, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I can't even read the sources, but agreed the topic doesn't meet GNG. --Micky (talk) 01:34, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:48, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's an unreadable situation on the wrong language wiki. — Smuckola(talk) 05:48, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:17, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Janice Chaikelson

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

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

Fails GNG, etc. Four roles to date: Voicework in the non-notable short Friends of the Family, an apparently minor role in Hard Feelings (film), a minor role in City on Fire (a child in a family that is not mentioned in the plot summary) and, the most significant, voicework in the English dub for The Mysterious Cities of Gold.

As it seems her work was entirely restricted to 1979-1983 as a child, I can't really call it

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SummerPhD^v2.0 19:50, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:54, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No available
  WP:RS in searches or on the page. --Micky (talk) 01:41, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet -Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:46, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:51, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Nothing found.
  WP:CITEIMDB, Google only gave me social media sites Google Books only gave me a bunch of passing mentions, and nothing more was found at all. Koridas ^talk? 18:10, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Actors are not automatically notable just because they've had acting roles — having acting roles is literally the job description for an actor, so if just saying that they'd had an acting role was all it took to make an actor notable then no actor would ever fall below the notability bar at all. Rather, making an actor notable enough for Wikipedia is a question of showing external evidence of their significance as an actor, such as notable acting awards and/or sufficient
  WP:GNG. But there's literally none of any of that here. Bearcat (talk) 16:12, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Which is why I began to feel that "multiple" "Signiciant" roles in "notable" productions has been interpreted in a way that does not indicate actual notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:39, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We really need to set things up so there is a way to flag articles sourced only to IMDb for deletion and the only way to stop a deletion per the flag is to add another source. This huge number of articles sourced to IMDb is a traesty, that so many of them have existed for well over a deacade is another travesty, and that they all get forced to AfD because people object to speedy deletions is an even bigger travesty.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:36, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article only dates back to 2013 so it is not as bad as some of the articles we have seen, but it is still an aunacceptably long time for an article on a living person to exist with no reliable sourcing at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:37, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — Per Johnpacklambert & Bearcat’s rationale. Celestina007 (talk) 22:43, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete in addition to the above, the creator of the article was indefinitely banned for source falsification. buidhe 09:50, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable actor ~ Amkgp 💬 15:06, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 22:49, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

COVID-19 pandemic in Guayana Esequiba

COVID-19 pandemic in Guayana Esequiba (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)

Guayana Esequiba is a disputed territory which exists only on paper. All the cases here are already covered by the COVID-19 pandemic in Guyana article; this article just copied and pasted sections of that article. Sladnick (talk) 19:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The territory is disputed, but is neither de facto or de jure independent. It has no form of autonomy whatsoever. There is no independent coverage of the COVID-19 cases. The total number of infected person in the region is not known, because Guyana does not provide an up to date administration of regions. All we have is an outdated report and a link to a dashboard which is not online anymore, and will probably never return. KittenKlub (talk) 19:27, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is clearly POV pushing by creating an article to represent an area someone wants to have status instead of dealing with actual status on the ground.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:58, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article has its encyclopedic reference. Guayana Esequiba is an area in demand by both Guyana and Venezuela. Although the cases are given by the government of Guyana (link1), the area in question is attached to the report maps the daily notifications of COVID-19 from Venezuela (link 2).--
  AfD. [reply
  ]
  • CommentThere is no indication that the Venezuelan count includes information about the region. In fact there is no count when you hoover over the disputed area unlike all the other areas.KittenKlub (talk) 08:09, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per MuscologoVzla's references. --Micky (talk) 01:42, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet -Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:45, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge There is no real reason for this article to exist separately from the COVID-19 pandemic in Guyana article; for all intents and purposes, the region is a part of Guyana regardless of Venezuelan claims and the status of the article should reflect that. There is useful information here, and that should be incorporated into the Guyana article. There are no actual references on the pandemic in Guayana Esequiba, all of the references are simply concerning the pandemic in Guyana with this region as a part of Guyana, and therefore should be merged into that article. Zoozaz1 (talk) 02:36, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:38, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commentary I still think that the article should be left separately from Guyana Esequiba, it is more in each of the articles on coronaviruses from both Guyana and Venezuela, mention is made of this area in claim. It must be remembered that this territory, until it is discussed in the International Court of Justice, does not belong to one or the other, even if Guyana "administers" it. Incidentally, that discussion was to take place in March 2020, but due to the pandemic, it was suspended until further notice. (link).--MusicologoVzla (talk) 02:53, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, a worthless POVFORK of COVID-19 pandemic in Guyana. This region is a part of Guyana, and there is no reason whatsoever for Wikipedia to seperate it from the rest of the country other than to promote a Venezuelan ultranationalist fantasy. Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:21, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commentary The region is the most administered Guyana, however, it does not belong to any country until its territorial dispute is resolved. In fact, the maps of Venezuela include it. Don't confuse things.--MusicologoVzla (talk) 14:34, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commentary That is why there are articles about the territorial dispute. But this is a topic dealing exclusively with the actual administration of the region today. Sladnick (talk) 16:59, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge or redirect to COVID-19 pandemic in Guyana, no need for a separate article for a nonexistent state entity. Zaathras (talk) 18:29, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commentary There are articles like COVID-19 pandemic in New York, so this article also has encyclical relevance.--MusicologoVzla (talk) 21:54, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I hate to break it to ya, but New York actually exists. Guayana Esequiba, as a separate entity from Guayana, does not. Zaathras (talk) 00:50, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commentary You are wrong, Guayana Esequiba exists in the administration of Venezuela (link and official map photo), that this zone is divided by zones and regions by Guyana is something else. Remember that said territory in claim, is still in dispute until a decision by the International Court is evaluated.--MusicologoVzla (talk) 00:57, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guyana does not exist in the administration of Venezuela. It exists on some maps, but Venezuela most certainly does not administer it. Furthermore, the ICJ doesn't really concern us; what concerns is that while Venezuela may claim it, in reality Guyana fully controls the territory. -Zoozaz1 (talk)03:54, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (or redirect to the Guyana article, I don't care). It makes sense to have articles for the pandemic as it affects functioning subdivisions of countries that have their own statistics and pandemic responses (COVID-19 pandemic in California, COVID-19 pandemic in Hubei), and to have articles for unrecognized entities that are actually in control of territory (like COVID-19 pandemic in the Donetsk People's Republic). Guayana Essequiba isn't like any of these. Regardless of the legal merits of Venezuela's claim, Venezuela does not control this territory, and the borders of "Guayana Essequiba" have no direct relevance to the people living in Guyana or to their response to the pandemic. Ucucha (talk) 21:31, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep other articles on the pandemic exist that handle regions, cities or states of other countries. Additionally this region is subject to an International Court of Justice hearing that is was affected by the pandemic. We are not to decide which country this region belongs to.--ReyHahn (talk) 10:27, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to the Guyana article, per Zoozaz1 and Ucucha above. As far as I can see, both countries administer pandemic affairs centrally, and not by state or region. The ICJ might well rule on the matter at some point, and Guyana might well hand control of the region to Venezuela, and the central government of Venezuela might well cede control over pandemic affairs to its constituent states, but until all of that happens, we only split country articles on COVID-19 to state or territory articles based on actual governance. We have more than enough material for a separate article on London, but unlike cities such as New York, London doesn't independently maintain statistics or conduct its own health care policy, so the same principle would apply there. Capewearer (talk) 11:33, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — Per Johnpacklambert. Celestina007 (talk) 23:46, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Territory is disputed, thus creating a stand alone article over coronavirus in this territory sounds violation of NPOV and POVFORK. --Yoonadue (talk) 16:49, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment just to understand why are some many people encouraging its deletion, if the page was about the Guyanan state Barima-Waini it would not be a problem? But because it is about a conflicting territory we should delete it? We have several pages of islands, cities and sub-neighbours, but a well-known disputed territory is no-go? --ReyHahn (talk) 17:35, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How is it different from COVID-19 pandemic in Western Sahara or COVID-19 pandemic in Sevastopol?--ReyHahn (talk) 17:42, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Western Sahara is administered by two separate entities (Morocco and Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic); that article discusses both zones. Sevastopol is administered by Russia, even though it is claimed by Ukraine, and the pandemic article discusses the Russian administration there; there is no separate article for "COVID-19 pandemic in Ukrainian Sevastopol" since Ukraine does not control it – for just such a reason people are saying we do not need an article for Covid-19 in Guayana Esequiba because Venezuela does not control it. Sladnick (talk) 17:49, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's my point, for example Sevastopol is de facto and de jure Russian, administered by Russia and it is included in Russian epidemic reports. Ukraine claims it. What's the difference with Guayana Esequiba, Guyana and Venezuela?--ReyHahn (talk) 19:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that Guayana Esequiba is not included in Guyanan epidemic reports as a region. Seperate regions within this area of land are included, but because there is no health administration or for that matter administration at all that covers just the area of Guayana Esequiba there is no need for an article about it. There is, on the other hand, an active health administation in Sevastopol regardless of Ukrainian or Russian claims. The fundamental difference is that Guayana Esequiba, for all intents and purposes, is simply a line on a map; Sevastapol is a city with an extensive administrative apparatus. Zoozaz1 (talk) 19:40, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for going on, but I am really trying to get that last part. Just because Guyana calls the region differently and controls it does not mean that the region is not disputed. The region may be subdivided in different administrations, but not because of that we are going to say it is irrelevant. If tomorrow Sevastopol is broken into six it does not make the article less relevant. I guess we can discuss how much coverage or health activity is the region having but arguing it is an "only on paper" territory is just evasive.--ReyHahn (talk) 20:14, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The illogical thing is that some are against this article, but in favor of articles of the pandemic in New York. So?.--MusicologoVzla (talk) 15:04, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are no COVID-19 articles for historic administrative divisions that no longer exist. Guayana Esequiba is an administrative division which never existed. Sladnick (talk) 20:54, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Do we continue that Guayana Esequiba does not exist? So we Venezuelans will all be wrong and what they taught us in geography classes for years is wrong, according to your perspective. A little more consistency. Guayana Esequiba is part of the Venezuelan territory, in all the national maps and part of the country's history. That Guyana has divided part of that territory into its regions does not mean that it is really theirs. So the dispute. I invite you to before you comment on something you do not know, analyze, study and see further. Some links, but they are in Spanish: Link 1 link 2.--MusicologoVzla (talk) 15:12, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A COVID-19 article is first about administration. Barima-Waini has no seperate administration or health care, so no that one will not qualify either. New York does. (And London does not as mentioned above) And yes, Saba, St.Barth and the Falklands (disputed as well) have the population of a small village and have their own articles, because they are solely reponsible for the healthcare, registration, administration and management of the pandemic, and the country to which they belong only helps out. Autonomy is a second reason, and once again Esequiba has no autonomy whatsoever. Don't think that I have no sympathy, because the village of Kasuela is also disputed with Guyana, however an Amerindian village with 80 people and no connection to the World Wide Web will never qualify for its own article.KittenKlub (talk) 17:50, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Let's see dear Wikipedists, we are falling into a dilemma. The area is historically called Guayana Esequiba and has belonged to Venezuela. That now Guyana has wanted to arbitrarily rename it despite the fact that the matter has not been resolved in the International Court, does not mean that there is no jurisdiction in Venezuela. Don't confuse things. For now it is not from Venezuela, nor is it from Guyana. Therefore I go back and repeat it, the article is relevant because both countries are showing COVID-19 cases for that region.--MusicologoVzla (talk) 18:24, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I disagree; there is no dilemma. Venezuela has no jurisdiction in this region whatsoever; this is just some territory in Guyana that Venezuela claims. If the territory had its own health department and was administrated as a sub-national entity, then fine, there should be an article. All this land is, however, and the only thing the sources that you provide show, is simply some Venezuelan-drawn lines on a map. (as a side note, as the map on this page clearly shows, Venezuela doesn't actually report cases for Guayana Esequiba.) Zoozaz1 (talk) 19:15, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I invite you to study the issue of Guayana Esequiba, which goes beyond "drawn lines" as you say. Historically it is Venezuelan territory and it is a process that has been in dispute for years and a final agreement has not been reached on that territory invaded by the United Kingdom at the time and then Guyana when said republic was created. In fact, the National Assembly of Venezuela was going to place jurisdiction there and they are in such procedures.--MusicologoVzla (talk) 14:59, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a little-noted intersection of two separate issues, the territorial dispute and the ongoing pandemic. The only reliably sourced interaction is that the pandemic has disrupted effort to address the dispute. The pandemic has disrupted nearly everything else in the world. At the moment, that's a transient glitch that barely rates a mention an Wikipedia's coverage about the territorial dispute. Reliable sources do not support carving out the COVID-19 response in Guayana Esequiba from the COVID-19 pandemic in Guyana article. Venezuela's claim on the territory does not show a real world effect on the COVID-19 response to justify a stand-alone article or even a section in an existing article. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

Big Tuck

Big Tuck (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)

Band were found non-notable. This band member doesn't meet

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - His album was reviewed by Vibe and RapReviews, both RS for albums. No idea if his Billboard Rap and R&B chart numbers help notability. Caro7200 (talk) 19:54, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as he is independently notable from the band as his solo album
  WP:NMUSIC imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:57, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment If the two keeps put the billboard and refs for charting it would be a keep, but this is still missing. User:Davidstewartharvey
• Keep seems to meet GNG as an individual, and I hear Davidstewartharvey's argument but
  WP:DINC. --Micky (talk) 01:50, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Withdraw nomination per excellent points above. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 07:41, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:18, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Schriber

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

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

Doesn't meet

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:12, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:12, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The only source is directly from the organization he was head of. This is not the level of being a public servant that normally results in default notability and we lack the secondary source coverage needed to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:29, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The role is not an "inherently" notable one for the purposes of securing guaranteed inclusion rights in Wikipedia — and while two additional footnotes have been added to the article since Johnpacklambert's comment above, that's not enough: GNG is not just "count the footnotes and keep anybody who can show that their name has appeared in newspapers twice", but evaluates additional factors such as the geographic range of how widely the person is getting covered, the depth of how substantively any given source is or isn't about him, and the context of what any given source is covering him for, and neither of the new sources pass all of those tests. Bearcat (talk) 21:27, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Despite the sources available, they are not providing adequate indication of notability. --Micky (talk) 02:07, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet -Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:41, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The Commission's website lays out the appointment process. I am confident even if we were to write a full and complete biography, we would not be able to establish notability from his role the commission.--Mpen320 (talk) 02:51, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

Mythology of Stargate

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

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

There is virtually no mythology in "Stargate". In the Stargate universe all described in the article if not mythology, but "for real". All usable content can be safely moved into numerous "main" articles. In any case this is one huge