Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 March 26

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. MelanieN (talk) 15:04, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Peugniez

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

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

No sources I could find, save a local paper that mentions him in passing. Non-notable tour guide. No indication his books are notable either, as I could find no notable reviews. PK650 (talk) 23:51, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peugniez's books have been reviewed in the leading scholarly journals devoted to Cistercian Studies. Routier published in 1994 was reviewed in Cîteaux (Commentarii cistercienses) 46, 1995, p. 180. The Routier of 2001 was reviewed in Analecta Cisterciensia 54, 2002, p. 312–314 (described as a "valuable contribution", "indispensable for all who study French Cistercian monasteries"). The Routier of 2012 was reviewed in Analecta Cisterciensia 64, 2012, p. 420–421 ("a life's accomplishment", "a description of 2000 Cistercian abbeys", "rich in historical and architectural information", "in sum, a wonderful book"). Peugniez is remarkable. --Melchior2006 (talk) 14:58, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. PK650 (talk) 23:51, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:05, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable tour guide writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:09, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable. Hughesdarren (talk) 12:41, 29 March 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.

TCP Wave

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

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

Does not meet

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:47, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:47, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not enough traction (yet) for an article. SpinningSpark 01:41, 27 March 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 00:42, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rolf Hammerschmidt

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

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

Not reliably sourced for several years and no evidence of notability Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:33, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:33, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:33, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:33, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:33, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:45, 26 March 2020 (UTC) [reply]

• Delete No claim of notability. Mccapra (talk) 04:44, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Zero claim to notability.TH1980 (talk) 23:19, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not much on Google except for quite a few stories about his namesake a German ornithologist who may be notable, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:59, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No reliable sources, fails
  WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 03:23, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Not notable, Google was not help. ~riley (talk) 07:43, 31 March 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 00:47, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Federico Carro

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

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

Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 21:39, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 21:39, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 21:39, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 21:40, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 21:40, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 21:40, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not meet notability criteria for those in creative or entertainment careers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:11, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No independent, reliable sources. Conrad is a "hyprid" publisher. Not quite a vanity publisher, but the authors pay to get published. There's a couple of blogs, Carro's own websites and comunicati-stampa.net, which publishes press releases. (comunicato stampa is Italian for press release). I'm not quite sure what sanremosol.it does, they have something to do with the Sanremo Music Festival, but it's not the festival itself. Vexations (talk) 14:41, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A Google search of the subject doesn't show him being discussed in reliable sources. None of his works have been discussed in reliable sources. All of the accolades he is a recipient of do not appear to be notable.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 18:40, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails GNG, just not notable.. ~riley (talk) 07:44, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -
  Very few of the sources are reliable. The awards he's won are tertiary, at best. Bearian (talk) 21:19, 1 April 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 Milton Keynes urban area. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:51, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

North Milton Keynes

North Milton Keynes (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 do not believe this article is notable. There are no secondary sources for it, the only source here is the primary one which defines it as a subdivision of the Milton Keynes Urban area back in 2001. It is not used in more recent definitions of the Milton Keynes Urban Area. Trying to find any sources about this online lead to information on the parliamentary constituency with a similar name, Milton Keynes North, or a vague Northern part of Milton Keynes unlike this which is a very specifically defined area which is only used once in a more than decade old data set. It might be worth redirecting to the parliamentary constituency of the same name rather than a flat out deletion. Eopsid (talk) 21:39, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 22:02, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 22:02, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• First, the parliamentary constituency is named
  Milton Keynes North, which is the standard style used for constituencies. But if there is a concern about confusion, a standard template:about
  hatnote will fix with trivial effort. (Which I will now do).
• Second, the ONS did use this name for its enumeration: this is a matter of public record that should not be deleted lightly. I created this article many moons ago because it kept popping up in uncritical data sources like Citypopulation.de. The effect was to wildly understate the population of MK, because artificial 'districts' like this were being discounted. A future researcher is just as likely to get bogged down if they don't get some clue that there is an anomaly. They wouldn't get any clues on the ground as to the identity of this 'district': nobody identified with it, it didn't map to any physical boundaries, it was overlapped and underlapped by multiple post-codes. It is almost notable for being so arbitrary. For more analysis, see previous RfD discussion.
• But in the final analysis, I have no solid basis to claim that is notable and accept that this should mean its deletion. But I suggest that it costs virtually nothing to retain it and its continued existence may be useful to someone in the future. --
  talk) 23:16, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• John, I don't believe Eopsid was putting forward confusion with the parliamentary constituency as a reason for deletion. He was putting it forward as a reason finding sources is difficult. SpinningSpark 10:00, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The relevant notability guideline here,
  it's valuable information, are all arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. SpinningSpark 01:27, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Accepted. I'll need a few days to work out how best to merge it. --
  talk) 16:02, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I have copied the text as it stands into
    talk) 16:50, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Presumably there will be no objection if I recreate the article as a redirect to the new text, when written? --
      talk) 16:52, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Deletion discussions normally stay open for seven days (longer if consensus is not clear). You would be wise not to start merging until the discussion is closed – it might not end how you think it's going to. You can always ask for the article to be
        WP:MERGETEXT for information on how to carry attribution through to another article. SpinningSpark 17:07, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • This is true: I had forgotten that I don't
          talk) 17:11, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
          ]
• Merge/Redirect Census tracts are not notable but can be covered within the main urban area article. –dlthewave ☎ 17:25, 28 March 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 00:54, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oncle Gilbert

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

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

Fails GNG IW. (talk) 21:25, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. IW. (talk) 21:25, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:29, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No notability at all, unreferenced blp since 2016. Koridas (Speak?) 16:05, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails
  WP:MUSICBIO. ~riley (talk) 07:44, 31 March 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. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:46, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gérard Gertoux

Gérard Gertoux (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.... special. Deleted in 2012 (twice), the fundamental problem seems unresolved. While the article is lengthy and has superficial referenciness, virtually all the sources turn out to be primary, and most of them affiliated. It doesn't help that his CV reads like a French Buckaroo Banzai but with the names of god instead of brain surgery. French Wikipedia apparently has no article on him (deleted in 2012 and 2018). There's a huge, howling suspicion that the author of this article is the subject, given his other editing focuses. The Talk page has many inventive excuses for failing to achieve any of the metrics normally associated with anyone who passes

]

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

• Comment the term ‘referenciness’ has made my day. Thank you. Mccapra (talk) 21:26, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:29, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:29, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I really would like to request that sources be verified to see if they are independent and primary sources. With all due respect, let me express that saying that "virtually all sources turn out to be primary" is exaggerated. I would like it to be taken into account that in the diversity of minority groups of Christianity there are points of view with strong evidence, but inclusion is not allowed because they are considered irrelevant under the justification of "fringe theory", or because it is not the "mainstream view". Fringe and notable are two different things. I believe that any difference of opinion can be addressed by quoting wikipedia's policies verbatim, so that we do not expose our personal opinion. Sorry if I don't have the right words to express myself, or if I have been disrespectful. Thank you for your understanding and for your help. --Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 22:24, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No indication that
  WP:AUTHOR or any other applicable standard is met. Passing mentions, "secondary" sources published by iUniverse, and a grievance about not getting a doctorate do not a notability case make. (Also, the "G. Gertoux has presented conferences at different universities" is a frankly absurd exercise in trying to make the subject sound impressive for doing something that every academic does.) I would actually expect the Google Scholar citation counts to be low, as is often true in the humanities, but not this low; and there's nothing on JSTOR or anywhere else to suggest that his fringe ideas are even taken seriously enough to rebut. XOR'easter (talk) 03:16, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Please, do not please do not exaggerate and generalize in secondary sources, this seems a partial point of view. It is read in the policies, in Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Citation metrics that "many journals, additionally, do not permit Google Scholar to list their articles". Please check the references in the article (i. e. JSTOR 43724942). Google Scholar or JSTOR are not they are not synonymous with notability.--Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 03:30, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that JSTOR item. Being listed in "Books received" is not a signifier of notability. It's just evidence that a book exists, not that it had any influence or even attracted any attention. XOR'easter (talk) 03:37, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Gertoux is followed or cited by different authorities, in example:
  • He is followed by emeritus professors Charles Perrot, George Wesley Buchanan, François Bœspflug, Hermann Hunger;
  • He is followed by professors Won W. Lee, Ola Wikander, Jozef Hudec,
  • He is followed by faculty members of a University: Miroslav Černý, Pavlos D. Vasileiadis, Daniel Faivre, Anne Pasquier,
  • In the Enciclopedia of Christianity is cited by emeritus professors
    Jan Milic Lochman, honorary professor Erwin Fahlbusch, writer John Mbiti
  • He is also cited by professors: R. J. Wilkinson, Philippe Barbey, Bruno Bioul, Thomas D. Ross
  • He is cited by other scholars: Giuseppe Veneziano, Jean-Pierre Dupeyron, Didier Fontaine, Father Michael Gilligan, Xaris M. Koutelakis,
  • Gertoux also appears in international libraries as BIBSYS: 5018010, BNF: cb13548516z, ISNI: 0000 0001 1672 4722, LCCN: n2002090734, NLI: 000052631, ORCID: 0000-0001-5916-0445, RERO: 02-A012628396, SUDOC: 050812246, SEMANTIC SCHOLAR: 108067232, VIAF: 74015693, etc
  • Gertoux also stimulated studies that contradict his arguments such as those of
    John Laurence Gee
    , Peter J. Huber and Steven Ortlepp, so it can be concluded that his study has not been ignored.
  • There are other good comments of his book by E.J. Revell, H. Cazelles, D.C. Hopkins, S. Morag,
    D.N. Freedman
  • Among the publishing houses of the secondary sources, we can mention Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, Brill, Editions L'Harmattan, Vita e Pensiero, Wipf and Stock Publishers, Institute of Oriental Studies, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Valparaiso University: Council of Societies for the Study of Religion, Baltimore, National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy, De Gruyter, Swedish Collegium for Advanced Study.--
    XfD. [reply
    ]
• Delete. Works in fringe areas (nothing wrong with that) but has made near-zero impact. I suggest Salt too as this goes on and on. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:38, 27 March 2020 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete does not meet notability criteria for academics. The citation count is way below impact level and he fails other measures of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:12, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Another citation of Gertoux made by
  New Testament Abstracts 47, pp. 553 [3], a comment by Anthony Byatt [4], by Michael John Rood [5] and by Reference and Research Book News [6]. Let me express that in Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Criteria it read that "Academics meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable" and I guess the condition 1, 4 and 7 is met. in Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria it reads that "if the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" and in Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Additional criteria it reads that "many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources." In Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals it reads that 2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique. As I said before, I think it can defended the existence of the article. I think that to avoid interpretations to wikipedia policies, it is better to quote them verbatim. Let me also express that the claims for deletion are exaggerated, rather than presenting the evidence as it is. I suspect that the problem is not notability, rather, that the editors who request to delete do not share Gertoux's ideas, but they are against those who quote Gertoux, the publishing houses and the national and university libraries. In wikipedia policies, there is not a number of citations to establish notability. Excuse me, I'm just trying to state my arguments, not to contradict the other editors. Best regards.--Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 15:21, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco, A veritable "who's that?" of literary criticism... Guy (help!) 17:58, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me User:JzG because English is not my native language and I don't understand some jargon. Please explain exactly what you mean with "a veritable "who's that?" of literary criticism..."--Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 18:24, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco, non-notable writers.

What you need is reliable independent secondary sources about Gertoux. Not namechecks. Guy (help!) 23:43, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Additional criteria, it reads that "many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources."--Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 00:08, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But we need evidence that an individual is notably influential in the world of ideas. A person can be notable even if their biography is not the subject of secondary sources, as long as their ideas are. That is not the case here. Passing mentions are not sufficient. XOR'easter (talk) 16:18, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep--if he is notable enough to be cited in the Encyclopedia of Christianity, it won't hurt Wikipedia's reputation to have an article on him. The article needs some work though to make it flow better, but that is not a reason to delete. Also, as Jairon notes, he is recognized for his ideas, which fits him under the Creative_professionals clause.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 16:26, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Encyclopedia of Christianity mentions his book. Literally all it does is include his book in a bibliography, without even saying where to look in it for any particular information, let alone evaluating it in depth. To establish that an
    author is notable, we need multiple reviews of multiple books each, not scattered mentions that a book happens to exist. XOR'easter (talk) 16:30, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Keep--G. Gertoux is a retired teacher of physics, with more than one valid academic degrees at MSc level. His recent research has been mentioned also here: [1] an presented in international conferences organised by well known Universities, like for example this one: ^[2] .--User:S. Frattini MSc, MAS, BTh 10:50, 28 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:120B:2C7B:1470:9472:B396:5D0C:6661 (talk) — 2A02:120B:2C7B:1470:9472:B396:5D0C:6661 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• • The first link is to a
    blog post that merely quotes an abstract. That is not substantial coverage or detailed analysis. And merely having presented his work at a conference counts for nothing — all academics do that. Everyone presents, everyone publishes. In order to be notable, those publications have to be influential, and we have seen no evidence of that here. XOR'easter (talk) 16:25, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Comment I think there may be a competence issue here. The article's creator cites Metzger above and in the article itself added "Influential professor Bruce M. Metzger call the Gertoux's web page as a "further scholarly information on the origins of sacred names." We'd never hype someone to make him look convincing, but the problem is Metzger never said that. That's a link added at the bottom of a statement by Metzger by the pastor who posted the statement to his church's website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs)
• Keep Indeed the article in its current form is lengthy and gets into unnecessary details. But Gertoux has surely influenced the research horizons and is highly involved in the contemporary discussions on the sacred Tetragrammaton in its historical and theological dimensions. I think that a neat article about his scientific contributions would be more than welcome. -- pvasiliadis  13:38, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete His work has only a handful of citations, indicating limited impact. He very much fails the average professor test for
  WP:NAUTHOR, and I don't see other signs of notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:09, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment Let me state that I see some little troubles. As it reads in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Contributing to AfD discussions: "the debate is not a vote; please do not make recommendations on the course of action to be taken that are not sustained by arguments" and also it read that "when making your case or responding to others, explain how the article meets/violates policy rather than merely stating that it meets/violates the policy". I guess that the recommendation take a break before voting is not being taken into account for a critical analysis in references. In example it was argumented exaggeration "virtually all the sources turn out to be primary, and most of them affiliated", "at least some independent secondary sources about the subject", "passing mentions, "secondary" sources published by iUniverse" when there are just one by a professor and maybe or not with a lot of discution acceptable (Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources: "self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications."). In this talk references are being criticized superficially and it is not specified which ones, or how they are not reliable. It is important to state how Gertoux "fails other measures of notability". About lectures, I did not find any policy to address whether the existence of conferences is or is not an indicator of notability: "is a frankly absurd exercise in trying to make the subject sound impressive for doing something that every academic does". In Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Citation metrics i could not find any measurable intruction for quantifiable instruction to establish "near-zero impact" or "limited impact". Perhaps not in all the references there is a specific review in which it is agreed, a work cited is influential, and it is already an indicator of notability. In Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary,_secondary_and_tertiary_sources it is read that reviews are not necessary to to give reliability to a primary source.--Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 21:29, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

?I am not sure what you are getting at. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:55, 28 March 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Sorry for the inconvenience, I just want you to specify without deviating from the topic, citing verbating the wikipedia policies and refuting the arguments of the first comment "keep" (Gertoux is followed or cited by different authorities) what i made, for you hold the affirmation "how has made near-zero impact" for further discussion or to show something that I have not noticed, perhaps why those authorities, publishing houses, or libraries are unreliable.--Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 23:04, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe someone else. If there are unacceptable sources in the article, which are acceptable and which are not, and decide how much of the article is not necessary. So we convert a qualifying data into a quantifiable data, and maybe that will help. Thanks in advance for your valuable time.--Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 23:15, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

C'mon. His top-cited publication appears to have 7 citations. That's not impactful, by any standard. We rarely keep academics that don't have multiple pubs with over 100 citations. (There's no specific threshold, since it varies widely by field.) Russ Woodroofe (talk) 00:38, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to contradict you, but there are 7 citations at your discretion, so a broader answer is needed. Google Scholar only shows 7 citations, but this was talked before. It is not about impressing me with your answer, but rather taking a critical test attached to wikipedia policies that everyone can read. You are truly correct in saying that the number of citations is not required in wikipedia's policies to establish notability.--Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 01:03, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an expert of Wikipedia policies, although I use and appreciate the tool very much, in many different languages. My impression is that we risk to transform it in a sort of "social network" where only "followers" with a lot of "likes" survive. Concerning international conference papers, I find the comment "... trying to make the subject sound impressive for doing something that every academic does" quite polemic. I personally know many associate professors who never published international papers. I also know many university researchers who published some papers and attended conferences only at national level. So, in my opinion and experience, the statement "every academic does" is not accurate. There is an established process (mostly "double blind") to review submitted research papers before being accepted: only a few survive the step and even less authors will be invited to present their findings in international conferences. The author did it and UniZH is a well reputed international University. (S. Frattini MSc, MAS, BTh) 09:39, 29 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:120B:2C7B:1470:E966:316B:B7CF:AEE5 (talk)

• Keep Besides the list of scholars previously mentioned, Gertoux is positively quoted for his work on the tetragrammaton (which is far from being a "fringe area", since the scholarly community has a renewed interested in it as we can see from the recent works of McDonough, Shaw, Lepesqueux, Surls, Meyer, Coutts, Wilkinson, Arduini or Vasileiadis) by A. Chouraqui (famous scholar and Bible translator), in Moïse (Flammarion, Paris, 1997, p.47), Arduini & Pizzorni, La Bibbia prima del dogma (Aracne ed. 2018, p.83, 146) ; another mention can be found in Descouleurs, La laïcité a-t-elle perdu la raison? (Parole et silence, 2001, p.153) ; a DVD documentary has been made by F. Poppenberg (Der Name Gottes, 2014 ; translated in several languages), where the main arguments are drawn from his work ; his historical investigations are quoted by the translator of J. Tabor, La véritable histoire de Jésus (Robert Laffont, Paris, 2006, p.340) ; even when they disagree scholars do know is work and quote it (e.g. Gabolde, Toutankhamon, Pygmalion, Paris, 2015, p.261). That is the indication that 1) WP:PROF standard is met (Gertoux is known and quoted by a large variety of scholars, in diverse languages, from English or French, to German or Italian), 2) WP:AUTHOR standard is met (Gertoux participates in cutting-edge professional conferences on chronological/historical issues, with peer-reviewed proceedings ; his work on the divine name so proves to be unavoidable (as the last monographies on the subject testify) and has been referenced in important bibliographical lists such as Elenchus of Biblica (2004, vol. 20, p.159). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Areopage (talk • contribs) 10:44, 29 March 2020 (UTC) — Areopage (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

User Areopage just demonstrated how it is recommended not to be guided only by Google Scholar as it reads in

Wikipedia:Notability (Academics)#Citation metrics.Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 13:23, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep I hold that G. Gertoux is a well known researcher in the field of the divine names in Biblical studies but also in issues of Bible chronology. The references to his publications show a notable impact in this specific research domain. KCharitakis (talk) 20:16, 29 March 2020 (UTC) — KCharitakis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Comment I request that the closing admin be someone closely familiar with
  WP:NAUTHOR, if his books have been reviewed in reliable sources. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 21:34, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Fair enough. Just publishing stuff creates no notability. It is having the stuff noted by others that does. In this case there is almost no evidence of noting by others despite the protestations of the red links and spas. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:43, 29 March 2020 (UTC).[reply]

So it would be great if the responses from both sides, keep and delete are expanded and address the reasons forcefully.--Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 22:09, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Russ Woodroofe, let me express that in Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary,_secondary_and_tertiary_sources not only demand "review" so that a secondary source weighs a primary. I understand your concern about the number of votes, since what prevails is the foundation.--Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 21:55, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With much respect let me say that there is no need to go and search in Google Scholar or Scopus when the sources are in the article.--Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 22:20, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Single-digit citation counts and no published independent book reviews that I could find means that he fails to pass both
  WP:GNG, which requires that the sources used be plural and in-depth, neither of which appears to be the case here. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:58, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Please David Eppstein, I beg you to expand your answer. In the article does not appear all the Gertoux's publications, rather the influential.--Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 22:05, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence that they are influential, and without evidence of influence no number of additional publications could help. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:39, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I don't know if it is of any use, but I brought the previous version of the page that was deleted.[7].--Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 22:00, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Too bad is that it has been presumed so quickly and without analysis that KCharitakis is a single-purpose accounts or canvassed users [8] [9]. I invite research into global contributions.Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 23:44, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per lack of independent reliable sources. There is also some sort of meat-puppet sock-puppetry pattern on this article with the single purpose accounts with few other edits voting keep. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:48, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Are comment of haters typical of the Wikipedia style? If this is the case, I need to change my mind and review the use I do of it. (S. Frattini MSc, MAS, BTh) 08:17, 30 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:120B:2C7B:1470:E901:FCCE:3CC7:51B3 (talk)
• Delete. Gertoux has written many books, but to publish them he turns to Lulu.com. In 1999 he did get one book published by the reputable firm L'Harmattan, but it was almost completely ignored: Gertoux complains that the only mention of it was in the Revue juive de Genève. He then had it published in English by University Press of America, which some have thought might be an "academic vanity press". Disappointed at the paucity of reaction to this work also, he decided, he himself says, to acquire official recognition of his competence in archaeology and history by getting a Ph.D. Two high-class institutes of learning refused to accept the work he presented, because of its fundamentalist content. He maintains, for instance the historicity of Noah's Flood and dates to about 4000 B.C. the appearance of the first humans. Should Wikipedia, unlike those institutes, recognize this as anything but a fringe theory? The article proposed for deletion also presents as a reliable source the reproduction on the website http://dictionnaire.sensagent.leparisien.fr/ of the first version of the English Wikipedia article on him and considers it a claim to fame that Gertoux is "a member of the International Association for Assyriology (IAA)" (i.e., he has sent in his subscription?) and that he is the founder of Association Biblique de Recherche d'Anciens Manuscrits, of which the Internet only informs (here and here) that in 2000 it was registered as having its seat at 137 rue Bugeaud, Lyon, France (Gertoux's home?); and here that it was earlier (1991) registered at 3, rue J.-.P.-Rameau, 14100 Lisieux, France. No indication of membership. Bealtainemí (talk) 11:33, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Despite strenuous efforts at demonstrating otherwise, all of the claimed qualifications and cited sources are not indicative of an article subject that passes
  WP:ATD so the only option left is Delete. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:22, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep In addition to the already cited paper of international conference, I found a second paper accepted for publication by UniZH in 2018, "Dating the Reigns of Xerxes and Artaxerxes, in: Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis Series Archaeologica 40" (2018, pp. 179-206). Here the publisher: http://www.peeters-leuven.be/home.html which accepted the research paper for the archeological section. (S. Frattini MSc, MAS, BTh) 23:10, 30 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:120B:2C7B:1470:34DE:DDBC:7CF1:5BF8 (talk) ; Apparently duplicate !vote struck
• Comment: I find quite surprising that contributors with critical attitude find the time to scan through "lulu" publications but at the same time openly ignore research papers of international conferences published with peer review in the field of archeology. It's indeed stunning that some people can cite student gossip, considering it someway authoritative, but ignore a Wikipedia entry on UPA which states: "is an academic publisher based in the United States". Here the reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_Press_of_America . By the way, I cannot find any journalist article with the supposed accusation of "dealing in bulk", since it dates to the previous century and the link to the original document (whatever its validity) is broken. Finally, accusations of fundamentalism should be out of scope here, since nothing about this is mentioned in the debated wikipedia entry, it sounds like ad personam criticism. I just would like to remark that, altough I am not especially favorable to fundamentalism, Wikipedia has indeed accepted publish many other pages on openly fundamentalist persons. (S. Frattini MSc, MAS, BTh) 23:31, 30 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:120B:2C7B:1470:34DE:DDBC:7CF1:5BF8 (talk)

2A02:120B:2C7B:1470:34DE:DDBC:7CF1:5BF8, I am not taking part in this AfD but want to refer you to Wikipedia:Notability (academics) which designates how to determine when an academic is considered notable, for Wikipedia purposes. Most of the editors, pro or con, are referring to the criteria set out in this Wikipedia guideline. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:58, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that signore Frattini's comment about the publisher was directed to me. Our article about UPA that you linked to makes it clear that the "deals in bulk" assessment was hardly "student gossip". It is literally the title of the only reference in that article. Stating it is "an academic publisher based in the United States," on the other hand, cuts no mustard whatsoever. I could found an "academic publisher based in the United States" in my den. This type of argument from nothing is what I referred to when I mentioned strenuous efforts. All of Gertoux's claimed attainments similarly fall apart at the least inspection. Attempts to present these as actual academic accomplishments damages the credibility of any supposed notability instead of furthering the argument for keeping. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:25, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Eggishorn, thanks for your salutation, I can just suggest you to be more accurate, in case you want to see your work published. For example, you may start by writing it correctly, i.e. without final "e". You referred to the title of an article with a broken reference in Wikipedia, an article of a newspaper dated 1995, this way I can only assume that you haven't read it at all. I'm happy for you if you can find an academic publisher "in your den", but this your respectable opinion: nothig like this is stated on the wikipedia page, you can maybe enhance it to the benefit of the rest of us. Actually I'm slowly changing my mind on the advantage for Gertoux to have a Wiki page with his name on it: haters of your sort may fake it overnight, without any kind of control or validation bythis platform. For somebody with more than 3'000 followers on Academia alone, I really doubt it would be of any practical advantage. (S. Frattini MSc, MAS, BTh) 21:13, 02 April 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:120B:2C7B:1470:342F:2F79:1584:C0FC (talk)

Just for the record, I have no need to aspire to publication. I have been published. Multiple times. By unquestionably legitimate academic and commercial publishers. I would, however, never consider myself notable under Wikipedia guidelines for this. And apropos of nothing in particular, you may want to read Muphry's law. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:23, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails
  WP:PROF. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 15:48, 31 March 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. Additional focused discussion of sources indicates consensus for GNG. Fenix down (talk) 07:14, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Margaux Le Mouël

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

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

fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Mightytotems (talk) 20:19, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mightytotems (talk) 20:19, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:31, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:04, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:05, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 09:12, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  WP:NFOOTY failure. Number 57 13:18, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete it is time we put a stop to the proliferation of articles on non-notable footballers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:15, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about we start with the men who played one game for a vaguely-notable professional club somewhere in 1971 and not the top-tier women in major soccer countries, hey? The Drover's Wife (talk) 20:22, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. She plays in the top-tier league in France. (She has quite a bit of coverage on that basis, too.) That NFOOTY argues for keeping tens of thousands of articles on one-game male players who could not pass GNG in a million years but tries to suggest that top-tier women players aren't notable isn't a problem with the articles or the topics, it's a problem with Wikipedia:WikiProject Football that needs correcting urgently. The Drover's Wife (talk) 20:22, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Here are a few refs to get started on if
  WP:ATD
  :

• https://www.letelegramme.fr/soir/football-le-reve-bleu-de-margaux-le-mouel-17-06-2019-12313471.php
• https://actu.fr/bretagne/loudeac_22136/a-loudeac-footballeuse-margaux-mouel-lhonneur_30784347.html
• https://france3-regions.francetvinfo.fr/bretagne/bleuettes-championnes-europe-deux-joueuses-bretonnes-parmi-elles-1705162.html
• https://www.letelegramme.fr/football/euro-u19-feminin-la-fulgurante-ascension-de-margaux-le-mouel-30-07-2019-12350870.php

Hmlarson (talk) 00:05, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep She plays in a top tier league (
  WP:NFOOTY. End of story. And before anyone comes at me with a claim that most female leagues aren't included, that's because of a major failing of every Wikiproject Football member on every level, whose biases on not documenting women's football is atrocious. Silverseren^C 05:22, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Division 1 Féminine is included at the
    WP:NFOOTY. Number 57 13:07, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete - fails NFOOTY and GNG. --BlameRuiner (talk) 12:31, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Article about semi-pro footballer who has played in France's D1 and for France's youth international sides. Le Mouël is the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources (I added a pair of references from Ouest-France and Le Télégramme to the article), and should satisfy the GNG. Jogurney (talk) 14:10, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - here is a table showing sources that go towards meeting the GNG. Jogurney (talk) 19:17, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG ?
https://www.letelegramme.fr/soir/football-le-reve-bleu-de-margaux-le-mouel-17-06-2019-12313471.php	Le Télégramme is an independent newspaper	Regional newspaper in Brittany	The source discusses the subject directly and in detail	✔ Yes
https://www.ouest-france.fr/sport/football/ea-guingamp/margaux-le-mouel-la-bretonne-championne-d-europe-avec-les-bleuettes-6463057	Ouest-France is an independent newspaper	National newspaper of France, with the widest circulation of any French-language newspaper	The source discusses the subject directly and in detail	✔ Yes
https://www.letelegramme.fr/football/euro-u19-feminin-la-fulgurante-ascension-de-margaux-le-mouel-30-07-2019-12350870.php	Le Télégramme is an independent newspaper	Regional newspaper in Brittany	The source discusses the subject directly and in detail	✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

• Strong keep She plays in the top-tier league in France. (She has tons of coverage on that basis, too.) That NFOOTY argues for keeping tens of thousands of articles on one-game male players who could not pass GNG in a million years but tries to suggest that top-tier women players aren't notable isn't a problem with the articles or the topics, it's a problem with Wikipedia:WikiProject Football that needs correcting urgently. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 14:22, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep because the subject of the article passes GNG per Jogurney. I second others' concerns about NFOOTY's overinclusiveness for men and underinclusiveness for women, and intend to discuss this in the proper forum. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 23:38, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep On the evidence that has been provided and seeing that the articles do pass GNG per Jogurney, I would say that this article is defintely a solid keep. HawkAussie (talk) 02:45, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes
  WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:14, 3 April 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.

Sandy Baltimore

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

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

fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Mightytotems (talk) 20:20, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mightytotems (talk) 20:20, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:31, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:51, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:00, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 09:12, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  WP:NFOOTY failure. Number 57 13:17, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:39, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Does not meet
  WP:GNG, Alex-h (talk) 11:12, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• KEEP Google.fr is a start (not google.com or google.co.uk) for additional references and article expansion. Baltimore plays in top-division french league at age 18, played in
  WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 21:46, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - Article about semi-pro footballer which appears to meet the GNG. Baltimore is a youth international who appears regularly for one of the top French D1 clubs, and gets significant coverage in Le Parisien and other French-language sites. I've added a few easily-searchable online sources to the article, but there are others behind paywalls. Jogurney (talk) 23:08, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. She plays in the top-tier league in France. (She has quite a bit of coverage on that basis, too.) That NFOOTY argues for keeping tens of thousands of articles on one-game male players who could not pass GNG in a million years but tries to suggest that top-tier women players aren't notable isn't a problem with the articles or the topics, it's a problem with Wikipedia:WikiProject Football that needs correcting urgently. The Drover's Wife (talk) 20:22, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep She plays in a top tier league (
  WP:NFOOTY. End of story. And before anyone comes at me with a claim that most female leagues aren't included, that's because of a major failing of every Wikiproject Football member on every level, whose biases on not documenting women's football is atrocious. Silverseren^C 05:21, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • The Frauen-Bundesliga is included at the
    WP:NFOOTY. Number 57 13:02, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• Keep - WP:GNG is met here (Per Jogurney, although I'm pretty sure Paris SG players would be full time professionals) While N:FOOTY is nonsense, to put it mildly. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 18:00, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - here is my summary of the online coverage I've found:
  • Le Parisien provides in-depth coverage such as [10] which describes her rise into the PSG first team and [11] which covers her exploits at the 2018 FIFA U-20 Women's World Cup. It also provides less substantive coverage like [12] which gives a brief profile.
  • L'Équipe provides similar less substantive coverage such as [13].
  • La Voix du Nord (daily) doesn't provide in-depth coverage, just stuff like [14]
    which mentions she is likely to get a look from national team manager Diacre.
  • Coeursdefoot.fr doesn't provide in-depth coverage, just stuff like [15] and [16].Jogurney (talk) 21:34, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - meets
  WP:GNG per table below. Note that the article does not need to pass NFOOTY, because it already passes GNG. --MrClog (talk) 22:35, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG ?
http://www.leparisien.fr/sports/ile-de-france/d-1-feminine-sandy-baltimore-la-nouvelle-pepite-du-psg-23-04-2018-7679217.php	Owned by LVMH, no apparent COI.		Baltimore is the subject of the article.	✔ Yes
http://www.leparisien.fr/sports/football/psg/coupe-du-monde-u20-la-bleuette-sandy-baltimore-parisienne-tout-terrain-20-08-2018-7858080.php	Per above.		Baltimore is the subject of the article.	✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

• Delete fails
  WP:GNG standards. dibbydib Ping me! ^💬/_✏ 23:39, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete She fails
  WP:GNG because the Le Parisien articles are local coverage for a PSG player. Dougal18 (talk) 08:13, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Le Parisien is a regional, not a local, newspaper. And while GNG doesn't tell us whether local and/or regional sources are significant, the SNG for organisations does say
  regional sources are significant, so I'm not sure why it would be different here. (In fact, it's the second largest regional newspaper of France.) --MrClog (talk) 08:28, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep She plays in the top-tier league in France. (She has tons of coverage on that basis, too.) That NFOOTY argues for keeping tens of thousands of articles on one-game male players who could not pass GNG in a million years but tries to suggest that top-tier women players aren't notable isn't a problem with the articles or the topics, it's a problem with Wikipedia:WikiProject Football that needs correcting urgently. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 13:58, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't buy the argument that Baltimore isn't a professional footballer. According to Bloomberg,
  PSG Féminine pays its players 10,000 Euros per month on average. With a nine-month season, that amounts to an annual salary of 90,000 Euros. That sounds like a decent amount of money to me. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 03:54, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per MrClog. I second KingSkyLord's broader observations. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 23:33, 2 April 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.

Lincoln Clay (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 biography of the fictional protagonist of the video game

• Speedy delete Pure synthesis. Combining an adjective and a noun and then finding unrelated examples of such is not a coherent and notable encyclopedia topic. Reywas92^Talk 17:20, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  original research so therefore this article should also apply. -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 19:44, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. There does not appear to be any general coverage of pink cats, cf. black cats. Without coverage of pink cats as a topic, I don't think this meets our notability guidelines. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 20:08, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Summary: some cat owners died their cats pink. It is not cause for an encyclopedia entry. Rubbish. Lightburst (talk) 20:26, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Reliable sourced, well-written, meets
  Daily Telegraph. Nice to know people think my work is "rubbish" and want to speedy delete my content creation. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:43, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  And here's a cat that turned green! This cat's owners dyed it green. The Cheshire Cat is variously purple and blue. Eek! The Cat is purple; Doraemon is blue, as is Happy (manga character) and Oggy. This cat was found painted blue. Are you making Purple cat and Blue cat next? Without sources discussing the topic of cats being pink in particular as a whole, I have no idea why this would be an article, unless we need thousands more articles listing unrelated examples of creatures or objects that happen to share a particular trait. Reywas92^Talk 22:07, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The sources all talk about cases of pink cats. It was an article because a now-deceased Wikipedian thought it was a good idea. Respect those who are sadly no longer with us, please. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:52, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The test for notability is whether the topic has been written about in reliable sources. This has been covered in the news on a number of occasions, so in my opinion it passes. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:09, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, none of the sources have written about pink cats as a topic, only the individual cat in question in each instance. SpinningSpark 00:56, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - My stance is largely the same as Lord Bolingbroke's. While there may be some sources on individual cats that were pink, there does not appear to be coverage on the concept of "pink cats" as a whole. As such, taking the various individual cases, and combining them into a single topical article, is largely
  WP:SYNTH. Rorshacma (talk) 23:28, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete.
  WP:NOTNEWS. SpinningSpark 00:56, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The NOTNEWS policy is supposed to cover minor events that have one mention in local newspapers once, not sustained coverage over decades. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:53, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as
  talk) 09:31, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, please. While the article is interesting and well-written, it is not exactly notable.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 18:12, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please read

WP:JNN. Of course it's notable, see Template:Did you know nominations/Pink cat. I've written about 140 GAs and about 150 articles; I know exactly what I'm doing. Don't you even want a redirect? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:52, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete - Agree with deletion per
  WP:NOTCASE. ~riley (talk) 07:49, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Utter rubbish. Please read

WP:VAGUEWAVE. Don't you even want to redirect? You know stupid opinions like this scare new users off, don't you? Go and write and article and see if somebody else can trash it, then you'll understand. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:52, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete Taking it as read that this is fundamentally different from topics like black panther because it pulls together unrelated instances - we should admit that sometimes this approach works. See old favourite Exploding whale. But that's about something extraordinary with large amounts of coverage of the individual cases. Pink cat really feels like opening the door to a flood of undesirable compilation articles about trivia. Reywas' multicolored examples above make the point well IMO. I could set this kind of thing up for polka-dotted pants, collecting plenty of unrelated individual instances, and would absolutely expect it to be shot down. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I would like to say that article becoming
  WP:DYK does not mean it cannot be deleted. In fact it states that "articles featured on DYK are not expected to be of the best quality." In addition, the DYK review did not seem that thorough. -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 21:11, 1 April 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. MelanieN (talk) 15:34, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

3D Night (Film)

3D Night (Film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non notable short film. The article has a whopping 11 references which sounds impressive until you realize that all 11 are the exact same bit of promotional text posted on 11 different news sharing websites. Pichpich (talk) 15:37, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:18, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:18, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not much at all on Google, the existing refs are duplicates and it would be unusual for an 8 minute film to be notable unless it was exceptionally good or controversial, imv Atlantic306 (talk)
• Keep The 11 websites you have spoken to are from an Independent National Media Sources. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:57, 30 March 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 Samuel Chan Sze Ming. MelanieN (talk) 15:36, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Britannia Studylink

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

)

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

The sources currently in the article don't establish notability - one is a primary source about the company's founder winning an award, the other (according to Google translate) is about the UKiset, and only gives the subject of the article a passing mention. I searched for better sources, but found nothing that would satisfy

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:34, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:34, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:34, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/redirect to Samuel Chan Sze Ming, the company's founder, in lieu of deletion. I was unable to find significant coverage about Britannia Studylink, which can be mentioned in the article of its founder.

  Cunard (talk) 07:01, 30 March 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. Clear arguments below -- clearly will be the center of discussion of economic impacts of the pandemic in many contexts. Sadads (talk) 06:33, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on the restaurant industry

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

)

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

For the same reasons as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on the 2020 Summer Olympics. This is just a collection of news tidbits that don't add up to an encyclopedic article. jamacfarlane (talk) 11:58, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. jamacfarlane (talk) 11:58, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:05, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:05, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:05, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:05, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:05, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:06, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or userdraftify, as another editor has expressed interest in working on it; I created this article so obviously I thought the subject was clearly notable, and I don't think it's at all analogous to the effect on the summer olympics, which as was pointed out at that deletion discussion is now a rescheduling which can be covered other places. The pandemic is literally changing the restaurant industry in industrialized nations as we speak. The coverage is ongoing, unlike that for the olympics now that it's been settled. Nothing about the effects on the restaurant industry has been settled yet; we are seeing just the beginning of the fallout. It's put millions out of work just in the US and is threatening hundreds of thousands of businesses. However, as it is certainly a developing story, if the consensus is that this isn't ready for article space, I'd work on it in userdraftspace while the situation continues to develop. --valereee (talk) 12:17, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep on the whole, per User:Valereee. Might end up as a list? Johnbod (talk) 12:46, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (Alternatively, salt.) Too soon. Clearly an ongoing news story with no obvious resolution in sight. Wait and see - it could be they're all reopened in a few months (or 3 weeks in Trump's version of the world!) and the overall effect is approaching zero. Or, ..... Emeraude (talk) 14:24, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Emeraude, salt seems a little drastic lol --valereee (talk) 15:27, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: This is being discussed widely in reliable sources, as the article demonstrates. There will be a major impact in this industry worldwide, no matter what happens in the next weeks/months. — Toughpigs (talk) 15:21, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify The subject will be notable enough soon and drafting will give the creator time to work on it until it is. Which it seems like they want to do. So stright deletion is pointless. At this point the article is more a prose/personal essay with speculation about future events then it is an encyclopedic article, but can change when things develop more and there's an actual impact, but it shouldnt be in the main article space until then. Adamant1 (talk) 15:26, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Draftify at most. The pandemic has had a drastic impact on the restaurant industry, probably something we'll see a lot more in the future. Getting rid of it entirely doesn't seem purdent. Breawycker (talk to me!) 16:27, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I made this nomination but am happy to keep if improvements are in train. I also see the distinction between this and the Olympics article, as the restaurant industry will likely see long-lasting effects of the pandemic. jamacfarlane (talk) 16:46, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep
  Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on the restaurant industry in the United States and has the experience, though this and related articles need cleaning up.ch (talk) 17:48, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep the single-most important event to occur to my industry likely since the creation of restaurants... This event is shuttering so many businesses and for so long that untold numbers will become bankrupt, along with potentially millions of employees. ɱ (talk) 06:46, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is an important issue, many careers are at stake. Gzuufy (talk) 07:52, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, if we have articles as specific as
  WP:IMPROVEDONTREMOVE, thank you. >>BEANS X2t 10:49, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per
  WP:NOTNEWS. Just a fad having no encyclopedic value. Kaweendra (talk) 12:45, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I'm sorry, but a fad is "an intense and widely shared enthusiasm for something, especially one that is short-lived and without basis in the object's qualities". A horrific, once-in-a-lifetime catastrophe is something like one of the world's largest industries, barely hanging on the balance of slim profit margins already, shuttering worldwide, causing permanent closures to untold numbers of businesses and unemployment to record numbers of workers in the industry. Try being a little more sensitive. ɱ (talk) 13:59, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Clear lasting significance, well sourced, and the impacts will be felt even more going forward. buidhe 15:10, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:04, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Not a fad like
  Rent Strike 2020. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Widely discussed topic, plenty of available sources, and clear scope for expansion. Dimadick (talk) 14:05, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep There are news articles each day about how social distancing-related closures are impacting the restaurant industry.TH1980 (talk) 23:29, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Idea How about creating an article about (impact of the.....on industries), where it can cover from the steel industry, to food, automotive, retail and restaurant industries. Raphael.Concorde (talk) 21:44, 29 March 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. Yunshui ^雲_水 12:08, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Kinston baseball people

List of Kinston baseball people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Only list article for American league baseball players. Categories are sufficient. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:34, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:34, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:34, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:51, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:51, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see a deletion argument presented, the first statement is...just a statement that I'm having trouble understanding. The second is contrary to
  WP:NOTDUP. The nom also does not explain which "categories are sufficient" so I don't know what he is even comparing this to. postdlf (talk) 15:03, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete with fire for failing
  WP:LISTPEOPLE. Nobody, but nobody, has ever (until now) compiled a list of minor leaguers (at least at the time) associated (however tenuously: one game is enough) with that baseball Mecca, that center of the baseball universe known as Kinston. If that type of list were so encyclopedic, why don't we have a List of New York City baseball people or List of Durham, North Carolina, baseball people? Clarityfiend (talk) 22:11, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Unsourced. Many names fail
  WP:LISTN. Kaweendra (talk) 12:47, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per Clarityfiend. This is not a list-worthy topic.
  LEPRICAVARK (talk) 16:02, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per Clarityfiend - nom is lacking a deletion argument, but there is still an argument to be made. ~riley (talk) 07:51, 31 March 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. MelanieN (talk) 15:38, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mydiamo

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

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

Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Kleuske (talk) 08:06, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Kleuske (talk) 08:06, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Clearly intended to be promotional. Search for sources yields press releases and passing mentions. Nothing that equates to in-depth coverage from reliable, independent sources. Glendoremus (talk) 19:05, 31 March 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) 15:09, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely Right

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

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

Not at a high enough level and doesn't have the coverage needed. 2008 AfD was no consensus when standards were much lower. Boleyn (talk) 07:02, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:23, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:23, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete There are some sources that appear to be about the organization, but none of those are available online and (based on titles) do not make clear that they are in-depth coverage about the organization, though the article in The Star-Ledger might be the strongest, depending on content. Most of the article (and corresponding sources) is for competeion results and does not demonstrate notability. A Google / Google News search did not turn up any additional sourcing. Alansohn (talk) 12:56, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. No significant independent sources other than local coverage. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:20, 26 March 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.