Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 June 24

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< 23 June 25 June >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. The "keep" opinions do not address the problems identified in the nomination. Sandstein 11:03, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Early 21st-century civil rights movement

Early 21st-century civil rights movement (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:SYNTH —SpanishSnake (talk | contribs) 22:42, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:51, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:51, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:51, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The nomination statement, while extremely succinct, is correct. I commented about this article being synthesis
    WP:GNG, nor can we get around the fact that gathering these current events under this label in the way the article does is synthesis. We need to avoid WP:Recentism; the job of what to call this era and how to label its events falls to academic experts, not us Wikipedia editors. Any good and non-redundant material can be merged out to their respective topics. Crossroads -talk- 22:57, 24 June 2020 (UTC) Updated. Crossroads -talk- 23:30, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete the article is a
    WP:SYNTH. Lightburst (talk) 00:49, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete Appears to be a content fork of Black Lives Matter. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:43, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Since the early 2010s, civil rights movements have resurged to levels not seen since the 1960s, especially in 2020. And I respectfully disagree with Indy beetle. I believe this has become a wider topic than just Black Lives Matter and therefore we need more than just one article addressing our current social climate. Modern civil rights seem to expand past the topic of police brutality. Some examples are systemic racism, white privilege, institutionalized racism, police corruption, racist laws like "stop and frisk", LGBTQ+ discrimination and hate crimes, immigration, poverty in communities of color, voter suppression, socioeconomic disadvantages, the impact redlining has today on communities of color, racial disparities in education, gentrification, mass incarceration of black and Hispanic people, as well as the the debate on the removal of Confederate statues. Other important points include a rise in hate crimes, hate groups and domestic terrorism by white supremacist movements. We've also seen civil rights icons emerge such as Colin Kaepernick. Miss HollyJ (talk) 08:39, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia cannot say there is an "Early 21st-century civil rights movement" until
    synthesis of existing sourcing. Under "21st-century civil rights movement", there's a law fellow asking if black lives matter is a 21st-century civil rights movement, but that just means BLM is notable, a NYTimes mag subtitled "How a group of black social media activists built the nation's first 21st-century civil rights movement." and the guardian, but these again are about BLM specifically. There's a WaPo op-ed arguing that we need a 21st century CRM, but not saying there is one. "2020 civil rights movement" is pretty much a non-starter, there's local news. There are a couple of news articles writing about a second civil rights movement (The hill for one). However, sources, by and large, haven't recognized a widespread civil rights movement ongoing, and it's near impossible for something like that to be identified while it's happening. BLM is considered by some to be a new civil rights movement, but it's not yet clear that there's a larger defined movement outside of BLM (itself an organized movement) Eddie891 Talk Work 12:35, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete Wikipedia follows the sources, it does not lead out in inventing new terms that do not exist yet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:48, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is a beginning emergence of a new civil rights movement and many articles and news media such as MSNBC and the Washington Post are beginning to write about this movement and acknowledging it as new Civil Rights Movement. And the rapid change in legislation coincides very much with how the last civil rights movement went about doing things in it's timeline. Deleting too me seems very quick because based on the new media coming out calling this a new civil rights movement will only grow and with greater momentum to come so if this is deleted we would just have to rebuild this article from scratch once more. I'm willing to delete if this article is at least archived somewhere and can used as a building block later for the recreation of this article. IceBrotherhood (talk) 20:48, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You could propose Userfication as an alternative outcome of this AfD, but I'm not sure whether speculative predictions about the term being established in the future will be seen as a sufficient rationale for that. Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:15, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Crossroads and Eddie891. Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:15, 2 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 redirected to 600 metres. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:48, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

600 meters

600 meters (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 does not make sense that the British variant 600 metres is about the event and the American is a disambiguation page. This should redirect to the event with a hatnote added about the frequency. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 22:42, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 22:42, 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.

(non-admin closure) Eternal Shadow Talk 03:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Mabel Besant-Scott

Mabel Besant-Scott (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 satisfy

WP:GNG. Even her Theosophy wiki entry shows nothing that would support her notability. All I could find (other than a 2010 copy of the text in Witch Daze) is her photo in the National Portrait Gallery. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:40, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:52, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:52, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:52, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per
    WP:NEXIST, a quick online search shows that there are numerous sources, mainly books, that cover aspects of her life. If there is a deletion sorting for occult topics, that would be good to add to this AfD listing. I will try to make some improvements to the article, as I do not think it should be deleted just because it is undeveloped and the current sourcing is poor. Netherzone (talk) 00:12, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Keep As per

WP:BASICDavidstewartharvey (talk) 15:09, 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.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rami Ater

Rami Ater (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No coverage in independent, reliable sources. Has some exhibition history, but no critical reception in the form of reviews or other writing, no collections, monographs. Fails the

WP:OR. Vexations (talk) 21:53, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 21:53, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 21:53, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All I found in a search were primary sources for events and this reasonably neutral information page on his shows. I did not see any reviews or independent secondary coverage, which means he is very likely not notable. I searched in English; in Hebrew there might be more coverage.
    talk) 00:18, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:20, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the awards [1] are either vanity or unverifiable. Theredproject (talk) 18:10, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Subject does not meet the notability guidelines for NARTIST nor GNG. No sigcov in RS. Netherzone (talk) 21:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep.

(non-admin closure) Eternal Shadow Talk 21:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Children's feet

AfDs for this article:
View AfD · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

What is this?! I can't believe this? I've never seen an article so bizarre before. What is so notable about children's feet that we have to keep a page on it?! Why can't this just be on the Foot article? I swear whoever made this is messed up in the head. Jullianorange (talk) 21:34, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 22:48, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 22:48, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & Rename to pediatric podiatry or something similar, per above. The article is largely focused on the biological and medical aspects of childrens' feet, which, as shown, is pretty extensively covered in reliable sources. It should be renamed to reflect that, however, and possible restructured slightly to lose that rather silly and obvious lead in informing us that children have smaller feet than adults and thus wear smaller shoes. Rorshacma (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Concure with fellow editors - that it's a keep and rename. Bizarre title! Davidstewartharvey (talk) 18:09, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep and rename to developmental podiatry or some such. --Lockley (talk) 05:49, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. AfD is not for re-naming. There were literally hit songs and entire textbooks about the topic. Bearian (talk) 17:16, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.

(non-admin closure) PuzzledvegetableIs it teatime already? 20:07, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Renuar

Renuar (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)

Deleted by the

WP:GNG. -KAP03 (Talk • Contributions • Email) 20:58, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

User:KAP03, It is a very large company in Israeli terms, The fifth largest in the Israeli fashion sector. The Renuar Group own two brands, "Renuar" and "twenty-four-seven". Together, the group had around 170 branches in Israel, from Eilat on the southern border to Kiryat Shmona in the north. You can see the "Renuar" brand branches on this map. It's hard for me to find sources in English, but the Hebrew article has many sources. Nevertheless, I found one important source in English, whereby Apex was trying to acquire 50% of Renuar at a company value of NIS 360 million, which were around Dollars 100 million back then (link).--Bar (talk) 13:26, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -KAP03 (Talk • Contributions • Email) 20:58, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. -KAP03 (Talk • Contributions • Email) 20:58, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -KAP03 (Talk • Contributions • Email) 20:58, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's a relatively popular Israeli fashion brand. Ibn Daud (talk) 03:29, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Very big and notable brand in Israel and per Bar. Idan (talk) 10:00, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No effective sourcing. scope_creepTalk 15:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Sources not assertions are needed if this is to be kept
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Spartaz Humbug! 22:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:31, 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.

(non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 02:19, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Sidi Moumen Cultural Center

Sidi Moumen Cultural Center (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)

Not notable. it's a very small organization إسلام (talk) 21:02, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
    Talk to my owner:Online 21:17, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:53, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment:I believe this topic fulfills notability requirements; it's historically significant vis-a-vis US foreign policy in Morocco, it is one of the most significant establishments in the entire [Sidi Moumen|Sidi Moumen district]], and it has been covered in the media at the national and international levels. It is the main subject of the following articles:

It has also been mentioned in other publications mentioned in this other article in the New York Times. إيان (talk) 21:15, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Passes
    notability on English Wikipedia is based upon whether or not a topic has received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, which this organization has received. North America1000 08:33, 1 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. Editors seem to agree that was is needed is

(non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:09, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Community property in the United States

Community property in the United States (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)

On 26 January 2019‎,

User:Park3r seems to have conflated entirely unrelated concepts from different marital property regimes and the result is an incoherent disaster which no one has the time, interest, or energy to clean up. I propose to delete the article on Community property in the United States, then revert Community property back to its last good version on 15 January 2019. Coolcaesar (talk) 20:36, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 20:54, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 20:54, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's
list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 01:32, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Your response is completely unresponsive to the AFD nomination above as well as the discussion on the article talk page. As I've repeatedly pointed out (go read the article talk page), you're confusing entirely unrelated concepts that have no business being mentioned in the same article. I repeatedly prodded you to clean up the article but you failed to do so. As I noted there, I looked at several major legal databases and couldn't find a single source for the silly notion that community property in the United States has anything to do with community of property in South Africa. You certainly haven't provided any. So you're using Wikipedia as a publisher of unverified original research (which appears to be pure fantasy on your part) in direct violation of
WP:V
. The next best option is to go back to the last good version.
Also, it is never enough on Wikipedia to argue that someone else can fix the mess you left behind, so let's leave it. No. It's your problem to fix it. The fact you are too lazy to clean up your own mess after 18 months speaks for itself. --Coolcaesar (talk) 23:58, 24 June 2020 (UTC)~[reply]
I am not an expert in the comparative law of matrimonial property regimes so I haven't been able to expand on the article. Furthermore, the current Community Property page is not nearly as bad as you make out: it's a reasonable stub. However, the former article (which became
Park3r (talk) 00:43, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
That's the crux of the dispute. "Community [of] property as a matrimonial property regime is a worldwide concept, not US-centric." Your reference to a "worldview view" is nonsense. Your attempt to treat "community of property" as equivalent to "community property" is original research on your part for which you have not cited any sources. That equivalence exists nowhere but your imagination. Stop vandalizing Wikipedia and go try creative writing. --Coolcaesar (talk) 19:58, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your perspective. Your vandalism claim is something I don't agree with.
Meanwhile, I plugged in some text and a citation, which I think adds perspective to the article. We should research this more via
before
you brought the AFD).
That being said, your
WP:Before. That is not meant as a personal attack. But it is a criticism of your approach to AFD. We will have to agree to disagree, and let other editors decide the merits of the claims. Keep your mask on and your head down. Safe journeys. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:12, 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.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:06, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Toswo

Toswo (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)

A non-notable company, I tried searching for news articles about this company and Google thought that I was searching for 'torso'. James Richards (talk) 20:02, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. James Richards (talk) 20:02, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. James Richards (talk) 20:02, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. James Richards (talk) 20:02, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. James Richards (talk) 20:02, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. James Richards (talk) 20:02, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You told : I tried searching for news articles about this company and Google thought that I was searching for 'torso' This is due to the specific pronunciation of the company's name and there is no reason to remove it This article is related to a knowledge-based company in the field of artificial intelligence. Please help improve this article or section by expanding it Sources listed from the company's website, as well as other reputable sites. But more resources will be added https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/toswo https://clutch.co/developers/artificial-intelligence https://www.apollo.io/companies/Toswo-Inc-/5da4616f03c66e00014b0a3d https://clutch.co/profile/toswo Mrloopitus (talk) 18:13, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New resources and more updates were added. These sources include legal information, company activities, international statistics. Please help improve Wikipedia by removing a "deletion tag" in interaction to provide accurate and up-to-date information on technology companies.Mrloopitus (talk) 11:17, 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 keep. Clear consensus has been reached on this one.

(non-admin closure) Eternal Shadow Talk 21:07, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Umbrellar

Umbrellar (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 is about a company that has very little press coverage and is likely self-promotion, furthermore, it is created by an account with very few edits. James Richards (talk) 19:56, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. James Richards (talk) 19:56, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. James Richards (talk) 19:56, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. James Richards (talk) 19:56, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. James Richards (talk) 19:56, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. James Richards (talk) 19:56, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per
    WP:COMPANY. Notable and IMO an NZ success story of a company. Surprised this was nominated for deletion, what about than making edits to remove (unspecified/percieved) self promotional content? I included news citations in the initial publish. Just pasted several more in Talk page from a quick Google. Noticed wrong citation formatting on article needs update. Web-hosting is not a very news-worthy topic in itself, compounded by the effect of NZ being a small country. Good luck finding an NZ webhost with with more news coverage than these guys. Anyone in the web or IT industry in NZ would know who umbrellar is. Also, Freeparking (a sub-brand) is notable in itself for being only one of two domain registrars that can register .iwi.nz domains for indiginous Maori tribe names. Note: Moved additional news citation suggestions to Talk page of article. Kieran21 (talk
    )
Comment Would you mind declaring any
WP:Conflict of Interest
you have for this article?
Comment Not directly listed there as a COI, but maybe a bias? Ex-employee of 2+ years. Kieran21 (talk)
  • Keep Notable company. Agree that some clean up is needed but that is not what AfD is for. Schwede66 10:52, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per reasons above. It has found some coverage. I even found some reliable sources about the company: [3], [4], [5] and [6]. Even with these, the article is good enough to pass
    WP:NCORP. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 07:03, 27 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) 22:07, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Duke St. Rollins

Duke St. Rollins (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)

An internet troll who recieved some very sparse coverage (exactly three articles, which are the page's only citations) from news outlets for trolling politicians back in 2012. He does not pass

WP:NPOV violation, as if it was created by a supporter of St. Rollins's who created the page out of liking and agreeing him instead of any claim to notability that he might have. HAWTH OFF HEAD TALK 19:47, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 20:05, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 20:05, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 20:05, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete
    WP:TOOSOON. There is not RS coverage for this subject, and I cannot see that this person has any significant online following. Lightburst (talk) 20:13, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:14, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:14, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Shanahan

Dennis Shanahan (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)

Of borderline notability - successful, but I don't see he meets

WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 18:56, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:12, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:12, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, barely any detail here. agree not signifcant enough within this profession. Teraplane (talk) 22:22, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the article is a stub, yes, but Shanahan is one of the significant figures in the Canberra press gallery and has been in Australian media for a long time. In my view he meets item 1 of the the Journalist policy. Deus et lex (talk) 08:58, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Deus et lex, article needs a lot of work but he is an eminent member of the Canberra press gallery & Australian media landscape. Cavalryman (talk) 14:48, 25 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete one source does not pass GNG. Being widely published does not make one notable, we need work on a person for people other than themselves. No sources that would in any way show notability have been provided.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:40, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're basing this purely off the state of the article. Shanahan is a noted political journalist in Australia. Deus et lex (talk) 07:44, 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) 22:10, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Larry A. Kaczala

Larry A. Kaczala (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)

Biography of a person notable only as a non-winning candidate for elected office. As always, candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates -- to qualify for inclusion, he must demonstrate that either (a) he already had preexisting notability for other reasons independent of the candidacy itself, or (b) he received such an exceptional depth and range and volume of coverage, far outside of just what every candidate everywhere could always show, that he would have a credible claim to passing the

ten year test as much more special than most other candidates. But neither of those things are in evidence here at all: there's no serious claim that he was notable for any other reason, and the referencing is almost entirely to his own campaign website and a raw table of the election results, which is not in and of itself a notability-making source. The only real journalism source here is a single article in his local newspaper about his death itself, which is not enough coverage to get him over the notability bar all by itself if it's the only reliable source that can be shown. Bearcat (talk) 18:17, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:17, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:17, 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. Fenix down (talk) 19:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Razdelkin

Roman Razdelkin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about semi-pro footballer who made a single appearance in a Russian Cup match between two clubs from fully-pro leagues. There is no online Russian-language coverage of Razdelkin except match reports and database entries (no SIGCOV). There is a longstanding consensus that a minimal amount of play in competitive matches between clubs from fully-pro leagues is not sufficient to satisfy

WP:GNG is comprehensively failed - as it is here. This article has existed in the same abject state for nearly 11 years, and we have every reason to believe it will be a perma-stub if we forgo prior consensus and keep it. Jogurney (talk) 17:53, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 18:04, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 18:04, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 18:04, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:07, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, fails GNG which is more important than scraping by on NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 13:11, 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.

The result was redirect to 2020 United States House of Representatives elections in North Carolina#District 11. A tough decision but I think that the arguments for a redirect prevail, with no prejudice against recreation if he wins in November. Tone 20:48, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Madison Cawthorn

Madison Cawthorn (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)

Unelected politician. All the coverage is current news about his run for office. Fails

WP:NOTNEWS. Whpq (talk) 17:50, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:52, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:52, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is not a vote, but just something for all to consider before voting. The article as it is does not appear to be written well, but that's not a reason to delete. While it's true that Cawthorn does not yet meet NPOL, he likely will.
    WP:CRYSTAL does apply, this discussion is about a politician who is likely to be elected to the House in November. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:55, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Also note that Draft:Madison Cawthorn exists. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:42, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I tentatively agree with the comment above. Given the makeup of the district, there's a good chance Cawthorn will be elected as the youngest congressperson in modern history come November. If there's little else notable about this 24-year-old kid (yet), then I'm not opposed to it being deleted for now. However, I agree that it shouldn't be deleted just because nothing has been written yet. Perhaps it should be re-evaluated in a few days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisz2264 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is no objection to this being an article when he is elected, but that hasn't happened yet. Even if it is likely to happen, it isn't a certainty to happen. -- Whpq (talk) 18:31, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Chrisz2264 A 24-year-old is not a kid. He is an adult man. cookie monster (2020) 755 18:33, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My wife regularly calls her 24-year-old daughter a kid. She was also born in August 1995. I could also present a large amount of sociological work that shows that many of the current generation do not enter fully into adulthood until they are 25. There also are some rental agreements for some items that are generally not allowed under age 25, under age 25 is treated as a higher risk youth category by insurance, and I can cite lots of other issues, such as the adult population college graduated is only calculated based on the population over 25 to indicate that in fact to many people 24-year-olds are still kids.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:13, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Johnpacklambert what someone calls another is irrelevant. He is legally an adult and sociological work does not strictly define someone as becoming an adult at 25. I could point to a lot of psychological work that refers to a young adult as someone 20-years-old and above. Anyway, it is what the law says that is more important. He is old enough to run for Congress – then he certainly isn't a "kid" as in child. cookie monster (2020) 755 20:06, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, obviously without prejudice against recreation in November if he wins. Candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates per se — the notability test at NPOL is holding a notable political office, not just running for one. And we also don't exempt candidates from that rule just because the normal partisan lean of their district appears to favour their victory: there have been elections where the candidate who was "expected" to win actually lost in the end, or had to withdraw their name from the ballot for legal or medical reasons (or even died) in advance of election day, so "seems like he's probably going to win" is not a notability claim that exempts a candidate from our normal notability standards for politicians. And no, the fact that some campaign coverage already exists is not a GNG-based exemption from having to pass NPOL either — every candidate in every election can always show some evidence of campaign coverage, so if that were how it worked then every candidate would always be exempted from having to pass NPOL at all, and NPOL itself would literally mean nothing at all anymore. As always, he will get an article in November if he wins the seat, since his notability claim will have changed from "candidate" to "officeholder", but simply winning the primary to become a candidate in the general election is not in and of itself grounds for an article to already exist today. Bearcat (talk) 18:28, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect for now per
    WP:CRYSTAL. He is only the presumptive Republican nominee for the district. IF he is elected to office on November 3, then we can establish whether there shall be an article on the subject. Redirect to 2020 United States House of Representatives elections in North Carolina for now. cookie monster (2020) 755 18:33, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete If all y'all gonna have that much hair 'cross your assess then delete! LOL! Don't got better things to do in life? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:C400:101:71FB:1AFC:D48D:7195 (talk) 18:36, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't a rational argument against for deletion, 2600:8801:C400:101:71FB:1AFC:D48D:7195. cookie monster (2020) 755 18:48, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct. It is not a rational argument FOR deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:C400:101:71FB:1AFC:D48D:7195 (talk) 18:59, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak redirect to the election he doesn't meet
    only notable for one event, but there's definitely a case to be made for keeping as well.Eddie891 Talk Work 19:33, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep. O, Deletionism! Here we go again. There are articles about this guy on CNN [8], NPR [9], CBS News [10], the New York Times [11], and the BBC [12], among others, but somehow that's not enough notability for some to justify a well-sourced and well-researched Wikipedia article. I'm sure it's a violation of WP:.... SOMETHING. If I sound snarky and cynical, it's because deletionism for the sake of deletionism makes me that way. In a strongly Republican district, the winner of the Republican primary is almost guaranteed to win the general election. Which means that in November, when this guy is a congressman-elect, we'll have to reinvent the wheel and re-create the whole article from scratch, for... some reason. Beyond the media coverage, and his notability for winning a primary election when he was not endorsed by Trump and others, it's also notable that Cawthorn would be the youngest congressperson ever elected. He only barely squeaks by Constitutionally by a few months. Moncrief (talk) 19:36, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Moncrief Agreed. Thenextprez 23:09, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Draft:Mondaire Jones, and other likely incoming freshmen. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:42, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Our job is not to keep an article about everybody whose name happens to be temporarily present in the current news cycle — our job is to never keep an article about anybody until they've passed the
ten year test for enduring significance, which means "no article until after he's accomplished something significant enough that people will still be looking for information about him in 2030 because of it". Officeholders pass that test; with extremely rare exceptions, candidates almost always do not. Bearcat (talk) 20:14, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
No, the standard has not been "dispensed with". AOC got an extremely large volume of international coverage, far beyond what most primary candidates get: I'm Canadian and she was getting coverage here, which US elections below the presidential level normally don't. She didn't get an article in advance of the election because she was a candidate per se — she got an article because she was already an international household name, who was already substantially more famous to Canadians and Britons and Australians and South Africans than any incumbent member of the entire United States House of Representatives whose surname isn't Pelosi.
The standard, in other words, is still the same as it's always been: candidates get articles in only three situations. (1) They win the election in the end. (2) They can be shown to have already passed a different notability criterion for some other reason (e.g.
ten year test for enduring significance anyway. There is no other way, and that's still just as true in 2020 as it was in 2016. Bearcat (talk) 00:20, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
You assert this on every single politician AfD but you never provide convincing reasoning that these deletions actually improve the encyclopedia. If that was the standard in the past, well then
WP:CCC and there needs to be a discussion about changing that ridiculous standard. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 19:14, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexandria_Ocasio-Cortez&oldid=847688966
  2. ^ https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53169344
  3. ^ https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/23/politics/north-carolina-primary-madison-cawthorn/index.html
We already are in this discussion and based on the discussion to date, this AfD is not going to be closed as a speedy keep. I strongly believe that
WP:CRYSTAL applies in this situation, especially since the subject has a contested election in November. --Enos733 (talk) 18:16, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
That's fair, and I'm not advocating for a speedy keep. He is clearly not yet notable and a redirect is the proper thing to do here, at least for now. That being said as I noted at a recent DRV, there's better things to do with volunteer time than to fight over candidate articles where the candidate has a very strong probability of winning the NPOL-qualifying election, even if the election will technically be contested. (For instance, there's no point on deleting the article that was recently at DRV, since that candidate also won preselection and is nearly certain to win.) US election articles really are a giant mess every couple years... SportingFlyer T·C 18:42, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CRYSTAL applies to all articles. The article is not predicting the future nor assuming/expecting/prophesying that Cawthorn will win the general election. I think having a sourced and well-written article on Cawthorn at this time, after he won the primary election, is a net gain to readers. It doesn't detract from their quest for knowledge nor does it diminish Wikipedia's mission. I don't think I'll ever understand why all this energy gets directed to deleting useful articles, and, yes, I've read all the WP: justifications and explanations. Moncrief (talk) 18:49, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
We have the rule that once you're notable, you're always notable, and unelected candidates frequently fail that test. It's particularly worse in the US since candidates aren't specifically tied to the party like they are in other countries.
WP:CRYSTAL just means that it's too soon for him to have an article, since his lasting notability has not been demonstrated. SportingFlyer T·C 19:04, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Perhaps this is beside the point, but I don't know what you mean by "specifically tied to the party." He's the Republican candidate. He can someday choose to be a member of any other party, but so can any politician. I think you mean that the party doesn't select each party's congressional candidates; they're voted on by the people in primary elections months before the general election. That would account for your use of "preselected," which I also find confusing in the US context. Moncrief (talk) 19:08, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly what I mean - we typically don't get articles on unelected candidates from most other countries, since there's less of a promotional element. I've changed my mind. SportingFlyer T·C 02:21, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect changed from keep - not as large of a gap as I thought and I am convinced by the arguments of others that
    WP:CRYSTAL/WP:10YR applies, we can redirect him to the page on the election since he has no other notability, and restore it if he wins. SportingFlyer T·C 02:21, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • That's actually an argument for redirection to the race, since he's not yet notable. SportingFlyer T·C 20:02, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see why you are interpreting my vote that way, but I see it solidly as a Keep because he is notable already, given the weird differing White House endorsements and that the president made an endorsement that he tried to take back when his candidate lost -- flipping to flatter the unexpected winner and asserting that he did not even know the candidate he had endorsed... It thereby is an element of the state of the presidential campaign as it seems to be faltering. That adds to the notability for Cawthorn. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 21:14, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any argument which says that this should be reconsidered in November is an argument against keeping, since notability has to be lasting. Again, I think this is dumb that we're arguing over this
  • Please note that "should" is a misquote of me and "could" has a very different meaning. Seems that your misreading of this motivated you to raise an argument about the validity of my vote -- why wouldn't I attempt to clarify? _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 15:22, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Cawthorn is no Vermin Supreme, a candidate who is notable largely for running failing campaigns. -- M.boli (talk) 20:07, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notability is not temporary. If a future event could cause someone to support deleting an article, then the person is not yet notable, and we should not yet have an article on them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:08, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We could go round and round on this, but it feels as though some of you aren't hearing the argument (which you can disagree with, of course) that he is already notable, no matter what happens, because (a) he has overwhelmingly won a primary election against great odds (which are: the president, still overall relatively popular in NC-11, endorsed his competitor, and Cawthorn's predecessor was an influential and well-known congressman who also didn't endorse Cawthorn); and (b) Cawthorn is 24 years old, which is notable because it's basically unheard-of that someone currently under the constitutional age for Congress would win a primary race. These already-completed, non-future events have generated widespread media coverage. To me it seems strangely rigid to say that "notability" in the realm of congressional politics only equals being a congressperson or congressperson-elect. Obviously that's a point of view many people have, but that's not the argument being made for his notability by those that don't share that point of view. Moncrief (talk) 20:16, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of those arguments are source-based, though, and there's no reason why either of those things couldn't be included in the article about the election. What we require is lasting notability - while I do generally agree this article's not really worth arguing over since the odds that he will have lasting notability is high, there is also an argument to be made for consistency. Winning a preselection, even a contested one where you weren't the first choice of the party and even as someone younger than usual, doesn't necessarily grant lasting notability. SportingFlyer T·C 03:39, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When you say "preselection" and "the choice of the party," it sounds strange to American ears. He won a primary. I suppose that's kind of like a "pre-selection," but it's not a term that's used in American politics. As for "the choice of the party," that doesn't really work in primary elections. You can be endorsed by individuals or local political organizations, but there's no "choice of the party" in the way there is in a parliamentary system. Your arguments are odd in the context of determining the notability of this particular individual in his particular political context. Moncrief (talk) 05:05, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the argument, but I do not agree with it. While I do not agree completely with the
one event, which in this case is their 2020 campaign. This is why the community has pages about the congressional race - because the race is notable, even if the candidate(s) are not. --Enos733 (talk) 15:02, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
"Safe" seat is not a notability claim. Candidates who were "favoured" to win seats that were considered "safe" for their parties have lost elections, or been forced to resign for various reasons before election day, or even died mid-campaign — and it's a
WP:CRYSTAL violation to say that it's guaranteed that none of those things will happen this time. So "safe" seat or not, a candidate is not permanently notable until he's actually declared the winner after the ballots have been counted on election day. Bearcat (talk) 23:28, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Oppose The candidate has now won the primary and will most likely win the 2020 general election. It would be absurd to delete the article.Michael E Nolan (talk) 21:06, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So this would be a Keep then?
talk) 23:32, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Keep satisfies GNG with references in article, additional NPOL not applicable.Djflem (talk) 22:12, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we've kept other major party nominees before like AOC, and Cawthorn is definitely garnering significant publicity for a major party candidate or nominee since he's got an intriguing story and he defeated the Trump-backed candidate. He will likely win the general election given all of the election fundamentals he's got in his favor. He seems to meet
WP:GNG. I also don't like the notion of arbitrarily picking out major party nominees in safe seats (who've garnered significant media attention for their backgrounds to make them notable) and then open up AfDs when we've already set the standard with AOC. Note: there are more AOC like major party nominees in NY who don't have AfDs right now. We need to stay with our standards like it or not (or have a discussion to change them and treat both Democrats and Republicans with the same standard). Philotimo (talk) 22:55, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
AOC did not set any precedent that applies to anybody but her. She was a standalone special case by virtue of having already garnered such a massive volume of international press coverage that she was already one of the most famous American politicians in the entire world well before election day. And no, I'm not making shit up, either: months before the election, she really was already a household name in Canada and Australia and the United Kingdom, already much more internationally famous than any politician in the entire US not named Trump or Pelosi. The regular consensus, that candidates do not get articles just for being candidates, still applies to every candidate in the United States who cannot show that he or she is already an internationally famous household name.
The problem is that if we keep Madison Cawthorn just because he has campaign coverage, then by definition we have to keep an article about every single candidate in every single district in the entire United States on the very same grounds, because no candidate ever fails to have campaign coverage. But that's not how we do things here: the test that a candidate has to meet, to warrant permanent coverage here, is that his candidacy is a special case of significantly greater notability than most other candidacies in some way that would pass the
ten year test for enduring significance. In a nutshell, the test that a candidate has to pass, to merit a Wikipedia article just for being a candidate, is to imagine that he loses the election in the end, and then dies the very next day so that he never has another opportunity to accomplish anything else more notable than being a losing election candidate, and then show a convincing reason why his candidacy would still be so uniquely notable that people will still be looking for information about it in 2030 anyway. Any candidate who can't pass that test has to wait until he or she wins the seat; only candidates who have a strongly credible claim to being special cases get articles in advance of election day. Bearcat (talk) 23:22, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep per
    WP:IAR. I'm sick of the idea that ONLY elected candidates are allowed to have articles, as well as the fallacy that "if we keep this, we gotta keep all unelected candidates." Cawthorn has received enough coverage in reliable sources that, even if he loses (which is a possibility), he is still deserving of an article due to the coverage and the historic nature of his primary win. It is honestly setting a ridiculously high bar that any candidate needs to be internationally recognized to have an article pre-election. We don't have that standard for other wikiarticles. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 22:41, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Nobody gives a flying fig what you're sick of. "If we keep this, we gotta keep all unelected candidates" is not a "fallacy" — it's the stone cold truth that every candidate in every district across the entire country always receives enough campaign coverage to at least attempt the argument that they've passed GNG and are therefore exempted from actually having to pass NPOL. So if that were how it worked, then "every candidate gets an article and NPOL means nothing anymore" is exactly where that approach lands. So, again, the notability test for candidates is not "campaign coverage exists", it is "the candidate has received so much more coverage than the norm that he has a credible claim to being much more special than most other candidates, in some way that would pass the
ten year test for enduring significance". Bearcat (talk) 22:56, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
It would also make the encyclopaedia even more US-centric. SportingFlyer T·C 01:08, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is a prime example of a fallacy, in particular
WP:GNG here, not some arbitrarily high standard you like. No one is doubting that campaign coverage exists that we can write a stub on many candidates. I think this is kind of a special case, along with AOC (though not to the same extent). ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 14:49, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
So if that were how it worked, then "every candidate gets an article and NPOL means nothing anymore" is exactly where that approach lands. Yes, that should be the goal. All topics with sufficient coverage to write useful articles are worthy of articles. That's the whole point of notability to begin with! Your standards are arbitrary and provide no reasoning for how these deletions improve the encyclopedia. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 19:17, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You should read
WP:GNG doesn't mean the topic automatically qualifies for their own article. It's especially the case when concerns exist about recentism, promotionalism, and a lack of enduring notability, and why AfDs about people who were only candidates are generally uncontroversially deleted as long as they're not recent candidates. SportingFlyer T·C 21:03, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
The bar for that is Christine O'Donnell, who got so bloody much coverage that to this day, fully 10 years later, our article about her is still longer, and still cites twice as many distinct sources than, our article about the actual incumbent senator she lost to. Bearcat (talk) 01:52, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The bar is Christine O'Donnell according to whom? Where was that consensus established? I see you say this over and over and I've never seen anything to back it up. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 01:55, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • We can't keep the article on the grounds that he might win the election -
    WP:CRYSTAL. There are articles on people only notable for a single event, but the event has to be very high profile - think assassinations of major figures. If he isn't elected to the House of Representatives in November then he will likely remain low profile. He's received a short spate of coverage in response to him upsetting a more favoured candidate in the primary, but that doesn't translate into enduring notability. Are people going to be writing about this primary win years from now? I think not. Hut 8.5 06:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
This is the piece I don't think I'll ever understand about deletionism for the sake of deletionism. Why? How does it further the mission of Wikipedia to delete well-sourced, well-written articles about people about whom readers may be looking for information? Wikipedia is not paper. We're not trying to fit an encyclopedia into 10 volumes. How does it increase the conveyance of information -- which is the purpose of Wikipedia -- to delete articles that have value as information-providers? This is overly dramatic, but deletionism qua deletionism makes me think of the editors of the Newspeak dictionary in "1984" whose job it is to eliminate words. That's not so much a fair analogy -- it's too harsh -- but a thought experiment, like the "ten year test." (P.S. I would argue that it doesn't matter if Cawthorn is elected in the general election, so my wish is that people didn't use that as an argument, since his being elected in November is unknowable and thus WP:CRYSTAL. This article can stand on its own as a well-sourced reference to someone about whom people may be looking for more data due to events that have already occurred.) Moncrief (talk) 01:24, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How does it further the mission of Wikipedia to indiscriminately keep articles about everybody who ever ran for political office regardless of whether they won or lost? Once the election is over, there will be no sustained public interest in the losers anymore, unless they have some other notability claim besides just running for office per se. Candidates aren't exempted from having to pass NPOL just because they have some evidence of campaign coverage — literally every candidate in every election, in every country that has elections, always has some evidence of campaign coverage, so if that were how it worked we would always have to keep an article about every single person who was ever a candidate for any elected office at all regardless of whether they won or lost. What possible reason is there why that would be desirable?
And incidentally, you're applying the ten year test backward. The way it works isn't that people get to keep an article until it's been definitively proven that they would fail the 10YT — it's that people don't get to have an article at all until it's been definitively proven that they would pass the 10YT. Bearcat (talk) 01:47, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It would be desirable because Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia; our goal is to be a repository of knowledge. There is no size limit here; we're not trying to fit into a bookshelf worth of volumes. The burden of proof is on those advocating deletion to demonstrate how the deletion of the article would IMPROVE Wikipedia. "Lack of public interest" 10 years from now, does not mean it's absence would improve the encyclopedia. You keep bringing the same points up again and again and again, but you have never once made a convincing argument that these deletions actually improve the encyclopedia, not detract from it. If there is RS coverage sufficient to write 100 million articles, then our goal should be to have 100 million articles. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 01:55, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If there's no sustained public interest and Cawthorn loses in November, then this article will not be particularly widely read. Instead it will be out there unobtrusively on the internet, one of the 6.1 million articles in the English-language Wikipedia and one of the hundreds of millions (billions?) of webpages on the web. If one of the billion or so users of the English Wikipedia thinks someday, "Who was that really young guy who won the primary in South Carolina that stopped Trump's uninterrupted winning streak of primary endorsements?" then they'll be able to google the information and find this article. I'm not seeing the harm, just as I don't see the harm in other articles I've worked on that are arguably very obscure, such as those about, say, uninhabited islands in Lake Winnipeg. Honestly, our philosophies of what Wikipedia is, are so far apart that further discussion is probably not fruitful here. We can just await the neutral admin's decision. Moncrief (talk) 02:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One thing you likely have not considered is that low-traffic articles about topics of low public visibility are extremely vulnerable to the addition of vandalism, which can go undetected for weeks, months or even years if the article isn't generating enough traffic to control it. Our quality control model works very well on high-visibility articles like Beyoncé or Justin Trudeau, because any vandalism to those articles will get caught and reverted almost instantaneously — but below a certain level of fame, it falls down on its ass very quickly, and vandalism to a low-interest article can literally stand for a very long time without being noticed at all. I once found an article about a person of low public prominence which had literally spent three full years calling its topic a cannibal pedophile who smuggled children into nuclear power plants to rape, kill and eat them — and no, I am not making that up, it really happened. I dealt with it as soon as I saw it, needless to say, but that doesn't change the fact that we still published libellous content for three years because nobody had caught it sooner. That's the risk: in an encyclopedia that anybody can edit, we cannot guarantee that every "anybody" is editing responsibly — and there is a level of prominence below which we cannot guarantee the necessary degree of vigilance anymore.

Bearcat (talk) 02:51, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Almost everything you've written in this thread has no relevance here. This isn't a "low traffic" article by any measure. There's no "risk of vandalism". Claiming that keeping this important entry will mean that we "keep articles about everybody who ever ran for political office regardless of whether they won or lost" is baseless. I'm sure you'll continue to push for deletion of candidates, which is a tenable position for politicians who haven't even won their primary and have no notability other than the fact that they've declared. Which is most certainly not the case here. Bangabandhu (talk) 14:13, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this is the full text of the
    WP:NPOL
    guideline:
    The following are presumed to be notable:
    * Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels.[12] This also applies to people who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them.
    * Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.
    Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline.
  • Nowhere in here does it say that political candidates are required to meet NPOL. Nowhere in here does it say there is some extra special notability requirement above and beyond the GNG when determining whether coverage is sufficient to establish notability. Nowhere in here does it say that "sustained international" coverage is required. Nowhere in here does it say that the subject must still be of sustained public interest in 10 years.[a] And certainly nowhere does it say that the candidates must achieve Christine O'Donnell levels of coverage. NPOL is about categories of politicians presumed to be notable even if they don't meet GNG. It's not some extra hurdle that's required; it's an extra route to notability for politicians who fail GNG. If an editor repeatedly insists that their position on NPOL is the "community consensus", even when the actual text of the SNG contradicts them repeatedly, the onus is on them to prove it, not just repeat it over and over and over again. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 02:08, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, NPOL is not an "extra" route to notability for politicians who "fail" GNG. Every politician who passes NPOL, by definition, literally always also passes GNG, because people in NPOL-passing roles always get GNG-worthy media coverage. Their articles may not always look like they pass GNG, because we're not always on the ball about actually finding and using all the sources that the person actually has — but if a person really held an NPOL-passing role, then they virtually always have GNG-passing sources out there regardless of the current state of our article about them. In actual fact, if an article claimed that its subject passed NPOL, but the person was such a GNG failure that we couldn't even
verify
the claim in the first place, then the article would be deleted as a likely hoax.
As for "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline", the thing you need to keep in mind is that if the existence of some campaign coverage is all it takes to get a non-winning candidate over GNG and thus exempt them from having to pass NPOL, then that sentence has automatically contradicted itself, because literally every candidate in every election everywhere can always show some evidence of campaign coverage. Which is exactly why what I'm saying is not incorrect, and NPOL does not contradict it: if the existence of campaign coverage is all it takes to make a candidate notable, then every candidate is always notable and nobody ever actually has to be measured against NPOL at all anymore. Which is why the consensus around the notability of unelected candidates has always been that it is not enough just to show that some campaign coverage exists — making an unelected candidate notable enough for a Wikipedia article on GNG grounds does require evidence that their candidacy is substantially more notable than most other people's candidacies. Every candidate always has campaign coverage — what every candidate doesn't always have is a reason why their candidacy is of enduring significance that will still be of public interest ten years from now regardless of whether they win or lose. Bearcat (talk) 02:51, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

  1. ^ Actually, they often are to those who study American politics - that's a reason in itself. The general public doesn't care about all the tens of thousands of species of insects - many are only of interest to specialists. That doesn't mean we delete those articles.
  • Keep under the "I, a random person, have heard of him" standard. He's gotten tons of media coverage in the last couple weeks, and when people read about him, they'll naturally turn to Wikipedia for further information. To not have an article for them to read would be a disservice to the reader and an embarrassment to the project. There is no notability requirement that overrules common sense and public interest. — Toughpigs (talk) 02:18, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Didn’t AOC and that Texas guy get pages before they was elected? He’s almost certainly going to win so might as well keep it up instead of just re-writing it again 4 months from now.

What Texas guy are you talking about? Bearcat (talk) 02:51, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Probably Dan Crenshaw. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 05:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for many of the reasons previously noted. When I first read the story of his victory I ran to Wikipedia to learn more about him. All I found was a little stub. Little by little I saw more info added. Eventually, I saw that info organized and the page formatted. I am grateful for the efforts. He'll get more coverage as the election cycle progresses and more information will come available up to and beyond his obstensible victory in November. — Ssbnj (talk) 0553, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment, I've already voiced my opinion to keep Cawthorn's page, but I think several more general points need to be addressed with regards to this particular AfD thread. 1.) There's a recurring theme on here that by keeping Cawthorn's page we somehow establish the wrong precedent, which I think is an entirely false premise. In recent memory, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D–NY 14th) and Dan Crenshaw (R–TX 2nd) were created before their respective general election wins but after their primary victories in 2018. Jamaal Bowman (probably, D–NY 16th) was created before his primary win in 2020. Paula Jean Swearengin (D–WV senate) was created prior to her primary lose to Joe Manchin in 2018. Tony Campbell (R–MD senate) was created after his primary win in 2018. Christine O'Donnell was created in 2008 heading into her second election. Dave Brat (R–VA 7th) was created after his primary win in 2014. Ilhan Omar was created leading up to her successful state house run in 2016. Jo Rae Perkins (R–OR senate) was created after her primary win in 2020. Mondaire Jones (probably, D–NY 17th) was created before his primary win in 2020. Lauren Boebert (probably, R–CO 3rd) was created after her primary win in 2020. Etc... there's nothing precedent setting about keeping this page. Far-less notable candidates to Cawthorn have made our cut, like Campbell or Swearengin, so it's odd to just focus on him. I don't really see the difference between Boebert, Bowman, Cawthorn, or Jones with regards to their supposed notability divergence. It's really quite subtle. 2.) If there's reliable sources behind them (which I've already voiced my opinion that Cawthorn has) and they have a lasting influence like winning (probably Cawthorn), becoming a prominent perennial candidate, attracting notability through association (like Boebert or Perkins with QAnon), or be another means (like military service, personal story, profession, etc. which Cawthorn also meets), i.e. basically general notability guidelines for lasting significance, then it seems like an additional barrier to content creation if we just arbitrary hault their creation. And no, that doesn't mean every candidate or nominee should or would get their own page since most of them don't have anywhere near the level of notability that we're talking about with regards to Boebert, Bowman, Cawthorn, or Jones. Note: I also personally find some of them such as Campbell or Swearengin as borderline cases in terms of notability. 3.) I really feel that we should close this AfD immediately as keep unless we begin AfDs for Boebert, Bowman, and Jones too. I really find it hard to rationalize an AfD for Cawthorn but not for Boebert, Bowman, and Jones since it's quite hard to realistically splice their individual notabilities to justify Jones but not Cawthorn for instance. Philotimo (talk) 05:05, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The existence of other articles doesn't imply that this article should be kept as well. Possibly some or all of those articles should be deleted. Many of those articles are for people who are now in Congress and it wouldn't be appropriate to delete them now anyway. Hut 8.5 07:19, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm not really arguing that, i.e. just because x then y must as well, I'm explaining that we've constantly allowed major party candidates with notable coverage to remain so I'm pushing back on the narrative presented throughout this AfD that we're somehow establishing a precedent with Cawthorn. We're not. Also, I'm noting if we do remove Cawthorn's page then we're actually establishing a new precedent, and we'll have to open up AfDs on at least Boebert, Bowman, and Jones to boot. Philotimo (talk) 09:12, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So you're arguing that if we delete article X then we have to delete article Y, which is basically the same argument. AfD doesn't operate based on precedent and each case is considered individually. We have deleted an awful lot of articles about failed US political candidates, and to the extent that there is a precedent it's the other way round e.g.
WP:POLOUTCOMES Candidates who are running or unsuccessfully ran for a national legislature or other national office are not viewed as having inherent notability and are often deleted or merged. Hut 8.5 12:02, 2 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

T.S. Idiot

T.S. Idiot (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 seem to meet

Searching before for coverage brings up nothing else to establish notability, except for another article and some other assorted videos and promotional things for him. Eddie891 Talk Work 17:21, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 Talk Work 17:22, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:23, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I saw this at NPP and was considering PROD/AFDing it, but kept putting it off - it was accepted through AfC so I thought there might be something I was missing. However, I wasn't able to find anything that would contribute to notability through
    WP:BEFORE, and as for the sources in the article we've got his own website, a genealogy site, article about him burning his degree on a dodgy clickbait site which seems to let anyone submit an article, a promotional interview and a blog post. It's also a blatant autobiography (created by User:TomStockley). I'm having a lot of trouble seeing how this made it through AfC, to be honest. Spicy (talk) 17:36, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:17, 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. Tone 20:50, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ganga Bahadur Nemkul

Ganga Bahadur Nemkul (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)

Lacks WP:GNG, only one reference and this is a local presentation

talk) 17:18, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 17:18, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 17:29, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not even remotely close to the level of sourcing we would not to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:13, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no sign of any sort of notability. Hitro talk 05:34, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify- seems he is working for promotion of Nepali cuture, but there is no enough reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nirmaljoshi (talk • contribs) 05:33, 1 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 20:50, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of Radeon RX 5700 models

Comparison of Radeon RX 5700 models (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)

Previously proposed for deletion by Wikiinger.

WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The references are to single-point entries in a "GPU database" website, or to review pages. There's no links to commentary about the influence of these parts on the market, any innovation or features, or any other material that would establish notability. This is just a "simple listing" (see WP:NOTCATALOG #7). Mikeblas (talk) 17:08, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:11, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:11, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as too specialized to have significant coverage independent of the subject. Looks like a spinout article into a catalog-type listing without the coverage in reliable sources to indicate why it's notable to compare these models. Red Phoenix talk 19:00, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nom and Red Phoenix are spot on. -- ferret (talk) 19:08, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing to add here. This is the very definition of
    Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:46, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • MERGE with Radeon RX 5000 series, already linked to at the top of the article. If any information isn't already there that should be, then just merged it on over. It list size, fans, and electricity used here. If those things are valuable to know then it should be in the main article with the other stats listed. Dream Focus 17:38, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom and others. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 18:46, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 23:50, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The content has now been merged over, making this article pointless. Dream Focus 02:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I merged the content over, so I guess deletion is easier now. I,,.iasO 04:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • My vote is delete. I,,.iasO 15:58, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per
    WP:NOTCATALOGUE. The content should not have been merged either. Ajf773 (talk) 21:25, 1 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

Rind tribe. Merge and redirect SpinningSpark 09:49, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Rind Khan

Rind 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)

Person seems to be not notable as per

WP:ANYBIO ~ Amkgp 💬 15:46, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 15:46, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 15:46, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Doesn’t meet

talk 16:02, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Currently at the time of typing, 11 reliable references are present, and I believe that it should be enough to remove the “article for deletion” tag because almost every sentence is now supported by at least one reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mowahid Mohsin (talk • contribs) 01:27, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mowahid, you are new to wikipedia and do not fully understand how wikipedia works. Please read the policies
    talk) 01:37, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:02, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have overturned the previous "keep" closure of this discussion. See Special:Permalink/964632624#NAC. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:24, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the subject failing personal GNG standards for having his own stand alone article. I see lists of relatives - wikipedia is not Ancestry.com. I see sources that don't specifically pertain to the article's subject. For example three citations are the same - the definition of "rind". Three are lists of Baloch tribes. I didn't cross check all the citations but the first citation from the Dawn news site makes no specific mention of a "Rind Khan". This article seems to be a good-faith effort to elevate a person who is seen as deserving broad recognition but doesn't have sources to support notability. Blue Riband► 16:26, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Concerns raised by the Deletes have not yet been addressed
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 14:25, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The flaws of the article were unreliable references and lack of references, both have been fixed. The reference from Dawn News which was mentioned earlier can easily be removed. And instead of complaining about the article’s flaws, why don’t much more experienced editors help to correct it? Only minor references mistakes are left which can be fixed and I disagree that there is a reason to delete it now.

Response I took a look at the revised article and there I see two citations to baask.com which is a message board forum. These types of sources are not considered reliable as anybody can post anything with no fact checking and no editorial oversight. (You may find it helpful to look at
WP:VERIFY which explains in detail what are reliable sources.) The citation to the Daily Times regarding Punnu Fort makes no mention of him. Generally speaking, if one is having trouble finding sources to support a person's notability then that person doesn't have the accomplishments or depth of historic coverage for inclusion. Blue Riband► 00:49, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
The nonreliable baask.com source basically retells A glossary of the Tribes..., so I am replacing baask ref with glossary ref.
India Today ref says not a word about him either.
talk) 01:14, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Journal of Asiatic society mentions him only once in a long pedigree of a some person, from whihc it follows that he is a son of Jalal Khan.
talk) 01:14, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Journal of Turk-Islam world is used to support a hypothetical stamenent "Rind Khan like the rest of Baloch people...", and nothing about him.
talk) 01:14, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Pinging
talk) 01:33, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: Part of me is thinking weak delete and another part of me is thinking weak keep. It seems like merge is more reasonable then both. Do note that I changed my name to Eternal Shadow. Eternal Shadow (talk) 15:02, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to
    Rind tribe as per the in-depth analysis and current state of the article ~ Amkgp 💬 15:10, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]

I wanted to mention another thing... there are many articles on Wikipedia which have only a few lines and 1-3 references (for example the article on Rind Tribe). How come those articles are totally safe but this one got nominated for deletion? That’s why I think:

  • Merge Since the article on Rind Tribe has a few lines and this one has some references issues, I think it would be better to merge them into a single article. The info regarding the tribe should be at top and all info regarding Rind Khan should be under a heading at the bottom of the article. That way the information in both articles will remain on Wikipedia and this issue would come to an end.
Reply You make a good point about Wikipedia stub articles containing only 1-3 references. What should matter is 1) establishment of notability 2) with reliable sources. This editor has questions the Rind Khan article on both criteria, although some here see things otherwise. Blue Riband► 17:59, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think that the deletion of this article should even be a thing now because out of the seven users who have voted so far, only one user says that it should be deleted. And then it’s being stated that the article should have at least 2 reliable references, well, there are currently 5 references and one of them is from a book and another from a newspaper and those 2 are fairly reliable. And literally every sentence in the article is supported by a reference so I think this matter should come to an end already. And another user didn’t like the list of relatives saying that Wikipedia is not Ancestry.com, the list of relatives is also removed now. And the last thing I wanted to mention to prove that this deletion matter is totally un fair is that the article on Jalal Khan (the father of Rind Khan) literally had 2 sentence, one regarding the meaning of his name and other saying that he was the founder of Baloch Tribe before I added much more content in that article almost a month ago. That article was published from years without getting noticed and had no useful info at all but it was totally safe but this article gets nominated for deletion? Wow. Mowahid Mohsin (talk) 06:43, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply What generally happens is that an editor comes across an article, reads it, then asks "What exactly has this person done or accomplished?" This is probably why User:Amkgp made this AfD proposal. I still don't see what accomplishments Rind Khan made to deserve inclusion, but the decision won't be mine. Blue Riband► 17:35, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Blue Riband, you are currently the only one who voted for “delete”. And you ask what Rind Khan has accomplished? Well, I don’t know whether you have noticed or not but establishing a whole new tribe ain’t that easy and it should be enough to be remembered. And I must also add that this article didn’t even have had the chance to get more information added into it because it got nominated for deletion on the 1st or 2nd day after being created. The article has been cleaned up of all mistakes that were the reason of it being nominated for deletion so... it should be alright now shouldn’t it? References: added, Mistakes: removed, Unnecessary info: removed, Faulty references: removed, Why should he be remembered?: cuz he’s the founder of one of the main Baloch Tribes, What to do now: either remove the “nominated for deletion” tag nor merge it with Rind Tribe article. Simple. No need to waste anyone’s effort or time. Mowahid Mohsin (talk) 05:08, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I won’t remove it, don’t worry. By the way why is there even a need to argue that the article should be deleted? All mistakes have been corrected and only one out of 7 users suggests the article to be deleted. Isn’t this enough to close this case? I’m tired of fighting for the article that I created and I’m not willing to waste more time on this pointless argument. If this matter would not have been brought up in the first place I’m pretty sure that there would have been a lot more info in the article. The Makran area of the subcontinent was not very advanced in literature and other stuff 700 years ago so not much is known about Rind Khan. If who ever is in charge of this matter permits, I’d like to spend time researching about him for Wikipedia instead of wasting time trying to prevent the article from getting deleted. Wikipedia should be a website where information is provided to the knowledge-hungry people by other people who are kind enough to do that for free instead of being a place where text-wars are going on. Mowahid Mohsin (talk) 05:27, 2 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:POLITICIAN, Bearcat's arguments that we simply don't have enough sourced content to write an encyclopedic article about him are convincing. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:02, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Clyde M. Johnston

Clyde M. Johnston (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is not a notable person and so doesn't merit a Wikipedia article. Factfanatic1 (talk) 14:44, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Factfanatic1 (talk) 14:44, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:09, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having held office as the state treasurer of Wisconsin, doesn't this person fall within
    WP:POLITICIAN ("Politicians ... who have held ... state/province–wide office")? Cbl62 (talk) 15:58, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]

:This article would certainly fall under “major sub-national level” in this criteria.

talk 16:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

We have no requirement that our sources be online. We can use print-only sources like newspapers and books and magazines and microfilms, so finding sourcing from the 1990s is not like finding a pin from a bush at all — it's like finding a pin in a pincushion. I don't even have any real difficulty finding sourcing from the 1890s when I need to. Bearcat (talk) 22:02, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, our articles about politicians are supposed to go into properly sourced detail about their political impact in the role, not just to document the technical fact that they held it — they're supposed to be encyclopedia articles, not just directory listings. There are certain roles where it's a foregone conclusion that such an article can be written even if nobody's put in the work yet — so the reason we keep some poorly written articles about politicians isn't that they're exempted from having to have that kind of content, it's that sources are available to add that kind of content with and thus make their article better than it is. But temporary acting holders of political roles don't necessarily have the same improvability, which is why they don't get the same presumption of "inherent" notability as the official holders of the office. The rule isn't that we always have to have a standalone page about every holder of X political office just because they existed, even if it's completely impossible to say or source any content about their political significance — the notability test for all politicians, even in the "inherently" notable roles, always hinges on the ability to write and source some substantive content about their work in the role, and never just on the ability to write "this person existed, the end" in and of itself. No matter what role a politician did or didn't hold, his notability still hinges on the ability to write and source content. Bearcat (talk) 15:22, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:01, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep subject passes
    WP:NPOLITICIAN. The office of state treasurer of Wisconsin is notable Lightburst (talk) 17:16, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Redirect to
    we have notability to ensure an encyclopedia article can be written (obviously), and here everything worth saying can be said at State Treasurer of Wisconsin. Right now all his article really says is that he was acting Wisconsin State Treasurer from October 1, 1948 until January 3, 1949, was appointed from staff, and had been a Wisconsin state employee since 1916 and had worked in the state treasurer office since 1920. as well as his birth and death dates. The treasurer list tells us that he was acting treasurer from October 1, 1948 to January 3, 1949 and was appointed from staff. Realistically everything worth keeping is already in the article. Perhaps a sentence could be merged into the note with a bit more detail but he certainly doesn't merit his own article. If there was evidence he did anything particularly notable this would be a different story. Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 21:57, 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 redirect to

WP:ATD-R. North America1000 09:08, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Rhysently Granted

Rhysently Granted (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 couldn't establish that they meet

WP:GNG as a duo. Possibly worth a redirect to Rhys Darby. Boleyn (talk) 16:47, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:17, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:17, 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. Even the one "grudging keep" concedes that sources are lacking. Can be recreated if and when they are found. Sandstein 08:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Retzbach

Roman Retzbach (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)

declined at draft and moved by creator to main space, no in-depth coverage in independent sources, fails

WP:GNG Theroadislong (talk) 16:29, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 16:41, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 16:41, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Article's creator has blanked the page. Theroadislong (talk) 18:52, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Scant evidence that anybody has taken notice of his work. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:42, 25 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. No sign of
    WP:NAUTHOR is plausible, but we'd need reviews in reliable sources for that, and I didn't find any (there could be some in German that I'm missing, and I'll watch the discussion in case someone finds them). No other sign of impact. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:17, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Changed to draftify, see below. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:13, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: On German WP the article hasn’t been published, yet, but the answerers (including me) on the check for relevance rather don’t see him relevant according to German WP relevance criteria, see de:Wikipedia:Relevanzcheck#Roman_Retzbach. Mahlzahn (talk) 10:03, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ad the missing 3 non-fiction books. Please give me the time! So thanks!--YvesMe (talk) 11:25, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Container for advertising weblinks for a webshop. Delete. --Brotfried (talk) 11:50, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you verify it again please, Brotfried - the links are all ok! Thanks! YvesMe (talk) 15:40, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There*re now 5 non-fiction books listed, published in another publishing house. YvesMe (talk) 07:59, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Collapse inappropriate use of Third Opinion response template by party to the dispute. Will AGF that poster was seeking a 3O by doing this, but 3O's are not available in this manne; moreover, per the
Dispute Resolution Policy 3O's are not available at all for disputes arising out of deletion discussions. - TransporterMan (TALK) 22:01, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
  • I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roman Retzbach and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. YvesMe (talk) 08:48, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: YvesMe, your claim above about no prior involvement is not consistent with the history of both the article and this AfD page. AllyD (talk) 10:08, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Roman_Retzbach YvesMe (talk) 08:32, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The original draft instance of the article created by Future-Institute (now blocked) was declined and edited by other accounts [13]. The present instance appears to have been created from the eventual state of that draft, but has been created in mainspace without the original attribution history; if this article survives this AfD, that would be a licensing breach requiring a history merge? AllyD (talk) 10:44, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on
    WP:COPYVIO: Part of the present article and the instance at User:YvesMe/Roman_Retzbach are copied from this site where it is marked as being under copyright. AllyD (talk) 11:01, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Grudging keep (invited by the bot) Regarding provided references, fails WP:notability but IMO they are likely to exist and an article on him should probably exist based on the scale of his public work and what he has done. Lacking independent sources and the type of text content that would arise from them. The whole approach to creating this has been pretty bad. Overall, it looks promotional. And what the heck is search results doing in the article listed as sources? Search resultsd isn't "sources", it's a way to help the article editor to find sources amongst all of the non-sources that turn up in such a search. North8000 (talk) 11:36, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Proof of the 4 non-fiction books by public libraries

The books are published and can be found in various universities and libraries, e.g. Württembergische Landesbibliothek

https://wlb.ibs-bw.de/aDISWeb/app?service=direct/0/Home/$DirectLink&sp=SOPAC00&sp=SAKSWB-IdNr1610053966 https://wlb.ibs-bw.de/aDISWeb/app?service=direct/0/Home/$DirectLink&sp=SOPAC00&sp=SAKSWB-IdNr1627975527 https://wlb.ibs-bw.de/aDISWeb/app?service=direct/0/Home/$DirectLink&sp=SOPAC00&sp=SAKSWB-IdNr571624960 https://wlb.ibs-bw.de/aDISWeb/app?service=direct/0/Home/$DirectLink&sp=SOPAC00&sp=SAKSWB-IdNr1623742684 YvesMe (talk) 15:35, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Proposal

I'm a student in education and beginning biographer. I've also a German mentor, but unlucky no English mentor. Can we put please the article again to draft, after I understand it is not ready? I was working in a draft and wanted only to do a test. I put the article again to draft, but then it was put back. So why we can't agree I work again on the article and take time, and then I think it is ready, I inform you (all) before publishing again. I see and learned now how to work here and got my hard lection as tough training to accept your work and do it next time better.YvesMe (talk) 08:49, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify, with the provision that the article will go through Articles for Creation before moving to mainspace. Notability has not been demonstrated (and I remain skeptical), but it is plausible, and there is an editor who is willing to work on the article. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:13, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/draftify: I am concerned that this article appears to have been created at the behest of a World Future Society to place biographies of their principal members here, also at the extent of collusive involvement of the subject in the placing of this article (as evidenced in the text on the subject's website, giving permission to a specific editor here to use the copyright material, which is far from a CC-by-SA license) and in the use of processes here (RfC, Dispute Resolution) to attempt to defeat this ongoing AfD, also consuming yet more volunteer effort. The present article is effectively a CV with list of publications which does not in itself confer notability, a notability which I am not seeing demonstrated in
    clear disclosure declaration of the involvement of the editor who put this in mainspace and those in the World Future Society? AllyD (talk) 10:38, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Thanks! YvesMe (talk) 14:30, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Proposal

So put an index lock on the side so that the deletion problem is solved.YvesMe (talk) 14:37, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No independent sources at all. No evidence that the subject has ever done anything to make himself
    notable.   Maproom (talk) 17:17, 1 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 07:43, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Inventory of Church Property

Inventory of Church Property (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)

De-PROD'd by

WP:GNG
in addition to being a dicdef.

I double checked my

WP:BEFORE search prior to taking this to AfD, and I still can't find anything. The fact that it's a difficult search because it's a string of four words that can be used generically or as a capitalized proper noun only speaks against it frankly - it's not a unique process. I'd be happy to support a merge to something relevant, but I didn't find anything that seemed to be an appropriate target. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:53, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:53, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:53, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't think that it would be a good idea to delete the entry - at least through the Proposed Deletion process. Not only is it a Catholic Encyclopedia entry (so at the very least not an uncontroversial deletion, but as church property were for centuries the only significant corporate holdings in most of Western Europe, then the way in which they were accounted for in order to stop them becoming the plaything of the incumbent were rather important. It was this concern that helped bring in clerical celibacy, so it was not a mere trifle. JASpencer (talk) 19:53, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. There's not enough in this article to make it worth keeping. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:06, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. In my experience, Catholic Encyclopedia is a really bad source, despite its name and age. I have more than once found it to be seriously wrong. Not necessarily biassed, I haven't looked into that, and editorial judgment can deal with that - but demonstrably wrong on well-attested matters of historical fact. Narky Blert (talk) 22:28, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Could you elaborate why you think this is wrong? Is the encyclopedia still reliable by 1910's standards?
talk) 19:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep This is a pretty notable topic related to Catholicism. However, I do think that more sources are needed.
    talk) 19:42, 11 June 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) 03:33, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As the nom says, this article's focus is problematic. A how-to guide on taking a church inventory, or any inventory, is not encyclopedic. The need to take an inventory and to communicate the results is not encyclopedic, because wherever there's significant property, its owners will track it. If imposing an orderly inventory process on the medieval church in western Europe was connected to larger historical issues (the size of the church's holdings, shrinkage problems in the hinterland, any resistance or disobedience) then that material would belong in the articles about those larger issues. --Lockley (talk) 09:00, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The topic is notable and AFD is not cleanup. Stifle (talk) 16:11, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:23, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per
    WP:ARTN. The original nomination says that this article is a dicdef, which it's clearly not — there's some discussion of the history of the process from the Middle Ages. I think that I can answer PMC's above question to Scorpions13256: When you say that "more sources are needed", do you mean "more sources are needed to indicate notability", or "more sources are needed in the body of the article"? I agree that more sources are needed, which (for me) means that the current state of the article is not very well-written, and there is obvious room for expansion on the topic. But the historical content from The Catholic Enyclopedia demonstrates notability, and if the content is not entirely reliable, then it can be corrected through normal editing, rather than deletion of a notable subject. — Toughpigs (talk) 19:32, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Anyone concerned that the article gives too much of a specifically Catholic point of view can get an evangelical protestant view from this book, which relates this process to
    Phil Bridger (talk) 19:45, 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.

The result was delete. Tone 20:51, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Parisoma (company)

Parisoma (company) (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

WP:NCORP. scope_creepTalk 08:36, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:39, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:39, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 16:14, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The references are to events that happened to occur in this space but are not about the space or the company itself. No sources to suggest notability in the article or in searches. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:32, 2 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

(non-admin closure) buidhe 18:36, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

JanBus

JanBus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No secondary sources to prove notability. May have to be redirected if possible.

RedBulbBlueBlood9911Talk 06:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
RedBulbBlueBlood9911Talk 06:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
RedBulbBlueBlood9911Talk 06:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Redirect to Ashok Leyland. It does seem to exist but the current article as is is written like an advert. would recommend redirection to the builder of said bus. Nightfury 07:19, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 16:14, 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) 22:42, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Business builder

Business builder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced and promotional, topic appears to fail

WP:GNG. Article was created by a since blocked account who previously removed COI and PROD templates. HaeB (talk) 02:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. HaeB (talk) 02:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It is impossible to identify any clearly defined way in reliable sources in which this differs to the dictionary meaning (i.e., someone who builds businesses or business in general). The only use I could find in reliable sources is in this sense. As such it fails
    WP:GNG. FOARP (talk) 09:30, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 16:13, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Problematic content without reliable sources. We would better off without this material even if the COI concerns didn't pan out. — Charles Stewart (talk) 07:30, 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.

The result was soft delete. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:45, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

HV 2255

HV 2255 (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)

Not all stars are notable, even if it's the "one of the largest." Google scholar search returns only references in tables, etc. Sam-2727 (talk) 21:48, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Sam-2727 (talk) 21:48, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: only claim to notability is being a fairly large star. Probably, since values from other sources vary. Otherwise, no specific studies of this star, only database and large catalogue entries. Lithopsian (talk) 13:52, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 16:11, 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. Tone 20:51, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IBihar

IBihar (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

WP:NCORP. Part of a group of articles promoting the app. scope_creepTalk 15:50, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:20, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:20, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 16:27, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maya Lynne Robinson

</noinclude>

Maya Lynne Robinson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject of this BLP may be notable, but it was created by a user with a COI and an anonymous editor. It is very promotional. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contributions) 15:36, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:43, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:43, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:43, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:43, 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) 22:18, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of carbon ranches

List of carbon ranches (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)

At current this is a page with a list of non-notable carbon ranches, with a couple of paragraphs about "carbon ranching", a subtopic of

yellow-pages of ranches. Primefac (talk) 15:34, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Primefac (talk) 15:34, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No indiciation of
    talk) 17:04, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:49, 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 no consensus. The subject is a performing artist and as such a public figure; consequently,

WP:COI in mind with respect to any edits regarding this article. Sandstein 08:15, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Anthony Pateras

AfDs for this article:
Anthony Pateras (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 am the article's subject. I regard myself as a private, non-notable person and would like the article to be deleted from Wikipedia please. It is incomplete, poorly cited with insufficient information and I never wanted it online in the first place. I don't know who authored it. My work is very personal and I'd like to represent it properly and completely, i.e. on my own website, with context and examples. Thank you for considering. Sharing the world (talk) 07:20, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:32, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:32, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ "Performance of the Year". Australasian Performing Right Association (APRA) | Australian Music Centre (AMC). Archived from the original on 9 August 2011. Retrieved 16 January 2012.
  2. ^ "2012 Work of the Year – Instrumental". Australasian Performing Right Association (APRA) | Australian Music Centre (AMC). Archived from the original on 14 May 2012. Retrieved 28 May 2012.
  3. ^ "Performance of the Year". Australasian Performing Right Association (APRA) | Australasian Mechanical Copyright Owners Society (AMCOS) | Australian Music Centre (AMC). 2015. Retrieved 23 March 2016.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord (talk) 15:21, 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 redirect to

(non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 06:09, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Black American

Black American (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)

Already exists at

African American. Tells little about such a wide subject. No refs. This is a US related subject. I would support a redirect also, if consensus is willing. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contributions) 15:15, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:27, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:27, 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 soft delete. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Stifle (talk) 16:12, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

The Day I Ran Into All My Ex Boyfriends

The Day I Ran Into All My Ex Boyfriends (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 film with no independent, verifiable reviews. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:51, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:51, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:51, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:51, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 15:17, 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. Tone 20:51, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zameen Jatt Dee Jaan

Zameen Jatt Dee Jaan (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 film with no independent, verifiable reviews. Donaldd23 (talk) 01:04, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 01:04, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 01:04, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 15:17, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have
    talk) 00:02, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:44, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no assertion of notability; fails
    WP:NFILM Spiderone 19:39, 30 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) 15:10, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zineb Rachid

Zineb Rachid (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 influencer, french, english and arabic sources are basically non existent and what is there is certainly not in depth coverage, it isn't independent and mostly it's unreliable. See also deleted ar wiki article Praxidicae (talk) 14:16, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:41, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's verification for our non-Arabic speaking editors that on that project they too found the sources to be unsuitable. Praxidicae (talk) 19:33, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Besides the point, but for what it's worth, it's always reaffirmed to me when editing on WP in AR and making a comparison with WP in EN that the projects are independent of each other and comparison is inappropriate. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ إيان (talk) 20:30, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:35, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:35, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:35, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No reliable sources --Alaa :)..! 20:29, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As Arabic native speaker; I tried to search ("زينب رشيد") or ("زهرة الكرز "زينب رشيد) on google and I didn't find any sources or news about her, also 143k followers in Instagram and 13.1K subscribers on youtube is very low numbers if we compare with other famous people in Morocco --Ibrahim.ID ✪ 04:52, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:45, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Scout Laws by country

List of Scout Laws by country (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 list is almost entirely quotations. It seems like excessive detail for a general-interest encyclopedia, as the laws are very similar across countries. If we really want to keep these quotes, I think they should be moved to the articles on the specific organizations where they are more proportional to non-quoted material and more relevant to readers. -- Beland (talk) 16:14, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 16:14, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:48, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Two issues.
  1. Fails
    WP:LISTN
    . To argue notability we would need independent reliable sources that discuss the group or set of scout laws by country. But each of the current sources (reliability and independence aside!) only discuss a single country.
  2. Violates
    WP:NOTQUOTE
    . This is a collection of quotes. I don't know if there is a good way to discuss scout law as an article, but simply quoting promises/oaths/laws is unencyclopedic.
These two problems suggest deletion is appropriate. BenKuykendall (talk) 21:31, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding
WP:LISTN, it is discussed as a group here (https://www.troop260.org/index.php/2018/07/07/around-the-world-the-scout-law/ ) and to a lesser extant here (https://scoutsmarts.com/scouting-around-the-world/ ) Zoozaz1 (talk
)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 13:52, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Longstanding article about a notable global organization. It is not simply a collection of quotes. --evrik (talk) 18:48, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A very useful list article with a large amount of excellent content and work in it. Much more so than most list articles. On the one comment
    wp:GNG is pretty clear that there is no consensus to apply requirement of coverage of the specific criteria when it is a compound criteria as this, but IMO given the topic it's almost inevitable that sourcing exists to even fulfill that non-applicable criteria. North8000 (talk) 21:02, 30 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. While the votes were split relatively evenly, nearly all of the delete votes had no policy-based rationale. The thorough analysis of available sources by User:Alsee was convincing and was not refuted by anyone. ‑Scottywong| [yak] || 07:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Raseef22

Raseef22 (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 news site, used for xwiki spam and deleted on arwiki as well. No coverage in arabic or English sufficient to meet inclusion criteria. Praxidicae (talk) 13:36, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:09, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:09, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:09, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: Hello, these are the reasons I believe the subject of this article is notable:

  • Raseef22 was the subject of the following articles:
- this article in Al-Quds Al-Arabi
- this article in The Washington Post
- this article from Radio Monte Carlo
- this article from the independent Lebanese online newspaper al-Mudun (المدن)
- this article from Mada Masr
  • It has been mentioned in the following media sources:
- this article in The New York Times
- this article from Qantara.de
- this article from Deutsche Welle in Arabic
- this article from An-Nahar
- this article from Al-Shorouk
  • Raseef22 has been censored by Egypt and Saudi Arabia, as covered by some of the sources above, and Jamal Khashoggi was a regular contributor.
  • According to this statistic, it gets over 500,000 hits monthly, which means over 6 million hits annually.

I don't deny that the article needs work; I threw it together quickly. All are welcome to edit it as they see fit or suggest ways it can be improved. إيان (talk) 18:50, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. Most of the sources cited above are
    passing mentions
    , but I think several things sum up to a keep:
    1. The Alquds piece[14] easily qualifies as one piece of significant coverage.
    2. The Almodons piece[15] is more than passing mention, but I consider it marginal to fully count as a "significant coverage".
    3. I found a new source, which I added to the article. This Lorientlejour piece[16] I also consider the coverage-quantity to be marginal, but significantly they are reporting on Raseef22 winning a journalism award from a Paris LGBT-journalist association. I think that adds some additional weight.
    4. Courrierinternational provides a solid profile[17] of Raseef22, but it's a "source notes" page that they link when republishing stories from Raseef22 rather than an independent article. To be honest I'd generally be reluctant to give much weight to that kind of thing.
    5. The Washingtonpost published an opinion piece[18] by the publisher of Raseef22, because he's the publisher of Raseef22, with significant coverage of Raseef22. The fact that the content isn't independent undermines the weight, and the fact that it's an opinion piece undermines the weight, but I think the Washingtonpost's decision to dedicate a sizeable item to Raseef22 carries some weight.
    6. While searching for sources, I found many sources either quoting/citing Raseef22 or republishing entire articles. I consider this to carry limited weight in itself, but more significantly this along with the evidence above and my broader impression from everything I searched leads me to believe there is more coverage out there. The standard for Notability is whether sufficient sources exist, even if they have not yet been cited. I consider the cited evidence to be borderline (I would really like another solid piece of significant coverage), but I am persuaded that more exists that would make this a comfortable keep. Alsee (talk) 04:01, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Thanks إيان for starting the article. Definitely needs some work, but I found a another reference that could be useful:
- This report by the CPJ references reporting by Raseef22 journalists. --Majdal.cc (talk) 08:13, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: I would like to bring up the possible issues here.

At the same time, إسلام—another Admin from Arabic Wikipedia—nominated two more articles I started: Sidi Moumen Cultural Center and Muhammad Ahmad Khalafallah for deletion. This all comes in addition to a recent barrage of potentially retribution-driven deletions of my work on Arabic Wikipedia.
While it is incumbent upon me to Wikipedia:Assume good faith, the evidence seems to indicate Wikipedia:Disruptive editing and that I am being targeted, perhaps as revenge for challenging the Arabic Wikipedia admins or as an attempt to discredit my contribution history and characterize it as promotional. This is frustrating and demoralizing because I generally have great respect for these users for their tremendous contributions elsewhere. I invite those involved to please clarify any misunderstandings that may I have. إيان (talk) 14:27, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I actually do frequently edit Arabic projects, including arwiki. Take a look at my central auth. I am also a global sysop and monitor spam lists and filters on IRC. I also patrol new pages and review them or nominate them for deletion. Your accusations of hounding are ridiculous. When I find a highly problematic article from a newish user, I look at their recent creations since people tend to make the same mistakes in assuming notability. There is no hounding, there is certainly no harassment that I know of, but you'll need to provide a diff for that if you still believe this to be the case, otherwise please strike that comment. Praxidicae (talk) 14:31, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And actually, I have a significant amount of edits on ar wiki, which you can see here, not including the many deleted edits I have due to my anti-spam work. Praxidicae (talk) 14:33, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Praxidicae, thank you for the clarification. I apologize for my misunderstanding; I hope you can understand why I felt that it was possible that I was being targeted. I am striking out the portion that mentions you, but could you please explain what "diff" means? إيان (talk) 15:56, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello إيان (Ian), I am sorry to read this

WP:CAN accusation. It's normal that ar-N users comments on Arabic topics RfD. I don't know what you mean by "not active contributors", if you can please explain the activity measure that you use? About above users comments, I see this comments are normal thing, as 3 of them comments on "your" undeletion request on arwiki
, so of course they see that you translated the arwiki content to enwiki. About COI point, I don't see it correct, for example it's my first time to see Raseef22 article that you mentioned. About Praxidicae point, I'd say that Praxidicae is one of the most active non-ar-N users on arwiki, and you can see that Praxidicae have abusefilter and editor flag on arwiki! About other RfDs made in your articles, Wikipedia versions are complementary to each others, so if I found non-notable article on arwiki with dewiki version, of course I'll nominate it for deletion on dewiki also (of course per there policies of notability).

Finally, please remember that

WP:CAN, as I noticed that (Majdal.cc) made only 33 edits on enwiki, comments on Sarah RfD on arwiki, important element on Raseef22 article you mentioned above (can consider as COI)? or conspiracy theory applied here on "delete" votes only? --Alaa :)..! 15:41, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Hey
WP:COI but I felt it was a possibility (I hope you understand how) and I wanted to get some clarification. إيان (talk) 15:56, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Hey علاء (Alaa), thanks for your patience.
About COI point, I don't see it correct, for example it's my first time to see Raseef22 article that you mentioned.
I find this surprising. I know you're no longer on Facebook, but the article was posted multiple times to the arwiki Facebook group and it generated quite a bit of discussion. Other commenters have definitely seen it.
as 3 of them comments on "your" undeletion request on arwiki
I just double checked, and it looks like—of the 4 arwiki admins in this discussion—only فيصل and باسم participated in that discussion in Arabic.
Why you only mentioned "Delete" comments as
WP:CAN
Because all the arwiki admins in this discussion happen to have voted for its deletion.
I noticed that (Majdal.cc) made only 33 edits on enwiki, comments on Sarah RfD on arwiki,
This discussion was the first time I saw this user. As far as I know, this user is not an Admin on arwiki, but if this user has some other conflict of interest then this user should be held to the same standard. إيان (talk) 20:56, 27 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) 15:12, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dion Hamill

Dion Hamill (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

WP:NBIO. No references provided, no SIGCOV on google, his own website is down. Rogermx (talk) 13:14, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 13:14, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 13:14, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 13:14, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 13:14, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 13:14, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 13:14, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence he passes NARTIST. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:48, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete that an article sourced only to the subject's own website has survived more than 10 years is very disconcerting. We need much better procedings against such total lack of reliable sourcing, especially for articles on living people. Wikipedia has clearly grown to fast for us to present such major abuses of the system.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:11, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: it violates all basic guidelines. Ugbede (talk) 7:39, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete, not close to being notable. Pikavoom (talk) 07:33, 30 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 procedural close. Wrong forum, something didn't work as intended.

(non-admin closure) 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 14:49, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

L2 norm

L2 norm (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)

Could also refer to the norm used on the space of square-integrable functions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:40, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:48, 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 merge to

(non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 04:55, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Newport Beach Fire Department

Newport Beach Fire Department (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)

A run of the mill local fire department with no outside sourcing or claim to notability. User:Namiba 12:09, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 12:09, 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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

University of California, Davis Fire Department

University of California, Davis Fire Department (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)

A run of the mill university fire department with no claim to notability other than existing and no independent sourcing. User:Namiba 12:08, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 12:08, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 12:08, 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) 15:16, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

International Journal of Engineering Research and Applications

International Journal of Engineering Research and Applications (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 predatory journal, indexed nowhere, lying about being in the DOAJ (and probably many other things), fails

b} 11:35, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:43, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:43, 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. Fenix down (talk) 19:56, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Yousif

Ali Yousif (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)

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. No national team caps or appearances in fully-pro leagues. BlameRuiner (talk) 10:51, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:59, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:59, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:59, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:03, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep he has already played for four clubs in the (fully professional)
    Iraqi Premier League, including two of Iraq's biggest clubs, as well as winning two continental cups, 2017 AFC Cup & 2018 AFC Cup, a domestic title 2019 Iraqi Super Cup and playing in the AFC Champions League. In addition to this, he is an international, having been called up to the Iraq U-23s. He passes all GNG and NFOOTY requirements, but all sources are in Arabic as this player has only ever played in his native country.User:MisterWiki2K 03:00, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:07, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. No evidence whatsoever that Iraqi League is fully-pro, see
    WP:FPL. GiantSnowman 13:11, 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.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon Dorey

Shannon Dorey (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 can't find any evidence for notability. Her books appear to be self-published as well as fringe. Doug Weller talk 10:28, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:59, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:59, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- completely fail any test of notability. Anybody can self-publish, it doesn't mean anything. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:45, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Might be barely notable within the fringe community, but I am not seeing anything outside it (and not really anything inside it), in a quick search anyway.Slatersteven (talk) 12:47, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails
    WP:NAUTHOR, I could find no reviews of her books (a search on my university's site got 11 hits, none about her), her books are held in 3, 1, 1, 1, and 1 libraries as per WorldCat (showing they aren't widely known by any measure]. Google search results are almost exclusively for her books and she's mentioned in this book, but a few quotations in one book don't establish notability. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:52, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete. This is a
    WP:COPYVIO of the About section of her various personal websites: e.g. [20]. jps (talk) 13:58, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete Reasons - less notable than me. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 14:19, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article is based mostly on primary sources. None of the information is verified by third-party sources. No indication of impact in relevant fields of study. Dimadick (talk) 16:32, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:51, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question I redirected the actual article at Portal:Traditional African religions/Selected article/30 to Dogon people because the editor who created this and other articles relied so heavily on Dorey, including The Master of Speech: Dogon Mythology Reveals Genetic Engineering of Humans and also other dubious sources. I may try to fix it some day but in any case the place to start is probably Dogon people, which still has pov problems which I hope to fix first. Is there anything that can be done about the portal copy? Doug Weller talk 09:17, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not seeing any substantive coverage in reliable independent sources. Guy (help!) 12:05, 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 redirect to Danny Bhoy. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Subject to Change (film)

Subject to Change (film) (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 DVD from a minor comedian, with no reliable 3rd party reviews. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:37, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:37, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:37, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have
    talk) 00:03, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:13, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to
    WP:NFILM with no claim to notability, no reviews found. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:41, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Redirect to Danny Bhoy. No evidence of notability in article or in searches. The recently-added claim that the Comedy Central production is "not endorsed" by the performer is exceedingly odd but has no bearing. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:57, 2 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Johnston (consultant)

Daniel Johnston (consultant) (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

WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 20:44, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:12, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:12, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:25, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:49, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:04, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:20, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since this hinges on NPROF more than GNG, one more relist for arguments re: "recognized contribution" in his field.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:09, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not seeing this as an NPROF pass - being on the board of a journal isn't the same as being the chief editor, and he doesn't have a post at an academic institution. I can't find any reviews of his writing that might get him over the line as a
    notable author, and I can't find any independent sources about him that would satisfy GNG. As a certain AfD regular might say: Non-notable consultant. GirthSummit (blether) 09:11, 2 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) 19:56, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020–21 CSM Bucovina Rădăuți season

2020–21 CSM Bucovina Rădăuți season (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 nominated for proposed deletion, but it was objected to. The article clearly fails

talk) 09:56, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 09:56, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 09:56, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:20, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:07, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, non-notable. GiantSnowman 13:10, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete Is a sport team and I started the work.The season has started.Don't delete my article?Do you think thet I can see the future and I can talk about team future events? Is the current season.I want to help Wikipedia with articles about little tems and now you want to delete it.You are saying thet sources aren't notable. The club official site isn't notable?I don't understand you.I just wrote another source: the newspaper Monitorul de Suceava. My uncle is working at the team and I know all details and if the facebook posts are correctly.I need more time .If you delete over six days my article I can't improve if. All informations are correctly. Look at this:https://www.facebook.com/pages/category/Professional-Sports-Team/CSM-Bucovina-R%C4%83d%C4%83u%C8%9Bi-2249774368610572/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Velniceri Geo (talk • contribs) 15:59, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - By mentioning that your uncle work there, you just inflicted a
    WP:GNG. HawkAussie (talk) 00:44, 29 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pyramid (1984 card game)

Pyramid (1984 card 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)

No sources found apart from the short "capsule review" already in the article. Game seems to have been totally forgotten5 Ghits?, and company has no article so no good redirect target either.

Fram (talk) 09:24, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
Fram (talk) 09:24, 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.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:02, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Hawke

Jason Hawke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

the subject is not notable or at least this is what his bio and sourcing suggest. The sources are one interview, one photo book (as a primary source for the fact that he appears in that book) and a few lists of gay porn awards winners. So, there isn't anything that proves notability. I did some researches and I didn't find anything that can be used to establish notability either. AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 09:19, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:27, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:27, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 14:57, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:54, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Santana

Jesse Santana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

the sources in this article are unreliable and in no way they point toward notability. I did a research myself and I couldn't find anything that sustains notability of the subject. AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 09:11, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:19, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:19, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 14:59, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 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 merge to

Books in the Cthulhu Mythos#Pnakotic Manuscripts. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:53, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Pnakotic Manuscripts

Pnakotic Manuscripts (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 can't find any discussion of this fictional book that goes beyond plot or a passing mention about it being the first of several fictional books Lovecraft used in his mythos. If all the plot is removed, this would be ~2 sentence long stub. It fails

Books in the Cthulhu Mythos is an option but there is precious little non-plot content to rescue here... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:57, 24 June 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 08:57, 24 June 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 08:57, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Also "If all the plot is removed", which would not be the right thing to do for a Wikipedia article about a fictional subject, 2 paragraphs would remain, not ~2 sentences. Let's not be so pessimistic. Daranios (talk) 11:02, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
P.S.: Some plot-related information is also worth rescuing in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. Daranios (talk) 14:34, 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 Administrative close. No action taken. See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 June 19#2020 Formula One pre-season testing for my reasoning. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:24, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Formula One pre-season testing 

AfDs for this article:
2020 Formula One pre-season testing  (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 is not notable. Consensus among Formula 1 fans is that testing is not accurate because every team runs an individual program. Nothing can be interpreted from the data because teams do not disclose information about their running. The COVID-19 pandemic has invalidated most of the data anyway, since several teams have announced plans for upgrades to their cars. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 08:30, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete see my source analysis on the first AfD, most of the sources on there are crap. There's one good source and a couple of passable sources (in that AfD I used decent to mean passable, but being clearer now so people can't misconstrue me). This testing article adds no value to Wikipedia, the times are completely meaningless, and almost every frequent editor of F1 articles who voted in the last AfD voted delete. Very glad this is up for deletion again, because I'm honestly baffled it survived last time. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:43, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:49, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Pre-season testing may recieve wide press atention while it is ongoing but this is simply because of the hype that comes with seeing the new cars/drivers being driven/driving for the first. But pre-season testing has no long-term notability (mostly because it doesn't tell you anything).
    WP:NOTNEWS apply here.
    SSSB (talk) 10:53, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete: per Joseph2302 and SSSB. MWright96 (talk) 11:26, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep The nomination is vexatious as we recently had a
    withdraw. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:29, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • The previous AfD was closed as no consensus six days ago and is still open at DRV. SportingFlyer T·C 18:47, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as it clearly doesn't maintain notability past the first race. Performance in testing can be covered on the individual vehicle pages if notable (e.g. mentioning the W10 design controversy on the RP20 page).
    5225C (talk • contributions) 23:50, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article is written good, but it doesn't pass notability criteria, yes the subject has a lot of media coverage, but it is clearly that not all the things covered in media should be covered in encyclopedia. Results of the testing haven't any competition part in it. Corvus tristis (talk) 15:32, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why do we have an article so soon after the previous one as it's been a week since the vote ended and to say and to do a vote so soon seems to me of urgencty to get rid of it. HawkAussie (talk) 02:52, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since we're letting this actually run in spite of the incredibly fast renomination for some reason, I think it's correct to ping all previous participants:
    Styyx (talk · contribs), Swordman97 (talk · contribs). It appears Corvus tristis (talk · contribs), MWright96 (talk · contribs), Joseph2302 (talk · contribs), and SSSB (talk · contribs) have already voted in this discussion, but I am including them in this list for the sake of transparency. Also note I have no interest in the outcome apart from my disappointment this was renominated while the previous discussion is still at DRV. SportingFlyer T·C 03:41, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Well more opinions suggest it should have been relisted and not closed. And that deletion review has reached a clear (stupid) consensus, so close it. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:41, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you feel that because the consensus is "stupid", that makes it OK to keep relisting til the article is deleted?—S Marshall T/C 14:42, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I still have the same opinion, it's well written and contains useful information. Although I don't know why this was relisted since the last discussion was in favor of keeping it.
    Styyx (talk) 16:29, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Why do you think you've been mis-represented at DRV? SportingFlyer T·C 23:32, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Keep My !vote rationale has not changed from the first AfD which only concluded 9 days ago. Additionally an editor has asked for a
    WP:RUSHDELETE. Lightburst (talk) 19:16, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Stop per
    WP:NOTDEM. Wikipedia is not a democracy but it built on consensus. There was no consensus. Accept is and direct your energies into more productive ways.Rpo.castro (talk) 20:46, 27 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:52, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The SoundEx

The SoundEx (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)

Not notable. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 08:26, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

British band. Another example of an absolutely non-notable band. The article contains a YouTube page, their official site and an archived site which shows a blank screen to me. YouTube is not a good source, their official site is not independent and that last one... no comment. I looked them up and I found absolutely nothing about this band, even with quotation marks. Just because they released two albums they are not notable, because there are no good sources. This is another case of "a non-notable band manages to stay on Wikipedia for WAY too long" disease, which needs to be stopped. Unfortunately since WP contains a lot of articles on bands, it is really difficult to eradicate every non-notable group. How these articles manage to stay here in a state like this is beyond me. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 08:22, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 08:26, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 08:26, 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) 15:23, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Asmeret Yosef

Asmeret Yosef (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)

A sad story, but the subject fails general notability. Cited sources only mention her case in passing. Article asserts "extensive news coverage about her fight against deportation", but fails to document such coverage. — JFG talk 07:01, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Article refers only some newspapers as sources. No other information is present about her.
    talk) 09:53, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 14:33, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 14:33, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 14:33, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete back in 2006 we would accept articles on almost anything. Today we have actual notability standards and this article clearly does not meet them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:08, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A quick search reveals that few - if any - sources from after the incident occurred, exist. No evidence of
    WP:BLP1E. --PuzzledvegetableIs it teatime already? 20:43, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:52, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eko.Lsa

Eko.Lsa (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)

Not seeing anything that satisfies

WP:MUSICBIO. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:09, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:09, 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 delete. czar 04:03, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

4KUniverse

4KUniverse (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)

Sources used are really weak and a lot of them even seem promotional, and article itself isn't written with a

WP:NPOV. JTtheOG (talk) 03:07, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:09, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:09, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 03:30, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 05:49, 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. Unanimous consensus that the company does not deserve its own article, and no suitable merge target has been identified. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:40, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Little Britain Productions

Little Britain Productions (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)

A non notable holding company only known for producing a limited number of programmes.

WP:BEFORE shows no evidence of notability. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:04, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:04, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:04, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:04, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:04, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:04, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep as per sources 1, 2, 3 and 4. This article has only been nominated due to Little Britain being pulled from BBC Iplayer and Netflix. –Davey2010Talk 17:27, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • These are all passing mentions, they do not indicate notability. It’s been on my list for some time actually, and has been tagged as a potential notability concern since August 2012. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 21:26, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Most production companies don't have great sourcing however notability is most certainly there, Certainly meets BASIC. –Davey2010Talk 01:24, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete - Admittedly the sources provided weren't great, Merging is rather pointless too, Having done a deeper search I wasn't able to find anything source-wise, Fails GNG. –Davey2010Talk 20:01, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:00, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I have added a few refs but to be honest not enough for own page. Best merging to Little Britain.User:Davidstewartharvey
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:10, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. Article is not properly written. No proper sources and citations.
    talk) 10:00, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Merge with Come Fly with Me. Despite the name of the company, they did not produce Little Britain, so it would be inappropriate to merge them into that article. Come Fly with Me, which was very popular (7-12 million viewers) and seems to have been their main project, could have a paragraph or sentence mentioning the production company. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 11:10, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability is
    HighKing++ 19:49, 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.

(non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 06:12, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Trey Ball

Trey Ball (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

WP:NBASEBALL Joeykai (talk) 03:47, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Joeykai (talk) 03:47, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:51, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:51, 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.

(non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 06:16, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Sólo para maridos

Sólo para maridos (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 film with no independent, verifiable reviews. Donaldd23 (talk) 12:04, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 12:04, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 12:04, 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 03:42, 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 redirect to

WP:RFD if the redirect is believed to be inappropriate. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:39, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Steppenwolf: The X-Creatures Project

AfDs for this article:
Steppenwolf: The X-Creatures Project (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)

Does not meet

WP:GNG. And has no Refs. Signed,The4lines |||| (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 03:12, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Signed,The4lines |||| (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 03:12, 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 Draftify.

(non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:01, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

2021 Richmond Football Club season

2021 Richmond Football Club season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a case of

WP:TOOSOON. HawkAussie (talk) 02:53, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 02:53, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 02:53, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:19, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mari Kooi

Mari Kooi (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:ANYBIO. bender235 (talk) 02:49, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:53, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:20, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:20, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:10, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:51, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bunker Hill, Amador County, California

Bunker Hill, Amador County, California (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 have no idea why Durham locates this spot with reference to Plymouth, because it is barely outside Amador City; indeed, I get a couple of hits that suggest it might now be considered, under this name, as a neighborhood of the town. But searching gives numerous hits which indicate that it was a gold mine, originally called the Rancheria Mine, then at its next reactivation, the South Mayflower Mine, before adopting the Bunker Hill moniker in its last spate of activity up into the early 1920s. There are a number of pictures available too. I have no idea what our standards are for notability of mines, but as a "community" it doesn't pass muster. Mangoe (talk) 02:06, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:12, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:12, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - clearly documented as a mine. No evidence that it was ever considered a community. Glendoremus (talk) 16:20, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not show evidence of passing
    WP:GEOLAND. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:20, 2 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. Rewriting the article can occur outside of the AfD process if that is what is eventually done; but there's a significant consensus that article should be kept in one form or another.

(non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:38, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

George E. Stephens

George E. Stephens (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 seem to meet

WP:NAUTHOR though. Looks like a great guy, but I don't think he's notable. Hog Farm (talk) 02:04, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 02:04, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 02:04, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 02:04, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 02:04, 16 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) 02:06, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's some details of Now or Never! which is a "riveting dual biography". Notice that the other subject is James Henry Gooding – for which we have another article. That person had the rank of Corporal but that doesn't matter because, again, their notability arises from their writing, not their fighting. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:26, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: Now or Never! appears to draw most of its content on Stephens from Yacovone's biography on him, so I don't know if it contstitutes a second source per se. These reviews ([24][25] may also be useful in determining his notability, but they have the same problem. I only briefly skimmed Yacovone's biography of Stephens in Voice of Thunder, but between it and (potentially) the other sources, I think we have enough to support an article on Stephens. (I found some trivial mentions which could also be used in this book, from over a century before Voice of Thunder, but I don't think it's substantial enough to count as a separate source.) Moreover, I think he is of enough historical interest to merit an article, even if only a small one (Now or Never! and the book reviews probably establish that, even if they don't count as independent per se). 3 kids in a trenchcoat (talk) 23:12, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is on the borderline of passing NAUTHOR, and we know we have plenty of
    bias against African-Americans, particularly in finding sources. That's good enough to bump it across the line in my book.Jacona (talk) 21:04, 27 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. Withdrawing my nomination. I missed the talk page discussion which demonstrates notability.

(non-admin closure) Sam-2727 (talk) 22:17, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Bartol Research Institute

Bartol Research Institute (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)

Proded, deproded, now sending to AfD. Sam-2727 (talk) 22:12, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Sam-2727 (talk) 22:12, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Sam-2727 (talk) 22:12, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sam-2727 (talk) 22:12, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 23:05, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The issue of notability was raised because the first version of the article did not provide sufficient evidence of notability. Meanhwile the article has improved, and additional evidence for notability is collected on Talk:Bartol_Research_Institute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrankSchroeder (talk • contribs) 09:45, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Looks like recent improvements show this to be notable. The article is still both vague about its work and promotional in tone. --Lockley (talk) 22:48, 18 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) 01:53, 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.

(non-admin closure) Jack Frost (talk) 02:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Ali Aliyev (boxer)

Ali Aliyev (boxer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject does not pass

WP:NBOX User:SabreOnYouTube

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:56, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:56, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:56, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I don’t speak Russian so I can’t comment on GNG, but he definitely satisfies NBOX, "...or have represented their AIBA affiliated country in a continental (or higher) tournament." Russia is AIBA affiliated, so a gold medal at the European Championships satisfies that part. It’s missing from his article, but he also represented Russia at the 2006 Boxing World Cup, reaching the final with the Russian team, earning a silver medal. I’ll add that in now. – 2.O.Boxing 10:13, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep; the article might passes subject-specific notability guidelines
    WP:SNG. -Hatchens (talk) 04:43, 21 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) 01:48, 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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robinson Lifestyle Center

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of any notability. Not even sure what it represents, but it appears to be a marketing concept within a large development company. The two sources are dead-links and searches reveals several actual shopping malls, some of which have their own Wikipedia pages, but nothing relating to the "concept". This may be just a marketing concept with no real existence. Fails

WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   08:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions.  Velella  Velella Talk   08:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions.  Velella  Velella Talk   08:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Recent news from March 2020 [26] reported that the 24th location of such mall was soon to be opened, proving that the concept exists. There was high profile shooting incident happened at one of the establishment [27] The news just mentioned it as "Robinson shopping mall" --Lerdsuwa (talk) 11:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Apologies to Velella for not responding earlier on my talk page, but I still don't quite follow your understanding of the subject. You mentioned that "searches suggest that this is just a marketing concept under which the malls are aggregated, but which has no physical existence in the real world," but then also recognise that there are "several actual shopping malls" but dismiss them as "nothing relating to the 'concept'". Why are you seeing them as separate, unrelated things? The subject is the brand of shopping malls, based on a certain marketing concept as mentioned in the article. Perhaps the previous wording in the article wasn't clear; I've tried rewriting it a bit. Is this better? --Paul_012 (talk) 16:22, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I was less than clear. This seems to be an organization (Company ?) which builds shopping malls. Many of these shopping malls are notable and have Wikipedia article, but the company building them, if that is what this is, does not appear to have any notability. No reliable and independent sources discuss it that I could find. This isn't unusual. There are many big corporations that maintain a very low profile public face, being happy to be known by the things they build or produce. For Wikipedia, this means that the overarching company may not be notable, even though its malls are.
notability is not inherited . Regards  Velella  Velella Talk   16:47, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
The company, Robinson Co., Ltd., does not just build malls, but also runs and operates them. This article is about the branded chain of malls, not the company, which already has coverage under the article for its other brand, Robinson Department Store. It's not low-profile either. Both the company and the brand have lots of exposure in the business news pages.[28][29][30][31][32][33] I can see a case for merging the coverage under a single article, but that can be discussed on the talk page, and I don't quite see how the subject can be seen as failing to meet the GNG. --Paul_012 (talk) 21:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All of those appear to be about
Robinson Lifestyle Center, but which I still believe is a marketing concept - i.e just another sort of department store as per one of the refs which quotes "270 million baht was spent on Robinson Lifestyle's makeover in Trang". If followed to its logical conclusion per this we ought to have articles for all of Robinson's different type of shops. None of the refs defines what they consider a "Lifestyle" centre to be - perhaps a downmarket (upmarket?) department store. A request once to an estate agent in New Zealand about what a "Lifestyle property" was produced the answer - "It isn't a property that you would want to live in in the winter" - is this what Lifestyle means here? - modern living ephemera for the moment only? Even so, it doesn't appear to be notable.  Velella  Velella Talk   16:26, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Robinson Department Store is department store. Robinson Lifestyle Center is shopping mall, i.e. Robinson Department Store plus many other shops. You can find lots of video clip such as this [34] in Youtube to see how it looks inside. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 16:50, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that clarification - is there a ref to support that ?  Velella  Velella Talk   16:56, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of reference in business news such as [35] They are in Thai. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 17:11, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, see the company's corporate description, quoted as follows.[36] --Paul_012 (talk) 21:55, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robinson Public Company Limited and its subsidiaries operated the department store business under the brand “Robinson” and the shopping mall under the brand “Robinson Lifestyle” across the country. Currently, the Company has 50 stores, comprising of 12 stores in Bangkok Metropolitan Area and 38 stores in the upcountry. In addition, the Company also has 2 stores in Vietnam.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:28, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and optionally merge without prejudice, per my above comments. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:03, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There seems to be some confusion on the nominator's part on what the article is really about. Lerdsuwa and Paul 012 have helped to provide both clarity and references. — Toughpigs (talk) 06:43, 1 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

(non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 01:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

TEDxCanmore

TEDxCanmore (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)

Local TEDx conference that isn't notable by itself. All references bar one are primary sources. Fails

WP:GNG. Ealuscerwen (talk) 01:12, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ealuscerwen (talk) 01:12, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Ealuscerwen (talk) 01:12, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Ealuscerwen (talk) 01:12, 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 no consensus (

WP:NPASR) King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:35, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Shahram Qadir

Shahram Qadir (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, could find a reliable source about him, I tried searching Farsi and English but no solid results Mardetanha (talk) 15:04, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:15, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:15, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I couldn’t find any sources not already in the article. Could Mardetanha describe what’s wrong with them? Mccapra (talk) 04:54, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mccapra These mentioned sources doesn't meet minimum requiertment for GNG, as Far as I see he is a person with camera, no prizes, no importance, nothing, just google his name, facebook page and nothing, you have to dig very hard to find mentioned sources, to honest IMHO it should be speedy deleted Mardetanha (talk) 06:58, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well maybe. Perhaps my judgement has been impaired by looking at so many totally junk articles about absolute nonentities. The sources here may not be sufficient for a bio article but they are not junk, they’re sustained over time and many of them are independent. There’s a couple I can’t open and several are interviews, but it looks kind of borderline to me. Mccapra (talk) 08:10, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did thorough research before AFd, If it was borderline I would not have nominated it, it is funny I could find single source about him in Farsi which is not only spoken in Iran, there are a vast majority of sources covering Iranian artist, he was not mentioned in anyone them, none of his short films are notable, none of them received anything, not even a prize in high school from principle. Mardetanha (talk) 17:34, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 14:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No I don’t find anything in Farsi online either. Nevertheless there are sources in other languages that look to like they allow the article to pass GNG. Mccapra (talk) 22:11, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I still think it is borderline, but I’m taking this as a GNG pass. Mccapra (talk) 04:38, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:09, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I double-checked the sources and I have to concur with Mardetanha here.   ARASH PT  talk  16:34, 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.

(non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:35, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Sozo Water Park

Sozo Water Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability. It has one claim to fame in that it had a giant water wheel that failed two months after installation killing three children and injuring six see here but even that is no a sufficient claim to fame for the park and strangely not mentioned in the article. Searches reveal page after page of social media, hotel booking sites, trip advisor etc but nothing to indicate notability. Fails

WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   15:08, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions.  Velella  Velella Talk   15:08, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:26, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Amusement parks-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 19:37, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I recommend marking it as a stub; the article can be expanded and improved. Google News and Google Books searches for Sozo Water Park show some good results to indicate notability. Idell (talk) 08:15, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Idell - can you please add these refs to the article so that all editors can evaluate their worth please.  Velella  Velella Talk   08:22, 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 00:53, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is surely news coverage of these events, in addition to the two sources I just cited, and they're two different issues, so it's not a 1-event problem. And then there's
WP:ITSACASTLE, which says that public attractions like a theme park, a beach, a monument or an art gallery generally get wide coverage in guidebooks and other sources, and for the most part, articles about public attractions get kept. — Toughpigs (talk) 19:47, 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. czar 04:01, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Hoad

AfDs for this article:
Jeremy Hoad (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)

Not sufficiently notable. There are various vague online references to him being involved in local politics around the Levenshulme area, but not much more than that. He apparently co-authored https://tardis.fandom.com/wiki/The_Blue_Angel_(novel) but I would question whether co-authorship of a single book meets the criteria for noteworthiness. His Twitter account is followed by only a very few, with no blue tick https://twitter.com/jeremyhoad?lang=en I really can't find anything notable about him. Parrot of Doom 21:15, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:26, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:26, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:27, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete being the co-author of one novel is not enough to make someone notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:49, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Being a novel's co-author isn't enough to make someone notable. Pahiy (talk) 01:34, 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 speedy keep. Nom withdrawn

(non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:24, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Pure (2005 film)

Pure (2005 film) (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 film with one questionable capsule review. PROD was removed because "CAST was added", but adding cast doesn't establish notability. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:43, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn, as improvements to article have established notability. Donaldd23 (talk) 19:26, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:43, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:43, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Nfitz (talk) 22:07, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:45, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per the expansion work done post-nomination. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:13, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. TheImaCow (talk) 20:44, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per
    WP:HEY as the article has been improved since nomination with the addition of a number of references that show significant coverage in multiple reliable sources as well as winning a notable award so deletion is no longer necessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:18, 29 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. Numerous issues with establishing the notability of this individual were not adequately refuted. ‑Scottywong| [spout] || 07:15, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Cofnas

AfDs for this article:
Nathan_Cofnas (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 falls well below WP's threshold of

single event (controversy over Philosophical Psychology article); the other ostensibly notable event (debate with MacDonald) is not discussed in any secondary source other than the website undark.org; subject's book being reviewed once does not render him "known for" it; article appears to be largely promotional (formerly listed personal website / twitter account / degree not yet conferred). Generalrelative (talk) 00:37, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:51, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Generalrelative (talk) 00:55, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 16:16, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 16:16, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Sesquivalent's suggestion below, I am offering my closing comments here.
In reply to Mr Butterbur's points:
1) In the instances Mr Butterbur cites, Quillette is acting as a primary source by reporting on its own activities. To be considered
WP:GUNREL
itself is crystal clear. Quillette cannot be used to establish notability.
2) The Cofnas/MacDonald debate was not covered by the Genetic Literacy Project. Parts of it were published there. As mentioned in my reply below to
WP:BASIC). Whether GLP itself is reliable is a separate question. But as mentioned on that article's Talk page regarding this AfD by @Crossroads
: "merely publishing two pieces by Nathan Cofnas and a rebuttal does not constitute significant coverage of Nathan Cofnas".
3) While I have no grounds to suspect Tablet of being unreliable, it does seem pretty obscure (same goes for Undark.org by the way). But more to the point, the interview Mr Butterbur cites only mentions Cofnas in passing. This does not seem to me to qualify as "significant coverage" per
WP:NOTNEWS
.
In reply to IP 2604…: No, Pinker criticizing Dutton's argument does not equate to supporting Cofnas's paper. Undark.org, the source for that statement, doesn't even suggest that Pinker has read Cofnas's paper.
So, in sum: Subject clearly fails
WP:BLP1E
), and is therefore not notable.
Finally, as a procedural point per
WP:DISCUSSAFD, I'll just note that of all the Keep votes, only two are from editors with any track record prior to this AfD (the article's creator, Ali Pirhayati, and to a far lesser extent Mr Butterbur). Lmtrilling was created the day they began contributing to this discussion, and both GCicero187's and IP 2604…'s contributions to this AfD are their only edits to date. Generalrelative (talk) 20:43, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Reply: Yes but with regard to one event. See
WP:BLP1E. Generalrelative (talk) 14:46, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
It may also be worth noting that none of these sources describe Cofnas in any more detail than that he is a "Ph.D. candidate in philosophy at the University of Oxford" or something precisely equivalent. They all focus squarely on the controversy at hand and its immediate effects. And neither the controversy nor its effects (i.e. someone who is himself non-notable resigning from an editorial board) have the kind of significance that would satisfy an exception to
WP:BLP1E. Generalrelative (talk) 21:03, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
I actually think there's a better argument to be made for
talk) 23:31, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Definitely. The list of people with better arguments for
WP:PROF is vast. Generalrelative (talk) 00:08, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Reply: This is incorrect. The debate over Jewish conspiracy theories has not been discussed in any [edit: multiple] reliable sources. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources for consensus that Quillette "is generally unreliable for facts. Opinions from Quillette are likely to constitute undue weight." Undark.org is, as far as I can tell, too obscure to have ever warranted consideration. Generalrelative (talk) 19:28, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Further, I see nothing to indicate that either of these controversies is receiving "ongoing" coverage (outside of this AfD of course). Generalrelative (talk) 20:14, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources isn't meant to be an exhaustive list. It mentions JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association) as a reliable source but not Nature or Science, which are arguably even more authoritative sources. According to Wikipedia, Undark Magazine "is published under the auspices of the Knight Science Journalism Fellowships program at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology...Many large national and international publications, including Scientific American,[7] The Atlantic,[8] Smithsonian,[9] NPR,[10] and Outside [11] have republishing relationships with Undark". Clearly, Undark is a reliable source. The guidelines say that Quillette is "generally unreliable for facts" and "Opinions from Quillette are likely to constitute undue weight". That suggests that extra caution should be used when relying on Quillette as a source, but it doesn't mean it's never reliable and can never be cited (it's neither "deprecated" nor "blacklisted"). In this case, Quillette is reporting an uncontroversial matter of fact. Lmtrilling (talk) 20:59, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Thanks @Lmtrilling: You appear to be correct with regard to Undark.org. With regard to Quillette on the other hand, the issue is not only whether the facts are true but also whether they should be considered significant. Generalrelative (talk) 21:30, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note too this policy at
WP:GUNREL: "Generally unreliable" sources (such as Quillette) "should never be used for information about a living person." That sounds pretty black and white to me. Generalrelative (talk) 23:17, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Reply: cc Generalrelative The Quillette reference isn't to support information about a living person (Cofnas), but to support the fact that Jordan Peterson faced a "backlash from the anti-Semitic mob" after he promoted the paper. Quillette isn't a blacklisted source, and there is no reason to think it is unreliable with respect to this specific, politically neutral claim. Unless there is a reason for deleting the statement about Peterson, it should be restored. Lmtrilling (talk) 23:40, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: @
WP:GUNREL saves us from having to litigate. Generalrelative (talk) 00:00, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Question for @Lmtrilling: Without implying bad faith, I'd like to ask if you have a personal connection to the subject of this article. I see that you created your Wikipedia account within the past 24 hours. Please understand that I recognize this could be a coincidence, or you may have been a longtime IP contributor, and that I'm willing to take your word for it. Generalrelative (talk) 00:33, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Generalrelative I don't see what basis you have for asking this. I started making contributions to bios of people I'm familiar with, and I saw this one was nominated for deletion, so I'm commenting. But I don't understand your position. You previously wrote that "The debate over Jewish conspiracy theories has not been discussed in any reliable sources". Now you agree that (at least) Undark is a reliable source, but you didn't moderate your position at all, and you're suggesting a very questionable interpretation of Wikipedia policy to justify taking out a reference to a notable fact. You also didn't mention the reference to the Genetic Literacy Project, which is definitely a reliable source that's independent from the subject, so should count toward notability. I agree with most of your edits to the article, but you seem to have a strong nonneutral point of view. Lmtrilling (talk) 07:24, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reply @Lmtrilling: Regardless of whether I have a basis for asking the question, I'll note that you haven't answered it. Generalrelative (talk) 14:45, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to the
WP:GUNREL, I can't imagine how the words "should never be used for information about a living person" leave any room for interpretation. 3) I did strike out the word "any" above and replaced it with the word "multiple" once you pointed me to evidence for Undark.org's reliability, and I thank you again for that. I do concede that the controversy over Cofnas' debate with MacDonald was covered in one reliable source. It's a sad irony that that article, meant to decry the promotion of racial pseudoscience, may have in fact served to raise its profile further on Wikipedia. 4) With regard to the previous point and also to your allegation that I display a POV: I think it's likely that proponents of fringe views use in-house "debates" such as the Cofnas-MacDonald exchange as a strategy to drum up publicity, and indeed, to gain visibility on Wikipedia. But of course in this discussion all I can consider is the verifiable evidence, which I've tried to present as clearly as possible. Generalrelative (talk) 15:02, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Reply @
WP:GUNREL
.
Reply @
Genetic Literacy Project, which should be considered a "reliable source". GLP has been criticized, but every mainstream outlet has been criticized by someone. Its founder, Jon Entine, is a respected science journalist associated with the University of California, Davis. @Generalrelative: says the fact that GLP published an article by MacDonald implies that it's not a reliable source, but MacDonald published a letter in the Wall Street Journal in 2018, and he has published in other outlets that are considered reliable. A Google search shows that Cofnas's debate was also mentioned two and a half weeks ago in Tablet, which is another reliable source. Mr Butterbur (talk) 09:51, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Clarifications and additional reasons by nominator can always be added as replies to their own material at top of post. Problem is not posting it after the nom, but shouting down others. Sesquivalent (talk) 21:08, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to @Sesquivalent: Fair enough! While I don't see my behavior as WALLOFTEXTing, SEALIONing or BLUDGEONing, upon reflection I can see how some reasonable observers might. I'll hang back and possibly reply to any outstanding comments beneath my original post before this thing closes. Generalrelative (talk) 21:19, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks. As I wrote above, I think all such concerns can be satisfied by just moving post-nom comments under the original post, maybe shortening them to the extent reasonable. Sesquivalent (talk) 21:27, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The argument that Cofnas is a notable academic is very weak. The only evidence given for his notability is two articles he wrote that attracted attention in large part because of their low quality. The first was (according to Steven Pinker) a poorly argued a partial [added later] critique of MacDonald, and the second was a defense of fringe views on race. The resignation of the editor of Philosophical Psychology resulted from a dispute with other editors about whether or not to publish a submission strongly criticizing the journal for publishing Cofnas' low-quality and inflammatory article. So Cofnas was only indirectly involved in that. It is unclear if the resignation of the editor is noteworthy or is just a transient event, but in either case his resignation does not establish Cofnas' enduring notability per
    WP:NOTNEWS. NightHeron (talk) 22:29, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Reply @NightHeron: Steven Pinker said MacDonald's and Dutton's arguments criticizing Cofnas were "extraordinarily weak". In other words, Pinker supported Cofnas's paper. The controversy surrounding the paper in Philosophical Psychology received coverage from multiple independent, reliable sources. The resignation of the editor was part of that story. 2604:2000:F607:4800:A094:A540:AA42:80FB (talk) 11:30, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the correction; I've struck that from my comment. Reading the source, I see that Pinker is not quoted as saying anything about Cofnas. I also see that Cofnas' disagreement with MacDonald seems to be only about anti-semitism rather than about white supremacy. In any case, a grad student writing a partial rebuttal of an extreme fringe author such as MacDonald is not strong evidence of enduring notability. NightHeron (talk) 12:17, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On that note, GLP (Genetic Literacy Project) has come up above. In GMO subjects, they're typically an accurate source good for addressing pseudoscience, but only used in the
talk) 23:57, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

References

  1. ^ http://nathancofnas.com/comments-on-my-rationalwiki-page/
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) 01:11, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Medal for the Martyrs

The Medal for the Martyrs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to be a not very notable personal project to commemorate war dead, sourced entirely from either social media posts or a website that has only the same social media posts for reference. Konli17 (talk) 00:08, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
    Talk to my owner:Online 00:35, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:36, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:49, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bhutta (caste)

Bhutta (caste) (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

WP:GNG. Definitely a last name and a village, seemingly a tribe, and there is a passing mention on p 15 of this book, but there seems to be no reliable independent coverage that would meet GNG. There are mentions in the unreliable British Raj era sources that were the cause of the article being created and, of course, numerous mirrors in both website and printed form. Sitush (talk) 00:11, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:30, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:50, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:49, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Radhakrishnan School of Arts, Commerce & Science

Dr. Radhakrishnan School of Arts, Commerce & Science (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 institution article citing only a primary source that has suffered linkrot. I don't think the article qualifies for G11 as it is written in a neutral manner; so i've brought it here. Zindor (talk) 00:08, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:30, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:30, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:30, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2020_June_24&oldid=965763485"