Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 May 15

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 14 May	16 May >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete.

Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Costa Salafis

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

per

WP:SUSTAINED

, it wasn't a "movement " just a group attracted attention for short period of time in 2013, then they officially announced the cessation of their activities in Sep 2013.

actually, the article doesn't meet notability guidelines, no achievement or works or notable works, they was highlighted because they are Salafis work with liberal groups and that is uncommon, many sections in article also are

Wp:MASK. Ibrahim.ID ✪ 22:27, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 22:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 22:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 22:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per much the same rationale as I gave at
WP:MULTIAFD. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 22:11, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpinningSpark 23:51, 15 May 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) Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Monkey Box, Florida

)

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

Sometimes with these places you can wonder, "well maybe it used to be a community" or "maybe the name applies to a few scattered buildings here" but it doesn't get more obvious than this when you look at the map! topo, GMaps Pretty hard to build a community in the middle of Lake Okeechobee – It was once a literal box! Reywas92^Talk 23:41, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 23:41, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 23:41, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
talk) 00:20, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete or Redirect It's an established landmark in the hunting/fishing community, named after an actual monkey or owls that were mistaken for monkeys depending on who you ask, but not significant enough for a standalone article. –dlthewave ☎ 01:58, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per CJK09 but also update the article to reflect the redirect (as is required anyways) as this is an interesting and encyclopaedic oddity. SportingFlyer T·C 03:14, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If articles like dlthewave provided were added in the article, along with the GNIS reference, wouldn't that be enough to establish notability? GNIS acknowledges that it's part of the "Fisheating Bay", it looks like there's a Fisheating Creek nearby. Reading the "Modern history" section does seem like this is the history of the area. I wonder if the decision there also prevented any movement for Monkey Box? We have dredging south of the established spot. – The Grid (talk) 18:03, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@
WP:V but very unreliable in terms of figuring out whether something was a community.) I think a redirect/merge is best: right now they'd be functionally the same thing, but I think this needs to be referenced somewhere in Wikipedia, and if someone wants to turn it into a standalone article I'm fine with a draftify result. SportingFlyer T·C 19:45, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

@SportingFlyer: Understood. Thanks! I know it would be interesting to see if there were plans to dredge this area. This had to be around the time where legislation come through to get a hold on making canals and maintaining natural flow of watersheds especially for Lake Okeechobee. Until then, I would support the redirect. – The Grid (talk) 13:14, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect
WP:CHEAP. Lightburst (talk) 15:33, 23 May 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. Of note is that while some commentary has dismissed some of the sources as not being usable to establish notability, overall consensus, relative to the overall strengths of the arguments and overall commentary presented herein is for the article to be retained. For example, a user dismissed one of the sources as unusable to establish notability, but then later !voted for the article to be kept, using a guideline-based rationale. The nominator also questioned the sources in a blanket statement, but did not provide analysis of each individual source. Conversely, while AfD is not a vote or vote count, a satisfactory amount of users have stated that there are enough usable reliable sources that provide independent, significant coverage to satisfy notability requirements, countering the nomination for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:12, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Homes for the Homeless

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

Fails to meet

WP:NCORP

. The argument and references presented in the prior AfD fails to demonstrate that this organization has been the subject of multiple, reliable, significantly independent, in-depth secondary coverage by wide audience media coverage, per the notability requirements for organizations and companies.

The "book" cited was a court proceeding/publication, which is a document of public processes, not a secondary coverage. Some of the reliable sources that mention this thing only do so in passing. I recommend deletion. Graywalls (talk) 21:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC) I cleared out some things in the article and the sources, because while those sources were reliable and what they said, they were generic comments about homelessness that doesn't relate to the organization and doesn't have contextual connection. Graywalls (talk) 07:53, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 21:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 21:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 21:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:17, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent

reliable sources

.

Criswell, Sara Dixon (1998). Homelessness. San Diego:
ISBN 1-56006-180-4
. Retrieved 2020-05-17.

Lehmann, Susan P. (November 2004). "A Shelter Is Not a Home... Or Is It? Lessons from Family Homelessness in New York City (review)". doi:10.1353/hpu.2004.0067
. Retrieved 2020-05-17.

"Editorials". The New York Observer. 2006-05-08. Archived from the original on 2020-05-17. Retrieved 2020-05-17.

Basler, Barbara (1986-07-03). "Private Group Prepares Housing for Homeless". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2020-05-17. Retrieved 2020-05-17.

Doak, Melissa J. (2006). Homeless in America: How Could It Happen Here?. Detroit:
ISBN 1-4144-0477-8
. Retrieved 2020-05-17.

Egbert, Bill (2004-06-27). "Sheltering families: Homes for Homeless makes room at Inn". Newspapers.com
.

Walsh, Mary E.; Jackson, Julie Heim (2005). Handbook of Mental Health Services for Children, Adolescents, and Families. Boston:
ISBN 978-0-306-48560-2
. Retrieved 2020-05-17.

Colon, Alicia (2005-10-07). "The City's Homeless Problem". The New York Sun. Archived from the original on 2020-05-17. Retrieved 2020-05-17.

Gordon, A.L. (2006-05-11). "Out & About". The New York Sun. Archived from the original on 2020-05-17. Retrieved 2020-05-17.

Turner, Janice (1998-08-01). "Hope is on the house". Toronto Star. Archived from the original on 2020-05-17. Retrieved 2020-05-17.
Oram, Roderick (1987-09-27). "Private Efforts Increase Help To NY Homeless: A problem that city politicians are slow to tackle". Financial Times. Archived from the original on 2020-05-17. Retrieved 2020-05-17.

Campanile, Carl; Henry, Jacob (2019-12-10). "NY Homeless provider closes complex for elderly tenants right before the holidays". New York Post. Archived from the original on 2020-05-17. Retrieved 2020-05-17.

Mandor, Samantha; Barclay, Laurel; Zachary, Jonathan (1988-03-19). "By children for everybody Home is where...". New York Amsterdam News.

Lueck, Thomas J. (1989-04-30). "Breaking New Ground in Housing Policy". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2020-05-17. Retrieved 2020-05-17.

"Shelter on Staten Island Opens With Opposition". The New York Times. 1987-09-27. Archived from the original on 2020-05-17. Retrieved 2020-05-17.

Sources with quotes

Criswell, Sara Dixon (1998). Homelessness. San Diego:
ISBN 1-56006-180-4. Retrieved 2020-05-17.
The book notes:
Homes for the homeless

In 1986 Leonard N. Stern founded Homes for the Homeless to offer hope to New York City's homeless mothers and children. Founded on Stern's belief that inadequate education is the root cause of homelessness, this private nonprofit group built the American Family Inns—transitional housing wherein residents receive education, job training, and services ranging from counseling to summer camps. In most traditional shelters, families must go elsewhere for such services. American Family Inns collaborate with community health care providers to provide on-site prenatal and pediatric care, dental care, immunizations, and preventive medicine. The Inns' family reunification program and two crisis nurseries are the only programs of their kind in New York State. These two programs focus on reuniting foster care children with their familieis and preventing foster care placement.
...
The four American Family Inns in New York City serve over 540 families every day. Each family has a unique service plan that considers the family's individual and collective past, and its goals for the future. A caseworker helps each parent and child within the family develop and pursue short- and long-term personal goals. Each caseworker counsels twenty families in individual weekly sessions. After a family moves into permanent housing, follow-up programs provide postplacement services for up to eighteen months. Homes for the Homeless reported in 1996 that 94 percent of all families who graduate from American Family Inns remain in permanent housing.
The book notes on page 100
:
Homes for the Homeless

A private nonprofit organization that is the nation's largest single provider of residential education services to homeless families. Its American Family Inns transitional housing facilities serve homeless mothers and children in New York City.

Lehmann, Susan P. (November 2004). "A Shelter Is Not a Home... Or Is It? Lessons from Family Homelessness in New York City (review)". doi:10.1353/hpu.2004.0067
. Retrieved 2020-05-17.
The article notes:
Homes for the Homeless (HFH) was founded in 1986 by businessman Leonard N. Stern (who made his fortune developing the Hartz Mountain pet supply business begun by his father and later in extensive real estate development in the New York metropolitan area) in collaboration with the Cathedral of St. John the Divine and the City of New York. Operating in close conjunction with the Institute on Children and Poverty, a research organization, HFH is the nation's largest provider of residential, educational, and employment training centers, serving over 540 homeless families and over 1,100 homeless children each day at four separate sites across New York City. Dubbed American Family Inns, these sites host a network of on-site education, employment, and family support services that address the multiple causes of homelessness. The book under review serves as a convincing rationale for this Tier II shelter approach to the problem of homelessness, at least in so far as it concerns families with children.

"Editorials". The New York Observer. 2006-05-08. Archived from the original on 2020-05-17. Retrieved 2020-05-17.
The editorial notes:
Leonard Stern's Homes for the Homeless

This week marks the 20th anniversary of Homes for the Homeless, the nation’s largest provider for homeless families. The tragedy of homelessness so often proves intractable despite the best intentions of local and federal governments. Thousands of children, whose average age may be no more than six years old, still sleep in New York City homeless shelters on any given night. Homes for the Homeless has proven that there is a way out of the cycle with its innovative residential, educational and training services.
Since this magnificent pioneering program was started in 1986 by Leonard Stern, chairman of the Hartz Group, more than 18,000 homeless families and 30,000 homeless children have received emergency transitional housing under its auspices. In addition to housing, Homes for the Homeless offers services necessary to building an independent life: adult education and literacy, job training, accelerated after-school programs, psychological counseling and child care. Its Institute for Children and Poverty conducts the latest research on how trends like welfare reform and gentrification impact homeless families. Not only is the vision vast, the results are solid.
Leonard Stern will be honored this week for his humble and dignified stewardship of this remarkable organization, which he alone created more than 20 years ago. He has shown that one man, with courage and compassion, can change the lives of thousands who might otherwise give up hope.

Basler, Barbara (1986-07-03). "Private Group Prepares Housing for Homeless". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2020-05-17. Retrieved 2020-05-17.
The article notes:
The group - formed by the Cathedral of St. John the Divine and Leonard N. Stern, a businessman - said the first shelter or inn will open within six weeks in the building that formerly housed Prospect Hospital in the South Bronx. It will hold 80 families or 300 people in private rooms.
...
The not-for-profit group, Homes for the Homeless, will operate its shelters under contract with the city. Mr. Stern, who helped form the group, is its treasurer. The chairman of the group is Basil Paterson, the former Secretary of State of New York and The Rev. James P. Morton, dean of the Cathedral, is the vice chairman. Board members include Ethel Kennedy, Gloria Steinem, and Rabbi Balfour Brickner of the Stephen Wise Free Synagogue in Manhattan.
Recently, Mr. Stern has worked closely with Andrew Cuomo, the Governor's son, on other homeless projects, including one called Help I, which will initially provide 420 small apartments as temporary living quarters for homeless families.

Doak, Melissa J. (2006). Homeless in America: How Could It Happen Here?. Detroit:
ISBN 1-4144-0477-8
. Retrieved 2020-05-17.
The book notes:
Homes for the Homeless (HFH) is a New York City-based program designed to find long-term solutions for homeless people in New York. HFH created an innovative and successful program—a network of residential, educational, and employment training centers called the American Family Inns—which has been used as a model for permanent solutions to homelessness. HFH is affiliated with the Institute for Children and Poverty, and together they conduct research studies to uncover strategies for fighting poverty and homelessness.

Egbert, Bill (2004-06-27). "Sheltering families: Homes for Homeless makes room at Inn". Newspapers.com
.
The article notes:
So Nunez left his government job in 1986 to found Homes for the Homeless with a grant from philanthropist Leonard Stern.
...
Homes for the Homeless operates four so-called Family Inns throughout the city, serving 555 families.
The Family Inn model combines housing with an array of social services to help residents reintegrate into the workforce and move on to regular housing.
Walking down the Prospect Family Inn's "Main Street" corridor, residents are just steps from social workers, a wellness clinic, a day-care center, job training, even advice on starting their own business.

Walsh, Mary E.; Jackson, Julie Heim (2005). Handbook of Mental Health Services for Children, Adolescents, and Families. Boston:
ISBN 978-0-306-48560-2
. Retrieved 2020-05-17.
The book notes:
American Family Inns

The American Family Inns are Residential Educational Training (RET) Centers for the entire family. The Inns were developed by Homes for the Homeless in 1986, with the idea that all necessary services can be cost-effectively and efficiently provided for families, under one roof. Homes for the Homeless believes that to effectively break the cycle of homelessness and poverty, the underlying issues that lead to homelessness all must be addressed (Nunez, 1994). The American Family Inn offers comprehensive educational and training programs, which are supported by on-site services such as child care, family counseling, medical clinics, and substance abuse counseling. Parents are given the opportunity to complete their education, to acquire independent living skills, and to obtain job training before moving into permanent housing. At the same time, their children’s education, recreation, and health care are assured and any family problems are addressed. American Family Inns tap the potential of the transitional shelters; they turn a long shelter stay into a productive, concentrated period of learning, recovery, and preparation, with all of the needed tools and support available on-site (Nunez, 1994).
The success of the American Family Inn demonstrates that shelters need not serve merely as waiting rooms between temporary bouts of housing. As a result of this education-based program (provided at the same cost as operating a traditional shelter in today’s emergency shelter system), 94% of all families who graduate from the American Family Inns remain in permanent housing (Nunez, 1995).

Colon, Alicia (2005-10-07). "The City's Homeless Problem". The New York Sun. Archived from the original on 2020-05-17. Retrieved 2020-05-17.
The article notes:
Homes for the Homeless was founded by Leonard Stern in 1985 to provide clean, safe, and humane transitional housing for families. This organization presently has five shelters - entire buildings with tight security and strict guidelines. The shelters are de facto communities where residents can pursue their GED and get day care and counseling in one place until they are ready for permanent housing. This is a great program, and one has to wonder why we are still paying a fortune in tax dollars to house families in seedy motels when that money should be going toward expanding the shelters that work. The city should be donating properties seized in tax liens to Homes for the Homeless. Its Web site is www.homesforthehomeless.com.
The article includes quotes from the president of Homes for the Homeless.

Gordon, A.L. (2006-05-11). "Out & About". The New York Sun. Archived from the original on 2020-05-17. Retrieved 2020-05-17.
The article notes:
Homes for the Homeless held its first fund-raising gala this year to mark its 20th anniversary.
The organization's five American Family Inns in New York City provide temporary shelter for about a year, with 90% of occupants in permanent housing two years after their inn term ends. The inns are also centers of education, job training, and counseling. On a typical afternoon, a parent is studying for his GED while his teenager is playing in a basketball league and his toddler sister is in daycare.
Real estate developer and hotelier Leonard Stern, a major donor to New York University, founded the group in 1986 after he saw some homeless people sleeping in City Hall Park. And he seems to be passing on his commitment to doing good in New York through his daughter, Andrea Stern, a photographer who was the mastermind of the gala.

Turner, Janice (1998-08-01). "Hope is on the house". Toronto Star. Archived from the original on 2020-05-17. Retrieved 2020-05-17.
The article notes:
[quote from Leonard Stern]
Leonard Stern, chairperson of the HartzMountain Corporation and founder of Homes for the Homeless, the largest single provider of transitional housing and services for homeless families in New York
...
In November, the first of 10 families will begin moving from various hostels into a temporary site for Beatrice House, a residential family education centre. The pilot project is a personal tribute to Northey's late maternal grandmother.
The concept is modelled after Leonard Stern's New York's Home for the Homeless, established in 1986. Its program of intensive and sustained assistance boasts a 94 per cent success rate of moving families out of hostels and into apartments.
The New York project has moved well beyond the emergency mentality surrounding homelessness to provide a long-term strategy, with the leadership and commitment of all levels of government, as well as the non-profit, foundation and corporate worlds.

Oram, Roderick (1987-09-27). "Private Efforts Increase Help To NY Homeless: A problem that city politicians are slow to tackle". Financial Times. Archived from the original on 2020-05-17. Retrieved 2020-05-17.
The article notes:
If politicians and goverments feel the need for lessons in banging heads together, they might try Nancy and Alexander Abraham and Leonard Stern. Distressed by bureaucratic delay, the three New Yorkers have taken their own initiative to open shelters.
Mr Stern, chairman, of Hartz Mountain, a real estate, pet food and publishing group, set up Homes for the Homeless two years ago. The non-profit organisation has bought so far three buildings with loans guaranteed by Hartz. Together, they house 420 families, or about 1,500 people.

Campanile, Carl; Henry, Jacob (2019-12-10). "NY Homeless provider closes complex for elderly tenants right before the holidays". New York Post. Archived from the original on 2020-05-17. Retrieved 2020-05-17.
The article notes:
A non-profit called “Homes for the Homeless” is booting tenants — including a 99-year-old Holocaust survivor — from its senior citizen housing complex in Manhattan, right around the holidays, The Post has learned.
...
The group was founded by pet toy and real-estate honcho Leonard Stern of Hartz Mountain industries, with its principal mission to provide housing for those without.
It previously ran a homeless shelter for families at the building for 20 years before shutting it down in 2015 and converting the building into the senior housing facility, which opened last year.
The senior center charges about $4,000 for a one-bedroom apartment, but provides three meals a day in a communal dining room and pays the utility bills.
...
Homes for the Homeless also operates a housing complex for seniors on Staten Island, as well as three homeless shelters, two in the Bronx and one in Queens.

Mandor, Samantha; Barclay, Laurel; Zachary, Jonathan (1988-03-19). "By children for everybody Home is where...". New York Amsterdam News.
The article notes:
Stern turned outrage into inspiration and founded Homes for the Homeless, a non-profit organization which finds safe and affordable housing for homeless people. Stern's role, as he put it, is to bridge the gap between the people with good ideas and no money and the people with no ideas but lots of money.
Homes for the Homeless works with the Cathedral of St. John the Divine. There are two phases to the project. In phase one, homeless people move into family inns. There are now three family inns that house 1,500 people a night. Mr. Stern described a Homes for the Homeless Inn to us.

Lueck, Thomas J. (1989-04-30). "Breaking New Ground in Housing Policy". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2020-05-17. Retrieved 2020-05-17.
The article notes:
"The reality is that there are a lot of good ideas for the long term, but very few practical solutions for the short term," said Leonard Stern, chairman of Hartz Mountain Industries and a major real estate developer who has formed Homes for the Homeless, a nonprofit group operating 420 transitional-housing rooms for homeless families.
Mr. Stern's program, like more than two dozen other temporary housing projects, is at the center of a controversy among advocates for the homeless, some of whom argue that the temporary programs divert money and volunteer resources from efforts to create permanent, subsidized housing.
THE buildings used by Homes for the Homeless include a former Holiday Inn in Queens, a hospital in the Bronx and a nursing home on Staten Island. It is providing day care, an alternative high school for residents who have dropped out, exercise equipment, arts and crafts classes and other programs designed to make families more independent and better able to manage an apartment of their own.
It charges $100 a night per family, with the bills paid by city, state and Federal agencies.

"Shelter on Staten Island Opens With Opposition". The New York Times. 1987-09-27. Archived from the original on 2020-05-17. Retrieved 2020-05-17.
The article notes:
Despite the opposition of neighbors, a privately run temporary residence for homeless families was opened last week in a four-story building on the south shore of Staten Island.
So far, 15 single-parent families have moved into the brown and white brick structure just off the waterfront in Midland Beach, a working-class community that was a resort area in the 1930's.
The residence is owned by the Manhattan-based nonprofit organization, Homes for the Homeless. Officials of the organization said about 100 more families are expected to move in within two months, reaching a capacity of up to 350 people.
...
After an anonymous caller made threats against the building, officials of Homes for the Homeless asked the police to provide 24-hour protection. For the last two weeks, at least one police car has been parked in front of the building, keeping regular watch.
...
Homes for the Homeless bought the building in April for $3.5 million with the aid of Leonard Stern, head of Hartz Mountain Industries and the owner of The Village Voice. The organization received two loans from Chemical Bank totaling $4.5 million for the sale and renovations. The loans were secured by Mr. Stern.

There is sufficient coverage in
reliable sources to allow Homes for the Homeless to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:05, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment Just FYI The second reference fails ORGIND in that it points to a *review* of a book. While the review was written by Lehmann, the *book* was written by the CEO of the topic company - so fails ORGIND.
HighKing⁺⁺ 13:50, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homes for the Homeless participants: Theroadislong (talk · contribs), Skeletor3000 (talk · contribs), Wm335td (talk · contribs), Doncram (talk · contribs), and Bearian (talk · contribs).
Cunard (talk) 08:05, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment are those items in the list automatically populated from phrase search? Appearing in a list of "organizations to contact" that lists out numerous businesses don't count towards notability.
WP:ORGCRIT. "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. These criteria, generally, follow the general notability guideline with a stronger emphasis on quality of the sources to prevent gaming of the rules by marketing and public relations professionals"Graywalls (talk) 16:14, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - I see lots more sources found. What's with this? We just went through the process, got it up to
WP:HEY, it was nominated a second time, and then more sources were found. Bearian (talk) 19:13, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep More than enough references that meet the criteria for establishing notability can be found. From the list posted by Cunard above, references 1, 3 and 5 (didn't bother to check any others) are satisfactory. Topic is notable, meets GNG/NCORP.
HighKing⁺⁺ 13:50, 21 May 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 Denton, Texas. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:49, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Green Tree Estates water crisis

Green Tree Estates water crisis (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 curation process. This is a news story that a neighborhood with 50 residents is experiencing a water crisis. IMO does not satisfy wp:not news. Of course it has received extensive local coverage which is listed in the references. North8000 (talk) 23:16, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:17, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect I think this article has been created to support a local campaign, which certainly seems to have done a good job of getting local press coverage. The topic is too local to have sufficient notability but, stripped right down, could form a section in Denton, Texas. Mccapra (talk) 02:46, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Redirect to section in Denton, Texas seems reasonable given the local press. Bioforce12 (talk) 01:47, 22 May 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) 00:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RUBEN XYZ

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

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

I am completing the AFD nomination for User:122.25.51.56, who's rationale was on the article talk page, and appears below. This is a courtesy only, I have no opinion on the matter. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:10, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fails
WP:GNG). PROD was declined by the article's principal author. 122.25.51.56 (talk) 22:54, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:46, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:46, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails any and all inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:42, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the IP nominator's rationale is spot on. -- Whpq (talk) 02:00, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not an iota of notability. Graywalls (talk) 23:32, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can't say it any better than the nominator; no indication of notability whatsoever. --Jack Frost (talk) 11:02, 22 May 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) 00:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger sauce

Tiger sauce (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 process. No indication of wp:notability for this name for this combination of ingredients. There are other much more widespread meanings for "tiger sauce" and this is a common combination of ingredients that does not generally go by that name. No references except to a sales page of someone who sells it by that name. North8000 (talk) 23:02, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding on one point, there is a nationally distributed product called "Tiger Sauce" which is the far more common meaning of the term which is completely different than this; it is a pepper type sauce. The symbol on the bottle says that "Tiger Sauce" is a registered trademark.https://reilyproducts.com/products/tryme-tiger-sauce-10-oz/ I've been buying that stuff for years and it's on the shelf in many grocery stores. So I think that a redirect would not be a good idea. North8000 (talk) 19:49, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:18, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:18, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 02:49, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability in the article and my search didn't show the significant and independent coverage required to meet
WP:GNG. There appear to be lots of condiments with this name with a wide variety of ingredients. Papaursa (talk) 14:39, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirectto ~~Pit beef.~~ This appears to be a popular in Baltimore as an accompanying condiment. See this, and this. -- Whpq (talk) 02:15, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Given multiple non-notable uses for the term, I am now convinced that a redirect is not the most appropriate choice. -- Whpq (talk) 13:59, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - by its description, this used to be somewhat popular across the United States in the 1970s, but finding anything more than anecdotal evidence is going to be difficult. Bearian (talk) 16:39, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 22:11, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Pérez Doval

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

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

Doesn't appear to meet
WP:ROUTINE and limited to sources that do not look reliable (no bylines, and denoted by Google News as both press releases and blogs) _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:00, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:00, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:00, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:00, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:25, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:26, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:33, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ApproveI think it should not be eliminated because it has debuted professionally — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlopglez (talk • contribs) 01:58, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Approve He has played in the First Division. I have watched the game from my television. It is a talent and it is relevant. --Dlop75 (talk) 14:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The globestats article claims Doval played against Valencia but this doesn't tally with soccerway's report of the game. Article's claim that Carrillo was subbed and Doval brought on is a lie - the sub was Youssef En-Nesyri. GNG is failed also. Dougal18 (talk) 19:53, 22 May 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. Withdrawing nomination, additional reliable sources were provided to satisfy notability concerns. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:49, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jul på Vesterbro

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

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

I can't find any significant coverage of this subject in reliable, independent sources. The "Expand Danish" tag is a dead end, as that article does not have any useful references. I'm not familiar enough with
WP:NSERIES is reasonable, so I'm bringing it here to AfD following my unsuccessful attempt to find sources online. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:49, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:49, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:49, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:49, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Definitely notable; one of Anders Matthesen's most well-known productions. A TV-julekalender is a TV-series with 24 episodes, one broadcast every day from 1 to 24 December, so
WP:NSERIES applies. This calendar was broadcast on DR2, which covers all of Denmark. I will try to see if I can find some sources. ― Hebsen (talk) 19:33, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Rosguill, I have added a number of sources now. Are these sufficient to establish notability? ― Hebsen (talk) 21:18, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hebsen, yeah, those are enough, I'll withdraw this discussion. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:48, 16 May 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 John Craigie (musician). bibliomaniac 1 5 06:23, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I Wrote Mr. Tambourine Man

I Wrote Mr. Tambourine Man (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:NSONG. The Billboard source was an exclusive given to the magazine, so it's not a particularly independent source, even if it's a reliable one, and the Broadway World source isn't generally considered reliable, and basically parrots the Billboard article (it says that Billboard "praised" the song, which isn't true at all). There aren't any other reliable sources covering the song in detail, just reproducing the press announcement that the song will be released and its proceeds will go to Johnson's foundation. I can't see an obvious redirect target: it's not mentioned at Craigie's article, and it's only included in Johnson's discography under "other songs"... but it's not his song, why would anyone look under his discography for another artist's song? The Jack Johnson discography also states that the song is included on the deluxe version of Craigie's Scarecrow album, but the article for that album has no mention of the song, and I can't find any "deluxe" version of the album, so that's not a viable target either. Richard3120 (talk) 22:35, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 22:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 22:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect: not notable. It should also be noted that the user who created the page has also created other pages for Jack Johnson regardless of notability. Daerl (talk) 07:30, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to John Craigie (musician): Per nominator. There's no way it can be expanded. It's best to move the contents to the artist's article. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 00:51, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moving the contents is not a redirect... Richard3120 (talk) 01:39, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Richard3120, whether I voted to merge or redirect the article, ~~it's just the same thing~~. If it's decided for the article to be redirected, it's up to anyone if he can move some of the contents there. So, don't bother arguing with me. My vote stands no matter what. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 03:14, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not arguing with your decision, you can vote how you want. I was just saying that merging and redirecting are not the same thing at all, so your statement is confusing. Richard3120 (talk) 13:42, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Richard3120, it doesn't look confusing. The page would still be converted to a redirect page once it's agreed to redirect or merge to the targeted article. They may be different, but that's one thing in common. I won't reply any further. Period. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 01:40, 21 May 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. There is significant disagreement as to whether the subject's two roles as Daphne Blake in the two Scooby-Doo! television movies are sufficient to establish her notability. Some editors argued that the two roles were enough to satisfy the significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows part of
WP:NACTOR, while other editors argued that these roles were not distinct or significant enough because of the relative difficulty in finding in-depth coverage in reliable sources about the subject. Mz7 (talk) 21:16, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Kate Melton

Kate Melton (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)

Actress possibly fails
ping me) 22:33, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
ping me) 22:33, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
ping me) 22:33, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
ping me) 22:33, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
ping me) 22:33, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep: She has a significant role in two notable TV-movies, WP:NACTRESS point 1. — Toughpigs (talk) 23:55, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
ping me) 00:34, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

The films have Wikipedia pages, which suggests that they are notable. TV-movies can be just as notable as any other movie; I don't think there's a policy that treats them differently. — Toughpigs (talk) 00:38, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ping me) 23:45, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
talk) 00:17, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
DiamondRemley39, well I count those mentions as 1 source. Are you counting every "hits" as different sources?

Google is hitting Wikia, Amazon, LinkedIn, etc.

Google News is hitting reviews for the Scooby-Doo movie. And a different Kate Melton. https://rbj.net/2019/10/24/mary-cariola-founded-center-to-give-more-meaning-to-kids-lives/ --
ping me) 01:09, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
talk) 01:23, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
DiamondRemley39, Well you said you found 14 results in one database alone. You didn't mention that it's a search engine. I was thinking more of a database like IMDB.

If you're talking about https://search.proquest.com/results/4E25B38D244F408FPQ/, I had a check and none of them are for the right Kate Melton. https://search.proquest.com/docview/1324257594 talks about an 86 year old.

https://search.proquest.com/docview/862978601 talks about a Kate Melton that lived through the 1920s.

https://search.proquest.com/docview/1418736984/4E25B38D244F408FPQ/10?accountid=10297 is not relevant either. It mentions a "Kate Melton" from Virginia. --
ping me) 01:32, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
talk) 01:38, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
DiamondRemley39, care to provide the link to the source?

You sure it's not just passing mentions like Kate Melton stars in the movie. --
ping me) 01:41, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
I cannot do that, as it requires a subscription and login. I never said it was something other than passing mentions. I never said it was passing mentions. As I stated earlier, I will add relevant info and sources to the article tomorrow, after I have had a chance to review them.
talk) 01:44, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
ping me) 17:48, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
As you have quoted, and as I have said, it comments on her performance. I don't know where you find "critiques of actresses," except for grand dames or character actresses, and those come in books and are critiques of careers rather than of people. Reviews are typically about a film with some information about performances. Another thing: unless you know her personally, would you refrain from referring to Melton by her first name, as we do
talk) 18:39, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Well, first you accuse me of failure of doing a BEFORE. Then you said you found "14 results" in one database alone and you refuse to link to the articles. And when you did, it's a link to a newspaper review of the movie itself with only 1 line mentioning the actress.

You were being belligerent and assuming bad faith of me. --
ping me) 20:09, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
It is inflammatory to accuse an editor of bad faith. See
WP:AOBF
. I request you strike that comment and amend it to something civil before an admin closes the discussion.

I asked where you completed BEFORE, which is a clarifying question that is ok to ask in deletion discussions, to learn whether you used anything specialized or only the almighty Google. I said I found 14 hits and would add anything relevant to the article later. I never said you didn't look or that all 14 were useful. It was merely a comment; I didn't even vote until hours later. Do point out where I was belligerent or strike that adjective as well. I only see relies to your questions.

Those subsequent questions demonstrate that you are unfamiliar with periodical databases and how they work. That's OK--doubtless many editors haven't taken a research and writing class in high school or in university, at least not in the digital age, or are uninitiated in terms of newspaper research, and don't get that it's a different animal from Google... until someone explains it to them. Then they usually get it that the URLs are useless without a login; "via" is in the citation template so people aren't met with a subscription wall they can't hope to overcome. So let's try this again... In what I hope is my final attempt to placate you on this issue, copy and paste the URLs (my institution extension redacted) into your browser: https://search.proquest.com/globalnews/results/F7615BA7DD0F4B41PQ/1

https://search.proquest.com/docview/422258644
talk) 14:52, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

DiamondRemley39, well I can view the second URL. By asking where I have completed my before you seem to be insinuating I didn't do any before since you said "I got 14 hits" which means I wasn't looking hard enough. This is a common accusation seen on AFDs.

I did look at Google News, which often brings up hits to news articles. That said your article only has 1 line relating to Melton, and that is being lumped in with her other co-workers. --
ping me) 15:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm glad you have a login or access to an institution's server, or perhaps access in your country is more liberal than in mine. Proquest can be helpful on Wikipedia. "Where did you complete BEFORE?" is a normal question to ask when the nominator has not provided details of that in the nomination statement, as you did not. It's important to
talk) 16:11, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
ping me) 21:49, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
What we have here is a failure to communicate. I did not speak of links; I wrote about an article. Anyway, now you know a thing or two about Proquest and so does anyone else who read this thread, and that is excellent. This is unresolved until you acknowledge that you crossed a line when you accused me of bad faith and belligerence. Bad faith is a serious accusation. Now I am to take it that personal attack is on your mind. Well. Yes, we shall agree to disagree: closed for you, open for me.
talk) 22:21, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Except the usual social media pages, I could not find any mention but this very trivial mention in a Portuguese language article... Fails
WP:NACTOR (since, if her role was significant and those movies too, then there would be some kind of coverage...) RandomCanadian (talk | contribs) 02:07, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per
talk) 14:38, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
ping me) 17:51, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Do you have a point,
talk) 18:39, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment Looking at
talk) 14:45, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:38, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The criteria is "multiple" significant roles in notable productions, she only has at best 1 significant role, Just because it is 2 productions does not change it from being 1 role and so cannot create notability. I also have long argued that it takes more voice roles for notability to be met than live action roles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 22:05, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
I guess I misunderstood the role in the films in question. On further thought considering they are direct to video that is the main issue. I may have seen one of them as I think about it more. I still stand by my view that it is one role not the required multiple roles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:23, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. And FYI, the mode of the films as well, as they were not direct to video. The first broke ratings records on the channel on which it aired.
talk) 18:39, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak Keep: Arguments have already been made above regarding
WP:NACTOR. There do appear to be some sources, too, a few of which I'll get clipped and post here. Dflaw4 (talk) 11:52, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

This is the most in-depth source I found: here. Dflaw4 (talk) 12:52, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for searching for that and clipping it! I didn't find that in my newspapers.com search! I added one bit of information to the article and sourced your clipping.
talk) 14:58, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per (probably/hopefully) WP:TOOSOON. To address the only non-per X !votes, the subject has clearly only had one substantive role, and thus does not pass WP:NACTOR, while the source presented above (and those revealed by a thorough WP:BEFORE search) are insufficient to pass WP:GNG. Indeed, wrt the latter, if that is the most in-depth source found, then GNG is some time (not to mention persistent covergae) away yet. Cheers, ——Serial^# 13:46, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on her major role as
WP:NACTOR Lightburst (talk) 15:19, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment I don’t have any prejudice toward keeping or deleting (though I do lean on the side of delete), but at what point do we decide which TV show or movie is “big enough” to supersede what the NACTOR criteria is supposed to be? Take a case like Melanie Liburd... appearance on two extremely popular shows, sure, yet absolutely no sources to verify even the most basic BLP reqs. When will we put a lid on this kinda stuff? Trillfendi (talk) 18:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not super relevant, but I'll answer anyway. The sources on the Melanie Liburd article are adequate to support the information that's there, which is that she's an actress and a list of her roles. It's only a BLP concern if somebody adds information about her that doesn't have a source. — Toughpigs (talk) 22:31, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Two BLP related items are there. 3 sources are given for the whole article: one of them being some random person’s wordpress blog and the other two being Deadline used to source a role and that’s it? That’s supposed to uphold notability standards? I have to wonder why the bar has sunk so low to this nadir of a standard. Hence why articles such as this get put up for deletion everyday. Trillfendi (talk) 14:00, 24 May 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 withdraw. Sorry, first step should have been to convert to a redirect. We can have an AfD discussion if it's contested. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:21, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Las Canciones de Mis Viejos

Las Canciones de Mis Viejos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)

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

Does not meet
WP:NALBUM. Most of the provided sources don't even mention the album. It's possible that some of the songs are notable, as several appear to be folk songs that were not originally written for this album. Notability, however, is not conferred through this sort of association. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:21, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:21, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:21, 15 May 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. bibliomaniac 1 5 01:26, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blow Your Mind (Tiësto and MOTi song)

Blow Your Mind (Tiësto and MOTi song) (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:XY. Richard3120 (talk) 22:14, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 22:14, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 22:14, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There are a few sources which mention the song, but barely talk about it. Not to mention there are several songs which bare the same title. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 05:11, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 18:35, 17 May 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. I apologize - my interpretation of NPOL was a tiny bit off - sources have been added to the article therefore I am withdrawing this. Thanks
(non-admin closure) -- puddleglum^2.0 05:19, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

George Fludyer, MP

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 don't see this person as being at all notable - an MP from the 18th century that, according to this article, did nothing coverage-worthy. No citations either; the whole article is who his ancestors were. I don't see this passing GNG or NPOLITICIAN. -- puddleglum^2.0 21:45, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- puddleglum^2.0 21:45, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - MPs are notable -
WP:NPOL.Ingratis (talk) 23:43, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment Hi Ingratis, hope you're staying well. Are all MP's inherently notable? The way I understood NPOL was that GNG must also be met - therefore, an MP who has received absolutely zero significant coverage (like this one), would be deletion-worthy. Without any citations, we don't know if any of the information contained in this article is true. I'm sorry, this just may be a misunderstanding on my part, but I'm curious nonetheless. Thanks for your time and !vote. All the best, -- puddleglum^2.0 00:00, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you're well too. My understanding, as far as it goes, is that being an MP is enough in itself, which is how I take NPOL: "the following are presumed to be notable: politicians... who have held international or national ... office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels." His entry from the authoritative "History of Parliament" has now been added, which confirms that he was an MP (and also that his was not an interesting career) and there will be other sources for someone of that status. All best to you! Ingratis (talk) 00:12, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per
WP:NPOL. Mccapra (talk) 03:12, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. MPs are notable and meet
WP:NPOL. --Kbabej (talk) 03:28, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was keep. Clear consensus that this meets NSPORTS criteria, no need to belabor the point further. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:03, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Wyatt (skeleton racer)

Marcus Wyatt (skeleton racer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Doesn't appear to meet
WP:ANYBIO territory, and we don't have an SNG for this sport. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:44, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:44, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:44, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep He is the highest qualifying British Skeleton racer of all time. He finished in the standings well enough to be in the world cup top finishers for the year.. well enough to be listed on the world cup pages. Similarly ranking racers have pages. In 2018-19 he finished sixth in the world for Great Britian which is not a traditional winter sports power, and number seven has a page.
He is product of the skeleton training center at the University of Bath which is itself a story. Skeleton is an Olympic sport and he is the top male finisher in its history from the UK.Williamsdoritios (talk) 22:22, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I should have thought that competing in the
WP:NSPORT. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:50, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Back to back top ten finishes in the world championships in an established Olympic sport should be enough. If not GNG: from Eurosport, about him going to Pyeonchang as an observer, in depth coverage that is from an organization centered on the sport, but independent of the IBSF and British authorities.
18abruce (talk) 18:32, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep passes
WP:NSPORT based on "...highest qualifying British Skeleton racer of all time."Lightburst (talk) 15:24, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

@
18abruce (talk) 16:38, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
@
WP:SPORTCRIT Lightburst (talk) 17:40, 23 May 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
Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:58, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Trixie and Katya Save the World

Trixie and Katya Save the World (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 under new article curation review. IMO "web series" with zero indication of wp:notability under either wp:GNG or the SNG. Zero references. Article has been tagged for this since April 13th North8000 (talk) 21:26, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:39, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:41, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (or merge) - user:Kbabej has done good work adding sources. It’s also being mentioned in several round-ups of ideas for quarantine entertainment such as this. I believe it’s notable enough for its own article, but if consensus disagrees, could be merged with UNHhhh as this has been replaced with this during quarantine. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 07:22, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well two of the three sources at the article are "WOW" the service that sells/carries this, but the third one newly added is certainly relevant to this conversation. I think that one more solid
wp:GNG type one added to the article would do it. North8000 (talk) 09:46, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
There are now five sources, including Vice, a podcast, and Socialite Life. --Kbabej (talk) 17:48, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge per Cardiffbear88, I was thinking the same thing. Gleeanon409 (talk) 11:39, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, I don't think it would be notable to merit its own article, but it would be relevant to include it in the articles of Trixie, Katya and WOW. Not A Superhero (talk) 15:02, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't think a
WP:HEYMANN here; it went from zero sources to five; no reviews to two; and an added external links section. --Kbabej (talk) 17:46, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge into UNHhhh. per the article it is very clearly "a replacement for their popular webseries UNHhhh, which is on hiatus due to the COVID-19 pandemic." It is for all intensive purposes the same show just in a diferent format due to filming restrictions. We should not have 2 articles about the same topic.Found5dollar (talk) 20:16, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on
"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:16, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Hans Van Laethem

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

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

Not notable with very little sources. PoliceSheep99 (talk) 21:24, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PoliceSheep99 (talk) 21:24, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. PoliceSheep99 (talk) 21:24, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable town crier.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:48, 18 May 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. withdrawn by nominator, no other delete !votes.
(non-admin closure) SportingFlyer T·C 02:13, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Anthony Condon

Anthony Condon (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)

unnotable, BLP issues, lack of sources Ed6767 (talk) 21:02, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:43, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:43, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Did you do the steps outlined in
WP:BEFORE? If you did you would see that the subject easily meets the subject-specific notability guidelines and would have found numerous sources exist. Jevansen (talk) 23:50, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy keep a 10-year, 145-game player who played in two premierships at the highest level of Australian rules football very clearly passes
WP:NAFL. This AfD reflects poorly on the nominator's diligence. – Teratix ₵ 08:44, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Teratix, thank you for your kind comments - I'm still fairly new to AfD, this nomination was my mistake here. I 'm sorry I've only just got the chance to re-review my AfDs and have retracted my original nomination. Ed6767 (talk) 01:39, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Teratix. Cavalryman (talk) 10:47, 17 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Keep Was surprised this article was in this state, less surprised decent articles on Condon were hard to find on the internet given the years in which he played for the Hawks. Easily passes
WP:NAFL and clearly notable. It was sourced, but only to directory websites, so I've quickly added two more - neither are great, it's an article from the Hawthorn website, but it's impossible he's not notable. SportingFlyer T·C 08:17, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

comment - on further review, I am retracting my original nomination for deletion. Ed6767 (talk) 01:37, 20 May 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. bibliomaniac 1 5 01:20, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Subway Princess Runner

Subway Princess Runner (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)

100 million downloads on Google Play is not enough for the article to meet
WP:GNG. A a s i m 20:45, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. A a s i m 20:45, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I wasn't able to find much in reliable sources about this game besides a short mention in
Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:19, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Yup, a non-notable Subway Surfers ripoff which probably had its top-5 appearance coming solely from a bunch of bulk downloads. chatter) 22:56, 15 May 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) 00:12, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Marten

Alexander Marten (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. Not real evidence of notability Rathfelder (talk) 20:33, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 20:33, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 20:44, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is pretty clearly an autobio as I don’t think any PR would write something as thin as this. It is an extended essay of self-praise, mostly unsourced. The sources which aren’t dead do nothing to support notability. This is just promotional spam. Mccapra (talk) 03:22, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:09, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails
WP:GNG. Likely autobio or the guy really cheaped out when hiring PR. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:24, 19 May 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. bibliomaniac 1 5 06:24, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Rayevsky (Japanologist)

Alexander Rayevsky (Japanologist) (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 lacks reliable independent sources to establish notability. It's not really clear what the claim of notability even is: as an academic, it's a clear
WP:PROF fail; as a YouTuber he's about number eleventy million in the rankings; he plays in a completely non-notable band. Guy (help!) 10:58, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:14, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:14, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:07, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He very frequently appears on various Russian language TV and radio channels [2] with comments about Japanese culture. This is the only indication of notability. I agree with people who commented above that he is not notable for his scientific work, as a blogger or as a performer. My very best wishes (talk) 01:17, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:27, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - appearing on TV as a commentator is not an indicator of notability. We need reliable sources about him, not commentary made by him. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:41, 24 May 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) 00:12, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Synch roll

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

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

I can't even understand what this article is or how it's notable. The article obviously contains original research and it has been unsourced since November 2006. Kori (@) 03:44, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found one seemingly relevant use of "synch roll": [3]. However, the meaning of the term in this context may not be the same as in the article. Besides a bunch of
userdude 03:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:29, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to
WP:ATD. ~Kvng (talk) 15:17, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:27, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there are lots of specialized terms in the world that are not notable, and this is one of them. Bearian (talk) 16:43, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on
"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:20, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Ricky Concha

Ricky Concha (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 boxer that fails NBOX and GNG. ².O.^Boxing 20:19, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 20:19, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 20:19, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 20:19, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable boxer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:46, 18 May 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. This is a low-participation discussion, but also a fairly clear call and a discussion that has already remained open beyond the normal time for an AfD. Basically unsourced stub on a topic with little actual coverage. Redirecting the title to the sole relevant article, as redirects are a bargain in this economy. BD2412 T 04:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ChaseLinx

ChaseLinx (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)

Little to no significant coverage in reliable sources. All I could find mentioning it were 2 local news sources. SK2242 (talk) 20:13, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 20:13, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 20:13, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 03:25, 16 May 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 - After re-listing, it is quite clear there to keep the article. If there is a desire to rename it as suggested in the extended discussion, that should be done on the talk page. Fuzheado | Talk 16:32, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Southwest Airlines Flight 1392

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 don't see what's notable about this. One person got killed by a landing plane, that's extremely unfortunate but I don't see how having a full article about this contributes anything useful to the encyclopedia. If multiple people were killed, it would've made more sense to make a article. ShadowCyclone talk 12:41, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ShadowCyclone talk 12:41, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The incident involved a large transport-category aircraft and has attracted substantial national press coverage, so it meets general notability guidelines, despite the absence of injuries to persons aboard the aircraft. To cite two examples,
WP:GNG and have Wikipedia articles despite a lack of onboard injuries or significant damage to the airliner. Carguychris (talk) 14:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep or redirect - Keep, or redirect to History of Southwest Airlines#2020s or Southwest Airlines#Accidents and incidents. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Unusual incident. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a major contributor to the page. It meets
GNG threefold, and plenty of other articles are also about an airline fault resulting in 1 death or less (per Carguychris). dibbydib ^boop or _snoop 00:38, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment - I cant see how a sucide is the fault of the airline. MilborneOne (talk) 18:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While there have been a few incidents in the past couple of years of people in the US climbing over airport fences and climbing onto or trying to climb onto a transport category aircraft while on the runway or taxiway, this is the only incident I can recall where someone has actually been killed. In addition, according to CBS, the plane did sustain very noticeable damage to its #1 engine. - Omega13a (talk) 03:24, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am usually very quick to nominate articles unworthy of mainspace, but this one patenetly is. All sorts of questions and all the likely answers will confirm the notability of this article!--Petebutt (talk) 03:35, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment This is a good example of why articles on this sort of incident shouldn't be written on the day they happen. If the only additions to the article, in a year, are the name of the victim and "authorities could not determine what he was doing on the runway," are we going to go through another AfD in which a burst of routine coverage is used to argue that every plane incident is notable? Really, this is a case of
WP:TOOSOON: too many responses above are saying that it might prove notable based upon ongoing coverage which hasn't had a chance to happen yet. I'm not going to argue for deletion because it's obvious that's going to be ignored as it stands, but the incident is not, from what I've seen here, notable yet. Mangoe (talk) 17:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - There is nothing here to indicate that there will be any lasting effects to this incident beyond the one death and some bent metal (which has likely already been repaired). This is exactly why we have the policy of
WP:NOTNEWS. - Ahunt (talk) 17:18, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete not particularly notable and really falls into WP:NOTNEWS, wikipedia is not a tabloid. MilborneOne (talk) 18:11, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - @Ahunt:, @MilborneOne:, so why can't we redirect with history? --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:01, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Because of the policy
WP:NOTNEWS - it is just a news item, not notable in the overall history of the airline. - Ahunt (talk) 21:01, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Reply - Actually, it does fit well here. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:45, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I see that it has already been added there. Keep in mind that the airline has had hundreds of incidents in its history and only a few are listed there. This one is too minor to even be included and also note that it really has very little to do with the airline. It was not any failing on the part of the airline and is not going to result in any changes in airline procedures (airport maybe, but not airline). It could have been any aircraft he stood in front of, so hardly bares on the history of this airline, in any notable manner. - Ahunt (talk) 23:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Redirect to History of Southwest Airlines#2020s or Southwest Airlines#Accidents and incidents. 75.176.100.61 (talk) 00:55, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (and possibly Rename Austin–Bergstrom International Airport runway incident) When there's a post-9/11 security breach at a major American airport that allows an unauthorized person to literally wander out on a runway and cause death or injury to either passengers, aviation employees or themselves, it would be willful ignorance to believe there will no thorough review and revision of security regulations and practices at all a major airports. Oakshade (talk) 04:37, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If we can keep the article for
talk) 18:54, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Too soon to keep This accident was notable as very unusual as involving a big airliner and with the location of the accident on a runway. But there is yet no proof of what really happens and if finally there is something interesting to learn so
WP:TOOSOON unless we have significant continuing news coverage. Wykx (talk) 20:28, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Very few people actually read the non-guideline
WP:TOOSOON before referencing it. WP:TOOSOON is about not creating articles of subjects that have not yet had significant coverage by reliable sources and passing WP:GNG which doesn't apply to this article. It's not about banning topics that only recently had significant coverage. Oakshade (talk) 23:26, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Most of the discussion took place 2 days after the incident. We can look from some distance now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 20:06, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a notable security incident; thus rename to
Austin–Bergstrom International Airport runway incident. The incident is not related to the safety of the airline or the aircraft, so I would oppose a redirect to the airline's history. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:04, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Concur with suggestion to move the article, although I suggest naming it
WP:DAB. With no injuries aboard the aircraft, no mention of NTSB involvement in major sources, and the aircraft back in service only 3 days later, this barely even meets the definition of an aviation incident, much less an accident. What makes this event notable is the security breach, and the article should discuss it as such. Carguychris (talk) 19:00, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep This is an unsusual aviation accident. The person wasn't an airplane employee either, making it more unusual as well, as only airport employees are allowed on airport grounds.ThatOneWikiMaster (talk) 23:03, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the arguments for deletion made here don't convince me, sorry - an incident's death count has little to do with its notability or lasting notability. The coverage received about this very unusual incident is more than routine or trivial, and easily passes
WP:GNG. The fact that a security breach of this extent can happen in an airport in the United States, especially since the existence of the TSA, is alarming and adds to its significance. There is no doubt the findings of the ongoing investigations [4] will be extensively discussed by major media sources. Zingarese talk · contribs 02:56, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Well, I'll be quite happy to step up and doubt away. If such ongoing coverage appears, then I will not oppose recreating an article; until then, we're in
WP:CRYSTAL territory. Mangoe (talk) 20:47, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
What does WP:CRYSTAL have anything to do with this incident that already occurred? Zingarese talk · contribs 02:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Um, basing notability on coverage that hasn't happened yet? Mangoe (talk) 03:09, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry- but where did I base notability on “coverage that hasn’t happened yet?” I said above The coverage received about this very unusual incident is more than routine or trivial, and easily passes
WP:GNG. Certainly the coverage vis-a-vis the investigation’s findings could further strengthen this incident’s notability, but its notability at present is already clear enough. Zingarese talk · contribs 13:30, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Except that isn't the case here. Sure it made the news when it happened, as the news stations jumped on it, then nothing. Classic case of
WP:NOTNEWS. - Ahunt (talk) 16:35, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Then something. A week later the NYT and other outlets reported the FAA is doing a thorough investigation of this and it's considered "rare."[5][6]Oakshade (talk) 20:07, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All accidents are investigated, nothing notable there. - Ahunt (talk) 20:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your contention was there was a spurt of coverage and then "nothing." That was wrong. Not all accidents are this unusual, have this much
WP:GNG passing coverage nor are all accidents as rare as this one. Oakshade (talk) 17:33, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep There's enough coverage and investigation of this incident to justify the article's existence. Maximajorian Viridio (talk) 00:15, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject clearly meets
WP:GNG and the three is adequate wide coverage about this subject. Abishe (talk) 11:12, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak Keep - per the above arguments, article seems to meet basic
WP:GNG. Inter&anthro (talk) 15:30, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:20, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of public venues and institutions closed during the COVID-19 pandemic

List of public venues and institutions closed during the COVID-19 pandemic (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 has outlived its usefulness. Created when things were just starting to close, but now you can basically say everything everywhere closed. What's here is a *very small* selection of news tidbits that is not worth keeping up to date or expanding to include virtually every venue and institution: more detailed and contextual information is at respective country/place articles. Reywas92^Talk 19:47, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:51, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:51, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:51, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:51, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nominator. The scope of closures is such as to overwhelm any attempt to have an article about them. The article is hopelessly out of date (in most countries a single item is listed) and that cannot be avoided. It would be impossible to keep this article current and accurate because things change so quickly. It would be better to have no information at all than inaccurate/incomplete/out of date information. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Might be more useful to move and rewrite to be about the general topic of Closures during the COVID-19 pandemic, rather than a list of specific closures. b uidhe 19:58, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just go ahead and delete it. Every time a relevant article such as this one without much editor input other than the author gets nominated, it leads to it being nominated for deletion over and over. Discussed over and over. Its exhausting. The deletion police win this one. And my loss of participation. Thanks.Juneau Mike (talk) 20:17, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Unworkable and indiscriminate. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:22, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -
WP:LISTCRUFT sums it up as to why such lists don't belong in an encyclopedia. Kerberous (talk) 09:44, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. There are literally going to be thousands of closures in response to this pandemic, we do not need to list every single one in the world. Notable closures should be considered on the country's article relating to its own response. Ajf773 (talk) 20:52, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Not every public place closed due to the pandemic needs to be listed here. Hansen Sebastian^Talk 05:56, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question Why did this discussion get taken over by discussion of a song?John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:48, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an extreme example of recentism. It also is almost certainly going to always be too short. Considering that in almost all the world this was at time every single public venue and institution, that is a crazy thing to make a list of. In theory this should include every Church and other religious place of congregation that we have an article on, cover the various stages of closure in every Catholic diocese that did so we have an article on (which is virtually all 3000 of them) cover not only every state that we have article on, but should include at least any early closing or late opening of every school district and school we have articles on, cover every single college and university we have articles on (which is all of them) and so much more. The problem is that most of these variations will be only slight from government directives, at least in the US. I think these issues will better be served by articles like The Catholic Church and Covid-19 or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Covid-19 etc, then a huge scope list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:43, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, but without prejudice to recreation as a more general Closures during the COVID-19 pandemic per Buidhe. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:34, 20 May 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) 00:02, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

YungBlnkz

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

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

Article about a non-notable musician that fails
single-purpose account who only registered to drop this. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 19:40, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 19:40, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 19:40, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — A source used in the article described him as a “fast rising act” which implies he isn’t notable
in future. Celestina007 (talk) 00:22, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom and Celestina007. The subject fails
WP:MUSICBIO. There isn't any indication that he will become notable anytime soon. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 22:47, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete a non-notable rapper.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:06, 22 May 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) 00:02, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fehmida Jamali

Fehmida Jamali (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 non-elected politician with no significant coverage in reliable sources and fails
WP:NPOL. GSS ^💬 19:18, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 19:18, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 19:18, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the newly added 4 links from reliable sources by the creator of article - User:Ithad. Let's give this article , a fair chance because the person has significant news coverage. In my view, it deserves it because it has 2 references from 2 major newspapers plus 2 other reliable sources from the Pakistani news media. Ngrewal1 (talk) 23:31, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ngrewal1: None of the sources discuss the topic in depth, as required for notability. GSS ^💬 02:54, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails
WP:NPOL. Störm (talk) 01:41, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Nothing here passes
WP:NPOL as an "inherently" notable office, so it's all about the quality and depth of the sources. GNG is not just "count the footnotes and keep anybody who gets past two" — GNG also tests sources for depth, range, quality and the context of what the person is getting covered for, so every potential source that exists is not automatically a GNG-building source. For a source to contribute toward getting over GNG, she has to be the subject that other people are speaking about, not the person who's doing the speaking about herself or any other topic. Sources that are actually "about her" are not the same thing as sources that happen to have her name in them — if the source just quotes her speaking about some political issue, while its core subject is that issue rather than her, then it is not a notability-assisting source, but unfortunately that's all of the sources present here. Bearcat (talk) 15:45, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an unelected politician. Sourcing can be found for virtually every candidate but we have decided we do not want article on every candidate.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:42, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails basic GNG as well Wikipedia:POLITICIAN. --Saqib (talk) 20:46, 20 May 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) 00:02, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shrill Society

Shrill Society (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)

Lack of notability. The sources cited in the article are mostly trivial mentions of the company or its products. Some sources go into more depth on the products, but only a few discuss the company in any significant detail. Those that do are not independent or reliable, with the exception of two borderline sources (people.com and the second bustle.com). I have made a more detailed analysis at
WP:NORG have been met for this subject. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 23:10, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 23:10, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 23:10, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:19, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:19, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, dibbydib ^boop or _snoop 02:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per
WP:NOTINHERITED. Subject lacks notability on its own. Srijanx22 (talk) 06:55, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge to
WP:NOTINHERITED. No evidence of independent notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:43, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge, per the nom's extensive analysis on the talk page. The sources are shaky and NORG is far from being met. SD0001 (talk) 16:25, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As has been pointed out via the analysis on the Article Talk page, the references fail the criteria for establishing notability. Topic fails GNG/
HighKing⁺⁺ 15:36, 20 May 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) SD0001 (talk) 06:49, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Death of Carlos Ernesto Escobar Mejía

Death of Carlos Ernesto Escobar Mejía (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 very definition of WP:BLP1E. Natureium (talk) 00:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:09, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seems that this could be redireced or merged into an article about 2020 coronavirus pandemic in ICE detention centers? b uidhe 02:18, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Maybe a mention can be made at Immigration detention in the United States or U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Mohanabhil (talk) 06:01, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ref ^(chew)(do) 05:01, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep news article yesterday from The Guardian here states his death is causing an ICE agency-wide review. Also seen other articles mentioning vigils and protests in different cities across the US. Seems like this death goes beyond BLP1E territory. Rab V (talk) 14:16, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep per Rab V, or possibly move to draft pending likely additional reporting. I will add the Guardian reference to the article. BD2412 T 00:47, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:58, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Rab V. "The lawmakers demanded that ICE give a briefing and documentation by May 22 on the death of Carlos Ernesto Escobar Mejia, who died of complications from COVID-19 while in custody." (Source) Xicanx (talk) 01:11, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per
WP:N organizations and officials seems to contradict the claim that "the event is not significant." TJMSmith (talk) 01:19, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of El Salvador-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 01:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - his death will be investigated by the United States Senate. Bearian (talk) 16:45, 21 May 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) Natg 19 (talk) 01:40, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

This 15 Me World Tour

This 15 Me World Tour (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)

Easily fails
WP:CONCERT. Itssheenabautista (talk) 18:03, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:53, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:53, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sarah Geronimo: Per nominator. Some of the content can be merged to the artist's article. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 06:54, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the concert has received multiple reliable sources reviews such as Rappler and others. There is also a claim of significance that it is her most succesful tour and there is enough referenced content to justify a stand alone article, passes
WP:GNG imv, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:35, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Easy keep. Almost ten
WP:BEFORE. Howard the Duck (talk) 05:58, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep: Changed my vote, per above. The article needs some clean-up with parts which need citations. Other than that, with a lot of reliable sources there, the article easily passes
WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 04:06, 19 May 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) 00:01, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RMJS

RMJS (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 dj. sourced to pay for pub interview sites, never charted and has no coverage. fails NMUSICIAN Praxidicae (talk) 17:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well I don’t know.... I mean... he’s had guitar lessons since 2007. Mccapra (talk) 19:45, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:36, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:36, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The nominator is correct. The article currently cites two interviews but they are both self-written and probably paid vanity press pieces. He has put his songs onto all the usual streaming and promotional sites, but he has achieved no reliable media coverage or any other recognition as required per
promotion. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:27, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as
WP:TOOSOON with no claims of significance and only promotional sources, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:20, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete (Self) promotion of a non notable individual. Mccapra (talk) 02:53, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable DJ.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:11, 22 May 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. Can be userfied (by someone other than me). Sandstein 08:26, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery of mathematical correspondences

Gallery of mathematical correspondences (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 read like an encyclopedic article and possibly contains
WP:OR A a s i m 17:46, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. A a s i m 17:46, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, also per
WP:CFORK; this duplicates existing material at other articles like Function, Cardinality, etc. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment I think it is a shame that there are only template messages on the article creator's page, and not any human-written messages. --
talk) 18:05, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
I just left a human message on their talk page about what they could possibly do with their article. A a s i m 18:08, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy - it needs more work - I started to link it to other articles - but it's not
WP:TNT. If the other editor won't (or can't) work on it, I will do it as a project. Bearian (talk) 16:51, 21 May 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) 23:57, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

North Star Entertainment

North Star Entertainment (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 entertainment company with no meaningful coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 17:30, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable film production company. No
WP:CORPDEPTH. Trivial coverage of the production company which is not sufficient to establish notability. - FitIndia ^{Talk Commons} 18:49, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: Searches find passing mentions of this firm in Indian media coverage during 2016-18 of film releases, but I am not finding
WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 08:51, 21 May 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) 23:57, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aderonke Adeniyi Esther

Aderonke Adeniyi Esther (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 has not been discussed in reliable secondary sources. The article's sources do not work; the first two redirects to Amazon and the third is a broken link. A Google search of the subject doesn't show reliable sources. She might be prominent in the Yoruba movie industry but the internet doesn't show this. If this article is going to be kept, offline sources need to be cited. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 17:28, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 17:28, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 17:28, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 17:28, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Falls short of
WP:NACTOR & doesn’t satisfy our general notability guidelines. Celestina007 (talk) 00:18, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - agree with above, had a quick look for reliable sources and didn't find any Mujinga (talk) 21:04, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:08, 18 May 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! 23:04, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Bob Clendenin

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Bob Clendenin

Articles for deletion/Bob Clendenin (2nd nomination)

Bob Clendenin (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)

Minor actor, fails
WP:REFUND. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:32, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:32, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:32, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:13, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not have adequate reliable secondary 3rd party indepth sourcing to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:09, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The actor has 111 roles to date. He recurred on
talk) 12:08, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

I've also added references in the article. There are several others:
talk) 12:08, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

^ Episode 237: Robert Clendenin (Part 1)

^ Chamber Music Plus returns for benefit performance

Just a comment. The number of roles does not matter; it's the quality of roles and RS that cover those roles. Literally every film role listed on the page isn't even a named character (ie: Stage Manager). --Kbabej (talk) 17:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The quality of the roles is the matter of opinion, it's difficult to guess which one is more remarkable: minor role in a high-profile production, or supporting role in an indie film. The number of roles is a fact. My rationale was that there are several notable roles, and having over 100 roles adds up. Anyway, the actor has a few named roles in films, too.
talk) 12:07, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak Keep: There's a very strong case for
WP:GNG is being mounted. I'll have a look round and see what I can find, too. Dflaw4 (talk) 11:14, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Here are some sources, which aren't hugely in-depth, but they provide more than mere mentions: here, here, here and here. I think this is a good start for establishing
WP:GNG. Dflaw4 (talk) 10:01, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:02, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep easily passes
WP:NACTOR with recurring roles in major productions. Lightburst (talk) 15:25, 23 May 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) 23:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

X-Men Origins: Wolverine (toyline)

X-Men Origins: Wolverine (toyline) (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 finding sources for this article, (though I admit that it's complicated by the limits of google searching extremely common terms). Recommend merging into X-Men Origins: Wolverine. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:36, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:36, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:18, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - just because something doesn't currently have sources doesn't mean it can't be edited to. Valkyrie Red (talk) 04:08, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I nominated it was because I was unable to. Some low-quality (unusable as sources) YouTube videos and a mention that one of the toys could poke an eye out were all I could find. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:35, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 16:06, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: not independently notable. Not even a likely search term. If someone finds independent reliable sources, might be worth adding a few sentences to the main article. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:41, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:58, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not the place for a checklist of mundane tie-in products. Dronebogus (talk) 17:44, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to X-Men Origins: Wolverine. No evidence of independent notability and not a likely search term. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:34, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Toyline that does not have any sources showing independent notability, and there is no reliably sourced information to merge. Rorshacma (talk) 18:41, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing what makes this product (series of toys) notable. Nothing to merge. This kind of stuff belongs at fan Wikia. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:18, 19 May 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. bibliomaniac 1 5 06:20, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Drew Chicone

Drew Chicone (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)

REFUNDed at DRV after a prod deletion. Zero third-party reliable sources with coverage about the subject, just lists of books and magazines he's written, "fly patterns," etc. Original creator of article has no other edits. IPs from this range have been attempting to promote the subject in various pages. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:03, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:40, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:40, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. Mccapra (talk) 14:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While the topic of saltwater fly fishing is niche compared to fresh waater, Drew Chicone is well known as a saltwater fly designer, author and instructor. Other fly designers and fly fishing authors like Lefty Kreh who have designed "fly patterns" have pages. I don't know how to add all the sources properly (sorry, I am inexperienced here) but would be willing to attempt to add to them. Here are just some I found by googling his name: Edited this comment to remove list of links as I am adding sources to the article while attempting to improve it and meet required criteria.
talk) 17:38, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment Most of those don't qualify as
WP:BIO requires substantial depth-of-coverage; Manchester Journal article mentions him briefly; the Florida Sportsman article looks like a press release for one of his books. The Fly Life articles are book plugs as well (interestingly, one has a sub-heading "The art of self-promoting" presumably in reference to the author [7]). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:58, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment That seems kind of speculative. I don't know what someone was thinking when they wrote something. The facts that I do know are that FL Sportsman is a magazine with an online presence like many other magazines (and somewhat of a popular one in FL if you are into fishing) and they are a 3rd party who wrote about the author in question and his books.

Notability: I feel the criteria is met. He has received awards in his field, and is widely recognized in that specific field as evidenced by the recognition he has received within that field, from multiple independent sources. As an author and fly designer, he is credited for sharing new techniques and designs, similar to others who have before him and have pages here. He has invented products relating to his field that are produced by other manufacturers that bear his name as the designer or inventor. A couple of examples: https://www.umpqua.com/search.php?search_query=chicone&section=product & https://hareline.com/search?phrase=chicone
talk) 20:18, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment adding more potential sources to support the keep request. I am not sure how to add the sources to magazines that have no link to a current web article. Again, forgive me for not being fluent in Wiki tech. I realize that video sources are questionable, but I believe the compilation of these sources provide validity to the notability of Drew Chicone in his profession, similar to his forerunners. Further, WP:RS states "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" and Drew Chicone has both self published and been published by independent publications for his articles and his books. Edited to remove deluge of sources: as I become more aware of how things work here, I realize that wasn't helpful.
talk) 23:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment The policy your quoting regarding reliable sources doesn't apply to notability criteria. See Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Basic_criteria : ...received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:11, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment how does it not apply? The list of multiple secondary sources are listed on this page and include names like Field & Stream, USA Today, and a number of other industry specific awards and coverage who are independent of each other and the subject, unless you believe for some reason the subject or these sources are connected to each other? Also on the same topic, the first bullet point states "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" to address your voiced concern of one where the coverage was trivial in your opinion.
User:mlepisto —Preceding undated comment added 07:13, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment (edited): I understand the points brought up in the pending deletion notice/discussion and have decided to attempt to improve this page as an alternative to deletion. I ask for patience (guidance is welcome as well) while I attempt to track down better quality sources and work on the page.
talk) 14:20, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

delete this is a vanity article. The sources presented by Mlepisto aren't helpful either as they're mostly unreliable, contributor pieces and not in depth coverage or are small time magazines without a history of meaningful oversight. Praxidicae (talk) 12:56, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Praxidicae, subject is lacking significant and in-depth coverage from reliable sources. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:24, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I made some minor improvements and am going to go with weak keep. His published work, media appearances and notoriety in the media vacuum surrounding the fly tying industry just squeaks him by. It would be nice to find sources for the unsourced info. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:23, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do not know if I am supposed to add this here again as keep or comment? If not, feel free to edit. It is my opinion the article has been significantly improved since it was originally listed to address the delete vote concerns of it being thin and resume like (which I agree were valid at that time) and represents NPOV of Chicone's accomplishments and both media and peer recognition in his industry as supported by credible sources. — Preceding
talk • contribs) 17:08, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:30, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Article has seriously improved. I would not mind keeping it 100% if it just seemed a bit more encyclopedic and had a few more mainstream sources Idan (talk) 18:15, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I cannot say that this material and its sources are familiar to me, but I think there is enough here to shown him an expert in his subject. DGG ( talk ) 08:42, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the article's improvements.
WP:BARE as DGG has stated the subject is an expert. Lightburst (talk) 15:22, 23 May 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) 23:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Rodgers

Susan Rodgers (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)

primary sources, which are not support for notability at all, and two pieces of human interest coverage in her own local media in the context of seeking crowdfunding for a film that was apparently only just completed and has still not actually been released in theatres, which is not enough coverage to get her over GNG all by itself if you can't show any evidence of wider nationalizing attention. As always, no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when she has a stronger basis for notability and improved sources for it, but nothing here is already enough today. Bearcat (talk) 16:43, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:43, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:43, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:18, 15 May 2020 (UTC)Ilanderz here. Forgive me, I'm just learning how to craft these sorts of articles, and I'm not at all sure about the proper protocol for how to participate in this sort of discussion. I will modify my participation as instructed and as I learn more. In the meantime, I hope and trust the informality in my response doesn't offend.
I don't object to the grounds for deletion. You folks no doubt know better than me and have a much broader perspective. Based on examination of similar wiki pages for people of equal or lesser renown, I had thought there was sufficient external press coverage to warrant such as article (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Summerside Journal-Pioneer, Charlottetown Guardian, Buzz PEI), but perhaps I am mistaken. I haven't included all the links yet because I haven't had time (learning how to create a wiki page itself has been a time consuming process!) I do believe my subject is of sufficient reknown in Prince Edward Island, but perhaps I am wrong, or perhaps that is not enough.
I have copied and pasted what I've done so far so that I can re-create it later should my subject come to warrant it.
Once you see my response, do what you need to do (and feel free to edit or delete all this, which I imagine is way too informal for this forum). Thanks for your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilanderz (talk • contribs) 20:00, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Welcome Ilanderz and thanks for your contribution! You can find the guidelines here for what makes a creative professional notable enough for a page. You are allowed to vote below to express your opinion using "delete" or "keep" in bold. Part of the deletion process will be to see if there are any sources that make this person notable, regardless of whether they are already in the article or not, so feel free to contribute on that here. Unfortunately the fact that there are other people equally or less famous on Wikipedia is not an argument as each page is considered against the criteria. It might just be that no editor has flagged these other less famous people but they might be flagged in the future as Wikipedia is only based on volunteers. Happy editing! Lainx (talk) 19:25, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a place to report local ad articles trying to increase crowdfunding, and it is not supposed to reflect original research.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Thank you Lainx! Based on the guidelines you pointed out, I must concur that, strictly speaking, this article does not yet meet that criteria. However, I'm confident that my subject will eventually come to meet the criteria, so I have saved my work so far for future reference. Ilanderz (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:47, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great, I am glad to hear that and it is in no way a reflection on the person, who looks awesome! It is sometimes called
WP:TOOSOON. I think this page will stay here for another few days until a clear consensus emerges and an administrator decides to delete or keep it depending on the consensus. Lainx (talk) 21:15, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:37, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:37, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:TOOSOON and Lainx. Bearian (talk) 16:53, 21 May 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) 23:38, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Niklas Nikolajsen

Niklas Nikolajsen (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)

Founder of a non-notable company. I think that being on a list of important bankers in a single country is not sufficient for WP:GNG Streepjescode (talk) 15:56, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 16:28, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:14, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:58, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - any notability claims are inherited from Bitcoin Suisse, and that article was recently deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bitcoin Suisse (2nd nomination) - David Gerard (talk) 11:26, 17 May 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) 23:38, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Christoph Filgertshofer

Christoph Filgertshofer (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 "entrepreneur" with no coverage in reliable sources. Those that exist in the article are press releases or completely unreliable, black hat SEO fake news sites. Praxidicae (talk) 15:41, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:58, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:58, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:58, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This guy is a non-notable 20-year-old "businessman". That is his age, not how long he has been involved in business. Well, he won't be 20 until next year. John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:02, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable subject, poorly referenced (several citations, but no RS), borderline
WP:SPIP. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:11, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete nothing in RS, all sources are unreliable. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 20:39, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
run of the mill - some with as many as 8 million followers/subscribers. Bearian (talk) 16:58, 21 May 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 Editorial solution to be found. I am closing the following AfDs together: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hungarian names in space, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serbian names in space, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thai names in space. Considering all three AfDs together, there is no consensus to delete the articles outright, but consensus that something should be done editorially to better organize this kind of content. Various discussions to this end are currently ongoing. If they do not come to a conclusion soon, the articles can be redirected or merged at will, since we do have consensus here not to keep them as they are. Sandstein 15:24, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hungarian names in space

Hungarian names in space (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)

OR list MistyGraceWhite (talk) 19:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MistyGraceWhite: - This source contain a list of Moon craters bearing Hungarian names. Avram25 (talk) 20:46, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Avram25 its a blog. Not RS. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 20:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@MistyGraceWhite: It is a reliable source because the claims can easily be verified and proved to be facts. This source doesn't produce new claims, it just lists verifiable facts, so it's reliable as a source. Avram25 (talk) 20:59, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MistyGraceWhite: - but I've found 2 more sources: [8] [9]

Maybe it's a good idea to talk about such lists in a single place, like for example at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy#Countries in space. Avram25 (talk) 21:08, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:37, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:38, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agree that this should be sorted out at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy#Countries in space before individual lists are put up for deletion. There's no point in putting up some and leaving the rest, while mass nomination is something that should be discussed centrally to avoid duplication. Might I suggest withdrawing these, wait for the project discussion to come to a conclusion, and then nominating again if required? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:31, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:17, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:35, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:03, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

keep per the existence of a whole navbox of similar articles. It definitely wouldn't be right to delete one and leave the rest. If all the articles are batch-nominated, I guess some meaningful discussion can take place. SD0001 (talk) 13:34, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge see my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serbian names in space. While sources don't necessarily discuss Thai names in space, they definitely discuss names in space in general (I can provide sources for this, if someone wants me to, but I think it's fairly obvious). This definitely should've been a mass deletion to allow uniform discussion, but whatever. Sam-2727 (talk) 17:12, 16 May 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 Editorial solution to be found. I am closing the following AfDs together: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hungarian names in space, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serbian names in space, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thai names in space. Considering all three AfDs together, there is no consensus to delete the articles outright, but consensus that something should be done editorially to better organize this kind of content. Various discussions to this end are currently ongoing. If they do not come to a conclusion soon, the articles can be redirected or merged at will, since we do have consensus here not to keep them as they are. Sandstein 15:24, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Serbian names in space

Serbian names in space (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)

OR standalone list MistyGraceWhite (talk) 19:54, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:36, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Nikola Tesla never lived in what is now Serbia, and he claimed Croatian birth. Bearian (talk) 19:52, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Suggest withdrawing and waiting for Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy#Countries in space to come to a conclusion, then re-nominating if required. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:34, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:16, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:35, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:35, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Nikola Tesla never lived in what is now Serbia, and he claimed Croatian birth. Bearian (talk) 19:52, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I suggest withdrawing as well. @Bearian: Your information is incorrect on several levels. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 16:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as
WP:TRIVIA.--Maleschreiber (talk) 07:28, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:03, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability#Notability for Lists. The source in the article discusses the Serbian names of objects, and a simple search for "serbian names astronomical objects" comes up with numerous sources, for instance [10] and [11]. Also if we're discussing the notability of all these "names in space" article, a mass deletion probably should've been opened. Sam-2727 (talk) 17:00, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would also be open to a merging as proposed by Primefac at Talk:List of astronomical objects named after people#Merging in lists. But deletion isn't the right path here. Sam-2727 (talk) 17:03, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further consideration, Merge is the best option here, as the articles I cited aren't necessarily named after Serbian people, but rather Serbian things (e.g. rivers). Sam-2727 (talk) 17:09, 16 May 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. bibliomaniac 1 5 02:21, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Floppyfw

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Floppyfw

Articles for deletion/Floppyfw (2nd nomination)

Floppyfw (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 doesn't meet
WP:NOTABILITY and has been tagged as such, unresolved, for 12 years. 2017 AfD came to no consensus - hopefully we can now, whichever way. Boleyn (talk) 14:52, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment I tend to agree, but I found that there are more of these distro's that aren't notable enough for a standalone article. Might a good idea to merge them all together? See ~~MuLinux, tomsrtbt and Coyote Linux. Streepjescode (talk) 16:01, 15 May 2020 (UTC)~~[reply]

user:Streepjescode, I think there are a lot of others that are non-notable. With this one though, as there was no consensus to delete before, I think it might detract if others were thrown in too. Boleyn (talk) 16:09, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it might not be notable for a standalone article. But if the information if verifiable, then a generic article could be made about small Linux distro's that fit on a floppy because all three together they might meet
~~WP:GNG. Streepjescode (talk) 16:12, 15 May 2020 (UTC)~~[reply
]

keep Mostly per comments in the previous AfD. I don't understand what's wrong with the first 3 listed sources for this to be deemed non-notable. I've just went ahead and removed the {{notability}} tag. SD0001 (talk) 13:03, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:03, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:03, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

keep changed my view based on previous comment, I'm also voting keep. Streepjescode (talk) 12:58, 21 May 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) SD0001 (talk) 06:44, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

The Chasm (band)

The Chasm (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)

This has been tagged for notability for 12 years. I'm not seeing the coverage to meet
WP:NBAND. Boleyn (talk) 14:41, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 01:53, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 01:53, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article definitely needs to be improved with more sources, but even after so many years of neglect that still falls under
cleaning up rather than deleting. The band's bland name complicates the search process, but a search in conjunction with frontman Daniel Corchado leads to some results. They have an AllMusic bio entry [12] describing them as a highly respected Mexican band, and Corchado has some coverage as an influential figure in the book Metal: The Definitive Guide (pg. 178). The band gets periodic coverage in established metal magazines, e.g. [13], [14], [15]. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:19, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep as has coverage in multiple reliable sources as identified above so that
WP:GNG is passed and deletion is no longer necessary, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:18, 18 May 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 14:36, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Haneet Narang

Haneet Narang (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 person seems not notable as per
WP:ANYBIO. The references are also not reliable. ~Amkgp ✉ 14:17, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Jooojay, Flori4nK, DMySon, and Abishe: Invite and request for review. Thank you.~Amkgp ✉ 01:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ~Amkgp ✉ 14:17, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ~Amkgp ✉ 14:17, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~Amkgp ✉ 14:17, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom PoliceSheep99 (talk) 21:50, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a quick search finds no
talk) 02:13, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as per nom. Fails
WP:TOOSOON who only appeared in few television reality shows. Abishe (talk) 04:08, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete A non-notable actor. Fails
WP:NACTOR. DMySon 04:41, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. (No
nn) - Flori4nKT A L K 07:44, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

There is many articles and tv shows of haneet narang on google and news please check again and review this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuvrajraghuvanshiofficial (talk • contribs) 07:11, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yuvrajraghuvanshiofficial, has he received "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject"? If so, please demonstrate this. -- Hoary (talk) 08:27, 19 May 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 14:36, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ruslan Cernych

Ruslan Cernych (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
talk) 13:53, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 13:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:07, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:07, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:11, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:43, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete other than databases that prove he exists, and plays hockey, I see nothing here that satisfies GNG. It is odd that this was approved through articles for creation.
18abruce (talk) 12:29, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Fails both
WP:GNG. Flibirigit (talk) 08:33, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - maybe one day he will, but as of now has not satisfied any of our notability guidelines. Rlendog (talk) 15:15, 21 May 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! 23:02, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

William Strobeck

William Strobeck (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 director of skateboarding videos. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 20:02, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I respectfully disagree. Strobeck has received press in major publications indicating his notability and artistry. See: https://i-d.vice.com/en_us/article/bjeyev/william-strobecks-new-supreme-skate-film-blessed-is-a-masterpiece https://032c.com/basically-ive-lived-it-know-what-i-mean-william-strobecks-supreme http://officemagazine.net/my-lovely-mess --Wil540 art (talk) 20:07, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 20:02, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:07, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes
WP:GNG as he's been the subject of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, e.g. Huck Magazine, Vice, Quarter Snacks (borderline reliable). pburka (talk) 20:45, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, the sources provided above are not sufficient for a claim of notability. The Huck source is decent, but both Vice ones are mostly interview. QuarterSnacks and O32c are both basically interviews, and neither is a significant general-audience reliable source. The Office article is a short blurb about his film. Overall it's not sufficient to indicate notability., per
WP:N. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:42, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:23, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

I added four more strong sources, also included a mention to Strobeck's art/photo show which opened at the end of 2019 --Wil540 art (talk) 17:18, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 19:06, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to the sourcing added on April 30: The source from Interview Magazine is an interview (primary source), the one from Complex is about the brand Supreme, it mentions Strobeck but is hardly significant coverage of him, the NYT one is about Tyshawn Jones, not Strobeck (again, he's incidental to the topic at hand), and the final one is again an interview. There just isn't enough coverage about Strobeck to justify an article - it's all primary-source interviews and incidental mentions in articles about other stuff. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:17, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:25, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

I added 7 additional sources including reviews of Strobeck's videos and art show. The first line of the first article listed below states it best: "Bill Strobeck is one of the world’s best-known skate filmmakers." --Wil540 art (talk) 16:14, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.monsterchildren.com/bill-strobecks-lovely-mess/

https://cornellsun.com/2019/01/21/blessed-to-be-blessed/

https://contented.cc/2014/03/william-strobeck-delivers-another-raw-gem-for-supreme/

https://theticker.org/ticker/2019/11/25/my-lovely-mess-intimately-looks-at-complexities-of-nyc-skate-culture

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. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:05, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Reylander

Brett Reylander (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)

Can't find any references in reliable sources, citation in British Comedy Guide regarding Trigger Happy TV role is only in passing. Fails GNG. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 13:02, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 13:02, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:19, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:19, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:19, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:01, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Barely found anything about him, aside from a source from British Comedy Guide. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 06:54, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete: Wikipedia:Deletion policy says "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." According to history its been on wikipedia for over 10 years, why delete now??? Unsourced material has been removed. It just needs tidying up is all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PenelopeCJ (talk • contribs) 22:07, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: agree with nom, no reliable sources. Tacyarg (talk) 00:45, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sadly, I don't think this page has much chance of being improved to the point where it passes the notability standards. The subject only has one role that might contribute to
WP:GNG is not scaled, either. Dflaw4 (talk) 11:25, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. FWIW, I don't think it can be improved. Bearian (talk) 16:42, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to
Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:01, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Dream Ballet

Dream Ballet (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 doesn't meet
WP:NOTABILITY. Merge discussion hasn't resulted in merge being taken forward; this is all unverified information and I don't think there is anything worth merging. No concerns about a redirect to Dream ballet being put in place once it is deleted. Boleyn (talk) 12:30, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment There's actually quite a lot of discussion about this dream ballet specifically, for example here, here and here, and that's not based on an extensive search at all. So I think there is enough material to support a standalone article. On the other hand, this isn't that article. One possibility would be to rename it Dream ballet (Oklahoma) and wait for someone to come along and write it properly. On the other hand I'm not volunteering to write it, and just deleting and redirecting it, in its current state, wouldn't be the end of the world either. Mccapra (talk) 13:06, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mccapra, those links lead to really interesting stuff about dream ballets in several works, and the 'dream ballet' as a device already has its own article, so any additional material from your links could definitely enhance that. I don't think there's enough information about this specific ballet to warrant it having its own page, but more than that, the device is a really important one and I would be sad to see this dream ballet being made to stand alone somewhere. It is in the comparison of them that the device really displays its potential. -- BessieMaelstrom (talk) 10:06, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There just isn't enough to support a stand alone article. Anything that isn't already in the Oklahoma! article can be sourced and added there. MarnetteD|Talk 16:05, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article just repeats, in lengthier form, plot information from the article Oklahoma!. The subject, an orchestral dance number, is also already mentioned in the article Dream ballet, and the title of this article will cause confusion with the Dream ballet article. This article has no references, and not every musical number from a musical needs its own separate article. This musical number is not frequenly separately recorded or used in any other way than as a part of Oklahoma! productions. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:14, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; do NOT redirect. This is just uncited fancruft from a rank newbie. And merging or redirecting to another article will likely confuse and harm the issue further, since Dream ballet already exists and Oklahoma! should therefore not be a redirect target even though this fancruft article is about Oklahoma!. Softlavender (talk) 01:07, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:20, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:20, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I’m really undecided on this one. This ballet sequence is definitely notable as it was the first example of one in musical theatre. However, this article definitely isn’t OK as it is, and doesn’t analyse to the quality we would want. As per Softlavender a redirect to Oklahoma would be inappropriate, but renaming to Dream ballet (Oklahoma) could be an option as per Mccapra. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:17, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all this is the creator Fiscus Brady!! Having seen multiple and worked on one production of Oklahoma!, the dream ballet is an extremely important part of the plot. I created the article because I felt Oklahoma!'s page did not have enough information about the ballet. I can certainly delete it, or I would be open for suggestions to fix it. I agree with Mccapra that it is important because it is one of the most notable and the first dream ballet seen in history. And to Softlavender, (A) I tried to create the article as unbiased as possible but if you see it as "fancruft" I can certainly re-write it and (B) please use kinder words when referring to me as I can see these messages. To all, please let me know if there's anything specifically to fix or if it should just be deleted as a whole. Fiscus Brady!! (Fiscus Brady!!) —Preceding undated 22 May 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Page deleted by
(non-admin closure) – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 21:00, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Vyge Inc.

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

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

Contested PROD, no indication this business that was founded a day ago is notable. Article created by the company founder. ~ GB fan 11:58, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ~ GB fan 11:58, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ~ GB fan 11:58, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. ~ GB fan 11:58, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete spam. Mccapra (talk) 13:08, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (possible CSD A7): An unreferenced article promoting a start-up company's mundane business. No claim to notability, nor is
attained notability provided or found. AllyD (talk) 14:49, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom and AllyD. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 18:44, 15 May 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. Overall consensus is for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:30, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cloudkicker

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Cloudkicker

Articles for deletion/Cloudkicker (2nd nomination)

Cloudkicker (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 was deleted long back based on
WP:MYSPACEBAND ~Amkgp ✉ 11:20, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ~Amkgp ✉ 11:20, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:09, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Artist is a Bandcamp best-seller, toured with two notable bands, is regularly covered in music media like Rolling Stone, and all of this is sourced. // Gargaj (talk) 19:31, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Gargaj is the creator/author of the page. Views may be biased and non-neutral. @Doomsdayer520, Martinevans123, Celestina007, Versace1608, Richard3120, Dflaw4, Walter Görlitz, Staszek Lem, and Sparklism: Invite and request for an independent review. Thank you.~Amkgp ✉ 13:30, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Cloudkicker is immensely popular in the underground metal scene, but his media coverage even since the last deletion nomination in 2013 has not been able crack through the blogosphere into the mainstream to establish Wikipedia notability per
WP:GNG. I disagree with the nom's notion that this is some no-name MySpace band. This is a well established artist who just doesn't have the backing of a label or agent to get his name out there in larger publications, nor does he seem to have the desire to. Fezmar9 (talk) 20:20, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
I disagree with that notion; his tour was extensively covered and his music got released through both
Century Media and Blood Music. Even if he doesn't seek out publicity he gets it, which in itself is the notability. // Gargaj (talk) 12:28, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
I agree with
WP:GNG ~Amkgp ✉ 13:33, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Checks #1 #4 and #5 of
WP:BAND. // Gargaj (talk) 17:04, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak keep - Definitely more than a Myspace band. I see some Columbus media coverage. Consequence of Sound. Written about in a journal that is published through Springer, for whatever that is worth. Caro7200 (talk) 21:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as it fails in #2, #3, #8, #10, #11 and #12 as per
~~WP:BAND~~ ~Amkgp ✉
02:55,

A band only has to pass one of the criteria of
WP:NMUSIC not all of them Atlantic306 (talk) 00:18, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:BAND specifies they need to meet "at least one of the following criteria". You just argued to keep. // Gargaj (talk) 17:20, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Also, the nominator is not allowed to vote again. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:06, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am removing my vote as I feel It has gained notability with time as pointed by my fellow authors and reviewers with proofs. I also like to mention that I was not in bad faith and this was indeed a mistake which I accepted after the person showed me the concerned policy. Thank you everyone for participating. ~Amkgp ✉ 06:39, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as has coverage in multiple reliable sources such as Rolling Stone, Consequence of Sound, Ultimate Guitar and Metal Sucks all already in the article. These sources are defined as reliable by WikiProject Music as shown at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:25, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
*
WP:NOTSOURCE ~Amkgp ✉ 03:03, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per Atlantic306's source investigation and nominator acknowledging it passes
WP:BAND. Mbdfar (talk) 01:44, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
*
WP:NOTSOURCE ~Amkgp ✉ 03:04, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Metal Sucks are sister projects of Wikipedia? Mbdfar (talk) 03:11, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Mbdfar, I am speaking of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums only. Don't manipulate statements and do false blaming. ~Amkgp ✉ 03:19, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My friend, I don't appreciate those accusations, I was confused by your imprecise wording. Perhaps it would benefit you to reread Atlantic306's statement to understand why he linked to Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources. Mbdfar (talk) 03:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amkgp has made one of the stranger accusations I have seen in many years at Wikipedia. Nobody used
bludgeoning at worst. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:46, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
The above accusation about
WP:BAND is equally as strange, and the since-removed reply makes me have doubts about good faith. // Gargaj (talk) 15:13, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
I agree with Gargaj, I doubt good faith as well. Shortly after Amkgp's accusation, they reported me for vandalizing my own talk page (?). This looks like a blatant attempt to either discredit me or prevent me from commenting further. To me, it seems they are only interested in winning arguments and will disregard policy to do so. Mbdfar (talk) 16:44, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you guys had to put up with that junk. As opposed to my comment yesterday, I am no longer assuming good faith and will definitely state that Amkgp is inappropriately
canvassing as well, and Amgkp may have been expecting all the invited people to agree with his/her stance. Surprise! ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:06, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Good coverage from several reliable sources. SK2242 (talk) 13:22, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article was legitimately deleted in 2013, but things can change in seven years. In the meantime Cloudkicker has achieved some
reliable sources in the music media, as listed by the voters above. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:49, 18 May 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 List of Haruhi Suzumiya characters#Yuki Nagato. Sandstein 18:27, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yuki Nagato

Yuki Nagato (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)

Missing reception/real world coverage and most information on the page describes role in the story. Ideally, it should be redirected to List of Haruhi Suzumiya characters. lullabying (talk) 11:09, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:17, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:17, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:18, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:19, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the general Haruhi Suzumiya characters page as per above. Dronebogus (talk) 17:27, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect To
WP:PLOT, as the vast majority of the content is in-universe information. Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:52, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect. I found a short non-plot (one sentence analysis) mention in passing in a Undergraduate Honors Thesis and another sentence in [16] (the book seems reliable). Then there is the usual fancruft+ level of news coverage about some cosplayers or voice actors or such. I am open to reviewing better sources if anyone finds them (ping User:Toughpigs, this seems like something that could be rescued if someone could do an analysis of Japanese sources?). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:27, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:27, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SlingApp

SlingApp (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 organization is not notable as per
WP:PROMOTIONAL ~Amkgp ✉ 10:19, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ~Amkgp ✉ 10:19, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. ~Amkgp ✉ 10:19, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:43, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Some of the text is promotional in tone, though that could be fixed by editing. However, the article is describing the app's features and proposition, supported by start-up coverage, and listing several industry start-up awards; I am not seeing
notability has been attained. AllyD (talk) 08:43, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:27, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Aditya

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Tom Aditya

Articles for deletion/Tom Aditya (2nd nomination)

Tom Aditya (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 article was previously deleted as per
WP:GNG criteria to be accepted here. ~Amkgp ✉ 10:09, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ~Amkgp ✉ 10:09, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~Amkgp ✉ 10:09, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ~Amkgp ✉ 10:09, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Bradley Stoke is a small town that does not have directly elected mayors, but just rotates the position annually among the municipal councillors, so there's no "inherent" notability just for being a mayor per se — but this is written far more like self-promotion than a real encyclopedia article, and is heavily
self-published content about itself, because media coverage about that claim is nonexistent, is automatically not an article-clinching notability claim) and coverage in Bradley Stoke's own community hyperlocal, which is not enough coverage to get him over the bar all by itself. Smalltown mayors are not notable enough for Wikipedia articles if you can't show any evidence of nationalizing media attention. Bearcat (talk) 17:17, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Easytostable (talk • contribs) 08:17, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please read
WP:JUSTAVOTE. It's not enough to just say keep and drop the mic — you have to articulate policy-based reasons as to why it should be kept. Bearcat (talk) 15:33, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete fails in most
WP:GNG criteria. ~Amkgp ✉ 13:33, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Nothing in RS, fails GNG. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 20:39, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Eddie891, Johnpacklambert, Lefcentreright, and Dunarc: Invite and request for review. Thank you. ~Amkgp ✉ 01:24, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an overly promotional article on a non-notable politician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:22, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not have enough coverage to meet
inherently notable. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:59, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - As has been noted above being mayor of a small town in England would not in itself meet notability requirements. His involvement in bodies such as a police committee and a university court are not uncommon for someone holding even minor local elected office. While someone has clearly put much effort into this article, I am afraid that there does not seem to me to be signs that the subject is notable outwith his local area. Dunarc (talk) 19:28, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails
WP:PUFF. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 21:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per GNG. He has 89 references and there not all local. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:55, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 06:51, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Asadbek Sobirjonov

Asadbek Sobirjonov (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)

PROD removed by article creator, no reason given. Non-notable player who fails
fully-professional league. Giant Snowman 09:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:00, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:10, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:11, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:23, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:59, 15 May 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. bibliomaniac 1 5 01:13, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Midnight Mission

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

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

WP:GNG. Notability issues raised six years ago. Hasn't demonstrated notability. Graywalls (talk) 21:12, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 21:12, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 21:12, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep while the current content is promotional and thin, going online, some of the Southern California coverage is actually remarkably focused and critical. I'll need to sift through them more carefully, but will add a few to move the page in the right direction. If not keep since WP:CORPDEPTH is a high bar to meet, redirecting it to an appropriate section on Skid Row and having a bullet point mention might also be ideal. 67.243.20.177 (talk) 17:06, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
comment specifically which sources? It doesn't appear that the subject quite pass the
WP:AUD as it's in the local news section and it's only a few sentences and photos that appears to be a routine thing news channels do to show what's happening in the local area. Graywalls (talk) 02:05, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:55, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:54, 15 May 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. bibliomaniac 1 5 03:36, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Smith (racing driver)

Jonathan Smith (racing driver) (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
NASCAR K&N Pro Series East, a non-professional series. NASCARfan0548 ↗ 00:11, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NASCARfan0548 ↗ 00:11, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. NASCARfan0548 ↗ 00:11, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep a
WP:BEFORE search turned up coverage from Fox Sports and Black Sports Online, as well as PR churns from Speedway Digest and Bleacher Report, and passing mentions from Bleacher Report and The Undefeated. When I have more time, I will conduct a more extensive search for sources. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 19:00, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 03:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Cavanaughs just expanded the article. Now it looks more complete. NASCARfan0548 ↗ 23:31, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - NASCARfan0548; apologies for the dim question, is that a withdrawal of the nomination? Thanks, --Jack Frost (talk) 03:05, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:51, 15 May 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. bibliomaniac 1 5 03:36, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Willow Valley, California

Willow Valley, 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)

Appears to be a non-notable valley mislabeled as a "populated place" by GNIS. Topo maps show the label in a typeface that is used for geographic features, curved to follow the shape of the valley. –dlthewave ☎ 03:14, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 03:14, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 03:14, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This appears to have a populated place at one point (and not just a valley). In a 1924 book, Willow Valley is listed as one of the school districts in Nevada County. ([17]) Other publications discuss stamp mills or mining operations in Willow Valley. ([18] [19]) Willow Valley is also listed in a 1958 and a 1968 roster of government officials published by the California Secretary of State. ([20] [21]) A publication from 1867 also talks about Willow Valley and lists some of the people/businesses that are there. ([22]) This leads me to believe that it was a populated place at one point at time, even if it is not now. Therefore, this article meets
WP:GEOLAND. MarkZusab (talk) 13:57, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

These sources support the claim that people lived in the valley, but I'm not finding any coverage for a distinct community. –dlthewave ☎ 15:26, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete Everything found so far is consistent with what the topo maps show: this is a vaguely defined locale, now really something of a suburb of Nevada City. I could find no evidence that anyone now thinks of this as a "community", and really, just being a community isn't enough. And I don't see anything in these various references that could be used to expand the article much if at all: they are just passing mentions as the location of something or other, except for those two "roster" references; and unless someone can look at a real copy of the work in question, I at least can't tell what "Willow Valley" is appearing in a list of. Mangoe (talk) 17:39, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this clearly passes
WP:GEOLAND based on a newspapers.com source search with articles such as the obituary here showing it's understood to be a community, and [23] showing it was at least a voting precinct. Even if this isn't a community and rather a geographic feature (which I doubt) there's heaps of coverage about the mining and school in the vicinity. SportingFlyer T·C 23:48, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:50, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 08:24, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clusterpoint

Clusterpoint (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 article has had a sourcing banner on it since 2015. All the sources in the article seem to be primary or trivial coverage. Also, nothing comes up in a BEFORE that I could find (so it fails notability per NCORP) and the article has mainly been edited by an IP user that might have a COI. Adamant1 (talk) 04:13, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:30, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:30, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: "Book Fundamentals of Software Startups: Essential Engineering and Business Aspects" seems not found on BEFORE so I'm voting keep.Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:50, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Djm-leighpark: Weird, it doesn't come up for me when I do a Google Book search of "Clusterpoint." Even when searching for the book title with the companies name. Do you have a link to where the company is mentioned in the book, know the page numbers, or can you at least say how in-depth the coverage of it is? One sources doesn't necessarily make it notable anyway, but i'd still like to know, so the details can be added to the article if it is kept. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:07, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, never mind. I see it comes up when clicking the link in the AfD but I guess it doesn't when just searching for it with the search bar for some reason. Interesting. That said, it seems most of what is covered in the book could be considered trivial and not work for notability by
WP:NCORP. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:09, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Thats the normal answer when the nom. hasn't found something. It's far from trivial and I'm standing by keep. On top of this it is the project not the company which is of importance.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:20, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. I've been here a while and haven't heard anyone say that doing a search on Google books gets different results then clicking the AfD banner does, but whatever you say. You know you can easily go to Google Books and do a search for Clusterpoint to confirm that nothing comes up right? It would be a lot better then accusing some random person on the internet of being a lier. I didn't say you should change your vote anyway. So, nice job treating me like a give a crap about something I don't. I could really care less how you vote. I was simply pointing out something I found interesting. Also, I'm not sure what your talking about with the whole "the project is important" thing, but as you should know notability isn't inherited or based on your personal opinion of "importance." Again though, I could really care less how you vote. If it's based on bad logic that doesn't follow the guidelines the closing admin will likely weed it out. If not though, bad votes and articles being kept because of them are pretty run of the mill anyway. So however people vote or whatever happens its no sweat off my back. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:32, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, a lot of people probably say sources are trivial because often times they are. "keep people" like to throw out whatever random crap source they can because they think will persude the next person to vote keep without them looking into the quality of the source. People say a source is trivial when it is so other people will look into it instead of just automatically voting keep "because sourcing." I'm pretty no one is making those comments because they think the person providing the bad source will change their vote. No one does. Nor should they. The dice fall where they fall. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:49, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:01, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:48, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The book Fundamentals of Software Startups contains an in-depth case study on "The Rise and Fall of a Database-as-a-Service Latvian Unicorn" where the abstract says the the company collapsed and was forced to file for insolvency due to liquidity reasons in 2017. None of this information is in the article. Plus, the website is still up and the company appears to be alive (and well?). The book acknowledges that one of the co-authors is an ex-employee of the company but the book contains a lot of references and is obviously not relying on inside information and therefore contains Independent Content. I'm leaning towards Keep based on the book and on the Gartner profile when the company was selected as a Cool Vendor.
HighKing⁺⁺ 18:22, 18 May 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. bibliomaniac 1 5 01:19, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jaydeep Sarangi

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Jaydeep Sarangi

Articles for deletion/Jaydeep Sarangi (2nd nomination)

Jaydeep Sarangi (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)

Appears to fail [WP:NAUTHOR]] and
WP:GNG
. The references are currently exclusively Sarangi's own works. The coverage I could find is:

The Statesman review of a novel authored by Sarangi [24]

Quoted in The Telegraph [25] twice [26]

Mentioned in Hindustan Times article [27]
userdude 07:39, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
userdude 07:39, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
userdude 07:39, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
userdude 07:39, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
userdude 07:39, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
userdude 07:39, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment The review in the Statesman counts as significant coverage. The second Telegraph piece is more than trivial coverage (and the first provides some evidence towards notability in the area of Dalit literary studies). The Hindustan Times piece is more than trivial coverage and provides further evidence of recognition in Dalit studies. He holds an academic position, JSTOR search shows up some pieces, but he would fail ACADEMIC. He has produced some poetry which seems to have some evidence of publication. A Bangla search turns up nothing of note, but I would prefer someone with far better skills than mine to comment on this. Am leaning towards delete since not quite reaching the threshold of GNG. But interested in others' comments. Thanks for carrying out a proper BEFORE. --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:22, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since the first (2010) deletion discussion, Sarangi has continued to write, and has risen from associate professor to principal of one of the undergraduate colleges affiliated with the University of Calcutta. Citation counts and WorldCat holdings are unremarkable, but searches of EBSCO, Gale, JSTOR, and ProQuest found some reviews to add to the one in The Statesman:

Demetriou, Eroulla (June 2008). "Reviewed Work: Explorations in Australian Literature by Jaydeep Sarangi, Bisnod Mishra" (PDF). Atlantis. 30 (1): 191–196.
JSTOR 41055318
.

Chakraborty, Soumitra (2013). "Margin Speaks: Indian Dalit Literature. A Review of Writing as Resistance: Literature of Emancipation, ed. Jaydeep Sarangi". Text Matters. 3 (3).
doi:10.2478/texmat-2013-0038
.

Panda, Durga Prasad (March–April 2013). "Reviewed Work: Jayanta Mahapatra: The Joy of Living and Loving in His Poetry by Jaydeep Sarangi". JSTOR 43856311
.

"Silent Days". Daily News. Colombo. 26 June 2013.

Prime, Patricia (June 2017). "'To Whom I Return Each Day' by Jaydeep Sarangi". Setu (Book Review).
ISSN 2475-1359
.

Basu, Tapan (22 June 2018). "Their Own Stories". The Telegraph
. Kolkata.

Pulugurtha, Nishi (12 August 2019). "More about Indian English novels". The Statesman. Kolkata.

It's unfortunate that the second incarnation of the article was written by a student of Indian English Literature who seems to admire him. Such efforts rarely end well. Their version was gradually gutted until only a husk of a stub remains. There is enough source material out there now, however, to satisfy
WP:WHYN, if someone is willing to write an article from it. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:38, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:42, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per contributions from Worldbruce, pushes the subject the right side of the GNG.--Goldsztajn (talk) 19:12, 15 May 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 all. Anarchyte (talk • work) 09:52, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hardy Place, California

Hardy Place, 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)

The last group of GNIS-generated stubs about "Places" in California, with the same story: they are all isolated houses or small groups of buildings, no claim to notability in the article, nothing substantial in searches... Mangoe (talk) 22:01, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also nominated:

Hays Place, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Heath Place, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hughes Place, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Jenks Place, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Jim Leggett Place, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Keller Place, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 22:06, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 22:06, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 00:29, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:25, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a gaggle of "Places" that universally fail GEOLAND. When will people learn that GNIS is not a reliable source I wonder Devonian Wombat (talk) 10:36, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete textbook case of “run-of-the-mill” coverage, very obviously not notable. Dronebogus (talk) 17:31, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete More old homesteads/ranches mislabeled as unincorporated communities, no sign of notability. –dlthewave ☎ 01:05, 18 May 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 09:23, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Bennett (political adviser)

Hugh Bennett (political adviser) (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 - just "this journalist has joined this publication" stuff - fails WP:BIO AlasdairEdits (talk) 09:20, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:41, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:45, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable political operative.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:11, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unnoteworthy political aide. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 20:30, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am not seeing anything in the article that would make him notable enough to have his own article at the moment. Dunarc (talk) 22:57, 17 May 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) 23:31, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Volsoc

Volsoc (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 GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 08:41, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable band. I find nothing reliable on the Internet about this band. I did a Google search and the things I found were the following: Spotify, Deezer, pages which only list the lyrics of songs by this band, some pages which list mixes by different artists (some of them apparently remixed songs by this band) and name checks where only the band's name is mentioned (like "Volsoc Mix" or "Volsoc Remix" but nothing else). The article itself is poorly sourced as well, with only their official page cited. One source is not enough, and also, the official page is not independent. This seems like a band that made no waves when they were active, and attracted no interest whatsoever. They have an article on hrwiki and plwiki too, but sourcing is a problem there as well as I saw. How this article managed to stay here since 2005 is beyond me. Also, the name of the article creator matches one of the band members' names, so there is a possible COI around here.
GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 08:40, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 08:43, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 08:43, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 08:52, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom, not enough RS to be found. Caro7200 (talk) 12:47, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 06:50, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moshe Perez

Moshe Perez (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:NFOOTY, never played in a fully pro team and the only article written about him (Az Daily Star) I can find is already in the article apart from [28] this short blurb. SportingFlyer T·C 08:29, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 08:29, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as when he played his only matches for FC Tucson they were in the USL League Two, which is not a fully professional league. Therefore he fails NFOOTY. Per nom, he does not pass GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 10:05, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:20, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:20, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:22, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:28, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet even our insanely broad footballer notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:12, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 06:44, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulmajeed Arishi

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

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY BlameRuiner (talk) 06:40, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:01, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:02, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:03, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:37, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:29, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:37, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 06:43, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hassan Gazwani

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

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY BlameRuiner (talk) 06:41, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:05, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:06, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:06, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:29, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable footballer. We have far too many articles on such people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:08, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 06:43, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nawaf Al-Sehimai

Nawaf Al-Sehimai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY BlameRuiner (talk) 06:41, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:09, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:09, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:09, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:49, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:30, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:13, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 06:43, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yahya Naji

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

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY BlameRuiner (talk) 06:41, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:13, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:14, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:14, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:50, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:30, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 06:42, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Khalil Al-Absi

Khalil Al-Absi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY BlameRuiner (talk) 06:41, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:17, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:17, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:18, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:51, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:30, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable footballer. Maybe we will avoid getting to 1 million articles on living people this year.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:12, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Easytostable (talk • contribs) 08:16, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 06:42, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulaziz Haroon

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

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY BlameRuiner (talk) 06:35, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:20, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:24, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:24, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:51, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:31, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:36, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 06:41, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nawaf Sharahili

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

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY BlameRuiner (talk) 06:35, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:29, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:13, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:22, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:52, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:31, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:14, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 06:41, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah Al Harbi

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

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY BlameRuiner (talk) 06:35, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:27, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:28, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:29, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:53, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:31, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:37, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 06:40, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amin Al-Bukhari

Amin Al-Bukhari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. No senior caps for either club or NT. BlameRuiner (talk) 06:31, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:48, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:48, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:49, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:54, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:32, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 06:41, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hamed Al-Sherif

Hamed Al-Sherif (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY BlameRuiner (talk) 06:30, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:32, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:32, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:32, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:33, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:32, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:07, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 06:45, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uryu Nagata

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

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY BlameRuiner (talk) 06:30, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant Delete. If one strictly applies
Mohammedan Sporting Club footballers we currently have (many of which are single line stubs). --Dps04 (talk) 08:41, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:33, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:34, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:34, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:34, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:34, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:35, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are we absolutely certain he hasn't met
WP:NFOOTY. SportingFlyer T·C 14:44, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Not to my knowledge. I searched Uryu Nagata and his Japanese name "永田羽竜" but found little outside of routine coverage and football websites. Please let me know if you found anything substantial in reliable sources. --Dps04 (talk) 09:49, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not finding a Bengali version of his name. That should yield some routine hits at least ... and I can't find those. Which means I'm not searching it properly. I have to think that the captain of one of the top teams in a country of 200 million may likely be GNG, especially with the stranger in a strange land thing going on ... Nfitz (talk) 03:38, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Digging deeper, it seems the Bengali version varies a lot, "উরিউ নাগাতা" is the most direct and sometimes "ইউরি নাগাতা (Yuri)" or even "উরুই নাগাতা" (Urui) or "অরিউ নাগাতা" (Airu) and others, but they most often shorten it to "উরু নাগাতা" (Uru instead of Uryu). I haven't dug through, but there's much coverage there, especially his recent departure back to Japan with the suspension of league play. Nfitz (talk) 16:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:33, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we have way too loose a criteria for footballer notability to ever let any article stand that does not meet it. I still think we need a stricter criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:59, 15 May 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. Redirection is optional. Sandstein 15:56, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Phineas and Ferb songs

List of Phineas and Ferb songs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)

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

WP:LISTCRUFT Windows72106 (talk) 06:16, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 06:27, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:39, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:40, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP All the songs created for that show, many blue linked to their own individual articles making it a valid list article. Dream Focus 16:24, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nominator. Lettler^hello 16:34, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
WP:FANCRUFT. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:39, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, this fails
WP:LISTN, coverage consisting of the website of one of the people who worked on the show and an announcement of the shows third season. It is not actually the songs which are notable here, but the episodes that they happened to be a part of. Devonian Wombat (talk) 20:43, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - While the use of songs in the show was a prominent feature of the series, as described at
WP:LISTN. None of the songs are independently notable, and most of the information here is not sourced. The section in the series' main article that I linked to sufficiently covers the information on the music that can be reliably sourced. Rorshacma (talk) 23:30, 15 May 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! 23:06, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Shanye Crawford

Shanye Crawford (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
general notability guideline. A a s i m 06:18, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:54, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even remotely close to being notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:52, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:04, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this would have been best suited by a CSD, it's nowhere in the ballpark of being remotely by any stretch notable. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 22:00, 25 May 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:57, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Things in my pocket

Things in my pocket (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)

Although this article has a number of references, they only support what the article itself says - that the band reached the ‘district finals in a number of Swedish music competitions’ but didn’t actually win any. The albums aren’t notable. The fact that they are listed as runners up in several and in one case played in front of 400 people does not make them notable. Overall, does not pass
WP:BAND because while there are multiple sources they are not non-trivial. Mccapra (talk) 04:39, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 04:39, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 04:39, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 04:39, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Poor name choice makes it difficult to find RSes that discuss the band. The sources in the article are essentially
WP:MUSICBIO with making to district finals of small competitions the closest they get to the latter. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:02, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: fails
WP:MUSICBIO. Looks like an autobiography (a SPA named "Favoritanton") and it doesn't look like the subject made any more records after the two listed in the discography – the second is an album, available from their Bandcamp site, but it doesn't appear to be on sale from any other outlet. The official website is dead, having been taken over by a blog. No obvious coverage from reliable independent sources. The festivals listed are just district finals, not national finals, for which the subject failed to qualify... the Rockkarusellen event was attended by just 400 people, so clearly not a major event even within the district. Richard3120 (talk) 14:13, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per above. Despite the number of references that are present, the actual coverage of the band is trivial, as stated in the nom. Reaching, but not winning, "district finals" in competitions is not enough to pass
WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 23:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - For now. WP:GNG are not met as of now. They need to chart before re-creation.BabbaQ (talk) 14:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - totally obscure local band. Fails
WP:MUSICBIO by a kilometer. FWIW, I have Swedish in-laws. Bearian (talk) 16:59, 21 May 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:57, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Rocket & Satellite Company

The Rocket & Satellite Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails
WP:NCORP. Störm (talk) 03:28, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:55, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:55, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:55, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:55, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:55, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No real sources. Of the three "references" one is a linked-in page and two are identical copies of what appears to be their press release from two different websites. And the article is just a direct copy of that. North8000 (talk) 20:55, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unfortunate that other sources don't exist, because I do think that the first space company in Pakistan deserves some sort of article. But if reliable sources can't be found, so be it. Sam-2727 (talk) 03:28, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It can be recreated when there is something to say about it. Deb (talk) 12:35, 21 May 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 09:23, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sadaqat Ali

Sadaqat Ali (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, no coverage found, fails
WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 03:19, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:56, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an overly promotional article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:45, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete created by SPA. fails GNG. --Saqib (talk) 20:52, 20 May 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 09:22, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rashid Kausar

Rashid Kausar (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 found, fails
WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 03:18, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Does not pass
WP:NPROF. Mccapra (talk) 04:47, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:58, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:35, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails basic GNG as well relevant WP:N guidelines WP:NPROF. --Saqib (talk) 20:51, 20 May 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 09:22, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wakas Mir

Wakas Mir (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 found, fails
WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 03:17, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Promotional profile with apparent COI creator (likely an autobiography). No indication of notability. Mccapra (talk) 04:50, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this shameless BLP. Created and written by SPA. Fails basic GNG. --Saqib (talk) 20:50, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:16, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jeyhun Imanov

Jeyhun Imanov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Notability is under question. Doesn't meet criterias of
WP:BLP--Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) (talk) 21:35, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions--Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) (talk) 21:35, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete, a search of Google doesn't give a large list of search results for him, his studio or the awards he has won → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 22:10, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:28, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 03:09, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:15, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

General Jewish Labour Bund in Lithuania

General Jewish Labour Bund in Lithuania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I can't find evidence that such a party existed. All references I've found so far point to the Bund in Lithuania remaining part of the General Jewish Labour Bund. For example;

"At the beginning of the February Revolution, large parts of the Russian Empire, such as Poland (Warsaw, Lodz), the Northwest Region (Grodno, Bialystok, Vilnius), Lithuania (Kovno), were occupied by the German army, and their political fate had Separated long ago by the fate of Russia."
Yiddish: צום אנהייב פון דער פעברואר־רעוואלוציע זיינען גרויסע טיילן פון דער רוסישער אימפעריע, ווי פוילן (ווארשע, לאדזש), די צפוןמערב געגנט (גראדנע, ביאליסטאק, ווילנע), ליטע (קאוונע) געווען אקופירט דורך די דייטשע ארמייען, און זייער פאליטישער גורל האט זיך צעשיידט אויף לאנג פונם גורל פון רוסלאנד.^[1]
- so prior to the 1917 February Revolution, Vilna had been in the Northwest Region (di tsfunmerb gegnt), along with present-day Belarus

"[o]f all the Bund's committees, the so-called gegnt-komitet in Lite was the last to be reorganised,379 which was partially due to Vilna's unclarified status"[2] - i.e., even at December 1918, the Lithuania (Lite) had a Regional Committee ('gegnt-komitet').

"The right wing of the Bund, based in the Vilna Regional Committee, used the Unzer shtime, edited by Max Weinreich, to advocate Bundist participation in the kehile."^[3] (Dec 1918)

There was a General Kombund Committee of Lithuania... but of the
Communist Bund (Russia) or a separate party? - "В 1920 г . переехал в Литву , был кооптирован в члены главного комитета Комбунда Литвы — левой оппозиционной части Бунда . организаторов ликвидации Комбунда в июне 1921 г ."^[4]

"In Moscow in November 1920, I was delegated to the Plenum of the Russian Central Committee of the "Bund" in Moscow as the messenger [representative?] of the General Committee of the "Bund" in Lithuania" (
Yiddish
: אין מאָסקווע אין נאָוועמבער 1920 ווער איך דעלעגירט צום פלענום פון רוסי לענדישן צענטראַל ־ קאָמיטעט פון „ בונד " אין מאָסקווע ווי דער שליח פון הויפּט - קאָמיטעט פון „ בונד " אין ליטע) - I'm not 100% sure whether the person talks about the Kombund or the Bund (S.D.) here... but appears that there wasn't a separate Bund party in Lithuania as of Nov 1920...

"The Vilno Bund organization, which considered itself more Russian than Polish, had split in 1920, the vast majority of its members going over to the Communist Bund."[5]

From the
Polish Bund wiki article: "The Bund branch in Wilno^[6] (now Vilnius) had split along the same lines as the rest of the Russian Bund in 1920, into a left-wing majority group and a right-wing minorities group. The latter was associated with the Russian Social Democratic Bund. Both groups were reluctant to join the Polish Bund, even after it had become apparent that Wilno was an integrated part of the Polish state. The Wilno Social Democratic Bund distrusted the Polish Bund for its overtures to the Comintern, stating that the Polish Bund had ceased to be a Social Democratic organization.^[7] In 1923 both Wilno Bund groups merged into the Polish Bund.^[7]" - So the right-wing Vilna Bund presumably continued to be part of the Russian Bund (S.D.) until the merger, but what about the Vilna left-wing Bund? What role did it have after the Bund in Russia proper had merged with RKP(b) and the Kombundists in Kovno had merged with the Communist Party of Lithuania? Soman (talk) 00:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:07, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:07, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:07, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:07, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 02:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A quick search shows that this organization is documented in numerous books. Maybe speedy keep. Toddst1 (talk) 03:02, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment,
General Jewish Labour Bund in Lithuania, Poland and Russia' from 1901. --Soman (talk) 22:52, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: Per Soman's comment. Toddst1 (talk) 22:56, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

^[8] has a mention in passing of there being a small Bundist presence in 1930s Kovno. Presumably remants of the Social Democratic Bund minority there, but not clear if still part of the Russian SD Bund party or a separate party. I'd say we can still go ahead with the AfD, but it is worth checking further on what happened with the SD Bund there. --Soman (talk) 18:12, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

ISBN 978-5-88109-329-7
.

ISBN 978-3-03910-080-4
.

^ Yivo Annual. Northwestern University Press and the Yivo Institute for Jewish Research. 1991. p. 70.

^ Partijos istorijos institutas (Vilnius, Lithuania) (1966). Вильнюсское подполье: воспоминания участников революционного движения в Вильнюсском крае, 1920-1939 гг. Вага. p. 27.

^ Bernard K. Johnpoll (1967). The politics of futility: the General Jewish Workers Bund of Poland, 1917-1943. Cornell University Press. p. 103.

ISBN 978-0300105865
.

^ ^a ^b Johnpoll, Bernard K. The Politics of Futility; The General Jewish Workers Bund of Poland, 1917-1943. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1967. pp. 132-137

ISBN 978-0-253-01297-5
.

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:58, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1st Round Enterprises

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/1st Round Enterprises

1st_Round_Enterprises (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)

In my understanding, violated WP:Notability, is unsourced and cannot be sourced further due to the very same lack of notability. Pratat (talk) 14:08, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:39, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:39, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:39, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 16:09, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 02:54, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Many of the sources are passing mentions or spam. Koridas (...Puerto Rico for statehood!) 01:32, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of coverage by
reliable sources. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 18:23, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I am unable to locate any
HighKing⁺⁺ 15:34, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on
"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:21, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Wide Eyes

Wide Eyes (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 are many more articles containing "Wide Eyes", search results are much more useful. CrazyBoy826 (talk) 23:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:40, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 02:51, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Agree that this is probably unhelpful. However, maybe a move to "Wide Eyes (song)" could be an option? RandomCanadian (talk | contribs) 03:18, 15 May 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 07:28, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saifuddin Bohra

Saifuddin Bohra (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 found, fails
WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 02:29, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I searched in Urdu and found absolutely nothing except mirrors of Wikipedia. Likely memorial page. Mccapra (talk) 04:56, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:00, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:00, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:01, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:01, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delee. No evidence of passing NBIO I could find or presented here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:28, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails basic
WP:AUTHOR. --Saqib (talk) 20:49, 20 May 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. I'm not relisting despite the sources cited by Mpen320 at the end: two are passing mentions, and one is the Daily Mail, which,
well. Sandstein 18:26, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Stewart Umholtz

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

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

Local politician fails
talk) 02:06, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete county level attorney's are not default notable. The article lacks anything approaching the level of sourcing needed to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:55, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:48, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:48, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. State's attorney at the county level is not an
WP:NPOL is holding a notable political office, not just running for one, so having also been an unsuccessful candidate for a more NPOL-passing office is still not a notability booster. Bearcat (talk) 16:00, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Doesn't pass NPOL and not enough coverage for GNG. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:44, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - we have kept district attorney articles for as little as 90,000 population, but there's nothing special about this lawyer. I don't want this to become a precedent for wholesale deletion of county attorney articles, which should be decided on a case by case basis. Bearian (talk) 17:02, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep To Bearian's point about articles that have been kept. I think between his prosecution of James D. Heiple, his involvement in at least one case of national interest the Waffle House shooting, and his nationally covered anti-gambling activism, and his creation of the meth poster child are worth considering.--Mpen320 (talk) 05:24, 22 May 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 discussion here is ... limited, but the article is so promotional it's close to a
WP:G11 speedy deletion anyway. Sandstein 10:14, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Faiza Khan

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

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

Promotional piece, fails
WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 01:44, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:03, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:03, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:03, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:04, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails basic
WP:GNG. --Saqib (talk) 20:48, 20 May 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 09:22, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peptech

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

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

Fails
WP:NCORP. I searched for Peptech and Arana Therapeutics and all I could find was passing mentions and brief announcements on its acquisition. Article has remained largely unsourced since its creation in 2007. Dps04 (talk) 04:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Dps04 (talk) 04:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Dps04 (talk) 04:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Teraplane (talk) 03:24, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's tricky to trawl through all the passing, routine coverage on mergers, name changes etc. but I think there are enough sources that go beyond routine coverage to say that NCORP is met: this article in the The Advertiser, extended coverage of a planned merger in news.com.au, an extensive article in The Australian and a substantial section in Innovation and Entrepreneurship in Biotechnology, published by Edward Elgar Publishing. There's also several borderline sources, such as this article in the Australian Financial Review, which is paywalled but may be useful, and this piece in The Age. When taken together I think these sources are enough to justify keeping the article. – Teratix ₵ 04:08, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:36, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete References are mainly based on regurgitated company announcements and fail
HighKing⁺⁺ 13:27, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom fails
WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:53, 22 May 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:58, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saqib Idrees Taj

Saqib Idrees Taj (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. Störm (talk) 01:25, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 04:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:04, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:05, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable politician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:52, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As usual, people do not get articles just for standing as candidates in elections they did not win — and notability is
not inherited, so he isn't automatically entitled to have an article just because his father has one. Nothing else here demonstrates that he has preexisting notability for other reasons independent of the candidacy, and nothing here suggests a reason why his candidacy could be considered more special than everybody else's candidacies — but those are the bars he would have to clear to earn special treatment as different from other unelected candidates. Bearcat (talk) 18:00, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Fails
WP:NPOL. Non-notable politician. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 20:18, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Fails
WP:NPOL. --Saqib (talk) 20:47, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Fails NPOL and GNG. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:52, 21 May 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! 23:07, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Danny Mann

Danny Mann (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 actor. Deprodded by an anonymous editor with no explanation and no sources added Cardiffbear88 (talk) 16:50, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 16:50, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 16:50, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 16:50, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 16:50, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 16:50, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added a source from Google books and changed a tag on the page accordingly. I'm seeing some red carpet interviews on YouTube, but nothing of not in Proquest. Still need to check various newspaper sources. He's been in many notable productions, but there may not be much reliable biographical coverage.
talk) 17:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete the added sourcing is not enough to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:11, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The issue with voice-actors, no matter how prolifically they work—and the subject has done a huge amount of work, which easily passes
WP:NACTOR, in my opinion—is that there is generally relatively little coverage of them in news outlets. However, newspapers.com is providing hundreds and hundreds of hits for the subject, with more than just passing mentions. I am going through them now and will apply to have some of the better sources clipped. Dflaw4 (talk) 11:29, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Here are some sources: [29][30][31][32][33]. They are not hugely in-depth, but, in combination with what DiamondRemley39 found, I think there's enough to justify an article. I can also apply for more sources if necessary. Dflaw4 (talk) 21:37, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:22, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unfortunately, the sourcing—extant or
passing mentions to do so. serial ^# 08:56, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak keep or move to draft as per the reliable book source and newspaper mentions, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:30, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would agree that these sources don’t do much to indicate notability in my view as they are passing mentions - there’s nothing we could reliably create an article from. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 00:13, 18 May 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 09:21, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Una vez más (EP)

Una vez más (EP) (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 indication of sufficient notability (besides being unsourced). -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:50, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:50, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There seems to be some coverage about her EP, including these sources: [34], [35], [36] and [37]. These reliable sources make the EP good enough to pass
WP:NMUSIC. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 07:03, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
BTW, if you're thinking of arguing with me over my vote, don't bother responding. Arguing won't change anything, especially my views. I'm not looking for an argument or debate in this AfD. So, I won't reply any further. My vote stands. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 07:03, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm sure we do appreciate the loud and clear "please ignore my opinion, I'm merely parading an attitude around" - thanks. As for the sources - churnalism times four. Nope. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:01, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: those four sources are all primary source interviews which say nothing more than "she's releasing an EP", they're just publicity interviews, but don't indicate that the record got any notice or notability after that. And a redirect probably won't be useful here, given the number of other songs and albums also called Una vez más (it just means "again" or "once more" in Spanish, so it's a very common phrase) and the fact that her name is not included in the title, so it's probably not a likely search term for someone looking for this person's music. Richard3120 (talk) 18:21, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:19, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all four sources are interviews, therefore all four sources are primary, therefore all four sources contribute nothing to GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 10:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, EP has not received independent 3rd party coverage, did not chart and does not have sufficient info beyond a track listing → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 18:39, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We have tended to delete EP articles. There's nothing special about this one for us to keep it, for example having a charting song, or accolades and reviews. Bearian (talk) 17:04, 21 May 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
Mýa discography. Sandstein 10:11, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Sweet XVI

Sweet XVI (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)

Recommending for deletion on the basis that it does not qualify as notable - it did not chart nor did it receive notable coverage from reliable sources. Please note that I did remove some
WP:FANCRUFT in this edit, which elaborates and does not relate to the EP at all (and is covered sufficiently at the artist's own page). → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 21:16, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 21:16, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Links from SoundCloud and iTunes should be removed, as well as her website. And I found a few sources where the EP is talked about: [38], ~~[39]~~ and [40]. These sources, including the ones from Complex and OK Magazine indicated in the page, are reliable and make the EP good enough to pass
WP:NMUSIC. My vote stands. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 06:12, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Crossed out one which barely talks about the EP. Found a couple more reliable sources about the EP: [41] and [42]. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 06:51, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
comment commentary on the existence of the project isn't enough to satsify notability. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 15:34, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak redirect to singer or discography. That's a painful pile of notability dribs and drabs to sift through - almost entirely press releases and their reformulations, list entries, and several unabashed promo interviews. The only halfway decent review is this. A couple more of that sort and we'd be good. As it stands, definite proof of a robust marketing machine but just not enough in-depth coverage. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:08, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:19, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
Aoba47 (talk) 20:07, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:11, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of CHL franchise post-season droughts

List of CHL franchise post-season droughts (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)

List fails
WP:NOTSTATS. Some of the information would be suitable to have on the individual articles for the Memorial Cup each team instead, if properly sourced. Flibirigit (talk) 01:10, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:05, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:05, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:06, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:06, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - we just don't publish
original research. Bearian (talk) 16:56, 21 May 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_May_15&oldid=959384098"

[1] Episode 237: Robert Clendenin (Part 1)

[2] Chamber Music Plus returns for benefit performance

[Abramovitch-3] ISBN 978-5-88109-329-7
.

[Marten-Finnis2004-4] ISBN 978-3-03910-080-4
.

[5] Yivo Annual. Northwestern University Press and the Yivo Institute for Jewish Research. 1991. p. 70.

[Lithuania)1966-6] Partijos istorijos institutas (Vilnius, Lithuania) (1966). Вильнюсское подполье: воспоминания участников революционного движения в Вильнюсском крае, 1920-1939 гг. Вага. p. 27.

[Johnpoll1967-7] Bernard K. Johnpoll (1967). The politics of futility: the General Jewish Workers Bund of Poland, 1917-1943. Cornell University Press. p. 103.

[8] ISBN 978-0300105865
.

[vilno-9] Johnpoll, Bernard K. The Politics of Futility; The General Jewish Workers Bund of Poland, 1917-1943. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1967. pp. 132-137

[Schalkowsky2014-10] ISBN 978-0-253-01297-5
.

[1]

[3]

[4]

[6]

[7]

[8]