Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 June 6

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< 5 June 7 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 speedy keep. Speedy keeping under

talk) 02:49, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Corina Newsome

Corina Newsome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Newsome Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • ’’’Comment’’’ subject is a notable member of the scientific community. This move to deletion seems to be a direct attack on her solely on the basis for being a person of color. The article deserves to remain up as to allow people to see all the work she has done in her field of interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Watchtower2.0 (talk • contribs) 02:31, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment subject fails to meet criterion of notability under WP:BASIC
  • Comment This person meets the criterion of notability based on her influence as in science communication, and her rising profile in the STEM community. Merits inclusion in Wikipedia and would be of use to the public to be able to find her here. --AmyFou (talk) 02:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment She was a cocreator of a heavily influential science communication group that increased visibility of Black scientists and issues that Black people face in outdoor pursuits. Deletion seems to be racially oriented and inappropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.211.129.74 (talk) 02:11, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This person is a well-known science communicator and is often referenced as both a scientist and Black woman. It would be useful for people to be able to reference quality information on her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khwalsh (talk • contribs) 02:13, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This person meets the criterion of notability because she created a major movement at the intersection of conservation biology and race. Her leadership during the 2020 movement will be remembered. Wikipedia profile will be essential to provide information to communicators looking for information on her work. Smreillyatx (talk) 02:22, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Meets the notability criteria. She is an accomplished Black woman in the STEM community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loveofstreams (talk • contribs) 02:24, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This scientist is well-known in her community. Not only has is she a strong advocate for environmental equality she has developed programs to provide career experiences to lower income students. Her work as an advocate for the environment, an advocate for access to academic programs for low income students and her academic credentials make her a valuable addition to the Wikipedia environment. Upon review, the page is written in a 3rd person, neutral tone as befitting an encyclopedia. Given these things deletion of this page appears to be motivated based on the scientist's race and gender which is inappropriate and discriminatory. --LadyFaeyre (talk) 02:25, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This page does meet criteria as per WP:BASIC i.e. "has received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject.[6]." Newsome has received coverage in multiple outlets for research, outreach and Black Birders Week (all cited in page). Soulsinsync (talk) 02:27, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentThis person is notable under the
    WP:BASIC
    criteria. She is a highly recognized science communicator, she has 58.9K followers on twitter alone, organized BlackBirdersWeek in response to the Cooper bird-harrassment event in NYC, which was an internationally influential social media week. She is found in noteworthy news such as National Geographic, CNN, and Forbes magazine, in addition to dozens of other smaller publications and newspapers. This person is famous.
  • CommentThe number of citations alone should indicate this person's notability. NPR, Science Mag, Forbes, CNN. This page should not be deleted. plcoffey (talk) 02:48, 7 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. Speedy keeping under

talk) 02:47, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Earyn McGee

Earyn McGee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · McGee Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Comment Earyn McGee greatly meets all of Wikipedia's notability guidelines. McGee has a continuing impact on the scientific community and she continues to foster connection and interest in science. McGee runs a weekly '#FindThatLizard" post on her Twitter page which goes viral each week, reaching a large audience that encourages all ages and scientific ability to engage in nature discussions and scientific observation. In addition McGee is an inspiration figure for young Black persons interested in STEM and Blacks in STEM at large. Furthermore McGee is responsible for organizing Black Birders Week, encouraging all persons to reach out to Black birders with questions, fostering the sharing of knowledge. Since this event there has been a #BlackBirders trend in which Blacks are sharing their birding knowledge with communities everywhere. Her representation in the Wikipedia environment is justified and needed. Given all of the above and the other comments on this page, the suggestion to delete McGee's page is based upon her race and gender which is immoral and unethical. --LadyFaeyre (talk) 02:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment person meets notability guidelines and is a leader in science communication and inspiration to women in science and nature communities. Her representation on Wikipedia is critical and important.
  • Comment person seems to meet the general notability guidelines, and seems to be targeted because of the person’s race and/or gender. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kithrup (talk • contribs) 01:58, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment she has become notable for her spreading of awareness about herpetology with viral social media posts about "spot the lizard", wherein she invites followers, children in classrooms, and anyone else to try to participate communally. At this point she has also inspired several similar accounts for other animals and brought a wide awareness to biologists on twitter/social media in general. The cause for removal in this case seems racially motivated and is questionable
  • Comment Earyn McGree is a prominent voice within the Black STEM community, and highly notable within the herpetology community. Deleting her page during this time seems suspect at best.
  • Comment person seems to meet the general notability guidelines and page should be retained.--AmyFou (talk) 02:02, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment She is an up and coming science communicator and herpetologist and will likely remain as one of the faces of science twitter and scicomm in general for the foreseeable future. She has also organized several initiatives, including her viral “spot the lizard” posts. The cause for removal seems racially motivated.
  • Comment person meets notability guidelines. Among other achievements, she was featured in Black Birders Week, which gained widespread recognition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharkirk (talk • contribs) 02:07, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Scientific communication to the lay population is incredibly important for forward momentum. Earyn McGree has found a beautiful way to engage the general public in a variety of ways, most notably her Find That Lizard activity. Earyn also represents Black women in science. Please don't underestimate how critical it is for young girls to have role models who look like them.
  • Keep I have edited the page to address the resume-like wording, and added in additional info (Awards, Academic Bibliography). The page meets notability criteria as McGee has received two competitive American Association for the Advancement of Science fellowships ("The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level"). Soulsinsync (talk) 02:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Does meet general wikipedia notability guidelines. Noted for her inspirational social media presence within the herpetology and Black STEM communities and for creation of #FindThatLizard
  • Keep Via Wikipedia:Notability (academics) "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." This article displays the named individual's impact in her discipline and in scientific outreach. Theneedforsneed (talk) 02:12, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Meets the notability criteria. She is an accomplished herpetologist and science communicator.
  • Comment She was a cocreator of a heavily influential science communication group that increased visibility of Black scientists and issues that Black people face in outdoor pursuits. Deletion seems to be racially oriented and inappropriate. Extensive citations have been included demonstrating influence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.211.129.74 (talk) 02:15, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Subject is an accomplished science communicator and herpetologist with a large online following.
  • Comment This page details the career of a notable science communicator and accomplished herpetologist.
  • Comment This page meets the notability criteria as an accomplished herpetologist and science communicator. Her science communication is highly impactful and she has had significant influence on her fields of herpetology and science communication. Deletion seems inappropriate. Rfairb (talk) 02:22, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This person is an influential notable science communicator involved in high visibility science communication, and public outreach. As other commenters have noted, she meets the criteria for notability, and this page should not be deleted. plcoffey (talk) 02:43, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This page meets guidelines, and Earyn McGee is a prominent science communicator. She is well known in the scicomm community for her popular #FindThatLizard game, and played an important role in #BlackBirdersWeek. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:240:8301:52F0:FDDD:A20D:5602:D17B (talk) 02:40, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This page meets guidelines and has significant impact and influence in the science community. Deletion seems highly inappropriate


This person is a credible scientific professional and has made herself known on the Twitter platform with evidence of her scientific position. I believe they should remain on Wikipedia as they appear to be an influential individual in the science community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaylaAdanero (talk • contribs) 02:30, 7 June 2020 (UTC) This page should not be deleted. This page meets notability guidelines and she is being targeted for her race/gender. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:1018:C2C8:203D:B733:98FB:A7AC (talk) 02:35, 7 June 2020 (UTC) This page should not be deleted. Earyn McGee is a professional with a strong following and media presence and is becoming a well-known outreach personality. She’s known enough to have people want to learn more about her so it makes sense for Wikipedia to be a source.[reply]

  • Comment Earyn McGee is a notable herpetologist and science communicator. She meets several of the criteria for notability in academics, including but not limited to impact in the discipline (evidenced by multiple publications), having received multiple prestigious academic awards and fellowships, and having a substantial impact outside academia in her academic capacity. The latter is evidenced by her extensive work in science communication, which has made herpetology accessible to those outside the academic community. She is a prominent and upcoming member of the herpetological community. Deletion would be inappropriate.
  • Comment person meets notability guidelines. Prominent science educator on twitter. Christierowe (talk) 02:47, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This page should not be deleted. Earyn McGee is a highly respected professional in the scientific community and deserves her work to be promoted within her Wikipedia page for all to see.

She is also an advocate for diversity in STEM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:900A:1C14:5100:A1D4:5DA:7D57:D4FF (talk) 02:27, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Earyn easily exceeds notability guidelines. I am part of the scientific community and can confirm this fact. Savie Kumara (meow) 02:28, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Earyn’s integral role in organizing and running the first ever Black Birders Week is historically significant. Across multiple social media platforms, Black Birders Week garnered tens of thousands of views globally, including record-breaking viewership from their live streams with the National Audubon Society. Similarly, the role of Anna Gifty and Corina Newsome in this historic initiative warrants them all inclusion on designated Wikipedia pages chronicling their achievements and backgrounds.

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 , technically speedily, though without any haste. No votes to delete, and nominator does not appear to have standing. Stifle (talk) 10:20, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Scope (alternative weekly)

The Scope (alternative weekly) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) –(ViewAfD · weekly)Stats):(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable publication; not encyclopedically relevant.--User19004 (talk) 23:47, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:55, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:55, 6 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) 16:34, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ava Vincent

Ava Vincent (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 pornographic actress. And per all the reasons I've listed at

talk) 23:42, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 23:42, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 23:59, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:13, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 7 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) 16:36, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eva Lovia

Eva Lovia (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'm relying on precedents in previous AfDs and DRVs. Most the sources on this page are from AVN. Lovia has little coverage in

WP:N. So per 2017 precedent in this AfD, backed by this DRV and this AfD, and reiterated in 2019, after WP:PORNBIO was scrapped by RfC, in this AfD and established as speedy delete in this AfD, despite being very popular for the 2nd and 3rd nominations of AfD, as noted at this DRV
.

In conclusion, I think sufficient precedent exists to note that this individual is equally notable as the ones consistently found to not meet

WP:N. I'd add that she doesn't qualify under receiving awards. She has won none
, unlike others that were found to meet deletion policy.

I'd like to add that I don't necessarily agree with deletion of such articles. I feel current Wikipedia policies are skewed to favour removing pornographic actors/actresses, and this skewing creates a weird situation where you have household names that fail to meet the notability policy and are deleted, while some who only meet technical notability remain on Wikipedia with stub articles. Nevertheless, per established policy, I believe this should be deleted.

talk) 23:12, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 23:12, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 23:59, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The keep arguments have not presented a broadly policy based argument that debunks the synth argument.

Spartaz Humbug! 15:06, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Protests of 2019

AfDs for this article:
Protests of 2019 (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)

Per previous AfD nomination and talkpage comments since then: this article does not document a true phenomenon. The limited scholarly coverage is either speculation, focuses on certain regions, or debates the possibility of an attitude towards protests, without any certainty. Since the last AfD, it has been built on, but not improved. It now connects more unrelated protests indiscriminately, and is falling foul of

WP:NOTCATALOG. The final motivation for nominating at AfD now is the addition of information regarding the Twin Cities riots. Note, the information is only about the riots, not protests, and is obviously unconnected in every way: occurring in 2020 in a world very different to the one left behind by any protests in 2019, and motivated by a racist murder rather than whatever global discontent is the supposed connection between the rest. The addition of this indicates that this article obviously has no connecting thread and is being used as an unnecessary catalog of protests. Kingsif (talk) 20:55, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Kingsif (talk) 21:00, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Kingsif (talk) 21:00, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Kingsif (talk) 21:00, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Kingsif (talk) 21:00, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There does not seem to be a subject here. The references are mostly sources discussing various protests that are going on at the time but this does nothing to mark 2019 out as special or the various protests as linked. The events are real but the link alleged is
    original research. A similarly spurious article could probably be written about almost any other year in modern times. (Please nobody take that as a challenge!) Despite this we have no such other articles despite there being many years where there were a lot of protests. We do have an article on the Protests of 1968 but that is quite clearly a genuine subject in exactly the way that this isn't. 1968 is still remembered for its worldwide wave of (at least partially linked) protests decades later and this receives ongoing attention from historians. 2019 is not long gone but pretty much nobody is talking about a "Global Protest Wave of 2019". It gets one hit in Google Scholar, one hit in Google News and guess what the top hit for the phrase is in a normal Google search? Yep. It's this very article! I also found this and this which sound promising until, yep, they both lead straight back to this very article as being the source of the phrase. So, insofar as this is a subject at all it is only a subject because somebody wrote a Wikipedia article claiming that it was and we failed to delete it before a few people started to assume it must be real because it was in Wikipedia. It is time to correct that mistake. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:56, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
That sounds like an argument that you could make and get published. I'm not convinced either way but it is certainly arguable and I'm not here to tell you that you are wrong. The problem is that Wikipedia is not the place to make that argument. We need external
synthesise this for ourselves. I had a look at the two links you give. The BBC article about dissatisfaction with democracy doesn't mention protest at all and the CNBC one only mentions it in a picture caption and not the article text. So, no, these articles do not support claims of a protest wave themselves. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
I beg to differ. Firstly, this is an ongoing debate as the existence of this page has been challenged, so I have every right to make an argumentative point here; asides, I am trying to reason you (and everyone else who may be like-minded) why this page should remain up and running online. Secondly, there actually has been reports of similarity not only formed by whoever started this article (and the contributors that follow), but also establishments by reliable resources as well. Several outlets such as The New Yorker, Voice of America, and NBC to name a few, have already begun acknowledging and agreeing on certain common motives and roots for these conflicts. In this case, the protests discussed in this page have underlying roots tracing back to demands for governmental reform and more political transparency. This is the same notion that goes with the Protests of 1968; they may seem unrelated and sporadic at first glance, but eventually does get to have underlying connections once uncovered. It's only because of the recent occurrences of these protests that may obscure their string of similarity for now. Azurevanilla ash (talk) 06:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is no shortages of sources from news and scholarly articles on the notableness of 2019 as a global protests wave. It is not our place to personally judge whether we believe the scholarly analysis.Ingebot (talk) 10:18, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When I search for "Global Protest Wave of 2019" in Google Scholar I get just one hit and zero hits in Google Newspapers. Of course I get some hits for "protests of 2019" because there were protests in 2019, some of them notable ones, but I'm not seeing anything to link them in a "global protest wave" or to suggest that 2019 was extraordinary in this respect, even if it had more protests than average. In fact, I'm far from convinced of that. I tried counting raw hits in Google Scholar and the results are not encouraging:
"Protests of 2014": 224
"Protests of 2015": 425
"Protests of 2016": 122
"Protests of 2017": 63
"Protests of 2018": 15
"Protests of 2019": 40
(Average = 148)
Even if we assume that some articles about events in 2019 might still be working through their publication process, this is deeply unimpresive. If there is no shortage of sources for this alleged wave then I'm certainly not finding them. Maybe the article is misnamed? Does this wave of protests have some other name? What should we be searching for in order to find all these scholarly articles about the alleged global wave of protests if not the two titles given in the article? If this is a real thing, like the Arab Spring or the fall of Communist Europe, then I'll happily withdraw my delete !vote but I'm not seeing anything to support this. As I say, maybe I am looking in entirely the wrong places. Where should I be looking instead? --DanielRigal (talk) 15:41, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep
    talk) 23:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
It is 2020 now and there is nothing to link those protests to the overall narrative here which relates to 2019. There will always be protests, every single year. If you choose to link them all then this "wave" started way before 2019 and if you don't choose to link them, except when there is a demonstrable link, then here is no single wave phenomenon for this article to be about. Unless police brutality against black people in the USA started in 2019 (It didn't!) then it does not fit into the narrative that this article is pushing. Of course, it does fit onto the overall history of police brutality against black people in the USA, and it is right that we cover that extensively as it is a large and serious topic, but that is not what this particular article is about and we have other, better, articles for that. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:44, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DanielRigal: Don't worry, Daniel, when someone comes to close this they will look at the arguments, not just the number of !votes, and see that there's nothing saying 'keep' with any sense attached. Kingsif (talk) 00:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Second the view that the 2020 BLM Protests are in fact very good evidence of why there was no joint, global 2019 wave of protests and so this article should be deleted. We can clearly identify where and how the 2020 protests began, they are clearly described as a single global phenomenon in reliable sources, they are not a continuation of what happened in 2019 because we know their cause happened this year, and claims that they are instead highlight that 2019 was really no different to any other year in having protests at various places in the world that shared some themes and differed in other ways. This article is basically a bunch of
WP:SYNTH. FOARP (talk) 14:55, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
--Keepcalmandchill (talk) 10:13, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep plenty of sources, passes
    (talk) (contribs) 18:17, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Well, all list articles have to also have a good connection as justification for the standalone list article existing. Otherwise, make articles for all the notable entries and use categorization. E.g. there is no 'Films of 2019' article. Also, such a title would suggest that there is something about the films released in 2019 that connects them, like 'Films of the New Wave' or something - not including list in the article title suggests that the subject is a topic. There is also no 'List of films released in 2019' article, because there is no justification for having such a list. Before you mention it, 2019 in film exists, but is not a random list of films, it's an overview of the industry in that year. Kingsif (talk) 01:52, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • there is no rule that says
    Friends (season 1), which, naturally does have its very own full-fledged entry here. --Sm8900 (talk) 04:06, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
These are two very, very different proposals - redirect in this case is more akin to deletion, so why !vote keep? FOARP (talk) 12:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Most of the Keep comments do not appear to address any notability policy.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 22:58, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:04, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I responded to a comment above, explaining why this shouldn't even exist as 'list of protests in 2019'. I've copied to down here so that it's more visible for editors responding (I also left the comment after the relist). all list articles have to also have a good connection as justification for the standalone list article existing. Otherwise, make articles for all the notable entries and use categorization. E.g. there is no 'Films of 2019' article. Also, such a title would suggest that there is something about the films released in 2019 that connects them, like 'Films of the New Wave' or something - not including list in the article title suggests that the subject is a topic. There is also no 'List of films released in 2019' article, because there is no justification for having such a list. Before you mention it, 2019 in film exists, but is not a random list of films, it's an overview of the industry in that year. Kingsif (talk) 01:54, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Idan (talk) 11:01, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm really on the fence here. Many of the sources there and here in the AfD are opinions and columnists, which I regard as being near useless. There are some actual news sources too, though, like the BBC and WaPo, where they've made some speculative comments on the protests, but these aren't opinion articles so we should consider them. These sources paint a picture of common themes as the reason for the protests, and define an explicit phenomenon as "the protestors' year". So I disagree with the comment that previous comments made absolutely no reference to
    talk) 11:09, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
There are many articles published in newspapers making comparisons between various things. To pick some obvious examples, Brexit and Trump are often compared, as were Jeremy Corbyn and Bernie Sanders. That this was done is not evidence that they are part of linked phenomena sufficiently notable for an article.
Populist wave was quite sensible simply redirected to Populism as that was what is being discussed. Similarly, what is being discussed here is the general subject of protest, not something that began or indeed ended in 2019.FOARP (talk) 12:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Delete. Protests go on every year, and I've seen nothing unique about 2019 that would prompt someone to look for such an article or to have any idea what it would contain. Deb (talk) 12:06, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Extraordinary claims require extraordinary substantiation. In this case, we are asked to believe that there was a global wave of protests in 2019 and that these were a single linked phenomenon. However, the level of substantiation you would expect to see if anyone of note actually considered this to be an actual thing simply isn't there instead we have articles comparing protests, or discussing the year 2019. 2019 may have had more protests than other years, but if it did then the subject is
    WP:SUSTAINED issue here in that almost as soon as the year ended, people stopped talking about protests in 2019 - for a supposed year-long, global wave of protest, you would expect the coverage of it to be sustained beyond the year itself. FOARP (talk) 10:03, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
One additional point - it is instructive that when the same topic was discussed on FR Wiki they opted to delete. FOARP (talk) 12:34, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
and of course, climate change has caused Young People Lead Millions To Protest Global Inaction On Climate Change. but the whole populist movement has its roots in the worldwide displacement of refugees due to the regional conflicts of the Arab Spring. and also, please don't foreget that More than 500 arrested after protests and clashes as India water crisis worsens, in June 2019; Millions of people are running out of usable water in the southern Indian city of Chennai, which is experiencing major droughts and a rapidly worsening water crisis. Should I continue? Do you really want me to? et cetera. --Sm8900 (talk) 04:35, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The concept is unavoidably
    synthesis. Stifle (talk) 10:17, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Comment. Stifle, it is? ok, so then why do we have articles like 2019 in film, 2019 in aviation, 2019 in art? how are those any different? --Sm8900 (talk) 11:32, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Sm8900: I literally explained how those are different above, before you even mentioned it. Continuing to add 'disagreements' in bold to make it appear there are more !votes than there are will get you reported. There is no good faith reason to be snarky to every comment here that disagrees with you. Kingsif (talk) 12:42, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've noticed our friend @CaptainEek: has adopted you, neutral ping to them re. conduct. Kingsif (talk) 12:48, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, based on your comment, I will have removed the superfluous comments, i.e. those expressing disagreement. I retained one comment above, which agreed with a point made above, and also a single other comment that sought to genuinely respond to a point above made by a commenter here. thanks for your input. --Sm8900 (talk) 12:56, 15 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.

Spartaz Humbug! 15:07, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Maximilian Pupp

Maximilian Pupp (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)

Skiing doesn't have an SNG to use as a rough guide to notability, so we have to go by

BEFORE search (for an English speaker), and I have found no in-depth sources about the subject. There were only trivial mentions and listings on sports statistics pages. As the subject is now retired, it is unlikely that any further in-depth sources will emerge. Per SPORTCRIT, Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources...is not sufficient to establish notability; we cannot maintain this article on the basis of stat pages. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, World Cup competitor on a fairly high level (top 25 in the world on occasion). A German-language source search would surely turn up more. Geschichte (talk) 13:10, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I actually did search with Google switched to pulling German-language results, and I simply found no in-depth content about him. Everything I found was just stat pages and result reports that included a single sentence along the lines of "Maximilian Pupp did XYZ" with no elaboration. The best source I found was this [1] short piece in Münchner Merkur, which is basically a fluff piece about COVID19 affecting skiing, with some quotes from Pupp. It's still not content about him or his career. There's no content that gets us past SPORTCRIT, which requires more than just stat pages, no matter what his performance level was. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • His career was over a decade ago, many sources would have been lost from the internet, or not online in the first place. Geschichte (talk) 23:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • We do not keep articles because people claim there are sources, we keep articles because people identify specific sources that justify the claims to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:49, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 22:55, 6 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:37, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Nino Imeretinsky

Nino Imeretinsky (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 Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:38, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:38, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:38, 6 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) 23:51, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Constantine Imeretinsky

Constantine Imeretinsky (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 Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:38, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:38, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:38, 6 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) 23:52, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mikheil Imeretinsky (1843–1892)

Mikheil Imeretinsky (1843–1892) (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 Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:37, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:37, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:37, 6 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:52, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Simon Bagrationi

Simon Bagrationi (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 Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:36, 6 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) 23:52, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rostom Bagrationi

Rostom Bagrationi (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 Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:36, 6 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) 23:53, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Grigol Bagrationi

Grigol Bagrationi (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 Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:35, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:35, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:35, 6 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) buidhe 23:39, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Street sports

Street sports (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 an encyclopaedia article and I cannot establish that the topic meets

WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 19:36, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

I am changing my vote to Redirect to Street game based on the detail provided by Metropolitan90 below. Donaldd23 (talk) 01:29, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 20:50, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The topic is notable as books are written about it such as Street Sports and Physical Science in Street Sports. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:06, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is this the same as street game or not?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 22:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect, probably to Street game. They're pretty much the same (minus the faulty definition in this article). Clarityfiend (talk) 06:47, 8 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.

Spartaz Humbug! 15:08, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Ali asghar Heidari karimzadeh

Ali asghar Heidari karimzadeh (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. Antila (✉) 14:52, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Antila (✉) 14:52, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Antila (✉) 14:52, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:49, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:49, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable Iranian actor, but resources should be improved. Lexy iris (talk) 23:25, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would help to provide reliable sources, rather than just claiming he's notable.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 22:11, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails
    WP:NACTOR. Tried searching but didn't found anything useful. The sources available need to specify whether his role in Barareh Nights was notable or not. Still then it would be a Weak Keep because of GNG. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 22:03, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
One of the main sources come from Kianoosh Nikkhah who calls themselves as Digital Influencer. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 22:05, 14 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. Closing as keep per

WP:SNOW
. Consensus is clear and there is little benefit to keeping the discussion open, considering the amount of disruption and interpersonal sniping that has already taken place.

This AfD has received significant attention, well above and beyond normal, due to the AfD being shared on social media. Several participants on both sides of the discussion appear to have come to Wikipedia solely for this AfD and, as such, were unfamiliar with how the process works and made arguments that were

notability
).

The overwhelming majority of participants that based their arguments on relevant policy came to the conclusion that the subject of the article meets

WP:BLP1E
), and that the coverage was not substantially focused on her, however the majority of participants felt that WP:BASIC was met.

I have

(non-admin closure) The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 10:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Anna Gifty Opoku-Agyeman

Anna Gifty Opoku-Agyeman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Gifty Opoku-Agyeman Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Struck comment by blocked sock-puppet. Nfitz (talk) 03:28, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seconded concerns about self promotion. This individual does not meet the general notability guidelines and individuals associated with the article's subject are actively reverting good faith edits flagging the article for review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geeferino (talk • contribs) 20:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC) — Geeferino (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Struck comment by blocked sock-puppet. Nfitz (talk) 07:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Point of fact, article was not written or requested by the subject, see here. Have not assessed the sourcing or potential sourcing yet but will comment with a vote later. Protonk (talk) 21:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Tone and content issues can, as always, be solved by editing. As I read it (I cannot access WSJ and NYT sources as I don't subscribe) there are more than enough independent, reliable sources which cover the subject to allow for notability. See st. louis fed interview, UMBC profile, ms magazine (which covers her org but also gives details about her), another interview, and this profile. The planet money interview (from NPR) may also count but I didn't listen to it. I see more than enough sourcing to allow for a short bio of a subject. Upsetting to me that this was taken to AfD within 24 hours of creation and I think the nominator should reflect on why they chose not to use BLPprod or simple editing to resolve the issues. Protonk (talk) 22:55, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was the original article creator (technically changed redirect page to standalone page) and can confirm that I am not the subject and have no personal or professional relationship to the subject. I had never had any type of contact with the subject until yesterday when I began creating the article and contacted the individual to ask if she could upload a free-use image as I couldn't find one online. I thought the subject met notability requirements because of the existence of significant coverage by multiple independent secondary sources and was extremely careful to cite every statement made. I also noted that several existing wikipedia pages had referenced her name so that supported my decision to make the standalone page. I tried my best to make a well-sourced article and I believe that it belongs here. Yul B. Allwright (talk) 21:38, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The evidence on twitter at https://twitter.com/123_christina/status/1268930659151642634 is that this page was NOT written by the subject, but by an unrelated person.

    Yes, the subject is young, has no PhD, and does not meet the notability critera of

    WP:BASIC.--EAWH (talk) 21:47, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]

  • Delete. It seems that the subject explicitly facilitated their Twitter followers to make an article for them, see here. Also, the use of hashtag #MyPriceJustWentUp by the subject only further adds to the concerns of self-promotion. On a somewhat related note, the individual in question clearly does not meet the general notability guidelines, despite the efforts of individuals associated the the subject (see here) to revert any good faiths edits flagging the article for further review. The subject is not an academic economist and has 0 (zero) peer-reviewed publications. Co-organizing 1 (one) student conference, co-authoring 1 (one) op-ed, and promoting a hashtag on Twitter do not warrant subject's article. --HRMbruh (talk) 22:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)— HRMbruh (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Struck comment by blocked sock-puppet. Nfitz (talk) 03:28, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The subject satisfies
    WP:BASIC, with independent coverage of the Sadie Collective or Black Birders Week from Scientific American, The New York Times, The Smithsonian, NPR, and CNN. I work in an unrelated scientific field, but there's plenty talk accross disciplines. I have no relation to the subject. Please review the edit history for any users suggesting deletion, including Geeferino, Economist4738, and HRMbruh. We may need to protect the article against vandalism. -kslays (talk • contribs) 22:24, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete. None of us are vandalizing the article, we are trying to make it clear that this person is self-promoting.

Here is a tweet by the subject asking someone to create a Wikipedia article for her. She has no peer reviewed articles. She is not an academic. She is currently a research assistant who misrepresents herself to appear more significant, and this is part of that push. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:F906:B300:C575:6272:6EFF:73DE (talk) 22:29, 6 June 2020 (UTC) — 2606:A000:F906:B300:C575:6272:6EFF:73DE (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Comment You are misrepresenting the tweet and the author. Her actual words were "I have always wanted to 1) get a Wikipedia page and 2) be interviewed by 60 minutes. I've practiced (2) more times than I am willing to admit lol." That is not "asking someone to create a Wikipedia article for her", it's just a statement of ambition. The fact that somebody saw that tweet and decided to make half of it happen still doesn't make it a request. AFAIK nobody is arguing that it's her publications that make her relevant, so I'm not sure why you bring it up - this just seems like gratuitous belittlement of the subject. --Calair (talk) 23:25, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Heya, not sure what you're trying to accuse(?) me of, but I noticed some "liked by" tweets in my feed about some new Wikipedia articles - check my edit history, I just clean up and expand Wikipedia articles related to plants, animals, and articles associated with plants and animals, like herpetologists, ornithologists, etc. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 22:42, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not sure what "the presence of common editors" is meant to indicate beyond the fact that these are similar articles, and that somebody interested in one is likely to be interested in others. You could undoubtedly find a bunch of "common editors" on articles about white naturalists, or stamp collecting, or classical history, or Pokemon - so what? --Calair (talk) 23:32, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
*Comment The point is that these articles were written by people who immediately went on Twitter and promoted them to the followers of the article subjects, seemingly for little reason other than virtue signal themselves as "allies" to a community of black scientists on Twitter. Supporting evidence has already been provided in other comments I've left on this page. Geeferino (talk) 23:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Struck comments by blocked sock-puppet. Nfitz (talk) 07:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a well-referenced article and clearly satisfies
    WP:BASIC. Opoku-Agyeman's establishment of Black Birders Week alone warrants notability which has been covered in many news outlets including CNN and Smithsonian, among others. As others have already stated, this article was not self-created and is properly reporting on a notable figure. Jayzlimno (talk) 22:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • WP:BASIC states People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below. (the "additional criteria below" referring to ANYBIO and ACADEMIC) Schazjmd (talk) 22:52, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Bender235, do me a favor and don't edit my posts. Protonk (talk) 22:57, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't remember doing that. Could you point me to the relevant diff? --bender235 (talk) 23:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm so sorry. it was not you. it was another user. See here. Tho while I have you GNG is both necessary and sufficient for notability, FYI. Protonk (talk) 23:03, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't worry about the mistaken identity. But about WP:BASIC, I wasn't aware that this is how we interpret it. After all, what do we have the "additional criteria" for then? --bender235 (talk) 23:08, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • GNG covers everything as sort of a catch all if a subject doesn't meet a subject specific guideline. The subject specific guidelines are there as heuristics for stuff that is probably notable even if sourcing can't be found immediately. So for instance a football player who plays for a professional league will meet WP:FOOTY even if they don't meet the GNG (ie we can't find 3-5 sources covering the subject in detail) because it is likely that the sources are out there or that they will be soon enough. So if someone meets WP:ACADEMIC we don't need them to meet the GNG because we assume that a concerted enough search will find that they do. I hope that makes sense. I wish GNG were clearer about it and that it were policy but I've fought both of those fights for a long time before and don't care to repeat them. :) Protonk (talk) 23:20, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment bender235 I'm more concerned with the users nominating to delete as their accounts have only been created in the last 2 days and their only edits are for support to delete this article. Jayzlimno (talk) 22:53, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think both sides are doing their fair share of meatpuppetry here. --bender235 (talk) 23:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, I made this account to flag the article for review when I saw it starting to circulate among Twitter circles I follow in the interest of not getting doxxed by leaving my IP visible. That doesn't change the validity of the points being raised here. Perhaps Black Birders Week is deserving of its own article given the amount of coverage it received, but I strongly disagree that the subject of this article does. Geeferino (talk) 23:03, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am a Wikipedian who had to make a new account to start the delete discussion because associating this delete discussion with my real professional account would lead me to severe harassment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Economist4738 (talk • contribs)
Struck comments by blocked sock-puppets. Nfitz (talk) 07:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
WP:Vote). -kslays (talk • contribs) 23:16, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment Yes, I agree, let us focus on the merits of the article and the subject of the article itself. Fanyavizuri (talk) 02:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Gthh can be seen on Twitter promoting the Corina Newsome (https://twitter.com/G_T_Heller/status/1269273633232470019) and Earyn McGee articles (https://twitter.com/G_T_Heller/status/1269273633232470019) referenced earlier in an effort to build her own social media clout. Once again, Wikipedia is not a place to promote your friends or yourself in the name of "increasing representation of diverse scientists" Geeferino (talk) 23:21, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Furthermore, meatpuppets inserting themselves into this discussion can clearly be observed being sourced from the article subject's own Twitter page here: https://twitter.com/itsafronomics/status/1269378825894408194 https://twitter.com/itsafronomics/status/1269404604040699904 Geeferino (talk) 23:23, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Bruh, your ONLY edits are to this topic. Protonk (talk) 23:25, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't feel like being doxxed by rabid social justice warriors because I oppose a 24 year old who started a Twitter hashtag having their own Wikipedia article. Geeferino (talk) 23:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then I don't feel compelled to care about your imaginary other account. I wonder if I search EMJR if I'll see anything about this page. Protonk (talk) 02:23, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I share Geeferino's concern about being doxxed by subject's twitter mob. I am forth year PhD student in Economics at US university and I am sick and tired of seeing undergraduate research assistants and early-career academics using Wikipedia for self-promotion. I am long-term, albeit infrequent Wikipedia contributor, but I had to create a new account to participate in this delete discussion. As several people noted above, the subject in question (1) is not an academic economist, (2) is not a graduate student, and (3) have zero peer-reviewed publications. I welcome the desire to celebrate subjects activism and her social media activity, which justifies the existence of the Black Birders Week article, but not their personal article. Most information in the article under debate comes from subject's Twitter account, blog posts here and there, etc. The "Early life and education" and "Career" sections paint a fictitious picture of subject's contribution to the field of Economics, which is exactly none so far. --HRMbruh (talk) 23:47, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strike comments by blocked sock-puppets. Nfitz (talk) 07:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • After taking a closer look, I'd have to say delete. Even if we only go by
    WP:RS. --bender235 (talk) 23:31, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
No one gets to decide that some people can meet WP:BASIC while others have to meet a stricter standard. If a subject meets WP:BASIC, they're notable. Also your examples completely ignore coverage in NPR and Star Tribune. gobonobo + c 23:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware of the Star Tribune coverage, thanks. But the question of whether we should apply WP:BASIC or WP:ACADEMIC raises an interesting point: why is the subject portrayed as an academic, instead of an activist (which primarily seems to be her claim to fame)? I'm talking about the {{
prematurely. --bender235 (talk) 23:51, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
I think that's a totally valid topic of discussion for the article's talk page. It might even be relevant here if the sole claim to notability was based on WP:ACADEMIC. But since that isn't the case, arguments that "she's not an academic" really don't have anything to do with passing GNG or BASIC and should be discounted by the closing admin. It doesn't matter what someone's claim to fame is as long as there are reliable sources with significant coverage. gobonobo + c 00:56, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gobonobo: it seems we found a common ground then after all. My issue was mostly with the fact that parts of the article are unverified puffery and claims of academic status, when (at best) we are talking about someone intending to get a graduate degree. If the article is rewritten in the mold of other hashtag activist bios, say Isis Anchalee or Ayakha Melithafa, I wouldn't entirely oppose keeping it. --bender235 (talk) 01:21, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm pretty allergic to hagiographies and self-promotion myself. I'm sure we can find a balanced way to approach this biography. Honestly, I'm far more concerned about spontaneous digital lynch mobs targeting black women who've recently appeared in the media. gobonobo + c 01:31, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak for anybody's motivation to participate in this AfD, but it seems the subject herself has directed her followers here, some of which are apparently veteran Wikipedians who should
know better. --bender235 (talk) 01:53, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
This isn't a "digital lynch mob" dude. You're just trotting out the identity politics defense, the last resort of someone who has nothing left to say. Has it ever occurred to you that the very reason people are opting for more privacy during this discussion is that some social justice weirdo like you would tar us as racists even though we're nothing of the sort? Geeferino (talk) 02:23, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Struck comment by blocked sock-puppet. Nfitz (talk) 07:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Best guess - bunch of dudes from EJMR upset that a pre-doc got a Wikipedia article before they did. You should strike your comment. The link you offered does not support your claim. gobonobo + c 02:13, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gobonobo: Oh boy, after tweets like this the same chaos has now broken out at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corina Newsome and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earyn McGee. Days like these are the reason why I never wanted to be an administrator. --bender235 (talk) 02:48, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:Academic. I can volunteer myself to look for reliable resources to see if the individual meets the criteria.Flavinista (talk) 04:02, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
This individual started and organized a worldwide movement during what will become a pivitol moment in history. They deserve a Wiki page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.168.170.161 (talk) 23:07, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


  • It appears there is some confusion here, primarily with those arguing in favor of deletion, with the notable exception of Bender235. It does not matter the extent to which the author promotes the page, whether there was COI editing involved (which it seems there isn't), "common editors", etc. The purpose and scope of this discussion is whether the subject satisfies the notability criteria, nothing else. Best, Vermont (talk) 23:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm the one that originally tagged the article as possibly violating
    WP:NOTPROMO and being too resume-like. Those changes were immediately reverted without justification by the original author of the article. I put the tags back in place and they were deleted again. When I checked later, someone else had flagged the post for deletion and this whole discussion materialized. Geeferino (talk) 23:54, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Struck comment by blocked sock-puppet. Nfitz (talk) 07:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly do Gobonobo's sources, as well as yours, establish? The relevance of Black Birders Week as a notable Hashtag activism, sure. But none of the academic claims about the subject are mentioned in any of those news reports. --bender235 (talk) 00:36, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The subject in question is now explicitly soliciting their twitter followers to meatpuppet this discussion:

https://twitter.com/itsafronomics/status/1269378825894408194 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:644:401:5800:49D0:7B8B:62F:DBFF (talk) 00:19, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. It might be helpful to semi-protect the article while this discussion is ongoing. User:HRMbruh (contribs) has repeatedly deleted the "AhR ligand aminoflavone..." publication from the article without discussion. -kslays (talk • contribs) 00:31, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To be requested
here. --bender235 (talk) 00:36, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
To Kslays: What kind of discussion do you need? One of the authors of this paper in question is clearly another person, unrelated to the individual in question. The subject under discussion was never affiliated with the Department of Basic Sciences at Loma Linda University Health School of Medicine, as is apparent from journal's page of this article here. The subject is a self-proclaimed "economist" and does not conduct research in cancer treatment. End of discussion. --HRMbruh (talk) 00:38, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, and thanks for the explanation. It would be helpful to note it was the wrong person in the edit summary, especially for a repeated deletion. -kslays (talk • contribs) 00:52, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That publication has barely anything to do with the broader discussion unfolding here. Isn't the argument being put forward by the people saying this article should be kept up that this person is supposed to be considered notable as an activist and economist? A random molecular biology paper with the subject of the article listed as an author does nothing to strengthen the argument that this page isn't being used as a surrogate for a resume/CV. Geeferino (talk) 00:40, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Struck comment by blocked sock-puppet. Nfitz (talk) 07:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (1) GNG is the relevant guideline here, not ACADEMIC; (2) folks here with few contributions who claim to have other accounts need to read
    WP:SOCK extremely carefully. Wikiacc () 00:42, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Struck comment by blocked sock-puppet. Nfitz (talk) 07:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The subject of this article is a notable public figure. Her co-founding of both
    The Sadie Collective and Black Birders Week, along with the NY Times contribution, profiles and interviews in NPR, etc., all mentioned above, make the case clear in my view, both in terms of substantive merit and the required number of sources. I have read through much of the discussion above, and believe the basis here is GNG. Mine is not a new account, fwiw. I suggest that this article should be kept, not deleted, in keeping with the principles of Wikipedia. Fanyavizuri (talk) 01:49, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Since none of the relevant sources (NY Times, WSJ, etc.) talk primarily about the subject, but rather mention her in passing when describing
The Sadie Collective#Staff? It's a serious question, since the "trivial coverage" clause of WP:BASIC seems to have been rendered moot at this point. --bender235 (talk) 02:14, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
I appreciate your thoughts, and the serious question you ask. You are right to ask it. If someone has co-founded not one but two public and widely-known social initiatives, coauthored an opinion piece in the NY Times, and been either interviewed or discussed in national-scale media on several occasions (see Google news search in relation to the present case), I would be comfortable with that being a standard of general notability, thereby deserving a Wikipedia article. Fanyavizuri (talk) 02:39, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The subject of this article meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. This page is not being 'used as a surrogate for a CV', it is substantive and merits inclusion. AmyFou (talk) 02:06, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
striking comment from blocked sock-puppet
As opposed to the anonymous dudes from Economics Job Market Rumors who are coordinating to delete articles on Earyn McGee and Corina Newsome? gobonobo + c 02:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This person is a well-known science communicator, CEO of The Sadie Collective, and is often referenced as both a scientist and Black woman. It would be useful for people to be able to reference quality information on her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khwalsh (talk • contribs) 02:14, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This person founded the Sadie Collective- an urgently needed organization challenging the pervasive under-representation of people of color in economics. This alone seems to merit a Wikipedia page, given the importance of the problem (not just to economists, but to the many of us who live with the consequences of academic economics being dominated by a very narrow demographic) and the promise of the Sadie Collective to achieve change. She also came up with Black Birders week, in the wake of the Cooper birder-harassment event. This was a conceptually brilliant, timely, and moving activist idea. I want to know more about the person who came up with this idea and Wikipedia seems the natural place to check for this information. It is absurd to think that if a rising star social activist expresses excitement and pride about having a Wikipedia page, then she doesn't deserve it. Of course she's proud to have a Wikipedia page! That's irrelevant! Readers will benefit from the existence of such a page. Mglymour (talk) 02:28, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And that was just from a quick first two pages of a Google search for things prior to the last week. I could likely dive much deeper for more. From the Sadie Collective to the Sadie Tanner Mossell Alexander Conference for Economics and Related Fields, the subject clearly has been involved in making organizations and events that have brought them notability in the press and elsewhere. It seems pretty clear to me that notability is established for the subject, even prior to this week's events. SilverserenC 02:41, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This page meets WP:Basic. Why should it be held to a higher standard than other stub pages? I hear the earlier concerns: this will likely benefit from some editing to remove any non-verifiable sources, but regardless, the subject meets notability. Soulsinsync (talk) 02:43, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The same group of weird overzealous identity politickers have appeared on the discussions for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Earyn_McGee and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Corina_Newsome, egged on by the same circle of social media influencers that have been meatpuppeting this article such as Imogene Cancellare. Twitter is not real life, people. Starting a popular hashtag isn't something that gets commemorated with a Wikipedia article. I merely tagged both of those pages with the same tags I did on this page and stopping thinking about it, and there was a whole race baiting tribunal that took place in the interim between then and now. If you're popular on Twitter, that's great! The mechanisms you need for that dopamine hit are built in. Don't bring it here. Geeferino (talk) 03:01, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Struck comment by blocked sock-puppet. Nfitz (talk) 07:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems to me that you're the ones that are
    meatpuppetting to try and delete this article, for some reason. I think my Keep vote above has very clearly used sources to show the notability of the subject. SilverserenC 03:06, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Agreed, User:Geeferino is a SPA clearly created for the sole purpose of nominated a series of articles.--DarTar (talk) 03:12, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Honestly, you don't *get* to talk about what to bring or not bring "here". Post with your real account if you have one, or spare us the lectures about what you think belongs here. Protonk (talk) 03:14, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then use
WP:IAR - besides, otherwise it's snowing. I don't see a clear position from User:Bender235 - and if they want to ignore the clear racism by a now-banned user in creating this AFD, and still proceed with it, then I feel they should reconsider their position, as it is bringing it into ill repute. Nothing is to be gained by continuing this racist travesty one minute more. There's no prejudice against against future nominations when things are calmer. Nfitz (talk) 03:42, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm not willing to IAR on this (though other admins may choose to), and bender235 pretty clearly is !voting delete right now: After taking a closer look, I'd have to say delete. As for snowing and "when things are calmer" - as far as I can see, both sides of this debate appear to be canvassing, and I fully expect that to happen again next time this gets nominated. Finally, please take a moment to look at
talk) 03:52, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
"Racist travesty"? Boy, this escalated quickly. Seriously, who wrote anything racist here? --bender235 (talk) 04:00, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nfitz, the purpose of this page is to facilitate a civil discussion over the notability of the article's subject. We are not here to make allegations of racism or bad-faith actions, ignore the stated opinions of others, or circumvent established and necessary processes to wait until when "things are calmer". Thank you, Vermont (talk) 04:04, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That argument is fine, until we find out that the person who nominated it, then proceeded to create AFDs the same day for two other black women, and has since been blocked for sock-puppetry. Given the current political situation, there is no doubt that the nominations were racist. Whether the article should be permanently kept is immaterial - supporting racists is fundamentally wrong and brings Wikipedia into disrepute. Nfitz (talk) 04:11, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The two other AfDs were speedily kept; we can't do that with this AfD because other, legitimate, editors have written comments in favor of deletion. Vermont (talk) 04:34, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Peteforsyth: nope, because the "trivial coverage" clause in WP:BASIC hasn't been addressed yet. As I've mentioned before, none of the relevant sources are primarily about the subject. All they do is mention her in passing as the student organisations and/or activist groups are being described. Also, in the words of Sulfurboy, "any admin worth their salt will see past meat and spa votes" that are only here because the subject sent her 8,000+ Twitter followers our way. --bender235 (talk) 04:06, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bender235: Can you explain how the sources I gave up above are trivial coverage and/or not about the subject in question? Also, considering this AfD (and the other two) were made by a group of SPAs from the EJMR forum, I don't think that means much for this discussion. SilverserenC 04:08, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why User:Bender235 continue a discussion from a blocked sock-puppet that appears to be created out of bias? This discussion needs to end asap. Nfitz (talk) 04:11, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care who created this AfD and why, I came here first to fix the missing AfD templates, then to reason my opinion like any other Wikipedian would. Step of your moral high horse for a second, and instead of
accusing others of racism ask yourself why you want to quench this discussion at any cost. --bender235 (talk) 04:26, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Hang on User:Bender235, you just said that you don't care that the creation of this AFD was racist? Surely that's a big problem. There's no doubt that there is a lot of racism in that particular country, and it's hard to believe that it's just a coincidence that a newly created sockpuppet just happened to pick articles for three black Americans to try and delete. Sometimes one needs to cry about racism - and one should never support racism, inadvertently or not. This is not the time to be dying on the hill of protecting the rights of racist editors. Nfitz (talk) 04:43, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not giving up on
WP:GF yet, so no, I do not assume racism being the motivation for this AfD. And I'm not here to "protect a racist editor," but to uphold the Wikipedia standards of notability. And before you ask, I have been holding this stance for a long time. I suggest you pause for a moment and look past the Twitter incited outrage. --bender235 (talk) 04:50, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Had this just been a sock-puppet and a black women, then yet, AGF - as unlikely as it would be. But then go and nominate the articles of two other black women for deletion, when the very racist nation that they are from is on the brink of civil war over race issues? At some point, you have to accept that the nomination was racist. Keeping this grossly racist nomination now, doesn't preclude applying
WP:NORUSH and examining it in more detail later when people are calmer, and people aren't dying in the streets. Nfitz (talk) 05:20, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Bender235 I am surprised, this doesn't seem to align too well with what you said above. But no matter. I strongly disagree with your interpretation of how the source materials match up with policy. The Wall Street Journal is a major publication, and clearly presents the subject as significant. (Shame about the paywall, but that doesn't diminish its value as a source.) Silverseren's list is valuable as well; I have access to some, but not all, of those sites, and they are substantially to the notability claim. This is not a borderline case. She's notable. There are some open questions about how to cover her, but there is really no legitimate question of whether we can cover her. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 04:22, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that's what you meant. Okay. But as I said, the WSJ article, just as the NY Times article mentions the subject in passing at most. The sources cited in the existing article for almost all the relevant biographical facts are self-published blogs, alumni newsletters, or interviews. That might serve as
WP:RS for verification purposes, but not to establish "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources." --bender235 (talk) 04:30, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
For the record, I wholeheartedly agree with this opinion. If the article is kept, it should be made clear that the subject is notable for her hashtag activism, not academic status. Almost none of the listed fellowships and awards are reliable sourced. For instance, the source in this sentence, She currently works at Harvard University as a Research Scholar in Economics, a "non-degree granting post-baccalaureate program that provides mentored research and training for individuals interested in pursuing doctoral studies."[1], doesn't even mention her name. A lot of what's currently in this article needs to be double-checked. --bender235 (talk) 04:37, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ "Research Scholar Initiative". The Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, Harvard University. Retrieved 2020-06-06.
  • Strong keep: This is just silly. A page nominated with no deletion rationale that trivially meets
    WP:GNG. - Astrophobe (talk) 04:21, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
While I can't speak for the nominator, I understood the rational to be
WP:SELFPROMO. --bender235 (talk) 04:40, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Which is a refuted argument, since we know the article subject didn't make the article. SilverserenC 04:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying the rational was correct. Just that this appeared to be the rational. As a side note, though,
WP:SELFPROMO includes "anybody you know," which may or may not include Twitter friends. --bender235 (talk) 04:54, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Hi
WP:NACADEMIC says "Academics meeting none of these conditions may still be notable if they meet the conditions of WP:BIO or other notability criteria." In the more than 100 academic bios I've written it's never crossed my mind that it could be WP:NACADEMIC or bust. I think that part of this conversation should also be split off and held somewhere at a much higher level than a specific deletion discussion. With all of the detritus on this page and the sockpuppeting and strikeouts and everything, this is one legendary oldschool WP mess. - Astrophobe (talk) 04:51, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
I agree with your point about WP:NACADEMIC. But the obvious consequence is that the article should reflect the fact that the subject is not an academic. --bender235 (talk) 04:54, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see! I have two thoughts about that. The first is that notability is a property of topics, not pages; notability is not conditional on how a page is written. For sure we should all
WP:BB the page until it reflects the topic's notability. Having said that, the second is that I actually think the page strongly forefronts her activism and nonprofit work, and to me it doesn't really read like an academic bio at all, but more like an activist's bio. Anyhow, now I've said my piece and I think this is the right moment for me to step out and refocus on mainspace work. Thanks for the discussion! - Astrophobe (talk) 05:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep Easily meets
    WP:BASIC. Media coverage goes well beyond one event. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:25, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Redirect to
    The Sadie Collective page. Subject of article is a activist of minor influence in the economics community, only significant piece of activism is the editorial in the New York times. Others are publications in in think thank websites, or self-published on Medium. The main thrust of her activism is advancing the objectives of the Sadie collective. While she also has founded Black Birder's week, it is a one-time bird-watching+activism event. I thus propose redirecting the page to the Sadie Collective article, adding a reference to the Black Birder's week to Anna's mention in the Sadie collective, and a reference to the collective in the part where Anna is mentioned on the black birder article. If Anna attains more influence in the future, we can create a standalone article.--Ysjzysn (talk) 05:24, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Good point, I seem to have conflated her organization and her own work since they have the same thrust. I also acknowledge my bias as an academic economist, so I might have discounted her as just a research assistant. I do have some suggestions for the article that I have indicated on the talk page that involves clarification and deleting extraneous detail. Peace out. Keep--Ysjzysn (talk) 07:08, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.
    WP:BASIC is well covered but the subject is also noted making a difference in the world. And yes, she's a member of an underrepresented group; Wikipedia is not neutral if "neutral" means that fewer than 20% of the biographies are about women. Some of the tweets are unfortunate but the content and editing seem up to snuff. Full disclosure, I never knew who she was until I followed her on Twitter as part of Black Birders Week but did add some cites and links (and a category which was perhaps too far) to the article. For what it's worth, I've been editing since before the Wiki had references in articles. Wnissen (talk) 05:36, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep. this fits
    WP:BASIC. Just because anonymous Twitter uses can take to Wikipedia to nominate the pages of people of colour for deletion, doesn't mean they should. As mentioned above, Black Birders Week has been covered on several news sites, as well as by National Geographic and various other societies. There are easily enough references to do with both AGOA herself, the Sadie Collective and BBW. The fact that it was nominated and 'seconded' by Wikipedia 'users' whose only ever contributions are nominating this article for deletion speaks volumes. Jesswade88 (talk) 05:52, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep. Anna and the Sadie Collective are so prominent that even I had heard of them.Richard Tol (talk) 06:38, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. For full disclosure, I heard about this deletion nomination on social media, but am an established editor, and after reviewing the article and the relevant policies, it seems to easily meet
    WP:BASIC, so I'd say it should be kept. Younotmenotyou (talk) 07:18, 7 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 Nova Central School District. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lewisporte-Gander School District

Lewisporte-Gander School District (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 contains no historical or background information on the school board itself and is quite unnotable.--User19004 (talk) 21:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:06, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Redirect to Nova Central School District, which seems to be either the successor to this district, or just the result of the name change for the same district. I can't find much of any substance on the two, or a detailed history of succession, so I'm open to other proposals. MarginalCost (talk) 03:04, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing from "weak redirect" to just "redirect" now that succession is established in at least one source. MarginalCost (talk) 15:40, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did some digging. Lewisporte-Gander became Nova Central when it merged with the Baie Verts-Central-Connaigre school board (p89). It also appears that the Nova Central school district was subsumed into the
    t • c) 04:42, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Wow, you're quick! I had noticed the absence of that important district in looking into this, but didn't have the chance to start the article at the time. MarginalCost (talk) 15:40, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think redirect to
t • c) 04:58, 7 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) buidhe 23:41, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Terror Drome

Terror Drome (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 action figure playset. I'm unsure if Bellomo's "Ultimate Guide" is independent or not, but the rest of the citations are an unreliable fansite, the comics themselves, a primary source "Official Guide", and a fiction novel. A

WP:BEFORE search turns up assorted unreliable fansites, sales sites, and user-generated databases. Fails GNG. Hog Farm (talk) 21:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 21:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 21:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 21:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would say it depends on whether or not the books were officially licensed books. If they were, I don't think that would make them any more independent than any of the other licensed material that was not published by Hasbro themselves, such as the comics, fictional books, etc. The second one's title makes it sound like they were an "official" book, but its hard to tell from the information on Google books if that was actually the case, or if that's just what the called the book. Though, that seems to be a bit of a moot point in this case, as the content from the book I am able to see is neither substantial nor does it indicate any independent notability. Rorshacma (talk) 16:19, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Light Merge to Cobra (G.I. Joe)#Bases. The few non-fiction books being used as sources are not nearly substantial enough to support an independent article. However, they are probably enough that a mention on the main article on Cobra could be justified. Rorshacma (talk) 16:19, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clean-up and merge as not notable by itself. There's not substantial enough sources here but some decent writing that could be preserved in a main article. Jontesta (talk) 01:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Cobra article where at least a one sentence of mention in passing could be kept, referenced to said Ultimate Guide, I guess. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:02, 12 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. BD2412 T 19:16, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

William Stretch Abert

William Stretch Abert (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:NSOLDIER, as only a brevet general (honorary appointment, not the same thing as an actual promotion), was only officially a colonel. Seems to be a GNG failure too, albeit a close-ish one. Gets a paragraph in Eicher's Civil War High Commands [5], but the coverage consists only of a listing of where he was assigned during the American Civil War. The "National Cyclopaedia of American Biography" [6] gives him a very nice writeup, but we need more than that. The rest of the coverage I can find is in blogs, find-a-grave (unreliable), primary source government military reports (primary sources do not establish notability), and a website titled "antietam on the web" that seems to be self-published/blog. Hog Farm (talk) 21:32, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 21:32, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 21:32, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails
    WP:ANYBIO. Passing mention in online sources. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:42, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Keep per User:Hawkeye7. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:33, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:08, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hawkeye7: I was only able to find this mention. Do you have a link? Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 08:50, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Abert's entry is on p. 396 in that book. Kges1901 (talk) 17:21, 8 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.

Spartaz Humbug! 15:09, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Ava Bahram

Ava Bahram (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)

Notability ahuR ☘ 21:29, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:23, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
hello please look at the article No:10,11 and 12 of
WP:MUSICBIO, she has this point of policy Pocoyo4858 (talk) 02:08, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment - There have been several recent AfDs for Iranian entertainers (musicians, models, etc.) in which supporters are making the argument that we see here. Per that argument, the entertainers have no media coverage in their home country because of government repression, and therefore the entertainers are little-known in the rest of the world too. I have no doubt that this is happening and it is certainly unfortunate, but that is a problem that is much bigger than Wikipedia, and Wikipedia is not equipped to fix it. The larger problem could be discussed at
promote unlucky entertainers is not one of Wikipedia's functions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:49, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
hello, I totally agree with you that in this particular case it seems that there is a need to revise the Wikipedia guidelines. It should be discussed with managers.
talk) 12:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
See the Wikipedia policies
WP:JNN. Just saying she is famous does not matter. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 01:18, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
hello please look at the article No:10,11 and 12 of
WP:MUSICBIO, she has this point of policy Pocoyo4858 (talk) 01:28, 10 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 redirect. to wiktionary, which should've been done in the first place rather than taking it to AfD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:39, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bimonthly

AfDs for this article:
Bimonthly (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 should be deleted as it is a dictionary definition and

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. -KAP03 (Talk • Contributions • Email) 21:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -KAP03 (Talk • Contributions • Email) 21:09, 6 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. North America1000 12:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Harald of Schaumburg-Lippe

Prince Harald of Schaumburg-Lippe (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)

He's of noble ancestry, but he isnt said to have done anything in the least bit notable. Rathfelder (talk) 20:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 20:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is a hard one. Although he does come from a notable house. He is only the third son of
    Prince Christian of Schaumburg-Lippe (1898–1974) and has not done anything particularly notable. Ibn Daud (talk) 21:25, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence of notability, as defined by Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria. DrKay (talk) 08:45, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a geneological database, we do not create articles on people because their ancestors were once notable, especially not living people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not appear to be notable. - dwc lr (talk) 17:02, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - we are not a genealogical database. Barring significant coverage in reliable sources, your bloodline alone doesn't confer notability. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 22:21, 7 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) buidhe 23:41, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Jalan

Jalan (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)

Adopts to WP:NOT YET (films)

talk) 19:56, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 19:56, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:NOTYET
is on an unrelated topic), would apply when the drama has clearly already received enough coverage in independent sources; that essay states, if sources do not exist, it is generally too soon for an article on that topic to be considered, which is not the case here.
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my comments above. Subject has received enough coverage (I'll try to add Urdu sources as well) to pass
WP:TOOSOON doesn't really apply. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 01:02, 9 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) 23:03, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Formula E rookie test

2020 Formula E rookie test (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 appears to be

WP:FANCRUFT. It would only interest a very small number of people who are not familiar with motor racing and there is nothing to indicate its short or long-term importance. MWright96 (talk) 19:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. MWright96 (talk) 19:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:41, 6 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.

Spartaz Humbug! 15:10, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Albanese Candy

AfDs for this article:
Albanese Candy (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'm aware this recently resulted in a Keep non-admin closure since it was over the minimum 7 days. It only had two editors (Reywas92 and Lightburst) commenting. The first states that "significant coverage" exists and the second supported this although didn't make any comment. Having examined the sources, none are even remotely close to meeting the criteria for establishing notability.

  • From the article, these references from edayleaders.com, and the topic company's About page on their own website are
    WP:PRIMARY
    sources.
  • This from the Chicago Tribune was mentioned by Reywas92 as being significant and "more than trivial" but is in fact entirely based on an interview with the owner and is a putt piece. It has no "Independent Content" and fails
    WP:ORGIND
    .
  • This from visitindiana.com is from the "Indiana Insider Blog" and fails as a
    reliable source
    .
  • This from nwi.com is another puff piece and relies entirely on an interview with the founder and fails
    WP:ORGIND
    .
  • Other references mentioned by Reywas92 at the AfD suffer the same faults and fail for the same reasons. This from The Times is yet another puff piece that relies on an interview with the founder, fails ORGIND.
  • This next piece from The Times is based on a company announcement with no Independent Content and discusses a new product line called "Gummi Army" consisting of soldier-shaped Gummies (with names!) to send to US troops in the Middles East, definitly
    not significant
    and also fails ORGIND.
  • This PDF from The Beacher is a tiny local publisher but leaving that aside, is entirely based on the journalist getting a tour by the tour guide of the factory, relies entirely on quotations from the founder and information provided by the company, contains no Independent Content, fails ORGIND.
  • Finally, this from The Times is an article based on an interview with the founder and fails
    WP:ORGIND
    .

I am unable to locate a single reference that meets the criteria for notability, topic fails GNG/NCORP.

HighKing++ 19:12, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

As per
HighKing++ 11:48, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per HighKing's analysis of the sources. No opinion—I have not evaluated all the sources—but note that some are not reliable, such as a predatory journal that was just added. buidhe 21:46, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, HighKing's analysis of the sources brought up by Reywas92 is incorrect. They are very clearly not based on interviews, the act of including a quote in an article does not make that article an interview. The last article in the Times and the NWI article are clearly significant coverage, and the Indiana Insider Blog is run by the Indiana Office of Tourism Development, which means it qualifies as a reliable source despite technically being a blog. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:32, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's nothing in any of those references that provides "independent analysis/opinion/etc". Point to any passages of those articles that contains "Independent Content" and I'm open to
      HighKing++ 11:45, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
      ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:42, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:42, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Devonian Wombat. Sources like The Times are solid legitimate journalism containing original research (a good thing in journalism), interviews with people and original writing by the journalist - published in a reliable source newspaper with editorial oversight. It has everything one would expect to find in a reliable source (including original photo journalism). The "interview" complaint is over-reach, that is when there is a giant block of text quoted with little or no journalism involved, or a question/answer genre. -- GreenC 23:47, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per
    WP:GNG: I added some more information and references to the article, including another Chicago Tribune piece and several from the Munster Times. This is obviously a well-loved regional landmark that gets sustained coverage over many years, in many different contexts. The nominator can try to nitpick every source to death, but if you have to cite five different policies in an exhaustive list of nitpicks then it's usually a good sign that you're overthinking it. — Toughpigs (talk) 00:20, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete — Per rationale & analysis brought forward by
    HighKing. Celestina007 (talk) 09:51, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep __ Notable company and was rightfully closed by User:Buidhe 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 10:37, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:GNG
    . They also make the world's best gum drops, my wife is a fan, and we have visited their factory store. And it is indeed far away from our home and 'off the beaten path.'
As was noted in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albanese Candy first nomination:
Significant coverage includes [8] (already in the article, more than trivial), [9], [10], [11], [12]/[13], [14], [15]. I know these have a local
gummy bears
and the largest non-chocolate candy maker in Canada (plenty large in the US and elsewhere too), I think this is a notable company. .
Thomas, Phyllis (June 19, 2012). Indiana Off the Beaten Path: A Guide to Unique Places (E-book). Guilford, Connecticut:
ISBN 0762786051. ISBN 9780762786053.7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:36, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
There are also three separate videos, one of which as on the Food Network.
Keep per
WP:HEY. In fact, the article in its present state (not the same as when this 2nd AFD was initiated within days of the 1st closure) on its face establishes notability and verifiability. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 03:28, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
In relation to the new references mentioned above. The "book" was published by visitindiana who also published one of the videos. The book is aimed at tourists (no problems so far) and contains a single paragraph on the company that mainly describes the novelty shapes and flavours and encourages people to attend the "fascinating free tour". Contains zero information on the actual company, fails
HighKing++ 11:43, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Don't turn this into a damn refbomb of every tiny little mention. It's not encyclopedic to note that a company has a website and social media, how effing mundane in 2020. This was a bare passing mention in [16] with no discussion or evidence of meaningfulness whatsoever. Don't give me this "learned journal" nonsense and show some critical analysis not a blind inclusion anything that notes the name. Ridiculous that I had to remove a random person's TripAdvisor review too. And HighKing is right, "Santos Chronicles" isn't a newspaper, it's a random person's vlog. Just because an article has more sources and links doesn't mean it's any better. Reywas92Talk 18:11, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Reywas92:. my own unsolicited opinion is that a few primary and or promotional items can be useful for our readers to gain perspective on the operations. We do have other SIGCOV to denote notability. To that end I have re-added the promotional video tour of the retail shop. I am pleased with the progress, and hope that we can collaborate to improve the article instead of being combative. I appreciate you and your editorial abilities. Lightburst (talk) 20:15, 8 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) 16:40, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nathalie von Bismarck

AfDs for this article:
Nathalie von Bismarck (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)
  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
    Talk to my owner:Online 18:59, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I approve of this new nomination. - Khaoz555 (talk) 19:34, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:38, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:39, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:43, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per Nom's accurate rationale. -- Otr500 (talk) 00:37, 12 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) buidhe 23:42, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Bing Steel

Bing Steel (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 DGG ( talk ) 18:44, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:52, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:52, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. History may be sketchy, but it cites its sources and was also founded by a notable person who also has an article here on WP. 52Tarby (talk) 19:58, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Dave_Bing#Bing_Steel. "cites its sources" is not a valid reason to keep an article. Reywas92Talk 02:30, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect: Fails
    bad idea. -- Otr500 (talk) 01:11, 12 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.

Spartaz Humbug! 15:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Tragic Songs of Life (The Easy Hoes album)

Tragic Songs of Life (The Easy Hoes album) (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 album which didn't make any news at the time, and hasn't made any since. The article seems to tentatively claim it is worthy of notice due to being one of the early projects of

talk) 18:22, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 18:22, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 18:22, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:44, 6 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.

Spartaz Humbug! 15:12, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

The Easy Hoes

The Easy Hoes (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 band, very little coverage and a lack of reliable sources. The article suggests their claim to fame is being associated with

talk) 18:16, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 18:16, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 18:16, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 18:16, 6 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 19:19, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Color Me a Rainbow

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

There is no significant, reliable coverage about this show anywhere on the web. Its sole claim to fame is running for a few years on a TV network of only middling importance. The article was restored after someone claiming to be the producer requested it be restored, which would appear to be a conflict of interest due to its biased and potentially promotional nature. Dronebogus (talk) 18:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 18:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 18:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I was unable to find any coverage either and there definitely appears to be a COI issue. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:46, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and this is why PROD is stupid. Clearly non notable but we have to go through the bureaucracy of undeleting the page, AfDing it, and then deleting it again. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:27, 7 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 19:23, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Florence

Carol Florence (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 significant coverage. Even the article states that her roles are minor. Fails

WP:ENT. SL93 (talk) 18:03, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:43, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:46, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable actress. It is time that Wikipedia stopped being an IMDb mirror.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:02, 7 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 19:21, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are Blytt

Are Blytt (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 re-creation of a draft that has been deleted as promotional several times, almost immediately after their block expired. G4 doesn't apply, it is no longer a copyvio. The artist is not totally non-notable, but rather still an emerging artist. There are some sources, but it seems insufficient. [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23] Vexations (talk) 17:59, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 17:59, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 17:59, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 19:07, 6 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. No consensus to delete, merge can be discussed outside of AfD.

(non-admin closure) buidhe 22:40, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

1776 Project

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'm not certain that this is a notable endeavor independent from The 1619 Project, which it criticizes. Such sources as can be found only discuss this as a reaction to the 1619 Project, and I'm not seeing coverage of this project's writings on their own merits. Moreover, many sources about this topic are of the op-ed type. Those cited in the article are mostly from the Washington Examiner, which participates in this project and is therefore not an independent source, or from more questionable Internet outlets. This topic would better be covered more concisely at The 1619 Project#Critical response. Sandstein 17:07, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 17:07, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge with The 1619 Project per nom. --Cornellier (talk) 00:32, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inclined to keep -- The project appears to have produced a collection of essays. Both 1619 and 1776 appear to be efforts to reassess the impact of slavery on modern America. In the light of recent demonstrations in reaction to the death of George Floyd this appears to be a hot topic. I am thus inclined to keep this for the moment. There may be a case for reviewing this in (say) a year. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:27, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- While clearly in reaction to the 1619 project, it seems substantial enough to have its own page. With a quick google search I see discussions of it in the Wall Street Journal [24], NY Daily News [25] and Medium [26] -Pengortm (talk) 05:15, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- for the moment. It deserves its own page.--Barbanegre (talk) 12:05, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- As per the points above and lack of clear reason for deletion. James xeno (talk) 16:25, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- A brief in the 1619 Critical Response would be too reductive for this complex topic. The project is also young - more and better references are likely to appear as discussion continues. SageMacG (talk) 16:46, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with
    ping}}) czar 19:16, 13 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 19:06, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bharat Tandon

Bharat Tandon (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)

Apart from a brief mention in a Gulf News article, there seems to be no reliable secondary source that has coverage for this individual. Fails notability.

talk) 16:07, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 16:07, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 16:07, 6 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 there is some consideration that the article should be draftified until it is in a more complete state, there is a firm consensus that despite major absences in the article, no deletion grounds exist and it can always be improved. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:41, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical cyclones in 2010

AfDs for this article:
Tropical cyclones in 2010 (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 very incomplete, and has been incomplete since it was created in 2018. Most of the monthly headings refer to January 2010, which indicates that no one has even tried to complete the article. Information on storms is available on individual storm articles, in the articles on storms in years in each of the seven basins, and in an overall list article. This article not only creates more work for the WikiProject, but it creates work that they are not doing. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:00, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • SPEEDY KEEP No valid reason given for deletion.
    WP:INCOMPLETE You can't delete it because you are upset it would require work to fix and are upset a Wikiproject of volunteers is not doing that work. Dream Focus 17:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Speedy keep...concurring with Dream Focus. ~ AC5230 talk 17:46, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. See Tropical cyclones in 2019 for what the article could eventually look like. Stub class articles shouldn't be deleted just because they require some work. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:32, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This discussion was closed at 20:49 on 6 June by
    WP:SK, which are exhaustive, apply to this AFD: the nominator has not withdrawn, the nomination was not made on the grounds of vandalism or disruption, the nomination is not erroneous, the nominator was not blocked or banned, the page is not a policy or guideline, and the page was not linked from the main page. This is an entirely procedural step. The deletion discussion will be relisted for a fresh seven-day period from today. Stifle (talk) 10:45, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Speedy Keep 99% of our articles are incomplete and it's our clear
    WP:ATD also states clearly that "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉(talk) 11:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I'd say 100%. 🐔 Chicdat ChickenDatabase 13:03, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Completenessness is a requirement for featured status and those so few articles which have reached that level have been formally agreed to be complete.
  • Delete with recreation or Draftify You could argue that anything "could" be improved through editing. Correcting a spelling error is improving an article. So, it's way to vague a standard to keep everything due to. Plus, I've never seen anywhere that
    WP:GNG. The question is, is this the subject of the article notable, and from some research I'd say no. The cyclones I looked into that are included in the article didn't have their own articles. Treat it like a glorified list article, would a list article with no (or practically zero) blue links be notable enough to pass an AfD? I don't think so. More so in this case because it's not a list article and therefore requires encyclopedic content about the cyclones. Not just a glorified list in picture table form. Why drafty though? I think this could be worth having once articles are created for the individual cyclones. So, I have no problem with it being drafted or re-recreated later if (and only if) that happens. But in the meantime, there shouldn't be an article about various subjects where those subjects aren't notable themselves and don't have their own articles. You can't make otherwise non-notable subjects in a topic category notable just by combining them into a single article with a graph. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:22, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • move to draft I think the article *topic* is perfectly fine. At the least in-line with existing articles. But as it stands, it's so incomplete as to be wrong (no cyclones in March? Maybe?). If anyone feels the topic area is a problem, I'd suggest an RfC rather than an AfD. Hobit (talk) 12:27, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Draftify. There is absolutely no reason why to delete an article just because it needs a little improvement. I propose that we move this to

WP:NPA on your talk page. 🐔 Chicdat ChickenDatabase 13:02, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Moving to draft space would be counter-productive because the main effect of that space is to stop people from finding the page. Its categories would be munged and search engines would not see it. And there's no special staff assigned to work on drafts; they get less attention than articles in mainspace. Draftification is just
    disruption, adding no value and putting obstacles in the way of improvement. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Also, we've only got one person for delete. Can someone SpeedyKeep-close this? 🐔 Chicdat ChickenDatabase 11:37, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Chicdat: No - have some patience and let the AFD run its course.Jason Rees (talk) 12:11, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You'd think they would learn from this... Nova Crystallis (Talk) 18:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - Rome wasn't built in a (half a) week. (It was built in a millenium.[27][citation needed] It won't be that long. Shouldn't be more than a month.) Nor will be this AFD. ~ AC5230 talk 18:20, 12 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. czar 16:14, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Chin (photographer)

Alan Chin (photographer) (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)

Looks like this photographer has done plenty of work, but doesn't have anything that meets

WP:JOURNALIST. The article is essentially unreferenced. Lots of external links to stories/photo-essays that the subject was involved with, many are dead links. The remainder are articles that Chin wrote himself. Seems a little grand and self-promoting. Since there's no real claim to notability and better references aren't forthcoming, I'm nominating for deletion. Mikeblas (talk) 15:06, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:49, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:50, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:50, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:50, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:51, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:51, 6 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.

Spartaz Humbug! 15:16, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Coretrust

Coretrust (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)

All (reliable) Sources are only inherited WP:INHERITORG, Notability not given in current state as being requested in WP:CORP

talk) 14:29, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 14:29, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:52, 6 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) 14:26, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2ulz

2ulz (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)

Notability seems to fall short of criteria at WP:SINGER. Only two sources cited in the article and they don't seem particularly reliable. A quick search could not locate any other sources. Meticulo (talk) 14:15, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Meticulo (talk) 14:21, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Meticulo (talk) 14:21, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:52, 6 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 Withdrawn. I procedurally renominated the article to see if consensus could be achieved if participation was limited to perspectives from outside the Balkans topic area. But so far, nobody has offered such a perspective, and multiple editors have expressed concerns about my approach. That's why I conclude that this AfD is unlikely to result in a consensus either, and therefore I am withdrawing it. This means that the "no consensus" outcome of the previous two AfDs is where we're at for now. Sandstein 06:58, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Plav-Gusinje massacres (1912-13)

AfDs for this article:
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 previous two AfDs reached no consensus about whether this article should be deleted as original research by synthesis. People strongly disagreed about whether there are reliable sources that establish that these massacres took place. My impression is that the personal association of many editors with one country or another from the Balkans influenced the views they expressed.

I'm therefore trying something new: I'm procedurally renominating the article, but with the following

WP:ECP
, as enforced by page protection.)

For the purposes of this sanction, an editor is deemed to be associated with the Balkans if their username or user page indicates or previously indicated any connection to a place in the Balkans, or if they have made recent substantive edits to any page related to the Balkans, or if they were ever sanctioned for editing about the Balkans, or for other similar reasons as determined by me or another uninvolved administrator.

Contributions in violation of this sanction may be removed by any uninvolved administrator (but not other users). Such contributions can be reported on this AfD's talk page. Editors who disagree with the restriction can appeal it at

WP:AE
.

I hope that this allows other Wikipedians to come to a consensus about the the merits of this article. I know that this may make it more difficult to evaluate sources in languages from the Balkans, but I expect that a notable historical event, if it is notable, will be covered in English-language sources as well (and indeed some are cited in the article).

This is a procedural nomination, I am neutral. Sandstein 14:18, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amended to strike mention of Balkans self-identification on user pages, per concerns about discrimination on my talk page. Sandstein 07:38, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 14:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:53, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:55, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close -Accept outcome. - We have just had two AFD discussions on this, closed as "no consensus" on 9 May and 6 June. If the closing admin had considered that a further discussion was useful he (or she) would have relisted it. The question is ultimately whether the massacre happened. We have sources cited; how reliable they are I am not qualified to say; and I suspect that no one but an expert in Balkan history is qualified to judge. The appropriate course is thus to keep the article but heavily tagged as "disputed". Peterkingiron (talk) 17:35, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Peterkingiron, I was the closing admin in both cases, and I consider a further discussion (this time without Balkans-associated users) useful; this is why I have indeed relisted the article at AfD. Sandstein 21:28, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't like the idea of users being banned from discussions based on ethnic origin. Isn't that technically
    racist? Note that is very different from banning users based on actual behavior. Having looked over the past two AfDs, I sympathize with Sandstein, but I think this AfD should be speedily closed because it sets a dangerous precedent.VR talk 06:23, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Vice regent, I've amended the sanction because of these concerns. Sandstein 07:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the modification. I would also urge you to cancel out: "[#2] if they have made recent substantive edits to any page related to the Balkans", and only leave the following condition: "[#3] if they were ever sanctioned for editing about the Balkans". While neither #2 nor #3 is racist, #2 penalizes all users including those who have constructively edited wikipedia.VR talk 07:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • On a different note, Sandstein, you said,
I know that this may make it more difficult to evaluate sources in languages from the Balkans, but I expect that a notable historical event, if it is notable, will be covered in English-language sources as well.
But WP:Notability says,
Sources do not have to be available online or written in English.
VR talk 07:57, 8 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.

Spartaz Humbug! 15:16, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

REE Automotive

REE Automotive (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 page is undisclosed COI. If necessary, I have off-wiki evidence to back up my assertion. With or without the COI the subject barely scrapes notability, they have a feature in Forbes but the article hasn't been cited here and it's more of the same promotional churnalism. I feel it is wp:too soon for this page. If or when the subject becomes notable a non-conflicted editor can create the page. GDX420 (talk) 07:40, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @
    WP:DRAFTIFY, or let the discussion at AfD play out. As it is, this AfD should either be speedily closed as being in the wrong forum or the draft should be restored to mainspace. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 17:24, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 17:25, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 17:25, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. Sorry for my mistake.GDX420 (talk) 04:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @GDX420: "Undisclosed COI"? ... "off-wiki evidence"? Dude: I don't know you, so ... where's the "off-wiki evidence"? Wikipedia is about legitimate references, and the half dozen references with *real* journalists found this company notable enough to write about it. In your next sentence, you wrote "they have a feature in Forbes but the article hasn't been cited here" ... okay, good find! So... instead of issuing threats, why didn't you cite it?! And if it's too churnalistic, why didn't you fix it? I'm the one who created this article, and I had no issues with legitimate fixes because it sounded too "churnalistic" as copy from their site. This page is not wp:too soon: REE is doing novel technological work, has been around for 7 years, and has designs being licensed by major automotive manufacturers. Instead of issuing threats and going after the page because of manufactured beef with the editor (i.e. me, a complete stranger to you), consider revising content in the future. With revisions that I just published, there should be no further discussion of churnalism -- admittedly your *only* valid criticism.

All: Remove this AfD.

Hi @
WP:BOGOF. Bearing that in mind, could you please restore the maintenance tags that you removed so that the page's content issues can be addressed in due course. Also, as a little housekeeping tip, please sign your messages with four tildes. P.S. this conversation would have been better suited to my talk page and not an AfD. Thank you. GDX420 (talk) 04:29, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Hey @GDX420:. No, this discussion should be right here where @Lord Bolingbroke, Llemiles, and Cullen328: can see you're up to the same trolling on this page that they've cited you for in the past on your talk page. Telling me 'I'm lying' is a baseless threat, and I will not restore the maintenance tags I removed because there are no COI or Notability issues. I'm not paid and you can see that in my history of contributions to Wikipedia. You are clearly waging a flame war for unstated political purposes, starting with moving the page to draft _and_ tagging it AfD, which Lord Bolingbroke noted was a violation of Wikipedia policy. The ONLY issue here that should be discussed is the one you initially flagged, and that's whether this page is suitable for AfD. It's not. According to the four Wikipedia deletion criteria (Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research , and What Wikipedia is not), REE Automotive did not violate the last three. I agree with you that it violated the original research criterion (due to about a half dozen biased/subjective adjectives which I removed yesterday), but that has been fixed, as I noted above in my prior comment. From that same Wikipedia neutral point of view bullet, "If an article is beyond help, it should be deleted, but try fixing the POV first," this article is far from beyond help, and you made no effort to fix POV first: i.e. you didn't follow the Wikipedia guideline you're claiming to follow. Your main contribution here is to weaponize AfD policy. You also mentioned--but did not cite--a Forbes quote/article on REE Automotive, so I'm not sure that anyone would agree with your self-righteous stand about why you didn't/won't contribute. The only good etiquette you've displayed is the signature tip. Thanks! Alwayslearnedstuff (talk) 12:36, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi@
WP:PETARD.GDX420 (talk) 13:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
I've included the Forbes piece and another source to back up that sentence so I don't see any statement that isn't properly sourced. Pichpich (talk) 18:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the company is notable and has third party coverage. The author of this submission has a track record of overzealous COI reports and I think I've only seen one or two where he has been supported by other editors. Otherwise he just engages in bad faith claims about others and, as above, goes around alleging off-wiki evidence linking editors to corporate paid edits. Hey GDX, did you ever post the off wiki evidence of me being "a paid editor for Starling Bank" like you asserted way back when? Llemiles (talk) 15:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note For users with OTRS permissions, the off-wiki evidence can be viewed on Ticket#2020060210002909. It seems to show that REE Automotive have been soliciting for Wikipedia writers to create this article, and may well have provided some or all of the content (which would make this article a
    copyright violation). Yunshui 雲水 10:58, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Does the OTRS ticket support the accusation that the content attributed to Alwayslearnedstuff is in fact exactly what the company provided? That probably would not constitute a copyright violation since the company presumably understands that whatever they post on Wikkipedia, even through an intermediary, is in the public domain. It would, however, be a very serious lapse in judgment on the part of Alwayslearnedstuff (especially since he's been adamant that the content is his own work) and one that should probably have consequences. So what exactly is on that ticket? Pichpich (talk) 03:32, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's... not correct. Wikipedia's content is emphatically not public domain, it is licensed under CC-BY-SA 3.0. In adding content to Wikipedia, the editor adding it claims that they release it under the terms of that licence, which requires that they own the copyright to it. That in turn requires that the content is either entirely original content created by that editor, or that they have had the copyright legally transferred to them by the original owner/creator. If an editor copies text into Wikipedia that they did not write themselves (or that they cannot prove copyright ownership of), and that text cannot be shown to either be freely available under a CC-BY-SA or less restrictive licence, then their addition is a copyright violation - in releasing it under Wikipedia's licence, they claim authorship and copyright ownership.
The OTRS ticket does not contain the text in the article; it consists of a set of screenshots of email exchanges purporting to be between a representative of REE Automotive and an editor who was previously hired to create the article. The exchanges include images of text documents from REE that are presumed to contain the proposed content. Yunshui 雲水 07:19, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:39, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The sourcing is questionable and so is the content of the article. It had a week for the problems be addressed and they never were and nothing in the article seems to pass NCORP's trivial coverage bar whatever sources the content comes from. Plus, it's still written like an advert a week later with buzz words like "unicorn" and sentences like "The company's modular platform is flat[1] and designed to support a wide range of electric vehicle designs." There is no other reason to describe their product in that kind of detail except to advertise it. While I know AfDs aren't cleanup, after the stuff I mentioned is gone there essentially won't be an article. Except for a one line sentence containing basic, run of the mill information and Wikipedia isn't a directory. Ultimately, if the article could have been improved, it would have been already and it wasn't. That's my analysis of the situation at least. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:20, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:57, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:58, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All of the references are based on PR and interviews with the CEO. Not one journalist has provided any independent analysis/opinion/etc which is required and is of one of the most important criteria of notability.
    WP:ORGIND
    says references must contain intellectually independent writing (Independent Content) - that is must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I am unable to locate any references which are not based on PR.
    • This Times of Israel reference is based on this company PR announcement, contains no Independent Content and fails
      WP:ORGIND
    • This from AutoCar is based on information provided by the company and interview with the CEO, has no Independent Content and also fails
      WP:ORGIND
    • This from AVT is based on a "launch announcement" and information provided by the company and a question/answer format with the CEO, has no Independent Content, fails
      WP:ORGIND
    • This from Israel21c is copied from this PR announcement, fails
      WP:ORGIND
    • This in Forbes is also based on an announcement from the company and a partner company, KYB. There is no Independent Content and extensive information is provided by the CEO, fails
      WP:ORGIND
    • This from New Atlas is more of the same "launch" announcement churnalism based entirely information provided by the company and on a phone call with the CEO. Fails ORGIND.
    • This from haaretz.com contains a brief history of the company's funding and valuation, background information on the co-founders, the tie-up with Hino and list of investors. Nearly all the information appears in past company announcements and PR but is presented in a way that could be interpreted as the journalist's analysis. Therefore I wouldn't discount this reference entirely although it isn't enough on its own to push this topic into meeting notability requirements.
    • This from Fast Company is a short profile of innovative companies in the Middle East. The profile was provided by the company (as evidenced by the sales/marketing spiel which is the same spiel in all their profiles), fails
      WP:ORGIND
Not notable,
HighKing++ 20:12, 9 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.

Spartaz Humbug! 15:14, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Renaissance Capital (US company)

AfDs for this article:
Renaissance Capital (US 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)

Full disclosure, I found this article because it was posted to the #wikipedia-en irc for possible promotional issues.

Pretty much the whole article is promotional and I could not find any significant coverage. The funds they manage are LISTED, but the company seems not to be, and notability is not inherited. There was a significant expansion of the article concurrent with the previous AfD in 2012, but I do not believe it meets our current standards, even if it was enough for a "no consensus" then: Of the sources considered then, the BusinessWeek article is now a 404 I can't find an archived copy of, the LA Times article appears to be a reprint of a press release submitted to Bloomberg News, and the review in Stocks and Commodities possibly meets the criteria—if there are similar sources, we should consider refocusing the article on that particular product.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:46, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:46, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:46, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also note that some of the employees of Renaissance might be presumed notable under supplementary criteria of NBIO for being highly influential, but there is not an equivalent for companies I'm aware of. Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:50, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:38, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Very promotional likely non notable 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 10:31, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion. I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Topic fails GNG/NCORP.
    HighKing++ 11:58, 15 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.

Spartaz Humbug! 15:17, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Junior Olympic Gold

Junior Olympic Gold (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)

Promotional, with no sources. Unable to find good sources. Violates the

general notability guideline. PJvanMill (talk) 13:26, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:58, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:59, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:59, 6 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) 14:25, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Nye Gulick

John Nye Gulick (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)

Certainly an admirable soldier, but no indication he has received enough coverage to merit an article. A Bronze Star, Purple Heart, and lieutenant rank doesn't meet

WP:GNG Eddie891 Talk Work 12:38, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 13:15, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 13:15, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:00, 7 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) buidhe 22:42, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

QP (video game)

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

Does not appear to meet

WP:GNG. As the article states, this game was cancelled before release. All coverage appears to either be routine promotional press or speculation in less-than-reliable blogs and forums. signed, Rosguill talk 22:40, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 22:40, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:VGSE draws a blank. You do need to describe an adequate BEFORE analysis given that this was to have been published before widespread use of the Internet. Neo Geo Freak appears to have covered it (Japanese, not sure how advertisment-esque) in issues 22-25 (especially 22); Gamest in issue 199. (Scans online.) Is this what you found when you say "routine promotional press"? --Izno (talk) 23:25, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Even if not notable, this has an obvious redirect target at Success (company). --Izno (talk) 23:26, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the Japanese and Spanish-language articles linked (which I was able to read, more thoroughly with the latter than the former), appear to all be promotional pre-release coverage. Given the circumstances of the game's cancellation, there's really no reason to expect more, higher-quality sources to exist. I don't think that the redirect is preferable to deletion, because the game is not listed at that page and due to it never having been released there's a solid argument against adding it to that list. signed, Rosguill talk 23:36, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's extremely rare to have a woman project manager for a game (especially a 20 year old Japanese game) though, right? The game might be notable in a way not covered by the sources. Although when I look up 伊藤しのぶ all I can see is that she was a graphic artist for Cotton. --Prosperosity (talk) 12:00, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:20, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to
    ping}}) czar 19:38, 13 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.

Spartaz Humbug! 15:18, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Full operating capability

Full operating capability (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)

DoD acronym. Wikipedia is not a manual. Fails

WP:NOT
.

Addendum:86% copyvio. scope_creepTalk 23:21, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:22, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is actually a key issue for military programs across the western world, and there's a large literature on the topic. Nick-D (talk) 23:45, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Operational definition, in a new section Operational definition#Military (while sticking to non-copyvio sources). There is no need to create new articles for every term if the articles are stubs. They can always be split out later. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:08, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also Comment: Initial operating capability ought to be considered alongside this article for any changes required to it. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:26, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know the point is kind of moot since the AfD can be closed now, but we speedy delete copyvios, and all rights reserved is pretty clear cut as being not a Wikipedia-compatible licence. The content can't be merged, except for half a sentence about how it's "usually preceded by an IOC phase". Most we can do is delete and redirect. Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Alpha3031: Yip. Indeed. I never checked for copyvio until I posted it, as I would have speedied it myself. There seems to some use for the term, so I guess a full article will arrive at some point, if somebody wants to do it. I will need to be deleted outright, or the history will need to be RD1'd. A new article would be ideal. scope_creepTalk 07:53, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The copying was in the opposite direction, as is clear from the full entry at the copying website.
Phil Bridger (talk) 08:21, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
I'll be striking then. My initial instinct was to merge if there was no copyvio but I'm leaning more towards a keep now. Scope creep, since you've seem to have been convinced the topic is notable as well, do you want to withdraw the nom and SK1 things or leave things open? Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:01, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:38, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yip, it look like it. scope_creepTalk 09:16, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is likely looking to be a keep certainly, but I'm not particularly sure of withdrawing it, more so, as more than 50%, is the definition. In the 14th edition, which it was taken out of, there is more than 2000 definitions. Are they all going to come in, in some way? I would rather have a full sized articles, written by somebody doing decent research to try to make the reader understand what it means, rather than a definition from a glossary of terms manual. The whole point of
    WP:NOT, is exactly this; so the work is done. It's another dud article with military content that nobody understands. I think it should go. And even by the time a new article is in, it won't even called that as historical research will give it another. That is modern name. You will have 500-1000 years of military preparations and it will be an entirely different beast. scope_creepTalk 14:05, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is project commissioning, that describes civil engineering practices. It is a military term and it deserves a military style article.scope_creepTalk 17:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Large projects of any sort will typically have a formal completion and signoff stage. It's standard project management and procurement and it doesn't make much difference whether it's a weapon system, a railroad, an IT system or whatever. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:58, 6 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 05:29, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bruno Vain

Bruno Vain (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've done the required

WP:AFD discussion would be preferable. Pete AU aka Shirt58 (talk) 10:28, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 12:45, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:00, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:00, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:51, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no assertion of notability Spiderone 10:52, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 10:53, 12 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) 14:23, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Huntingdon Urban Area

Huntingdon Urban Area (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 OR in the sense there is no known definition. In addition seems to duplicate several other articles. Games of the world (talk) 11:31, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:44, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:44, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no assertion of notability Spiderone 13:12, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Four of the same
    primary sources and nothing on a search, indicates no notability. -- Otr500 (talk) 01:54, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
There is a definition but https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160129052708/http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/census/census-2001/data-and-products/data-and-product-catalogue/reports/key-statistics-for-urban-areas-in-england-and-wales/list-of-urban-area-names-and-codes.xls has separate codes for Huntingdon and Godmanchester so using the statistical definition they are separate unless there has been a recent change. It's a valid subject for an article; there are similar articles for metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas in the United States. Peter James (talk) 23:01, 12 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) 14:23, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gloucester and Cheltenham Urban Area

AfDs for this article:
Gloucester and Cheltenham Urban Area (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 Original research with no known definition, and duplicates information in several articles Games of the world (talk) 11:20, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:43, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:43, 6 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.

Spartaz Humbug! 15:19, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Astronaut: The Last Push

Astronaut: The Last Push (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, only one review found and no other significant coverage by independent reliable sources, per

WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 10:21, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 13:11, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Film stars several established and notable actors
    WP:NFOE which states that "The film features significant involvement by a notable person". There are at lease three reviews of the film online, [[28]], and [[29]] and [[30]]. And, not withstanding those reviews, this film wasn't widely released in theaters in the United States and was mainly released to DVD/Blu-ray and streaming services, which generally don't get the attention of "major" critics. Therefore a search for the film will find many reviews based on the home media release, including [[31]] and [[32]]. Donaldd23 (talk) 14:03, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Do you have any sources indicating this it is his first major role? Do you have a source indicating that it was a major part of his career? Otherwise, it seems like that just a personal view. It is not even mentioned in his own Wikipedia article except for in his filmography. BOVINEBOY2008 20:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Found one reliable source review so far from Starburst Magazine here, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:16, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I added that review and cited it. That makes TWO independent sources now, which should satisfy
WP:NFO Donaldd23 (talk) 01:39, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes, this looks good. I made the mistake of not looking under the film's other name. Do you have any context as to why the film changed names? That might be helpful info for the article. BOVINEBOY2008 12:48, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, I do not know why the name was changed. I will keep looking for that information, hopefully it is out there somewhere and can be added to the article. Thank you. Donaldd23 (talk) 14:45, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the Columbus Dispatch and Starburst Magazine sources, which demonstrate notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 23:29, 8 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) 14:22, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Archduchess Maria Alice of Austria

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

There is no indication of notability. The article serves merely as a genealogical entry, listing her descendants up to great-great-grandchildren, along with dubious titles of living people who very likely do not use them for professional, legal, or ideological reasons. Needless to say, the sources are lacking.

Wikipedia is not a genealogy database, however. Surtsicna (talk) 10:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 10:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 10:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 10:13, 6 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) 14:22, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rancho del Sol, California

Rancho del Sol, 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)

Fails

WP:GEOLAND as a non-notable HOA/subdivision. More info here. No clear redirect target, as it's located in an area between several communities. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 09:21, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 09:21, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 09:21, 6 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) 14:21, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Manzanita Acres, California

Manzanita Acres, 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)

Non-notable subdivision; fails

WP:GEOLAND. The only mention I could find, excluding the websites with autogenerated data pulled from GNIS, is this brief mention in a government document listing various subdivisions. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 09:11, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 09:11, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 09:11, 6 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) 14:21, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jacobsen, California

Jacobsen, 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)

Fails

reliable source, the information in this page indicates that it was an individual farmstead. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 09:03, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 09:03, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 09:03, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Early 1900s maps show a few buildings marked "Jacobsens" or "Jacobsons" and GNIS marks is as "historical", but none of this establishes the claim that there was an actual settlement or community here, much less a notable one. The link provided by OP wouldn't be appropriate to cite in an article but it seems well-researched and supports the idea that this was just a farm. –dlthewave ☎ 15:56, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Mass-produced junk. Reywas92Talk 20:53, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Probably a ranch. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 14:31, 10 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. Ping for undelete if WP:CRICKET decides that the World Disability Series is actually significant. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:42, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tushar Paul

Tushar Paul (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 cricketer, fails

GNG requirements. StickyWicket (talk) 09:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 09:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 09:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 09:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable cricketeer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:16, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. Does the World Disability Series have any significance because, if it does, and Tushar Paul was a member of the winning team then he could be notable. The article is, however, a mess with some very poor referencing. No Great Shaker (talk) 20:54, 12 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.

Spartaz Humbug! 15:20, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Brampton Board of Trade

Brampton Board of Trade (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 Reliable sources that this organization is Notable. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 00:50, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment: Why start with AfD for an organization that dates to 1887, and serves the business community for a municipality of over 593,000? -- Zanimum (talk) 01:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:37, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:37, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:37, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
  •  Question: BeenAroundAWhile, before I continue adding more references, would you mind looking at the article again, and seeing whether your original statement still stands? Since your last comment, I and another user have added mention of a BBOT President that became a provincial politician (equivalent to a state senator), mention of the organization's archival fonds, a list of notable speakers that it has hosted (primarily based on coverage in non-local newspapers including from Vancouver (00on the Pacific Coast of Canada), a policy position mentioned in the Toronto media (the first of many available in the newspaper), and a lengthy section about an annual Santa Claus parade that they host in town, which has a 160,000 person attendance and 250,000 television audience.
Something that I might add, if I can find a source (currently it would be "synth", is that Chisholm, Runians, Duggan, Wegenast, Charters all served as both BBOT president and Mayor of Brampton.
Among the content that I have yet to introduce to the article, a flubbed real estate deal that left the organization in a bad position as of a decade or so ago, that led to the board replacing the entire staff. It's documented over a series of articles in the local newspaper of record,
The Brampton Guardian, which I've largely avoided to this point, in order to focus on larger publications. Thanks for your consideration, -- Zanimum (talk) 23:49, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 08:21, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 59 references? Many seem notable? 133-year history? Only thing I don't understand is why
    WP:BEFORE. Nfitz (talk) 02:13, 14 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) 12:14, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Upper Forni, California

Upper Forni, 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)

Contested

WP:GNIS for more about the meaning and pitfalls of this classification), there is no evidence that there is or ever has been a community here. Although our standards for inclusion of geographical places are deliberately very low, they do not extend to individual homesteads or farms. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 08:12, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 08:12, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 08:12, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete California's Geographic Names lists this as a "locality" and the "unincorporated community" description in our article is entirely unsourced. Another homestead mislabeled by GNIS, see
    WP:GNIS for more details on this phenomenon. –dlthewave ☎ 15:42, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete Mass-produced blatantly false crap. Reywas92Talk 20:55, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete More of a home than a community. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 22:46, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per Nom and Dlthewave. Also thanks, I knew there was an error being exploited but now see it is more widely known. -- Otr500 (talk) 20:36, 12 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) 14:20, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Melanie Maecker-Tursun

Melanie Maecker-Tursun (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 in WP:BASIC, haven't received significant coverage in multiple published secondary reliable sources, all references are primary or self published (LinkedIn etc.)

talk) 08:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 08:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Hello
    CommanderWaterford , I can understand your arguments. At the same time, Melanie Maecker-Tursun has, in my opinion, made a very significant contribution to Wikimedia Commons. She has provided more than 50 professional graphics on the topic of renewable energy. For a freelance graphic designer, that is extraordinary. The German Wikimedia has pointed out this achievement several times in their newsletters (see quote). Many greetings --Molgreen (talk) 16:42, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
talk) 16:45, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
CommanderWaterford, I understand and hope that the article gets a chance. . . --Molgreen (talk) 17:58, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:04, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:05, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is an extremely clear notability fail that probably should have been speedy deleted. I could not find any independent news coverage. The claims to notability in the article are pretty much non-existent, and it reads more like a CV. While she is to be congratulated for her uploads, contributing to Wikimedia projects does not earn notability points unless people write about you in independent media, in depth. Example, example, example.
    talk) 00:29, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 00:37, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Delete per deleters - not close at all to notability. Johnbod (talk) 01:36, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No suggestion that she has done anything notable. Rathfelder (talk) 07:08, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable graphic designer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:52, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is some precedent that making illustrations freely available on Commons gets enough attention in the media to warrant an article, but this is not such a case. Making used(?) contributions to Commons alone does not make one notable. We need coverage in independent reliable sources. And, not that it would make any difference, but I don't even see that these illustrations are in use.
    Vexations (talk) 18:23, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not seeing any third party media covering the subject. Not in Google first 3 pages, not in Google News. — Infogapp1 (talk) 22:59, 12 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.

Spartaz Humbug! 15:21, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

ATC code A07

ATC code A07 (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)

These lists appear to just be reposts of the original ATC lists. There is no encyclopedic coverage of the topics within them. I think the whole set should be deleted because we are

WP:NOT
a directly or almanac; additionally in my experience these lists are often out of date and therefore have the potential to be incorrect and, because they are just reposts of the primary source, contribute to errors if they are used. Like other sources, interested editors can go directly to the primary source, rather than the copy/pasted list here.

I am proposing a single instance of the list first and, if there is consensus, the result of the set can be nominated. I look forward to hearing the opinion of other editors. Tom (LT) (talk) 07:50, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Tom (LT) (talk) 07:50, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't find any but it would seem there would be some. The "group or set" source is what I was looking for. I haven't been involved with any of these but as a set of navigational aid lists I can see a reason for keeping. Of course this would be more important as long as Anypodetos (or someone) was around to update. Otherwise they would become outdated and better as categories. -- Otr500 (talk) 18:20, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Another concern is that even though consensus might keep this one, thus possibly placating the Nom, someone else might take issue later and it starts all over. Something like 15 pages with many listings on each page and someone may wonder about the same 3 or 4 sources. At least the source I added shows the sub-pages are listed. If a template makes it easier I am for it because I don't think the mentioned refs 1 and 2 does it. -- Otr500 (talk) 18:41, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Re sources: Apart from refs 1 (NIH) and 2 (German Ministry of Health), which have short explanations of the ATC code system, there's quite a number of sites that use ATC codes – e.g. the UK drug information, Drugbank, Germany's Rote Liste (no open access), the Austria Codex – so I think there is no question about notability of the topic. But these sources are ill suited for inline citations, as each ATC code is on a different page, and they don't address the nominator's concern that we are just reproducing the originals from https://www.whocc.no/ with no encyclopedic content on the ATC pages themselves. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 19:52, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, so possible solution? -- Otr500 (talk) 20:24, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That depends on what this discussion is actually about, of which I'm not really sure any more. Are we still talking about (a) no encyclopedic content, and/or (b) secondary sources establishing notability, and/or (c) inline citations for the individual sections or even the individual list items? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 07:14, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, reasonable encyclopaedic topic, properly sourced. Stifle (talk) 10:19, 15 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.

Spartaz Humbug! 15:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Aralla

Aralla (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)

Notability - there is absolutely no way that a town about which nothing is known, whose existence can only be inferred and whose name is never mentioned by any authors meets WP notability requirements. I can find no sources whatsoever that attest to this town existing. LegesRomanorum (talk) 22:14, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:17, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:17, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:17, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my rationale at
    talk) 04:40, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep, per current discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome. As a formerly-populated place from antiquity, it's presumptively notable, even if the only source we have cited is the Barrington Atlas. But if it says the place is inferred from epigraphic evidence, then presumably the epigraphy in question is also a valid source to cite, whether or not we can identify it using the internet. As a stub article, it has sufficient justification to exist simply because readers might run across the name—whether on Wikipedia or any other source—and expect to know where it was, or at least verify what it was. A simple summary like the article has now is enough for that, although as the discussion shows, it might be folded into a larger article containing similarly undetailed geographic stubs from the same region. P Aculeius (talk) 14:26, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I agree rationale of last contribution. It is useful to have at least a stub on such places; or at worst a redirect, due to merging. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 04:24, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my comment at
    Phil Bridger (talk) 20:39, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:26, 6 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) 14:17, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Onyeka Nnadozie Eze

Onyeka Nnadozie Eze (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. Case of

talk) 07:25, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 07:25, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 07:25, 6 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.

Spartaz Humbug! 15:24, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

FIFA Online 3

FIFA Online 3 (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)

Nearly all the sources appear to be from the company. From a Google search I didn't see any articles that looked like were not simply reposts of press releases from the company. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
comment - Polygon, Korean Herald, Sportskeeda and IGN all at least talk about the game in some way. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:12, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed links: Korean Herald, Sportskeeda —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 21:17, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 21:49, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 21:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - notability is questionable, seems a promotional article as per the sources added. Drat8sub (talk) 20:25, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see a problem with overall notability in web search, clearly no one is interested in
    WP:BEFORE, Lee pointed to some decent links above, even businesswire.com wrote an article and that's saying something. Article is in a poor state, but that is not a reason to eliminate it. There are lots of other links for the game in other language sources, seems like their is some reception from Asian websites. I don't think nominator did an extensive enough search! Govvy (talk) 15:54, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
@
WP:PROMO: Business Wire's about page
says "Business Wire, a Berkshire Hathaway company, is the global leader in press release distribution and regulatory disclosure."
As to the sources provided by
WP:RS or not. --David Tornheim (talk) 16:32, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't know why you got so offended! I really don't think you did a good enough web search. I only loaded three of the four links, but for Sport Skeeda, my search AI adjust to this link. koreaherald.com, didn't load. But I certainly felt I saw enough sources in a google search that makes me feel the article should pass GNG. Seems like it was more pushed for the Asian market, saw reviews of the game I could not read or translate. Example articles for the push to the Asian market like techinasia.com, bangkokpost.com. This article is one month old from Indonesia [34] about termination in Asia to make way for FIFA Online 4. Govvy (talk) 17:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that you revised your meaning in the response to something softer. I find it irritating to be accused of not doing a
WP:PROMO
.
I brought it here so that others who know the sources better can decide, and I appreciate you offering sources. I would just rather you provide the sources rather than attack the editors who didn't find them and who are making a good faith attempt to rid the encyclopedia of
WP:PROMO
.
As to the sources you are providing: I would be willing to change my !vote to a keep, if you can make it clear why you think the sources are
WP:RS -and- more specifically why you believe any particular published article is not user-generated, a press release, promo, or pay-to-play "news" advertising. I do appreciate your help and experience in that regard. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:59, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
P.S. I do see that IGN is in
WP:RS/P. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 21:37, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge probably is the best decision here, but there doesn't yet seem to be a consensus for any particular decision just yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 07:00, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources? --David Tornheim (talk) 22:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - most of this article is better covered in the main FIFA article. MiasmaEternalTALK 05:16, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Benefit of the doubt as there is seemingly a decent spread of sources and the deletion arguments are unconvincing. No Great Shaker (talk) 20:38, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources? --David Tornheim (talk) 22:21, 12 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.

Spartaz Humbug! 15:25, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Bridge Ndilu

Bridge Ndilu (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)

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails

WP:NFOOTY. Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:25, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:25, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 14:09, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 14:09, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 16:21, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails NFOOTY. Sources amount to mostly trivial transfer speculations. -- BlameRuiner (talk) 23:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify. Not convinced there's enough depth in the sources I can find to satisfy GNG. The only detailed one in the article is the Italian scouting report, but that's a Wordpress blog and not demonstrably
    WP:RS. Mr Ndilu is clearly close to making his FPL debut (and, unlike the wonderkids forever "about to sign" for a massive club, has actually done stuff in his career), and if/when he does, the article's already in a decent enough state to put live. Incidentally, he didn't cost €4 million: the Ouest-France article (ref #2 currently) says that Laval lost their professional licence when they failed to get promoted back to Ligue 2, which left Mr Ndilu out of contract. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:23, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 06:59, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify per Struway2 above. Best approach with an upcoming player who may meet GNG in the near future. No Great Shaker (talk) 20:31, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - barely fails NFOOTY by splitting hairs, as he while he has appeared for a fully-professional squad in the top tier of French football in the 2019–20 Coupe de France, it was against a semi-professional side. And he's also appeared in the line-up (and subsequently on the bench) during other fully-professional matches. However media coverage does meet GNG with this and this. And there's certainly no end of other media coverage in reliable sources that allow for the creation of detailed article, such as this article earlier today. Nfitz (talk) 22:34, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify Seems like the best option.
    talk) 06:07, 15 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.

Spartaz Humbug! 15:25, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Number One Gun

Number One Gun (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'm not seeing anything notable about this band. All the sources in the article are either trivial coverage or personal blogs. There's no in-depth reviews or articles about in reputable sources that I can find anywhere. Let alone any indication that they have won any awards or charted anywhere that would help with notability. Except for US Christ and US Christ. Which are barely notable weekly sub charts for new artists, but aren't main charts. Even in the Christian music category. Adamant1 (talk) 06:55, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep
    WP:MUSICBIO barely meets No. 2 (has had a single or album on any country's national music chart). They do have a bio at AllMusic, with reviews of four albums. Plenty of reviews at Jesus Freak Hideout. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
It seems the notability for a lot of these really comes down to just Jesus Freak Hideout and AllMusic. Which is really questionable IMO. Especially AllMusic. Since it includes pretty much anything. It's literally called "AllMusic." So, the band having a bio on their site doesn't really mean much. The same goes for Jesus Freak Hideout. Of course they are going to have reviews of a Christian band. That's their "niche." It doesn't mean anything in relation to the band as far as the generally audience Wikipedia is suppose to cater to though. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:25, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, I'm not seeing either chart you mentioned on the list of acceptable Billboard sub charts for establishing notability. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:15, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While AllMusic tries to include everything, they do not review everything. There are a lot of entries that simply list the album (or band) and there's nothing else there. Sometimes, they will list an album and give it a rating, but unless there's a review, it's not considered enough to meet GNG. This group has a bio and four reviewed albums. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:45, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. If a band has reviews for 4 albums, but they are all from the same source wouldn't that still not work for notability because it's not "multiple" reliable sources? I know for something like a company, if they get repeated coverage but only from a single source or journalist it doesn't work as well (or at all depending) for notability then it would if the coverage was from different sources. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:33, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Each review stands as a source. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And they are from at least two separate reviewers: Nathaniel Schexnayder and Josh Taylor. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:24, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Walter Görlitz: BTW, I wanted to mention it seems that sometimes doing a search for a topic on Google gives different or no results compared to clicking the links in the AfD template. There was an AfD for a company a few weeks ago where I didn't get any results by searching for it directly on Google Scholar but someone else got results by clicking the Google Scholar link in the template. That might have been why that one AfD went so wrong or why you found sources for albums that me and others didn't. I know it's more convenient to point fingers and place blame on a bad BEFORE or whatever though, then it is to give leeway for this being an imperfect process sometimes that not everyone always gets the same results from. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:48, 15 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 Royal Moroccan Air Force. Stifle (talk) 10:31, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of active Moroccan military aircraft

List of active Moroccan military aircraft (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)

Redundant inventory table. List of Morrocan military aircraft is already covered in Royal Moroccan Gendarmerie, Royal Moroccan Navy and Royal Moroccan Air Force. No reason to keep duplication as it was difficult to maintain the page, and this page is already subject to vandalism Ckfasdf (talk) 01:27, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
    Talk to my owner:Online 01:42, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:08, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:08, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:09, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:09, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:09, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dream Focus: Actually, the main reason is redundancy or unnecessary duplication. That list initally mentioned table of aircraft inventory of Royal Moroccan Gendarmerie, Royal Moroccan Navy and Royal Moroccan Air Force). However the same table also can be found on those pages. Some of Lists of currently active military equipment by country also have some problem. Ckfasdf (talk) 13:11, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nominator’s observation that this is covered by three separate pages would actually seem to be an argument for keeping this list, to present the information in one place instead of being divided by armed forces branch. Seems like a clear benefit to readers interested in the technology, not the organizational structure. postdlf (talk) 18:04, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk) 02:24, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Azuredivay: that list also used to have list of aircraft that belong to Royal Moroccan Gendarmerie and Royal Moroccan Navy, and that list is already in Royal Moroccan Air Force. So it'll better if we just delete this page. Ckfasdf (talk) 05:45, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Seems likely that the article can be created in the future once there is enough content. This is why I assume that merging is a better option. Azuredivay (talk) 04:54, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Spartaz Humbug! 06:55, 6 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.

Spartaz Humbug! 15:26, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Appolena

Appolena (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 find no sources whatsoever that suggest that this town exists, and the limited article text strongly suggests that it does not pass Wikipedia notability requirements. This user has created a vast number of permastubs by working through a list of likely apocryphal ancient place names. LegesRomanorum (talk) 22:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- It is useful to have a stub or (at least) redirect, the result of merging. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:08, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A couple other AfDs I've voted in I've voted !keep because there were references in other works such as scholarly articles. This is based off a single directory listing in an atlas. I cannot find any other references to it online. Other articles were easy to find sources for. I have no doubt the atlas gets this near
    WP:V, but we can't have a standalone on it right now. That being said, this needs to be listified somewhere. I don't know where that place is, so I'm a delete - if anyone suggests a good spot for it, I fully support that. SportingFlyer T·C 08:07, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Appearing in an atlas is not sufficient to establish notability per
    WP:NGEO, and populated places aren't presumed notable simply because they exist. This goes double for a place whose existence is merely inferred. –dlthewave ☎ 00:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep. The
    Phil Bridger (talk) 20:19, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I'm not aware of any policy that requires that articles be deleted unless they have multiple source citations. The Barrington Atlas itself cites Tabula Imperii Byzantini for epigraphic sources, with the additional note "T. Drew-Bear". Tabula Imperii Byzantini is a reliable scholarly source and has a web site which seems at first glance to provide open access to at least some of its holdings; and T. Drew-Bear is the author of some indices of its maps, for which map 62 contains Appolena, with the aforementioned citations—one to himself/herself, but I can't figure out what that citation means, since eleven publications from 1976 to 1999 are listed, all with dates, in the bibliography, but the citation doesn't say which, if any of these, is meant—and the index for volume 7 of TIB is shorter and doesn't include Appolena. So we have a scholarly citation, but I'm unable to locate the source information being cited over the internet. Does that mean the article on the town fails for lack of citations? No, of course not. Sources don't have to be available over the internet. They simply have to exist and be capable of verification—whether or not anyone involved with Wikipedia actually views them.
This stub was nominated for deletion for three reasons that I can identify: 1, that the place is not notable; 2, that it's likely apocryphal; 3, that the editor who created it made many others that are similarly non-notable and likely did not exist. None of these reasons hold up under close scrutiny, however. Notability is established because this is a town or village from antiquity, the location and nature of which are of interest to historians and archaeologists today; its inclusion in the Barrington Atlas as well as within the TIB project framework are more than adequate to establish that. We know that the place either definitely existed at or near the place identified in these sources, or is accepted as probably having been there by modern scholarship; we do not have to prove that this supposition is correct in order for the article to exist: many perfectly acceptable articles exist about people, places, and things that are merely thought to exist or have existed, or claimed to exist or have existed by some scholars, historians, philosophers, theologians, myths, legends, folktales, etc. The mere possibility that a name might refer to someone or something or some place other than the one currently identified doesn't justify deleting an article. We don't delete the articles about Bigfoot, Atlantis, or West Virginia merely because they're potentially apocryphal. And the first two being the case, it really doesn't matter how many other articles the same editor created.
I further note that pretty much all of the others that were similarly nominated for deletion have already been closed as "keep" or deProdded. Yes, it might be a good idea to combine some of these stubs into a single article. But that requires at least one editor to choose which among these many town and village stubs should be included, and perhaps how many articles there ought to be for settlements in different regions. The fact that nobody has stepped up and done so yet—or may do so in the immediate future—is not grounds for deletion. There is no time limit for articles to be improved, and there is no consensus on the best way to treat these many towns and villages yet. Even if some of them are combined, the current titles will still exist as redirects to the combined articles, which we would expect to contain the same source citations and basic descriptions that the stubs have now. So the contents of articles such as this one would not be deleted from the encyclopedia by "listifying" them—it would merely be moved to a different location. Taking all of this into consideration, I can see no circumstances under which this article meets the criteria for deletion. P Aculeius (talk) 14:03, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A search [36] here gave no results. I advocated for keeping other articles, but considering: 1) this article contains only one citation, which itself is only a directory listing, which you have noted that the citation by the author references a citation by the same author, which cannot be found; 2) no other information is available on the internet, and no other sources have been presented that might contain information about this place; 3) other articles which were kept, at least the ones I participated in, were easily verifiable elsewhere; 4) just because other articles have been kept does not mean this one should also be kept/deleted; and 5) if you cannot write anything that's not a perma-stub, an alternative, such as a redirect to a list, should be considered. In this case, there is no actual evidence this is a notable place apart from a dot on a map, and while
WP:GEOLAND does give a presumption, I don't think the presumption is met here, since there's really nothing we can say about this place apart from "this was a place name on a map that may or may not be logged in the TIL." That being said, as I've noted above, I have no problem of including this in a list somewhere. SportingFlyer T·C 18:20, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
I believe your analysis of the underlying policies is faulty. One citation to a reliable source, such as the Barrington Atlas or TIB is sufficient to demonstrate verifiability. I'm not sure what your point about a "directory listing" is. As far as I know, there's no such exception to the criteria for determining whether a place is verifiable. You may be thinking of the notability criterion, "Wikipedia is not a directory." That's not really applicable here; an ancient town or village that can be named and located within a particular area and is so listed in scholarly sources is notable, even if nothing else can be said about it. But here we don't even know what else can be said; only that I wasn't able to learn more about the information in TIB by looking through its website. Nothing about our verifiability criteria says that we have to have seen the archaeological evidence, or have access to it over the internet, before we're entitled to accept that it exists based on a citation in other sources. I mentioned that the other articles were all kept, because their simultaneous creation by the same editor and based on the same sources was urged as a reason to delete this one. But since the creation of the articles as a group seems to be fine, that's not a valid reason for deleting this one. There's no policy that says that articles should be deleted if they seem unlikely to progress beyond stubs in the foreseeable future. It may well be that this article could be combined with others, but the possibility that it could be is not grounds for deletion. I believe that your description of the town as "a place name on a map that may or may not be logged in the TIL" is misleading. It is not "a place name on a map". It is a known settlement from antiquity that is documented by both TIL and the Barrington Atlas. The fact that we don't know all of the information about it doesn't mean that we can suppose that there might not be any basis for its inclusion. It's highly improbable that TIL would publish an index by one of its major contributors citing it, if it were not documented by the project; and even less likely that it would then be accepted as fact by the Barrington Atlas if it did not consider the material in TIL reliable. As Wikipedians, we are not entitled to assume that the conclusions of scholarly sources are erroneous unless they can produce their proofs to us. P Aculeius (talk) 22:36, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cities have one of the lowest barriers to notability, but I don't buy the fact that just because this was a point on a map and nothing else can be said about it makes it notable enough for its own article when the other places which were nominated were kept and easily verifiable elsewhere. The "directory listing" discussing the place was literally just an index with the place name. I am not saying the atlas is necessarily wrong, but I would expect there to be sources on Google Scholar like there were for the other articles, I would expect there would be listings in books, maybe in one of the readily online searchable Ramsey books on the topic - nothing. Is it really a "known settlement from antiquity?" The fact a place name appeared on a map does not by itself mean that we can have a standalone article for it. It's fine to listify some content, this is one of those instances. SportingFlyer T·C 00:15, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Will never be more than a stub, doesn't merit an Wikipedia article. --Cornellier (talk) 14:51, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And what is wrong with a stub on a topic that passes
    Phil Bridger (talk) 17:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Precisely. That's what a stub is for. I'm not aware of "WP:DELETEALLSTUBS". The main argument for deleting the article is that "it's just a dot on a map", but clearly that's not true. We just don't have access to the information used by TIB and the Barrington Atlas—that doesn't mean that the information doesn't exist, or that we'll never know any more than the location of the town. But I think we're entitled to assume that they didn't include it "because it's a dot on a map". The place is clearly notable as an inhabited town from antiquity of interest to modern historians; and its inclusion in these sources makes it verifiable, whether or not we can see the details. So until Wikipedia policy requires the deletion of stubs because they're short—and not because the subjects are non-notable or unverifiable—articles like this should not be deleted. P Aculeius (talk) 00:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is we don't actually know if it passes
WP:GEOLAND. We literally only have a dot on a map and its corresponding directory listing. There's nothing wrong with the source, but there are no other sources out there which have been presented that let us say anything other than "According to a single source, this was a city located in Phrygia, whose existence was inferred." It's perfectly reasonable to believe that's not enough of a demonstration of notability. SportingFlyer T·C 05:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Spartaz Humbug! 06:54, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Likely it was a translation of Apollonia and the person who created the article did it without known. If you look at the list of Roman towns in Apollonia it, Appolena, and Apellonia are used interchangeably as names for cities throughout. Which is all the more reason to delete this article IMO. As it's likely a duplicate of a differently named Roman city that it is just an odd spelling of. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that it's a common name is not a reason to delete. If it's an alternate spelling of a place that we cover on another page then we should merge them, not delete anything. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:22, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Normally I'd agree. Except two things here make me think that's a no go. 1. We don't usually merge referenced information and in this case I'd say it applies 2. There's no encyclopedic content about it to merge anyway 3. There's zero way to know where we should merge it to and it's probably impossible to figure out since the information in the article is so sparse and general. It could really apply to a bunch of articles cited in Apollonia. So, should we just pick a random merge target and keep our fingers crossed it's the correct one or something? --Adamant1 (talk) 10:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The atlas gives a location for this place (38.959452N, 31.147865E) and also gives an alternate placename (Tezkalesi). This information seems quite adequate for further investigation. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are two reliable sources that call if Appolena, not Apollonia. This isn't some rogue editor with careless spelling, so we can take that argument right off the table. "It's unencyclopedic" is not a valid deletion argument—many encyclopedias have short articles that say little more than "X was a Roman town in Y". Why should Wikipedia be any more demanding? "Not a directory" is about "indiscriminate information". "X was a Roman town in Y" is not "indiscriminate" in the way that "the Phlink warehouse stocked the following valve configurations" or "these are the businesses at the corner of 4th Street and Vine" are indiscriminate. "We don't merge referenced information" isn't a policy. Most merged articles contain sources from each of the articles being merged. "I don't know where it should be merged" is not an argument for deletion—it's an argument for keeping it as a stub. However, it's also wrong—there's no reason why this article couldn't be merged with other stubs on Roman-era settlements in Phrygia. Is that the best solution? I don't know, but it's not important to answer that question, when the question at hand is whether to delete or keep the contents of the article; the potential for merger simply proves that there are valid alternatives to deletion. P Aculeius (talk) 14:29, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is why I think including this topic in a list is the best solution, without prejudice of recreation if we find other sources on it. It's verifiable enough to include somewhere in the encyclopaedia, but it's not notable enough for a standalone article at this point, since we really only have one source, a map. (I'm also concerned that it's a map because mapmakers prevent copying by occasionally including fictional features.) SportingFlyer T·C 16:46, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No map produced as an academic document, as this one is, contains such deliberate falsehoods. This source is just as reliable as anything written in prose published by the Princeton University Press.
Phil Bridger (talk) 18:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Discussions aren't edit wars. Anyway, the point in AfDs are to reduce mainspace/article clutter. Discussions can and should be as long as they need to be to resolve things and everything said so far was to that end. Maybe if the discussion was off topic id agree with you, but sometimes AfDs require debate. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:37, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep My reading of the references[37] differs a bit from that of
    WP:PRESERVE applies. fiveby(zero) 02:36, 15 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.

Spartaz Humbug! 15:26, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

The Make (band)

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

There doesn't seem to be anything notable about this band except that they were signed by a record label created by a football player. All the sources are more about player and his record label then the band though and notability isn't inherited. Outside of that, I can't find anything pointing to them charting anywhere. Let alone there being extensive in-depth reviews or articles on them anywhere. Also, the article is clearly promotional.Adamant1 (talk) 06:37, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:14, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:14, 6 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 05:28, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Promelectronica

Promelectronica (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 company article. I see no significant coverage of the company. From what I can find, it looks like passing mentions and the occasional piece in an industry magazine. I don't see it passing

WP:CORP. Mbdfar (talk) 05:16, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:28, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:28, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, undersourced corpspam from the dawn of time. This would never make it through AFC/NPP today. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:20, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:07, 7 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. No salt since the last deletion was 2006, but ping for salt if recreation starts again after this deletion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:16, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ProgressSoft

AfDs for this article:
ProgressSoft (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 company article. I disagree with the previous

WP:CORP. Mbdfar (talk) 05:03, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jordan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe your right. Allow recreation with the condition that it goes to draft space etc first though if nothing else at least. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:59, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:08, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:08, 7 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 05:25, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Riceton, California

Riceton, 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)

This was at one time a shipping point for rice grown in the area, and there was a warehouse here that is the usual source of references to the locale. But it was a stop on the railroad, not a town. Mangoe (talk) 01:59, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:00, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:00, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence of an "unincorporated community" or any notable place here. –dlthewave ☎ 05:14, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Negligently false content, no sign of notability. Reywas92Talk 20:57, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not a "community" but farmland. There is a Riceton hwy but could find no history of a settlement on the old Western Pacific Railroad that goes from Richvale to historic Biggs, 3 miles away. --
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 05:25, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

James Ewell Brown Stuart IV

James Ewell Brown Stuart IV (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

Museum of the Confederacy, not about him. Eddie891 Talk Work 01:32, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:34, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:34, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:10, 7 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 05:24, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen L Robinson

Stephen L 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)

Promotional article on a non-notable author and "life-coach", speedy tag mysteriously removed by an IP. Zero indication of passing

WP:RSP#Medium; it's a blog host with no editorial oversight), the others are his own website and press releases. While "ABC7 News" and "New Jersey News Network" might sound vaguely legitimate at first, a look at the articles [38][39] reveals that they are reprints of the same press release. Nothing on GNews except the same spammy press releases, no book reviews or library holdings. Not notable. Spicy (talk) 01:28, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spicy (talk) 01:28, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spicy (talk) 01:28, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spicy (talk) 01:28, 6 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.

Spartaz Humbug! 15:28, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Abdulla Al-Salem (journalist)

Abdulla Al-Salem (journalist) (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)

Per

WP:BIO
, clearly no notability, no awards nor known works, he just a normal blogger and he published some guest articles (not a journalist BTW), all refs from his blog or youtube or twitter, also no google results or significant coverage.

I'm admin in Arabic Wikipedia and I'm sure there is no google results in Arabic language Ibrahim.ID ✪ 00:52, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am user of Wikipedia and add and translate some scientific pages in both versions of this site. I was created this page, so I argue about this writer. He have many articles as journalist in different Qatari journals as Alwatan. This is as reference : Article.User:w5wa —Preceding undated comment added 15:53, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:00, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Qatar-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:00, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:10, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This person is a notable person from Qatar. He is a poet, writer and blogger and anyone can refer this article.

https://blackbird.vcu.edu/v9n2/poetry_gulf/al_salem_a/index.shtml.

The information stated above are not ture. User:w5wa

  • Keep The page was edited and all the references are based on top references as the Wikipedia police for poet and writers. You can refer to the article and check it to keep the pageUser:w5wa. —Preceding undated comment added 10:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Just to note, the SPA W5wa voted keep twice and from their userpages, he appears to be the same person as the user Gustwe, who created the article. If the page is kept, perhaps it should be under a different title, as all of the claimed notability stems from work as a poet, rather than a journalist.
    talk) 08:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 16:20, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Consensus that the subject passes GNG and NACTOR. (non-admin closure) Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:47, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Girija (actress)

Girija (actress) (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)

Completely unsourced, somewhat promotional, badly worded BLP. I don't see why this has to exist. Somehow it's stuck around for about 10 years. ◊PRAHLADbalaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 00:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:44, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:44, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This popular actress mostly played comedian roles for about three decades in all the South Indian languages. In Telugu, she acted many Hit films along with the Padmasri awardee
Relangi Venkatramaiah. As far as I know, she died many years ago. She acted more than 100 films, and during that period, not many awards are given to the films. Please consider keeping her profile in Wikipedia. Thanking you.--Rajasekhar1961 07:58, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
@Rajasekhar1961: do you have any sources for the claim that she died years ago? Lammbda (talk) 10:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but rewrite to remove the bias. This person is notable, although I could only find two[1][2] reliable English sources. Lammbda (talk) 10:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
IMDB is not a reliable source. 🌴Koridas🌴 (Negotiate) 21:45, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Oh, alright. I didn't know that before, thanks. lammbdatalk 06:18, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have added about 5 reliable references about the actress. Hope they are adequate.--Rajasekhar1961 09:22, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.deccanchronicle.com/entertainment/mollywood/140317/returning-after-a-long-hiatus-saleema.html
  2. ^ https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0006429/
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:12, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be a IDONTLIKEIT nomination with no signs of BEFORE. AfD is not cleanup. Longstanding Telugu language (and others) actor, almost three decades in film, still discussed long after their death, easily passes

WP:NACTOR.[1][2][3] "Girija and others have produced a rich comic fare to successive generations of filmgoers."[4]...Girija, once a successful star."[5]

References

  1. ^ "మా అమ్మపై ఇన్ని పుకార్లా". Sakshi (in Telugu). 12 July 2019.
  2. ^ "నటి గిరిజ".
  3. ^ "Rise and fall of Kasturi Siva Rao and Girija - రాలిన తారలు కస్తూరి శివరావు, గిరిజ".
  4. ^ Nāgabhūṣaṇaśarma, Modali; Sastry, Mudigonda Veerabhadra; Śēṣagirirāvu, Cīmakurti; Sakha, Cīmakurti (1995). History and culture of the Andhras. Komarraju Venkata Lakshmana Rau Vijnana Sarvaswa Sakha, Telugu University. p. 394.
  5. ^ Film World. T.M. Ramachandran. 1982. p. 33.

--Goldsztajn (talk) 17:13, 9 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. North America1000 01:27, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kash Pleen

Kash Pleen (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)

Kenyan rapper that does not meet the

WP:TOOSOON since he released his first song (not counting a couple of remixes) in 2020. A Google search finds only social media presence but no third-party reliable coverage of significant depth. Pichpich (talk) 18:43, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 00:35, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 00:35, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpinningSpark 00:34, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable entertainer. Current references are junk; could not locate anything else. Kuru (talk) 20:14, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The subject of the articles clearly fails
    Tell me about it📩 16:24, 10 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. North America1000 01:52, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

South West Film

South West 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)

A non notable production company. Article only contains primary / unreliable sources and

WP:BEFORE shows no evidence of better sources Cardiffbear88 (talk) 00:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 00:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 00:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 00:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 00:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 00:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 14:26, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - Flori4nKT A L K 00:16, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree. Unfortunately there is nothing to indicate that this is a notable company. Mccapra (talk) 03:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am unable to locate any
    HighKing++ 17:23, 11 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 ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:13, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

2020 Meeting International Mohammed VI d'Athlétisme de Rabat

2020 Meeting International Mohammed VI d'Athlétisme de Rabat (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)

Reviewed as a part of new article review/curation. No indication of wp:notability COMBINED with: No references that even refer to it specifically much less cover it. The one "reference" was just a schedule where this may have been listed but is deleted/a dead link. Zero content. Event has not occurred. Creator is currently blocked as a sock. A different account has been declining speedy's of theirs so I did not speedy. North8000 (talk) 17:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:43, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:43, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpinningSpark 00:16, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The diamond league may be notable and I can see results for previous years’ competitions, but this year’s round has been postponed indefinitely so I don’t see much point in our keeping an empty results table. Mccapra (talk) 03:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to 2020 Diamond League to keep the categories intact. It's mentioned in that article even if postponed/eventually cancelled. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:13, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: If the subject is already "mentioned" in 2020 Diamond League what would be the need for a redirect? -- Otr500 (talk) 07:06, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The redirect would be to guide people to correct article, and also the redirect can be in the category for postponed events due to COVID. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:43, 13 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 ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:12, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

2020 Shanghai Golden Grand Prix

2020 Shanghai Golden Grand Prix (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)

Reviewed as a part of new article review/curation. No indication of wp:notability COMBINED with: No references that even refer to it specifically much less cover it. Zero content. Event has not occurred. Creator is currently blocked as a sock, a different account declined speedy deletion. North8000 (talk) 16:56, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Created by a sockmaster (not a sock), but still seems to be a non-notable event. D4iNa4 (talk) 13:07, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpinningSpark 00:16, 6 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) Dps04 (talk) 04:40, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Dometic

Dometic (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 of the brand.

RedBulbBlueBlood9911|Talk 10:49, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
RedBulbBlueBlood9911|Talk 10:49, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
RedBulbBlueBlood9911|Talk 10:49, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
RedBulbBlueBlood9911|Talk 10:49, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 14:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - Flori4nKT A L K 00:15, 6 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 Bahra ceremony. North America1000 01:53, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Barha pikayegu

Barha pikayegu (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 phrase has no significant coverage or asserted notability. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and this phrase does not belong on Wikipedia. Koridas (...Puerto Rico for statehood!) 00:06, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Koridas (...Puerto Rico for statehood!) 00:06, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Koridas (...Puerto Rico for statehood!) 00:06, 6 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_6&oldid=962741828"