Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 May 18

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< 17 May 19 May >

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries yet to compete in Miss Universe pageant

List of countries yet to compete in Miss Universe pageant (edit | 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 completely OR list. Nothing anywhere to show that this satisfies notability in lists. Was draftified last year but the creator moved it back without much change. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 23:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:03, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:03, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:03, 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.

Spartaz Humbug! 21:58, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Jerry Smith (motorcyclist)

Jerry Smith (motorcyclist) (edit | 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 hardly find any information on the internet about him other than first-hand accounts; his page is sloppily written too. Why? I Ask 23:19, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:57, 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 keep.

(non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 01:09, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Jessica's Guide to Dating on the Dark Side

Jessica's Guide to Dating on the Dark Side (edit | 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 find no confirmation that this book meets any of the criteria at

WP:EXIST. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 23:20, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 23:20, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep as two reviews easily found, and one of them is a starred review, a level of positive reception that few books see. Nominator should consider looking for reviews in
    talk) 23:46, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I can withdraw the nomination but you should avoid accusations. I stated in the nomination that I found one review but considered it to be too brief, and that conclusion could be debated. You also said you found two reviews but did not mention what they are. See what the next voter did. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 23:54, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I added the reviews to the article, which is beyond what AfD calls for. I assume you are watching the article and saw my additions, or have since noticed them. Googling simply the title, sans quotes, and "reviews" retrieves the Publishers Review. Too many book articles are nominated for deletion when the antidote is on the first page of Google.
talk) 00:11, 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) 01:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maxpay

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

Promotional article that fails

WP:CORPDEPTH Atlantic306 (talk) 22:51, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malta-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:29, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:29, 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) 01:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neuton (network)

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

Promotional article that is a borderline G11 speedy deletion, with dubious promotional sources. Note that the Reuters piece is paid advertising and the Forbes piece (since removed) is by an ex-contributor. Does not pass

WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 22:49, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:25, 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 speedy keep. Duplicate AfD

(non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 22:23, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Cagayan Heritage Conservation Society

AfDs for this article:
Cagayan Heritage Conservation 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)

this article was made and mostly edited by an editor who cites unreliable or made up sources. they have made an article for himself(seemingly) the article is very promotional and seems paid for. i have scoured the web and cannot find a single source on this other than this article. Clone commando sev (talk) 21:41, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Clone commando sev (talk) 21:41, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

that one i made but i messed it up. thats why i made this one. do you know if the creator can close a afd? Clone commando sev (talk) 03:32, 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. There is a consensus that the subject meets NPROF.

Serial # 12:02, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Gustavo Stolovitzky

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

The subject of this article is a researcher who does not hold a senior academic position and whose fellowships are all in non-selective organisations. Does not seem to be notable. Mccapra (talk) 21:20, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:20, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:20, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:20, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:20, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:20, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how any of those are highly selective, and an IBM fellowship does not imply any significant impact outside of that company. In fact, most IBM fellows do not have Wikipedia articles. Having a highly cited publication in Google Scholar is hardly a high achievement as you can easily fool Google's algorithm and create lots of backlinks to artificially inflate a paper's importance. I honestly think this article reeks of self-promotion and is better suited for an about.me page. --MewMeowth (talk) 01:30, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@
personal attacks, both against article subjects and article creators, are as forbidden in AfDs as they are anywhere else in Wikipedia? If not, you should be. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:44, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
How is *anything* I've said a personal attack? Since when is treating a spammy article as such considered a personal attack, especially in a place meant for these type of discussions like AfD? Aw, will someone get personally offended if I think their article is spam? Ridiculous. In fact, if anything, when you say I am blatantly incorrect, that is a personal attack. --MewMeowth (talk) 13:11, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You accused the article subject, without evidence, of artificially inflating his citation counts, and you accused the article creator, without evidence, of being the same person as the article subject and of creating this article as self-promotion. Those are personal attacks. On the contrary, when I say you are incorrect, I am merely stating a fact about your contribution to the discussion. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's what you're inferring. I have never accused anyone, I was simply stating a fact which is that Google Scholar is not a good metric for notability. In fact, I haven't even had a look at the article's history or creator up until now, but it's even clearer to me when I see now that it was single-handedly created by one individual (and a quick Google search would suggest they are an IBM employee as well) with no other edit history besides this article (that would at least merit a COI tag), and which was even more boastful in its original version before it was subsequently toned down by other editors. --MewMeowth (talk) 18:52, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Google Scholar is flawed but adequate for many purposes, when used judiciously. That the article was boastful in a prior form before getting cleaned up is not grounds for deletion; it just shows the Wikipedia process at work. XOR'easter (talk) 19:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thank you David Eppstein I am indeed blatantly wrong about the APS Fellowship. If there is an established consensus at AfD that Fellowship of the AAAS weighs heavily in favour of notability I’m not aware of it. Since membership of the AAAS is open to all and its Fellowships are quite common, I would think not, but may be wrong about that too. I will wait and see what others’ views are on this and on the article as a whole. Mccapra (talk) 03:35, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You were not wrong about APS. There are over 10,900 fellows (Source - warning: your browser will struggle opening this), of which only 862 have Wikipedia articles (14%). That's hardly selective. --MewMeowth (talk) 13:11, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, there are not over 10,900 fellows. That number of fellowships has been awarded since 1921, an average of about 110 per year.
Phil Bridger (talk) 16:33, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
You are factually wrong. Please do open the website and see for yourself. It's a list of APS fellows, not members. There are 10,900+ fellows and 55,000 members. --MewMeowth (talk) 18:52, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The very first sentence of the source that you linked says, "The APS Fellow Archive is a historical record of APS Fellows, from 1921 to the present", which is exactly what I said above. Or do you really believe that all of those awarded fellowships 99 years ago are still fellows today? And who said anything about members? Please withdraw your accusation of lying.
Phil Bridger (talk) 19:16, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
First, being factually wrong is not lying, it is simply stating something that is untrue. I'm making no assumptions as to what your intention is. Secondly, why is it that you are only counting alive individuals to make your point? And even then my argument stands as the list of 10,900 is only from 1921 onwards, so the majority of them are probably alive. In any case, I don't see how fellowships would be withdrawn or how is that in any way relevant to the discussion. The reality is that 10,900 fellowships were awarded by the APS since 1921 which compared to the examples in
WP:PROF#C3 does not make it selective. Nevertheless, it could pass but it says it can only partially do so if the subject has had a significant impact, which is not clear in this case. --MewMeowth (talk) 19:38, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Long-standing community consensus has established that Fellowship in the APS qualifies per
WP:PROF#C3, has elevated an average of 283 people to Fellow status each year since 1999. That's almost 3 times more than the APS. If the IEEE is selective, the APS is selective. XOR'easter (talk) 19:47, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
There are only 5,887 IEEE fellows elected since at least 1934. That's almost half as many as APS. Provide a link where this long-established consensus regarding APS can be found and I'll shut up. --MewMeowth (talk) 20:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16], at which point I stopped looking. XOR'easter (talk) 20:31, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alas, I was hoping for something other than AfD comments but I suppose that'll do. I find it interesting that some of the people commenting on those examples are regulars on APS-related discussions. Maybe they're fellows, too? --MewMeowth (talk) 20:46, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Archived discussions from the
WP:PROF talk page also use the APS as an example of a scholarly society that meets C3 [17][18][19]. XOR'easter (talk) 20:53, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Couldn't find more than a couple of mentions of APS there, and nothing that could be remotely considered established consensus. But, I think you've done enough to prove your point. I myself have gone to the length of installing a program to handle large text files (and look up its documentation as its regular expression syntax is not standard) in order to extract the number of APS fellows from that list. I guess it's not in their interest to show the actual number in plain sight? --MewMeowth (talk) 21:05, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Learned societies are large organizations that work by committee and not known for having useful websites, much like universities. Plus, the total count is not actually a very interesting number — as mentioned above, it includes dead people. The annual reports give the current membership and the number of new Fellows elected each year, because that's what gives a sense of how the organization is operating now. And if some professor happens to care about the total number of APS Fellows who have ever existed, they'll just turn to their student and tell them to find out. And the student will download the HTML, open it in Emacs, trim out the preamble and the epilogue, run grep "<strong>" APS\ Fellow\ Archive.html | wc, wait an hour to make it seem like the task was difficult, and then tell their professor "10,904". XOR'easter (talk) 04:19, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dead people are not fellows of anything, unless they are in a story by Nikolai Gogol.
Phil Bridger (talk) 19:54, 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 redirect to

Spartaz Humbug! 22:05, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

2014 Lindenwood Lions football team

2014 Lindenwood Lions football team (edit | 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 topic fails

WP:NSEASONS. This is an article about a Division II team with a losing record. While Division I seasons typically pass the referenced standards, this is not so for Division II. In the past, Division II seasons have only been kept when there is something extraordinary about the season. I see nothing about this article to set it apart from an ordinary Division II season. Cbl62 (talk) 20:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

FWIW, I believe 2017 Angelo State, 2018 Angelo, and 1974 BU are the last three AfD concerning Division II teams. Cbl62 (talk) 03:31, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:GNG requirement? Cbl62 (talk) 01:35, 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 redirect to Golden Gate Park#Lakes. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:59, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elk Glen Lake

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

Does not appear to meet notability (

WP:NGEO) - other than the GNIS reference and a few local news stories about a dead body found in the lake, there's basically nothing to be found. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:38, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:59, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ETC Group (energy efficiency consultant)

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

Vaguely promotional, not enough to satisfy CSD. With current sources, fails GNG and NCORP. --Puddleglum2.0(How's my driving?) 20:04, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. --Puddleglum2.0(How's my driving?) 20:04, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:55, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:55, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:55, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:55, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:36, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:59, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Travel All Russia LLC

Travel All Russia LLC (edit | 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 per Wikipedia standards; article only gets a couple pageviews per day Wikieditor600 (talk) 18:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The page views of an article are not an indication of a topic's notability and should never be used as an argument in a deletion discussion. Low page views are not a reason for an article to be deleted and high page views are not a reason for an article to be kept. Topics should be judged on their notability and coverage found in reliable sources. See
    WP:NOBODYREADSIT. MarkZusab (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:35, 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. czar 02:58, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cruise118

Cruise118 (edit | 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 per Wikipedia standards; article only gets a couple pageviews per day Wikieditor600 (talk) 18:31, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:42, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The page views of an article are not an indication of a topic's notability and should never be used as an argument in a deletion discussion. Low page views are not a reason for an article to be deleted and high page views are not a reason for an article to be kept. Topics should be judged on their notability and coverage found in reliable sources. See
    WP:NOBODYREADSIT. MarkZusab (talk) 19:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:35, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unless the various awards push this company into notability, it hasn't met the requirements based on references. I am unable to locate any
    HighKing++ 14:42, 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.

Spartaz Humbug! 22:06, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

T. N. Sabapathy Mudaliar

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

No evidence of any notability. Sources are very weak and do not demonstrate compliance with

WP:GNG. An endorsed prod was removed before addition of very weak source.  Velella  Velella Talk   17:00, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  Velella  Velella Talk   17:00, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  Velella  Velella Talk   17:00, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:35, 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. Forbes contributor articles are unreliable and not indicators of notability. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:58, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Karen McGrane

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

No evidence of any notability. The sources are her employers profile page, a couple of blogs an advert for a book and another advert dressed up as an interview. Nothing that even hints at notability. No doubt excellent at what she does, but well below the line of Wikipedia notability. Fails

WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   19:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  Velella  Velella Talk   19:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  Velella  Velella Talk   19:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:08, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:08, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:08, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve per Sweet kate. According to Forbes article she "wrote the book on .. Content Strategy for Mobile." It's a specialized area of interest, but significant in a world where many people use mobile phones for internet access. HouseOfChange (talk) 13:40, 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 delete.

Spartaz Humbug! 22:07, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Alley of Stars

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

Nonnotable tourist attraction. It is not an authentic "Alley of Stars", i.e., it has no official standing whatsoever, just a random collection of marks devoted to various stars from all over the world.

talk) 18:44, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 18:47, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:47, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Piotrus.
    Serial #
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.


The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:57, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Obada Adnan

Obada Adnan (edit | 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 actor, 0 named credits. Praxidicae (talk) 18:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 18:43, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jordan-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 18:43, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not delete Obada Adnan article , he is notable actor ,and he is credited in many movies - go search in google for Obada Adnan, you will see many websites talked about him, like:

https://www.videodetective.com/person/obada-adnan-18056322 (This is a website that not anyone can add or write something in it)

There are also the (Arabian) elcinema and IMDb, and some other websites

It literally says nothing about him that iMDb doesn't say. It's not coverage and it isn't reliable. Praxidicae (talk) 19:12, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are another websites along with IMDb that I took informations from, like arabian elcinema :

https://elcinema.com/en/person/2156931/ 

,and video detective ( https://www.videodetective.com/person/obada-adnan-18056322

Alex1981march (talk) 20:25, 18 May 2020 (UTC) comment added by Alex1981march (talk • contribs) 20:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I can write more informations about him, but I choosed the most mentioned ones Alex1981march (talk) 20:26, 18 May 2020 (UTC) ——-[reply]

Please let me know if you want me to add more informations about him(that are not included in IMDB) Alex1981march (talk) 20:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This website(popular baby names) has mentioned Obada Adnan ,link: https://www.popular-babynames.com/name/obada

Where it says “There are 3 actors and actresses with the first name Obada” And Obada Adnan WAS ONE OF THEM(Actors with the first name Obada) Alex1981march (talk) 09:16, 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) 01:57, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aruna Asaf Ali Marg

Aruna Asaf Ali Marg (edit | 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 road does not meet

WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 08:49, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:24, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:24, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 18:38, 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 and redirect to Qeleshe. Deleting unverified content, then creating redirect to qeleshe as a sensible search term. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:57, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Albanian hat

Albanian hat (edit | 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 only sources for this stub deal with something depicted in a novel by Rabelais. This source seems to use the term to describe the qeleshe. This article should be deleted or redirected to Qeleshe. Ibadibam (talk) 18:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Ibadibam (talk) 18:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Ibadibam (talk) 18:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Ibadibam (talk) 18:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we don’t even know for sure if it was talking about that hat. Extremely vague and non-encyclopedic “article” that would not be useful to anyone. Dronebogus (talk) 04:16, 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. Rename and trim required

Spartaz Humbug! 22:08, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Order of battle for the 2019–20 Western Libya offensive

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 by a blocked user is problematic and I am seeking consensus on what to do with it. My inclination is to delete because the whole concept of an ‘order of battle’ in this campaign seems inappropriate, and the creator has pulled together a wide variety of sources, reliable and unreliable, to create a topic which the sources themselves do not discuss. I therefore think it fails

WP:SYNTH. Mccapra (talk) 18:06, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 18:06, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Libya-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 18:06, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: agreed that order of battle articles on minor, low-level battles confined to small areas (relatively speaking of course) are inappropriate and fail to meet the thresholds for articles. They're mostly mere copypastes from their main articles' infoboxes. Lightspecs (talk) 19:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree in principle, but numerous other articles do this - see
List of armed groups in the Libyan Civil War article. --PanNostraticism (talk) 10:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
I think a good solution would be deleting the article but moving the content into the main page. What are your thoughts on this? PanNostraticism (talk) 07:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Having an in-article list mentioning those forces which are attested to by RIS would be fine. Mccapra (talk) 09:01, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but rename to "List of units involved in 2019–20 Western Libya offensive" - To move all these units into the infobox or the main body of the 2019–20 Western Libya offensive would just bloat it endlessly. In addition, I understand but do not agree with Mccapra's criticism. First of all, by renaming the article, one can avoid the baggage associated with "order of battle" without having to delete it. Secondly, how is it SYNTH? The information of different sources are not combined to create something new - a unit takes part in a operation or it does not, and this is mentioned in sources. I do not think that creating a mere list is already original research. Applodion (talk) 08:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that makes sense. Renaming and removing the unreliably sourced elements will resolve this I think. Mccapra (talk) 09:13, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a multitude of independent, persistent coverage in reliable sources attests to both the campaign's notability and the order of battle therein. Any renaming discussion should probably tale place on the talk page. Also "Keep per nom"  :)
    Serial # 12:11, 26 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) 01:56, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sajith Sivanandan

Sajith Sivanandan (edit | 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 business person. working for google doesn't equate to notability. no coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 17:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 18:45, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 18:45, 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.

(non-admin closure) - Flori4nKT A L K 12:07, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Blue justice

Blue justice (edit | 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. Aasim 17:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article as been proposed for deletion because it does not read like an encyclopedia entry. What can I do to edit this article to better conform to an encyclopedia entry? I've included academic sources and have tried to word it in a way that doesn't promotes advocacy, but rather capture a part of the research/discussions that are occuring around sustainable ocean development in the lead-up to the United Nations Ocean Decade on Ocean Science for Sustainable Development. Dalyocean (talk) 17:47, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:32, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will address the comments above to have the article better conform to the

WP:MOS. Thank you for your help. Dalyocean (talk) 16:12, 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.

Spartaz Humbug! 22:09, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Ceslav Ciuhrii

Ceslav Ciuhrii (edit | 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 notability of this article subject is doubtful. He is a successful businessman but the article has been constructed around sources confirming his appointment as chair of the national tennis federation. This probably wouldn't make him notable on its own, and the sources look unimpressive. A Romanian speaker may find more to support this, but if not I think there is a good case for deletion. Mccapra (talk) 16:59, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 16:59, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 16:59, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 16:59, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have serious doubts that his status as president of the National Tennis Federation of Moldova is a boost for notability, given that that organization doesn't have any significant coverage that I can find. The Romanian language article has scarcely more information about him, and they also lack an article for that organization. Surely he is a successful person, but not notable as far as I can tell. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 18:40, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wilderness (book series)

Wilderness (book series) (edit | 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 coverage in

talk ~ contribs) 16:34, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 18:47, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I haven't been able to find any reviews or other coverage of the series or any of the books within it. Granted, I haven't specifically sought sources for all 68 (!) volumes in the series, and the existence of another author named David L. Robbins makes finding sources more difficult than it might otherwise be, but even if some reviews of the individual books do exist, it doesn't follow that the series in toto is notable. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:48, 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. Much sadness

Spartaz Humbug! 22:11, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

UK Chemical Reaction Hazards Forum

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

As the person who discovered the death of the article's author, former admin

the notability guideline for organisations, simply because I cannot find any inndependent coverage anywhere that is at all significant; I can only find fleeting mentions of the article subject through Google/Google Scholar/Google Books ... and even in the article's own external links, which I've tried to fix to make that point clear. Of the links to the article in the main namespace, one is a disambiguation link and the other two are borderline promotional. Ronhjones created the page when he was a relative newbie to Wikipedia. He was the webmaster of the organisation's website per the article's talk page; indeed the Wayback Machine's coverage of the organisation's site stops on 3 April 2019, four days before his passing. It seems that at some point the organisation was renamed to UK Technical Process Safety Forum; I can't find any significant coverage under that name, nor can I find any by taking "UK" out of the search term of either name ... the new name should not be confused with the Process Safety Forum, which is a different organisation. Graham87 13:10, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:14, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:14, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:14, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:07, 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. If there are sources to be shown, I suggest running them past the other voters in the afd. If that persuades them, otherwise the outcome is clear. The vote concerning sources was made 15 days ago and this has had a relist and a quality vote would have provided them at the time.

Spartaz Humbug! 22:14, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Conquest Vacations

Conquest Vacations (edit | 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 only articles I can find about this company are that it was abruptly shut down; that alone does not establish notability. Most of the article's content is not encyclopedia content Wikieditor600 (talk) 21:26, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There are quite a few references through Newspapers.com that meet
    WP:ORGCRIT. However, the article needs to be cleaned of promotional and un-encyclopedic material. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:04, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:04, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Did you by any chance look through Newspapers.com? If not, I will be happy to supply the links later today. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:18, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree that the dearth of persistent, independent coverage indicates the company fails our notability guidelines.
    Serial # 12:19, 26 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! 22:11, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Friendly Planet Travel

Friendly Planet Travel (edit | 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 per Wikipedia standards; article averages only a couple pageviews per day; orphan Wikieditor600 (talk) 19:20, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The page views of an article are not an indication of a topic's notability and should never be used as an argument in a deletion discussion. Low page views are not a reason for an article to be deleted and high page views are not a reason for an article to be kept. Topics should be judged on their notability and coverage found in reliable sources. See
    WP:NOBODYREADSIT. MarkZusab (talk) 19:20, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:58, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:58, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:58, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:58, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:58, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:01, 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.

Spartaz Humbug! 22:15, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Ticket Ghana

Ticket Ghana (edit | 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 per Wikipedia standards; article averages only a couple pageviews per day Wikieditor600 (talk) 18:55, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The page views of an article are not an indication of a topic's notability and should never be used as an argument in a deletion discussion. Low page views are not a reason for an article to be deleted and high page views are not a reason for an article to be kept. Topics should be judged on their notability and coverage found in reliable sources. See
    WP:NOBODYREADSIT. MarkZusab (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:11, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:11, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:11, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:11, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:00, 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 delete. Speedily deleted by

talk) 19:46, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Arjyou

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

Run of the mill youtuber, no indepth coverage in any RS. PR mentions aside, this has nothing in any RS. period. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 15:50, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. I'm going to shorten it down as nearly the entire article is NPOV. Vermont (talk) 17:57, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Conrad Hennegar "Coon" Arbaugh

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

Probably not notable enough for an article. - RichT|C|E-Mail 14:58, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - RichT|C|E-Mail 14:58, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. - RichT|C|E-Mail 14:58, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:58, 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 redirect to Karl Rove. Must be redirected to preserve attribution post-merge. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Rove in the George W. Bush administration

Karl Rove in the George W. Bush administration (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I've already merged all the content with the main

talk) 14:50, 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.

Spartaz Humbug! 22:16, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Brian Walker (Arena football)

Brian Walker (Arena football) (edit | 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:NGRIDIRON, having never played professionally. Can't find any coverage on him (note there is another Washington State defensive back who played professionally Brian Walker (American football)). Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:02, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:02, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:02, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:02, 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

Spartaz Humbug! 22:18, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Henri Paul

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

Besides being the driver of the car that crashed the day Princess Diana died, no evidence of notability.

Death of Diana, Princess of Wales conspiracy theories. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 13:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:25, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:25, 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.

Spartaz Humbug! 22:19, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Shiprocket

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

run of the mill company. Its fundrasing was discussed as a news story, as all funding is given space in newspapers. nothing in depth in any RS. Fails SIGCOV. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 13:37, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 18:51, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 18:51, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Mdvrtauseefno source gives any indepth coverage. Run of the mill companies have usual PR coverage, that does not make them pass GNG. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 17:35, 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.

Spartaz Humbug! 22:19, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Mark Gottlieb (literary agent)

Mark Gottlieb (literary agent) (edit | 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 process. No indication of wp:notability. The number of references seems more related to a skilled wikipedia article writer. (Possibly showing literary agent expertise  :-) ) Of the 30 references given, the closest ones I found were two covering his expulsion from the trade association for ethics issues and one medium length interview.

The other references included some self-created ones, listings, plus various mentions of him or quotes of him. The latter did establish that he was or is considered to be prominent within his field locally and probably also at the state level. In a reference search I basically found the same thing. North8000 (talk) 13:17, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:06, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I deleted some of the information in the article after I haven't found any reliable sources. Check the "Talk" page where I discussed the subject in detail. It is relevant because some of the sources somehow where mentioned as "notable" above and it simply doesn't reflect reality. One of the sources (on which most of the information is based) doesn't even exist.
    Regarding the deletion, since it is not voting here but expressing opinion, I'd like to "comment" instead of saying "keep" or "delete" since these words indicate or hint at "voting" in my opinion. After checking the citations, I established that Mark Gottlieb is notable on the state level (New York), just like North8000 said in his comment above. Due to the fact that New York plays very big role in publishing in the US, I tend to think that Gottlieb is notable enough according to the sources. Second, literary agents's notability is somewhat in "gray water" but my opinion is that notability in such a case should be demonstrated by the number of notable authors a literary agent represents. So, it is the second argument in favor of keeping the page. I brought my arguments to open a normal discussion and I would ask other editors to bring their arguments and not just say "not notable" since it doesn't look serious. I can clearly see when a page is just a promotional fake and when it needs more research and investigation.2601:1C0:CB01:2660:7D1B:85DC:C224:9B4F (talk) 02:54, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the nominator's thorough WP:BEFORE: I agree that the majority of sources available are either SPS, press releases, primary or merely passing mentions of the WP:MILL variety.
    Serial # 12:35, 26 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! 22:20, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

WAPDA Cadet College Tarbela

WAPDA Cadet College Tarbela (edit | 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) 06:24, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

WAPDA colleges are well known throughout the country. I think it is notable enough to remain in mainspace. (uSaamo 08:14, 3 May 2020 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by USaamo (talk • contribs)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:25, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:25, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:26, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:48, 10 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) 12:52, 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. No consensus to delete the article has emerged.

Serial # 12:38, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Priyanka Fernando

Priyanka Fernando (edit | 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 notability criteria - was a shortlived military aide attached to a mission in London AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 12:37, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 12:37, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 18:52, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of fellows of IEEE Power Electronics Society

List of fellows of IEEE Power Electronics 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)

Reviewed as a part of new article review/curation process. If this list were created, it would have hundreds on it, and thousands on the other division withing IEEE. Basically this just makes a whole article for one particular person getting it. North8000 (talk) 11:41, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 18:55, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:00, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The criterion for inclusion is obvious, and the list makes good sense for navigational purposes (for example, it could provide chronological ordering and an at-a-glance view of what the awards were for, which a category can't). "Hundreds" of entries (only 221, it looks like) would not be too many for a manageable list. XOR'easter (talk) 19:04, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@XOR'easter: When I said that the actual list is hundreds, I didn't mean that it was too big / shouldn't be an article. I really meant that the article has not been created, this is just an Ali Emadi article.North8000 (talk) 21:09, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@North8000: see my response to Ajf773, below. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:28, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@North8000: It's not just an Ali Emadi article anymore. So far, I've filled in the Fellows elected in 2010 through 2013, as well as 2020, from here. Some of them already have articles, so the list has bluelinks. XOR'easter (talk) 22:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@David Eppstein: See my response above. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:10, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see a few more names have been included since I commented here. Although now I see just three names of people with articles in a sea of names without links nor any references to support their notability. We are simply not a directory of non notable people or entities. Ajf773 (talk) 01:53, 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.

Spartaz Humbug! 22:21, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Stephen Glicker

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

Previously deleted in 2005 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Glicker but recreated in 2007 and not really noted since then. Declined an A7 on it today because of claims of significance however, I cannot verify any of those and especially cannot find any reliable sources talking about him or his allegedly "award-winning, multimillion-dollar company".

He has been cited as the source for a couple of articles back in 2006 [23] [24] [25] but that's been it. There is an article in the NYT from back in 1987 that might be about him [26] but I cannot access it and even if, a single source would not be enough to support an article. Regards SoWhy 10:52, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SoWhy 10:52, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. SoWhy 10:52, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SoWhy 10:52, 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. TNT case so an attempt at a properly sourced article is welcome

Spartaz Humbug! 22:22, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Westernisation in Hong Kong

Westernisation in Hong Kong (edit | 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 whole article is one big piece of

original synthesis. Most of the references don't even mention westernisation or argue that what they describe is westernisation; they are just used to highlight specific topics declared "westernisation" by this article, with no general overview. Better sources exist, for example this study on westernisation (and the lack thereof) in Hong Kong. Bringing the article in line with what sources actually say about the subject would, however, amount to rewriting it completely. (This reason was copied from a comment posted in 2017 on the article's talk page, and it remains relevant) Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 10:43, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 18:56, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete or stubify - better sources exist, and we might well have a suitable article on Westernization in Hong Kong, but this is not a suitable article but a mix of
    original synthesis, whether or not DGG agrees that the synthesis is correct. It's not just a matter of tweaking it a little here and there; the whole page needs to be rewritten, the vast majority of the current sources needs to be discarded, and a new page needs to be written from the bottom up. This kind of rewriting hasn't happened in the past two and a half years. Having a page with content that violates our core content policies and without useful sources is of no benefit to the encyclopedia. Huon (talk) 21:03, 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.

Spartaz Humbug! 22:22, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Goorm

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

Advertisement of a company. No indepth coverage. Fails

WP:NCORP Numan765 (talk) 10:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 18:56, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 18:56, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 18:56, 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.

Spartaz Humbug! 22:23, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Brian Alexander (basketball)

Brian Alexander (basketball) (edit | 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:NBASKETBALL. —Bagumba (talk) 10:33, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 10:33, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 10:33, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 10:33, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Still nothing in any of the outlets (mlive.com, freep.com, detroitnews.com) where you would expect to see it if he were notable. Cbl62 (talk) 14:36, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Here is an
    WP:GNG, it probably won't be through his professional career. — Alvaldi (talk) 18:37, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep here are several sources already listed for GNG, but I was able to find [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32]. I'm sure there's more but it's a common name. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 01:16, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    #1 from Colorado Communuity Media reads like a paid advertorial e.g. Any youngsters interested in Team Alexander Athletics can go to the website at www.taathletics.org or call 720-251-5282.. #2 3 & 4 are trivial mentions, and not significant coverage. #5 & 6 are both from Detroit Free Press, which count for one source only: Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. Does not meet GNG requirement for multiple sources of significant coverage.—Bagumba (talk) 08:49, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I should note that the one article has been published in multiple publications. And I would dispute that some of the others are trivial. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 17:47, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The same article published in even 100 sources would still be one source for GNG purposes. And again, that one reads like paid advertisement i.e. non-independent. I'm dumbfounded how one or two mentions in an article is anything but trivial. People can judge for themselves from the full text of those Newspapers.com links here and here.—Bagumba (talk) 10:07, 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 speedy delete (G5). (non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 16:09, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sarsai Branch Post Office

Sarsai Branch Post Office (edit | 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 think this is an absolute GNG fail, unless I missed something in the very few Hindi results on google. Not sure why a post office would be notable anyway. 2.O.Boxing 10:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. 2.O.Boxing 10:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. 2.O.Boxing 10:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails notability and has no significant sources. Certainly there must be few or even no branch post office that are notable. Some General Post Offices and Central Post Offices are notable and have articles such as the General Post Office, Dublin and Indian ones are Chennai, Kolkata and Mumbai but nothing else. Some of the buildings, such as several US post offices, are historic monuments but this is not one. ww2censor (talk) 13:03, 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 no consensus. There is no consensus to delete this article.

Serial # 12:45, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Anne de Chantraine

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

No reliable

WP:SOURCES seem to exist for this person. The article is lengthy and full of detail, yes, but the sources are AOL and Angelfire user pages, other broken links, and other unreliable sources. I have googled around and found pages that cite this Wikipedia article as their source. I have also found pages with significant blocks of text that match this page, suggesting potential copyvio, but I cannot trace the original source of those blocks of text and suspect they could be in the public domain. In any case, this does not seem like it belongs on Wikipedia unless someone else can locate some reliable sources here. Paradoxsociety 22:14, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Paradoxsociety 22:14, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:02, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are some academic sources on this but it is not clear if it was a real or a fictitious character Lainx (talk) 05:43, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to this source this was a real person used as the basis for a character in one of
Phil Bridger (talk) 11:03, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:24, 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

Spartaz Humbug! 22:24, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Euro-Ukrainian alphabet

Euro-Ukrainian alphabet (edit | 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:Fork from Ukrainian Latin alphabet, not notable enough separately. Zotur (talk) 09:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 18:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 18:57, 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! 22:24, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Cathy Malchiodi

Cathy Malchiodi (edit | 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 believe the subject of this article meets

WP:NPROF. She has not held a senior faculty position in any university. She has published many books, but references to her in other books are sparse - as far as I could find, largely in the acknowledgements section. The sources in the article are a mix of a self-created profile, interviews, a podcast, a book she authored, and a passing mention. The strongest case I could make out for her is her regular column in Psychology Today and her book authorship, but neither seems enough to me to demonstrate her notability, especially as this is a BLP and the article seems somewhat promotional. Mccapra (talk) 08:51, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 08:51, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 08:51, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 08:51, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 08:51, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 08:51, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:22, 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.

Spartaz Humbug! 22:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Dead Fire

Dead Fire (edit | 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 made-for-TV movie with no reviews and not much of a cast: C. Thomas Howell is probably the best known. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:51, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:22, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:22, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I can see two items in Proquest that aren't available as full-text but do talk about the movie (at what length, I don't know, but more significant than passing mentions).
    • Myers, Randy. TRIAL BY TAPE SECOND ACTS FOR FOUR NEXT BIG THINGS: [CITY Edition]. Buffalo News. Nov 13, 1998.
    • IN BRIEF: [CITY Edition 1]. Buffalo News. 11 June 1999: G18.
As these are both in one paper that has no apparently connection to the location, I assume there is some similar level of coverage out there in other papers. But they don't appear to be full-length reviews, so that won't help with film-specific notability. --
talk) 12:18, 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 soft delete. Based on

Spartaz Humbug! 22:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Sierra Leone national badminton team

Sierra Leone national badminton team (edit | 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 a notable badminton team, fails GNG, never won medal in badminton tournament, and only shown the withdrawal result. Stvbastian (talk) 08:42, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Stvbastian (talk) 08:42, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:05, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for
    talk) 00:02, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Logs: 2020-05 ✍️ create
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.

WP:G5. Content is identical to deleted version, indication that the creator is another Abbycarroll sock. Yunshui 雲水 11:46, 19 May 2020 (UTC) Yunshui 雲水 11:46, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Dujuan Thomas

AfDs for this article:
Dujuan Thomas (edit | 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 as model. Not notable as a political candidate, running as candidate for mayor of Paducah, Kentucky. Promotional. Deleted back in September 2019. Eostrix (talk) 07:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 18:58, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANYBIO
"The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times." It is sourced several times of Dujuan Thomas receiving the highest honor obtainable, given directly by the Governor, in a neutral, non promotional way. With the commission of Honorable Kentucky Colonal.

WP:POLITICIAN
"Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." Several National News sources have covered Dujuan Thomas, as well as national radio broadcast on his political candidacy.

WP:CREATIVE
For his several sourced links discussing his roles in entertainment and film.

WP:ENT
"Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." Again several of the cited sources have discussed Dujuan Thomas having a large social following and his roles in entertainment on a national level

WP:SOLDIER
Again several sources have noted Dujuan being a veteran and receiving the highest honor of Kentucky Colonel.

I urge my fellow editors to follow policy and not put personal bias in front of the greater good of Wikipedia.

When not to delete

Articles we are not interested in – some topics are of interest only to some people, but since Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, articles that interest some people should be kept.

Articles on topics you wish didn't exist for personal belief reasons – Wikipedia contains information on all topics, not just those which any person or group agrees with. Do research about the article before voting. The more you know, the better your decision will be, and the more useful your contribution will be to the debate. Assume good faith. Remember that other editors may disagree with you, but may still be trying to help the encyclopedia.

I ask you to help improve the article if you find it in error, but from the guidelines of WIKI it passes. Ty012345 (talk) 07:12, 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 soft delete. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. GirthSummit (blether) 09:45, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Prakash Bus Body Builders

Prakash Bus Body Builders (edit | 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 bus cabin manufacturer. Does not meet notability guidelines for companies Eostrix (talk) 07:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 19:01, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 19:01, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unless someone can point to potential references that the creator didn't bother to put in, there's not a lot of point to that assumption at this time. I am unable to locate any
    HighKing++ 15:03, 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.

Spartaz Humbug! 22:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Shelley Sweeney (actress)

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

Sources are nowhere near meeting

WP:NACTOR is met. signed, Rosguill talk 07:13, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 07:13, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 07:13, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 07:13, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 07:13, 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 redirect to

(non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:01, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Oneness University

AfDs for this article:
Oneness University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(O&O Academy: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A non-notable entity. References are primary and no reliable secondary sources to establish the notability. It was Deleted earlier as well. Nothing changed much then. - The9Man (Talk) 05:53, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:52, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:52, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:56, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to

Kalki Bhagwan, where all of this information is already contained. Mccapra (talk) 07:23, 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. Malformed nomination as two identical AfDs were created. Also it is less than a month since the last AfD which ended in keep, when it is accepted practice to wait at least six months before renominating.

(non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 22:28, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Cagayan Heritage Conservation Society

AfDs for this article:
Cagayan Heritage Conservation 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)

this article has been created and mostly edited by a user who cites faulty/unreliable/nonexistant sources. this user has also made an article for himself (seemingly). the subject of this article is also not notable enough. the article is very positive and promotional. it also seems like it was made by a paid editor. i recommend deletion. Clone commando sev (talk) 04:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 19:05, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 19:05, 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 speedy delete as

WP:G5: creation by sock in violation of block, with no significant edits by others. Primefac (talk) 15:31, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

NKN (software)

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

Lowkey press release for yet another non-notable cryptocurrency software. All sources presented are either press releases or comes from unreliable, non-compelling crypto blogs and websites.

WP:BEFORE turns up the same stuff. Virtually no coverage in any form of media outside of the aforementioned crypto blogs and audience specific sites. Sulfurboy (talk) 03:49, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Sulfurboy (talk) 03:49, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think the main merit of this entry is that NKN's consensus algorithm represent a new school of technical adavance that are based on Cellular Automata in order to solve the scalability of many nodes instead of transaction per second. Other notable projects in this space is IOTA and Coordicide, and Near Protocol. And this technical challenge has been well spelled out in Dr. Stephen Wolfram's analysis. "Stephen Wolfram (Creator of NKS) Tries to Understand NKN" [36].

In addition, coindesk is the most reputable news outlet in blockchain and cryptocurrency. And their report on NKN and iQIYI in video platform contract is a valid reference. Sebastian Sinclair (2020-04-14). "Baidu-Owned Video Streaming Giant iQiyi Taps Public Blockchain for Performance Boost". [37]. Zbruceli(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:47, 18 May 2020 (UTC) — Zbruceli (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep I'd like to note that the GSMA case-study is neither a non-reputable source, nor a press release. It's a case-study - going into fine detail on how the NKN Software worked with iQIYI (China's largest video streaming platform) and even out-performed existing content delivery offerings. GSMA are a hugely creditable association of hundreds of telecom and mobile providers globally, and share their findings and news with these members. GSMA - Future Networks: NKN Case Study [38] OMTom (talk) 17:08, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

— OMTom (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Delete. Blockchain vaporware that doesn't even make sense, created by a sockpuppet of another user who was blocked for spamming the same thing. ST47 (talk) 17:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment ST47, the two above spa accounts will likely need to be checked too.
  • Comment I respect wiki mods spending their personal time to maintain the quality of wikipedia. NKN is lesser known, which is clear, but it does not warrant a label of "vaporware". And the developers have toiled over the last two years creating the following (just facts, no PR): over 1 million line of new source code on the GitHub NKN core repository [39]. Over 14,000 community nodes running in 42 countries and regions NKN explorer and network map [40]. And in addition, with the GSMA reference and coindesk reference, the network is used by legitimate multi-national businesses. Zbruceli (talk)
  • Comment Vapourware is a very poor description for NKN. They're one of the few telecom startup companies which has a simple but field-disruptive idea, multiple working products (free to test in browser), and multiple signed clients. They have given talks at Tsinghua University <ref>NKN Technical Seminar in Tsinghua University [41] (the top ranked University in China), Global Digital Economy Summit in China, and also at Blockchain Connect Conference in San Francisco, to name a few. If there's anything unclear, or if you believe the Wiki article needs to be brought down to a simpler reading level to be valid, I'd be more than happy to contribute and make it so. If there's anything in particular you'd like to see in response here, to show how far NKN is from "yet another non-notable cryptocurrency software", I'd love to help there too. OMTom (talk) 21:01, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    OMTom, Please do not vote multiple times. Sulfurboy (talk) 22:12, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment only keep votes are from a) a newly created account whose sole purpose has been to make a non-policy based keep vote on this afd and b) an spa account whose only edits outside of the afd have been to the article in question (this is not neccesarily a bad thing). I wouldn't at all be suprised if the former account is a sockpuppet. Tknifton (talk) 11:53, 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. No consensus has emerged to delete the article.

Serial # 13:08, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Flemingsberg Church

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

Doesn't meet

WP:NOTABILITY; it exists but doesn't merit an article. Boleyn (talk) 19:01, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:19, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:19, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would like to give Bonadea time to examine the sources more carefully.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 03:44, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per bonadea – I would be very surprised if there weren't proper sources for this. In the meanwhile, I've added basic info about the architect and another ref. bonadea, while you're at it, my search for sources found an article in Dagens Nyheter from 1982 about a book then about to be published, Huddinges kyrkor och präster, ed. Bernt Mattsson. It could prove useful, too, I imagine, if you haven't yet come across it as you're sifting through articles. /Julle (talk) 00:45, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:29, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it is listed as notable on sv:Flemingsbergs_kyrka#Källor with other structures in the community. If this one in the US we might have it on the National Register. So it is notable due to it having a recognized status. Along with the sources mentioned by the other users above it also meets GNG.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:19, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    So you state that something must be 50 years old to be on the National Register, so without any basis for historical significance whatsoever this 44-year-old building is something that might be on it? And then somehow it "is notable" because it "has" a recognized status? WTF? What status does it have??? And no notability on the English Wikipedia is NOT based on an article existing in another, since their standards are not the same as ours and that one lacks any significant independent coverage! Reywas92Talk 00:59, 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. No prejudice against redirection to a suitable mention. czar 02:51, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Roland Daggett

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

Almost completely unsourced and has very minimal notability (does not meet the requirements of

List of DC animated universe characters and include a concise blurb of his role in the backstories of the more notable characters such as Clayface in their articles. Michepman (talk) 21:28, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Michepman (talk) 21:28, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Michepman (talk) 21:28, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Michepman (talk) 21:28, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Rhino131 (talk) 13:39, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Related discussions: 2005-09 Germs (Batman) ✓ MERGE and KEEP as redirect
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:42, 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. czar 02:45, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1001malam.com

1001malam.com (edit | 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 per Wikipedia standards; article only gets a couple pageviews per day Wikieditor600 (talk) 19:03, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The page views of an article are not an indication of a topic's notability and should never be used as an argument in a deletion discussion. Low page views are not a reason for an article to be deleted and high page views are not a reason for an article to be kept. Topics should be judged on their notability and coverage found in reliable sources. See
    WP:NOBODYREADSIT. MarkZusab (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:08, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 03:42, 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.

Spartaz Humbug! 22:26, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Shiblee Group of Colleges

AfDs for this article:
Shiblee Group of Colleges (edit | 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) 07:26, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The said college is a known institute in region. Though article needs improvement but it doesn't need to be deleted. (uSaamo 08:18, 3 May 2020 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by USaamo (talk • contribs)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:24, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:24, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:24, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:49, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:24, 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. czar 02:43, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Webkinz stuffed animals

AfDs for this article:
List of Webkinz stuffed animals (edit | 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 really notable, overly large list and poorly sourced. websites such as webkinzinsider.com already aggregate these lists (on a much more relevant website too), keeping them up to date and Wikipedia probably isn't the best place for a list like this Ed6767 (talk) 02:01, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - In addition, the previous XfD request for this page, all the way back in 2012 resulted in no consensus, however, Imo no real improvement has been seen in the near 8 years since Ed6767 (talk) 02:04, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:04, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternatives to Deletion Could be merged with the generic Webkinz Wikipedia page, but that would extend the parent page exorbitantly and it makes more sense to keep this as a separate page crazyforcats19 11:50, 5 May 2020 (UTC) 68.57.234.58 (talk • contribs)
  • DELETE This list does seem rather pointless. Anyone looking for the information would find a superior up to date list with pictures on the official website. http://www.webkinzinsider.com/wiki/Full_List_Of_All_Webkinz_Pets Dream Focus 05:13, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP While other sources may exist containing of this information, there is nothing wrong with it existing on this page. The specific animals from Webkinz are a significant element of the Webkinz franchise and provide people who prefer to use a common outlet like Wikipedia rather than a specific one dedicated to Webkinz with a way to examine the variety of Webkinz animals the genre is comprised of.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SirGabeAlot (talk • contribs) — SirGabeAlot (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • KEEP This list appears before webkinzinsider when searched on Google and is the premier outlet for the "layperson" unaccustomed to webkinzinsider. Webkinzinsider is well-known for those that have been members of Webkinz for many years but Wikipedia is the better-known accountable source for the average customer, parent, or for those who are simply curious about Webkinz 11:08, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
This list has been around for many years - before updating, it was 10 years out of date, and it was not removed when out of date. With the updates it is much more accurate. Improvements include addition of all released Webkinz within past 10 years. I have also fixed some mistakes that I noted and have added more sources. crazyforcats19 11:50, 5 May 2020 (UTC) 68.57.234.58 (talk • contribs)
Why are you trying to delete this page after it's been made fully functional (which it wasn't before, but it is now), comprehensive, and fully up-to-date? If you were going to delete the page, why couldn't you have done it during any of the 10 years in which the page lay dormant and was outdated? Now it's NOT outdated and there is no reason for it to be deleted. crazyforcats19 0:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC) 68.57.234.58 (talk • contribs)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:18, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete “Wikipedia is the top Google hit” is not a good reason to keep a non-notable, unencyclopedic checklist article that is already covered more appropriately elsewhere. Dronebogus (talk) 04:35, 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. czar 02:41, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ridaex Technology

Ridaex Technology (edit | 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 quick search omitting "Technology" yields a handful of results, none significant enough to sustain a notability claim. Simply non-notable per the GNG or WP:CORP. PK650 (talk) 04:16, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. PK650 (talk) 04:16, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:40, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:40, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:40, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I beleive that this page is notable and has Independant reliable source to support the same, this is the First India made televison,this company got India 5000 Startup Award in 2019 for its quality. I am providing the reliable source links for the teams perusal

https://forbesnews.co.uk/ridaex-a-little-known-brand-to-winner-of-india-5000-startup-award-2019-in-just-3-5-years/ https://www.india5000.com/winners/2019/india-500-startup-awards-2019/ridaex-information-systems-and-services-opc-pvt-ltd https://www.bignewsnetwork.com/news/260612841/grabon-cricket-fantasy-win-smart-tvs-bluetooth-headsets-and-more https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2020/04/01/2009837/0/en/2020-Televisions-Smart-Traditional-Market-Study-Presents-Industry-Size-Growth-for-2015-2030.html https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/cons-products/electronics/ridaex-tech-acquired-by-their-branding-partner-gotmatter-pvt-ltd/articleshow/62839094.cms?from=mdr Kindly let me know if I have to provide any more details.Thanks, Glittershield (talk) 12:16, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:45, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The "India 5000 Startup Award" is not a significant award. The rest of the sources provided above are either press releases or trivial. Best, PK650 (talk) 22:43, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for
    talk) 00:02, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Logs: 2020-02 ✍️ create
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Despite what the bot thinks, this does not qualify for a SOFTDELETE.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:17, 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! 22:27, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

The National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty

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

highly promotional article created by the subject itself as evident from the history, and significant edited by staff and interns as evident I've done some simple searching.

WP:SIGCOV. Source analysis in article's talk page. Graywalls (talk) 04:19, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 04:19, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 04:19, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 04:19, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 04:19, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:45, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent
    reliable sources
    .
    1. Loehwing, Melanie (2018). Homeless Advocacy and the Rhetorical Construction of the Civic Home. University Park, Pennsylvania:
      ISBN 978-0-271-08215-8
      . Retrieved 2020-05-17.
    2. Soohoo, Cynthia; Albisa, Catherine; Davis, Martha F., eds. (2007). Bringing Human Rights Home. Westport, Connecticut:
      ISBN 978-0-275-98821-0
      . Retrieved 2020-05-17.
    3. Doak, Melissa J. (2006). Homeless in America: How Could It Happen Here?. Detroit:
      ISBN 1-4144-0477-8
      . Retrieved 2020-05-17.
    4. Hurley, Jennifer A. (2002). The Homeless: Opposing Viewpoints. San Diego:
      ISBN 0-7377-0749-6
      . Retrieved 2020-05-17.
Sources with quotes
  1. Loehwing, Melanie (2018). Homeless Advocacy and the Rhetorical Construction of the Civic Home. University Park, Pennsylvania:
    ISBN 978-0-271-08215-8
    . Retrieved 2020-05-17.

    The book notes:

    In the advocate community, the National Alliance to End Homelessness (NAEH), the National Coalition for the Homeless (NCH), and the National Law Center on Homeless and Povertly (NLCHP) stand out as three of the most important loci of advocate activity and networking. The campaigns and initiatives of organizations such as the NAEH, NCH, and NLCHP represent traditional solutions-focused social advocacy.

    ...

    I document this conventional view by analyzing the advocacy efforts of the three major national organizations addressing homelessness today: the National Coalition for the Homeless, the National Alliance to End Homelessness, and the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty.

    The book notes:

    The National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty (NLCHP), the third of the major U.S. homeless advocacy organizations, follows the NAEH's lead in focusing on the production of expert knowledge rather than participating in the day-to-day provision of resources to individuals experiencing homelessness. Founded in 1989 by Maria Foscarinis, a lawyer devoted to seeking justice through the courts for people experiencing homelessness, the NLCHP aims "to prevent and end homelessness by serving as the legal arm of the nationwide movement to end homelessness." Like the NCH and the NAEH, the NLCHP pursues policy initiatives that seek greater allocation of funds and resources to homeless service providers, as well as public education campaigns aspiring to correct misconceptions about homelessness and publicize little-known truths about its causes and consequences. NLCHP campaigns advocate on behalf of the homeless through legal channels largely by working to reclaim the rights stripped from those who lack private shelter: their programs include initiatives to increase federal resources, ensure homeless children's access to public education, and protect the homeless of all ages from hate crimes, wrongful evictions, and civil-rights violations.

    The book notes:

    What we see in this advocacy initiative is a two-pronged critique of homeless criminalization: the NLCHP opposes antihomeless legislation on the grounds that it violates fundamental rights that should protect all citizens but that are routinely denied to the homeless. But in addition to rights-based advoacy, the NLCHP makes a pragmatic argument as well, contending that antihomeless legislation simply does not work in practice. ...

    The NLCHP has remained at the forefront of the fight for homeless rights, describing its approach in terms of a dual focus on "ending the criminalization of homelessness and reducing the burden of ID barriers on homeless people." ... Approaching homeless advocacy from a human-rights perspective drives the NLCHP's emphasis on contesting unjust legislation and petitioning for new initiatives to recognize and protect the civil rights of those experiencing homelessness.

    In pursuit of these dual goals, the NLCHP compiles publicly available research reports that document the changing landscape of homeless criminalization in the United States. One such report [discussion of the report]

  2. Soohoo, Cynthia; Albisa, Catherine; Davis, Martha F., eds. (2007). Bringing Human Rights Home. Westport, Connecticut:
    ISBN 978-0-275-98821-0. Retrieved 2020-05-17.

    The book notes on page 41:

    The National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty (NLCHP), under the leadership of Maria Foscarini, was one of the frontrunners among national organizations to interest itself and develop a human rights approach. NLCHP has built a human rights-to-housing caucus that it brought wholesale to the U.S. Human Rights Network. The caucus has held conferences, worked with the UN Special Rapporteur on Housing to bring attention to gentrification and displacement in Chicago, and organized trainings for hundreds of housing advocates. It's been more difficult for NLCHP to identify litigation opportunities to use human rights, which is telling given that it is primarily a litigation organization. Translating the enthusiasm for economic and social rights from the activist community to the courts may be a very long journey for groups like NLCHP. It seems an equally long journey to translate this enthusiasm to the beltway, and few groups with a legislative focus have taken up the approach. Even NLCHP, when writing policy briefs targeting a beltway audience, makes little or no mentions of human rights.

    The book notes on page 161
    :

    NLCHP is currently working with the government to implement this Observation. There are difficulties in trying to bridge the gap between the Department of State, which traditionally handles the treaty-reporting process with the treaty bodies, and the domestic agencies such as the Department of Housing and Urban Development or the Department of Justice, which would have a role in implementing the Observations. The chief obstacle is that most of the domestic agencies are not aware of their role in implementation. NLCHP together with others held a joint meeting with the State Department and other agencies in January 2007 to start bridging this divide, and a follow up meeting with the Justice Department two months later. There is still a great deal of education to do, but groups are hopeful that their efforts will begin to build on one another. Additionally, NLCHP is working with congressional members to include language in future housing legilation that would endorse Congress's continuing role in implementing the rights under the treaties. NLCHP, COHRE, and hundreds of other organizations will be participating in a similar shadow reporting process under the CERD treaty in 2007 and 2008, adding yet another layer of accountability on the government for its treaty obligations.

  3. 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:

    Census Accused of Unconstitutionality. The National Law Center on Homeless and Poverty alleged that the methodology of the S-Night count was unconstitutional. In 1992 the Law Center, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the cities of Baltimore and San Francisco, fifteen local homeless organizations, and seven homeless people (the plaintiffs) filed suit in the federal district court in Washington, D.C. They charged the Census Bureau with excluding segments of the homeless population in the 1990 population count by not counting those in hidden areas and by not allocating adequatee funds for S-Night.

    ...

    The National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty states that its mission is "to alleviate, ameliorate and end homelessness by serving as the legal arm of the nationwide movement to end homelessness," and works to protect the rights of homeless people and to end homelessness in America. It uses three main strategies to achieve this goal: impact litigation, policy advoacy, and public education. The Law Center conducts research studies and distributes the results by publishing fact sheets and a monthly newsletter.

  4. Hurley, Jennifer A. (2002). The Homeless: Opposing Viewpoints. San Diego:
    ISBN 0-7377-0749-6
    . Retrieved 2020-05-17.

    The book notes:

    National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty

    The mission of the The Homeless: Opposing Viewpoints is to protect the rights of homeless people and to implement solution to end homeless in America. To achieve its mission, the center pursues three main strategies: impact litigation, policy advoacy, and public education. It regards homelessness as an effect of the shortage of affordable housing, insufficient wages, and inadequate social services. The center publishes the monthly newsletter In Just Times.

There is sufficient coverage in
reliable sources to allow The National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

Cunard (talk) 01:10, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I think these coverage are insufficient for notability purposes. When you go digging for books that specialize on the topic, you can find things in fair depth about obscure objects and companies that specialize in that discipline. Those things are great for facts and figures; but as far as establishing that an organization is GENRALLY notable, I don't believe that it goes far. A paragraph or two on an organization that operates in the homeless industry in books that specializes in homelessness and social science is not particularly notable. Source #4 by Hurley only has the organization in a resource directory in a directory with other organizations. That's a passing mention. One of the other books giving a paragraph or two of space about NLCHP launching a lawsuit that ended up getting dismissed doesn't go far in building notability. Those sources maybe great to augment things once general interest once organizational general notability has been established in mainstream general interest source with significant
WP:AUD. This means a book that focuses on homeless advocacy is of limited interest, because it's important only within the "homeless advocacy" circle. Graywalls (talk) 03:20, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:16, 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 delete. Fenix down (talk) 06:33, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

César Vinuesa

César Vinuesa (edit | 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 player fails

WP:NFOOTY which wouldn't be enough to pass for GNG too. HawkAussie (talk) 03:16, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 03:16, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 03:16, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 03:16, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:12, 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.

Spartaz Humbug! 22:28, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Woody Norris

Woody Norris (edit | 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

Rusf10 (talk) 03:14, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
Rusf10 (talk) 03:14, 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! 22:28, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Michael Brinkenstjärna

Michael Brinkenstjärna (edit | 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) 03:14, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:22, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:22, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:22, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I had never heard of him before, but a search in a Swedish media archive turns up a wealth of articles in major newspapers spanning from the 80s until today. They cover his early career as a DJ and musician, his later shift to becoming a talent manager, his legal troubles – for various reasons – and so on. This is really not my area, but I started rewriting the article, adding more sources. /Julle (talk) 02:10, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - article needs expansion and improvements. But is within WP:GNG. Per sources. Per notable work. BabbaQ (talk) 08:28, 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. No consensus to delete this article will emerge.

Serial # 13:19, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Juls

AfDs for this article:
Juls (edit | 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 music guy. Cannot meet GNG or MUSICBIO. He is not even run of the mill. Ignore the first AFD notice on the side it is a totally unrelated dinosaur from 2004, no idea how it was linked to this debate. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 19:34, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 19:56, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 19:56, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 19:56, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:37, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:14, 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.

Serial # 13:21, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Centerville, Alpine County, California

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

this is one of the biggest messes I have come across in reviewing these GNIS-dump artcles, and about the only thing I am sure of is that this article needs to be deleted no matter what else gets done. To begin with, the name of the place is "Centerville Flat", not Centerville. Not being able to get to the map that GNIS cites, the phrase "State Historical Landmark" suggests that there is some sort of marker on the side of the road. And indeed there is, and since it's in California the Google Car got there, and you can read the classic white-on-brown wooden park service sign, and it says, "OLD MINING TOWN SITE OF CENTERVILLE FLAT". Only this is not the end of the story, because this page says that it is the site of an old sawmill town, except that this references says that, yes, it was a sawmill, but places it on the opposite side of Markleeville. What it is now is a campground. Maybe an article needs to be written on Centerville Flat, but the present article is absolutely wrong. Searching is extremely hindered by the existence of no less than nine other Centervilles in California, but as soon as I do anything to limit searching to this county, I get a very few hits, and the only informative ones all say Centerville Flat and not Centerville, including the topo maps. Mangoe (talk) 04:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
userdude 05:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
userdude 05:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

*Delete Regarding the location, I interpret "above Markleeville" to mean "upstream of Markleeville" which would be consistent with its location on the North-flowing East Fork of the Carson River. If there was significant coverage, a move to Centerville Flat would be appropriate, but I'm just not finding anything to support a standalone article for this run-of-the-mill (heh) timber/mining camp. –dlthewave ☎ 13:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC) Striking for now since new sources clarify that it was a town/village. Will reassess notability after expansion. –dlthewave ☎ 02:05, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Deletion: in this case now would be "move and do not leave a redirect." My thought was that someone would write a new article at the correct name but in any case there is no Centerville in Alpine County. Mangoe (talk) 18:17, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@
CJK09: I'm curious why you call this a "run-of-the-mill work camp" when four of the sources cited specifically state that Centerville was not a mining or timber camp, and nothing in the article states that it was? Magnolia677 (talk) 22:00, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
@
talk) 22:09, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
@
CJK09: My apology, it was User:Dlthewave that said that. I'm curious why you would change the name to "Centerville Flat", when all of the sources cited call this historic town--with its tavern, stores, homes, streets, and hotel--"Centerville"? Magnolia677 (talk) 22:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
I've struck my vote since I was mistaken in my assessment. "Centerville" and "Centerville Flat" both appear in the new sources that have been added; let's wait til the editing has settled down to see which one is more prevalent. –dlthewave ☎ 02:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:10, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not good enough to talk about references to "Centerville". As I noted above, there are nine other sites called "Centerville" in California, so any reference has to be shown to be referring to this spot and not one of the others. Mangoe (talk) 12:15, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mangoe: I have carefully scrutinized each reference, and each is about the location in Alpine County. Please see this source which states: "Centerville, Alpine County, small village with stores and a tavern..." Moreover, all of the sources corroborate each other, and some either give directions to this location, or include a map to this exact location. If you have reason to suggest this in incorrect, please state your reasons. If you're just saying stuff because other editors have found multiple reliable sources to support the existence of a place "the only thing I am sure of is that this article needs to be deleted no matter what else gets done", then I'm not sure how to respond. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:07, 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. There is a consensus to keep the content but not entirely clear what should be done with it

Spartaz Humbug! 22:31, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Second American Revolution

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

This is a non-notable topic that at best deserves a sentence in the main

[majestic titan] 05:30, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
userdude 05:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
userdude 05:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
I agree with both of the above comments. As I said on the WikiProject United States talk page], the "Second American Revolution" article says: "Rhetorical or hyperbolic references to a Second American Revolution have been made on a number of occasions throughout the history of the United States." That's thin gruel to justify an entire article, and actually misleading, as the title gives the impression at first sight that two American Revolutionary Wars were fought. Carlstak (talk) 05:48, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the content ought to be included somewhere, and it doesn't fit in on
UserDude (talk • contribs) 20:12, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Move to
userdude 00:16, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:09, 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

Spartaz Humbug! 22:33, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Niënor Níniel

Niënor Níniel (edit | 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 only find one reliable secondary source discussing this character in depth, the source is [44]. We need more than this. If additional sources can be provided to demonstrate the level of coverage needed for a

WP:GNG pass, I will withdraw this nomination. Hog Farm (talk) 20:21, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 20:21, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 20:21, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 20:21, 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 03:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:07, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.
    Tolkien Encyclopedia does not have a dedicated entry on this person (the name appears only in passing in few entries, with no in-depth discussion of him). I can access [49] and I find coverage there to be a passing mention too. In both cases the mentions are plot-summary related, no analysis. [50] The coverage in [51] seem to be limited to a single sentence, although the fact that the absract/keywords list three spelling variants of the subject's name don't help (I did CTRL+F for all 3 and found a single sentence in body, so I don't know what here is supposed to be "more analytical" than in the other sources; well, ok, "In the stories of M orwen, the long-suffering wife of H urin, of their daughter Niennor, and of their kinsw om an Aerin, Tolkien departs from the epic pattern of silence about w om en's lives", the sentence is analytical, but it hardly in=depth when it comes to this character. [52] is a review of a book A Companion to J. R. R. Tolkien, I don't see the subject discussed in the review, if it is mentioned in the book itself please tell us what chapter/etc (but incidentally the book is notable and I'll stub it shortly). The coverage in [53] (EXPLORATIONS: The Journal of Undergraduate Research and Creative Activities for the State of North Carolina, seems to be peer reviewed, but the author is by default an undergrad, and I wonder who does the peer review - faculty, or grad students?) seems to be extensive, but limited to a plot summary, I see very little analysis of the character's significance. And re [54] (Quest multidisciplinary journal of humanities & social sciences) may be borderline reliable as a minor but not predatory (I think) journal, but the discussion there is very short again, literary half a sentence saying that the character is "derived from elements in Sigurd the Volsung, Oedipus, and the Finnish Kullervo". I think this last source is the most analytical one, coupled with the other quoted, and we seriously have to ask ourselves - is half the sentence of analysis in two sources sufficient for an encyclopedic article? Not a single source we found is in-depth when it comes to analysis, all we get is plot and two half-sentences. I think the two analytical sources that mention her in passing may be good to be quoted in some larger article, even a list of characters, where in addition to the plot summary we can include two sentences of analysis based on those, but I don't think she merits a dedicated stand-alone article based on those two half-sentences. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:46, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
About Tolkien Sidelined: Constructing the Non-Combatant in The Children of Hurin: The quoted sentence on p. 95 is only the first, not the only treatment of Niënor Níniel, here mostly spelled Niënnor. It continues on p. 98, and get's into more analysis in to following pages. 99: "Niennor is another study of the lives of women during wartime. ..." "To understand Tolkien's grounding for his handling of Morwen, Aerin, and Niennor, and for that matter his insightful portrayal of Eowyn's frustration at her situation, a turn to some of the shaping events in his life, however little he may have approved of such approaches, proves instructive." Then the author goes on until p. 104 about the women in Tolkien's life during wartime, not mentioning the fictional characters by name again, but the author did relate to them in the quoted introductory sentence. Then he talks about Tolkien's own fate and relates it to these female figures, finishing in p. 108: "One hears echoes [...] of Niennor's desperate wish either to keep the man she loves from danger or to die with him [in a quoted letter by Tolkien]. Tolkien shows that these women have no more, and no less, wisdom, virtue, or insight than any other human being in difficult circumstances, but he also cannot exempt them from the suffering of war." And the article goes on another paragraph about Tolkiens view of these women collectively. So even if the Niennor's name appears not at every turn, there's still a lot of analysis (which is not in the Wikipedia article yet). Daranios (talk) 20:46, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
About A Companion to J. R. R. Tolkien (thanks for creating that article): I was referring to the book itself, sorry for causing confusion. Nienor Niniel gets a short mention in "The Lays of Beleriand (1985)" p. 150 with a remark about the name's aliteration. The important chapter is "Tolkien’s “Great Saga”: A “Long Defeat” That May or May Not Include a “Final Victory”", p. 154-159. That chapter calls the story of Hurin and Nienor central and "Tolkien's "Great Saga". It further gives details about the development of the text over time, including a very different ending and that endings implications. So that's all not plot-summary. Please also note that Nienor is sometimes not called by name but together with Turin as "children of Hurin". That phrase appears many times in the book, but usually only as the title of the poem. Lastly, on p. 476 the book cites another source that Turin and Niniel are one of only four couples "whose love gets much space" in Tolkien's work. Daranios (talk) 21:23, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, not bad, but I'd like to see the reception/analysis section actually expanded to see if there is really more to be said than 2-3 sentences. I do wonder if Chap's idea below isn't a better solution. Or perhaps both fictional character's bios could be merged into the article about the story of the
children of Hurin? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:01, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
I also would like to see that expansion, but that won't be done by me, as I still have, at my pace, decades worth of homework from other deletion discussions. But I think according to the guidelines of Wikipedia like
Children of Húrin article seems preferable to deletion. Though Turin is clearly the protagonist, it would befit us to not underestimate the importance of female characters. Daranios (talk) 12:26, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Allright, I postpone other things an try to add some material based on secondary sources in the forseeable future. Daranios (talk) 21:23, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This
Wikipedia guideline states that a deletion decision should be made based on existing secondary sources, not on the current state of the article. Please see above about what secondary sources exist. Daranios (talk) 21:23, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
The above commentators have shown there are no substantial secondary sources that would be enough to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:26, 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.

Spartaz Humbug! 22:34, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Aeroflot Flight 846

Aeroflot Flight 846 (edit | 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, completely non-notable incident, wasn't even an accident as engine failures are an operational hazard and therefore NEVER get articles unless notable for something else. The assertion that this incident was the sole cause of Aeroflots decision to scrap the Tu-154s is laughable. It may have hastened its demise, but was NOT a cause. Petebutt (talk) 04:02, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Keep (original author) I created this article based on the missing articles list (Aviation accident task force). It is notable for a Russian flag-carrier, which is Government-owned to retire a Russian-built aircraft. Mikecalls (talk) 12:12, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:53, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:53, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:53, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:53, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Even though the accident was pretty minor, it led to Aeroflot, and many other airlines completely removing the Tupolev Tu-154 from service. If the article is deleted, the information should at least be included in another article.
    talk) 04:24, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Merge into Tupolev Tu-154 under "Operational History." It's dubious even to categorize this event as an "incident" when it's unclear whether the airframe actually sustained significant damage; it seems that the individual aircraft was scrapped only because Aeroflot didn't want to pay to repair an older, inefficient type. If this event did in fact lead to the type's retirement, it's only notable in the context of the type's operational history. Carguychris (talk) 17:28, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: the article states: Subsequently, Aeroflot made a decision to withdraw all of the remaining Tu-154s from their fleet and replace them with Airbus A320 aircraft. This indicates long-term significance to me. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:49, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My Russian is not good enough to go through the one source that might support a claim that this incident brought about the retirement decision, but the wording of the paragraph in question tends to support the view that Aeroflot was already looking to replace this model with newer aircraft, and that insofar as the incident contributed to the decision, it was only one of a host of such incidents. Mangoe (talk) 03:14, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:06, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
no evidence that THIS incident was the sole cause of removing the Tu-154, which was due to retire in any caase!--Petebutt (talk) 15:10, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Minor aviation "accident" without any fatalities. Sources don't seem to state this sole event was the cause of Aeroflot deciding to scrap the Tu-154s from its fleet. SD0001 (talk) 16:34, 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.

Spartaz Humbug! 22:35, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Zoom Vacations

Zoom Vacations (edit | 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. Kleuske (talk) 18:14, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Kleuske (talk) 18:14, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Kleuske (talk) 18:14, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:32, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:32, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:32, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment All of those Out Traveler would collectively considered ONE SOURCE, and it's not totally an independent source especially if Zoom Vacations has a business relationship with the publication as an advertiser. NBC only has a trivial mention. See
      WP:MULTSOURCES. Graywalls (talk) 10:35, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
      ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:05, 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. Spas were given exactly the weight they deserved. None.

Spartaz Humbug! 22:37, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Colin R. Turner

Colin R. Turner (edit | 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 does not meet

WP:GNG. Its has been repeatedly edited by a confirmed COI account - the article subject himself editing under Silkfield (talk · contribs) - to include quotes, links, and summaries of his own primary sources such as self-published books and website. There is a single event (a "moneyless" walk around the world) for which there is a BBC source and a couple others, but this coverage is not significant and seems based on a purely promotional stunt. Editing this article seems to be another such promotional effort to push his economic theories. Overall, I see no reason that this article merits inclusion in the encyclopedia. -- Netoholic @ 03:02, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

There are in fact 17 contributors to this article, including myself and excluding bots.[1] As mentioned, I previously acknowledged potential conflict of interest and have endeavoured to maintain neutrality in my contributions.[2] Being the subject myself does not nor should preclude me from writing about myself. There are aspects of my personal life for example that no-one else would know better than I to write about, and that readers may be interested in[3]. If there are particular sections that you think are distorted or unfair, please direct me to them so I can improve the article instead of deleting it.
I contend that I am an author who meets the
WP:AUTHOR criteria. I have developed a modicum of new thinking in the field of socio-economics, especially an open access economy, on which I have published two books, one of which (Into The Open Economy) has been cited twice in scholarly publications and translated into nine different languages.[4][5][6] I have gained significant reputation for my work among a particular anticulture community, which you may or may not agree with, but is no less significant.[7][8] (This Wikipedia article has received over 8,000 visits)[9]
The BBC source relating to the ‘moneyless walk around the world’ was carried by many other media as well, including AFP and Yahoo News. (many other links have since deceased)[10][11] It was not a ‘promotional stunt’ insofar as there was nothing to promote apart from the idea itself. Apparently it was newsworthy at the time. (2013) I have since also given a TED talk on the subject.[12]
I admit to being a novice somewhat in Wikipedia contributions, and am happy to address whatever issues with the article you deem appropriate in order to improve it rather than delete it. Thank you.
XfD. [reply
]
references

References

  1. ^ "Colin R. Turner: Revision history", Wikipedia, retrieved 2020-05-21
  2. ^ "Talk:Colin R. Turner", Wikipedia, 2018-06-05, retrieved 2020-05-21
  3. ^ "Colin R. Turner", Wikipedia, 2020-05-18, retrieved 2020-05-21
  4. ^ "Amazon". www.amazon.com. Retrieved 2020-05-21.
  5. ^ "Google Scholar". scholar.google.com.au. Retrieved 2020-05-21.
  6. ^ "open access economy - Google Search". www.google.com. Retrieved 2020-05-21.
  7. ^ "Best Alternate Economy Books (17 books)". www.goodreads.com. Retrieved 2020-05-21.
  8. ^ Wiley, Troy (2017-07-17). "Money Free Movements, Projects & Initiatives". Medium. Retrieved 2020-05-21.
  9. ^ "Pageviews Analysis". tools.wmflabs.org. Retrieved 2020-05-21.
  10. ^ "'Moneyless Man' attempts to walk round the world". en-maktoob.news.yahoo.com. Retrieved 2020-05-21.
  11. ^ "Irishman Colin Turner aka Freeworlder and his girlfriend are..." Getty Images. Retrieved 2020-05-21.
  12. ^ Turner, Colin R., What would happen if everything was free?, retrieved 2020-05-21
  • Most other editors of the article are performing maintenance edits that do not add to the substantive content, or removing overly promotional text added by you. Guy (help!) 13:57, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not going to belabor it much, but I have a couple things to point out since you brought them up. Firstly, it was a local
    SEO". This service "creates the original content you need: videos and photos; text reports". They are a "news agency" for hire. -- Netoholic @ 14:14, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:13, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:13, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nick9tap above is an editor with 3 total edits prior to this vote, from over 10 years ago. I contend this is a
WP:SLEEPER vote. -- Netoholic @ 01:53, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
  • KEEP: Colin Turner has inspired hundreds of thousands of people with his talks, books, apps and webpages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.6.98.168 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Our BLPs are (should be) subject to rigorous scrutiny and the highest level of policy-adherence. This article, unfortunately, does neither. There is an absolute lack of persistent, in-depth coverage in either reputed news media or the literature to pass the most basic requirements of either NAUTHOR or ANYBIO.
    And re. the concerns expressed above: yes, I'm sure the closing admin will give the weight to the SPA votes that they deserve.
    Serial # 13:39, 26 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! 22:38, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Kafayat Sanni

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

routine news item, BIO:ONEEVENT. The first woman pilot in the Nigerian Air Force (Blessing Liman) might possibly be notable, but going beyond this into various specialities is getting indiscriminate. DGG ( talk ) 00:28, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:08, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:08, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:09, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:09, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:02, 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.

Spartaz Humbug! 22:40, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

TierZoo

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

Youtuber with trivial coverage. Not notable enough. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 09:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, the article clearly passes
    WP:GNG as he has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources,, with significant coverage in this article:[56] by Kotaku which is solely about the subject, combined with further significant coverage in a lengthy paragraph here:[57] and another paragraph here: [58], albeit the last one is in Spanish. Devonian Wombat (talk) 10:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
@User:Devonian Wombat apart from the Kotaku article, others are simply single para mentions in blog style lists from sources that are not reliable in this regard. The bar for GNG is not this low. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 10:22, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • A paragraph of coverage is clearly significant coverage, trivial coverage would be things like a couple of sentences, and indeed, the other sources within the article are examples of what trivial coverage actually is. A paragraph is also especially significant coverage when the paragraph is as lengthy as the one cited in the second source. This an article on YouTube, not medicine or some other topic when sources might especially be disregarded as unreliable. Devonian Wombat (talk) 10:36, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:18, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:11, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:57, 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 no consensus. What a mess

Spartaz Humbug! 22:41, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Human rights in Asia

AfDs for this article:
Human rights in Asia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

General notability guideline:

  • "Significant coverage" of this article's intended scope is not referenced by the sources. The sources are region or country specific without discussing Asia as a whole (note that the Middle East is completely left out). Attempting to combine all of the sources is creating a subject that is typically not viewed at higher, continental focused, level. Basically, the article here is overreaching past the sources.
Original research is also a concern since the intended subject of the article is analysis or synthesis of not stated by the sources. All of the content does not establish notability of the subject as discussed at
WP:CONTN
.
Sockstrike clean up squadron!
Serial # 14:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

}

  • Human Rights Watch is used for 16/48 sources, or roughly 60% of the text. The NGO is a source not "Independent of the subject" with its bias towards action and does not intend to pretend to be neutral. Please see their mission statement: "Human Rights Watch defends the rights of people worldwide. We scrupulously investigate abuses, expose the facts widely, and pressure those with power to respect rights and secure justice." About half the article reads as if it is someone's pet project to summarize their website's country profiles. The content and tone is more emotive than in an encyclopedic factual voice.


Readability:

The intended scope of this article is not manageable. Adding suitable information to the "Significant human rights violations" or adding the Middle East in the "History of human rights in Asia" would hamper readability as discussed at
WP:LENGTH
.


General clean up:

Besides the point of view concerns, the "See also" and "External links" sections are misused to inappropriately direct traffic instead of truly building Wikipedia. Note that the "See also" section contains links to articles already linked in the prose, while the "External links" section shows what could be better used as sources. I am not accusing any editors of having nefarious motives. This is important information but it needs to be presented within Wikipedia's standards.

Alternatives to deletion:

This article is not suitable for the main space in its current form, and it is doubtful it will ever be due to its potentially huge scope. I believe the best option would be to split the usable information off in to regional articles such as Human rights in the Middle East and Human rights in East Asia, or maybe the country specific articles like Human rights in China. This article might even be suitable as a list directing readers to the various pages. I suppose it could be relegated to user space or incubation, but there has not been substantial improvement since the first deletion discussion over a year ago. Orangejuicedude (talk) 08:49, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Orangejuicedude (talk) 08:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Human rights. Orangejuicedude (talk) 08:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)>[reply]
  • Keep. The topic is obviously notable. A quick search on Google Books turns up multiple books from reputable publishers literally titled "Human Rights in Asia".
    talk
    )

References

  1. ISBN 1-134-23880-0
    .
  2. ISBN 978-0-230-60639-5
    .
  3. ISBN 978-1-84844-680-9
    .
  4. ISBN 978-1-138-83825-3
    .
  5. ISBN 978-1-138-85570-0
    .
And again...
Serial # 14:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

::I believe you inadvertantly made my point. It is easy to assume notability, but we do not have an article

Human rights in South America. Instead we have a category and Human rights in Colombia
.

  • Human Rights in Asia: A Comparative Legal Study of Twelve Asian Jurisdictions, France and the USA.: Southest Asia, China, India
  • Human Rights in Asia: A Reassessment of the Asian Values Debate: China, Southeast Asia
  • Human Rights in Asia: This appears to be the same exact text as book 1.
  • Ways of Knowing About Human Rights in Asia: Focuses on Japanese occupation of lands in WWII.
  • Handbook of Human Rights in Asia: Primarily Southeast Asia, Sri Lanka
There is
Human rights in Southeast Asia where most of these sources can be used. Asia is too broad. Add the problematic use of the current article and deletion + splitting + maybe incubation is the only viable answer here. Orangejuicedude (talk) 18:12, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

::Again, these sources are prominently about East Asia where "Asia" does not mean the entire continent. The sources are fine, but we have a different broader of "Asia" here.Orangejuicedude (talk) 05:19, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, none of the sources covers every territory, and East Asia is usually the focus, but they intend to cover whole Asia. Besides, there is an organization, Asian Human Rights Commission that was mentioned in these books and publish something itself. My very best wishes (talk) 15:36, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:03, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This article is far too broad for any meaningful analysis or examination. As it stands right now, this article could cover all of Asia, throughout all of history. The human rights of different regions of Asia, and different countries can be extremely different from one another. As it is now, the article mostly focuses on East Asia, with a little bit about Central and South Asia included as well (the Middle East is not mentioned at all). Nearly all of these analyses are not written in a very encyclopedic form, much more like an
    ESSAY, with a lack of meaningful sources for most. Khu'hamgaba Kitap talk 19:08, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
"Too broad" is not a good argument. We do have pages on general subjects like Asia, and they are just fine. It should be improved? Yes, certainly. Not a reason for deletion. It is important there are many books on this broad subject as a whole (see examples above). My very best wishes (talk) 01:36, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
More...
Serial # 14:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

:::This article is not "just fine", though. We have had over a year for improvement and none have been made. As mentioned, it would be fantastic if the article as userfied for someone to bring up o an appropriate standard. I believe it would languish due to the over broad scope and eventually be split while a list would be needed to point readers to the appropriate locations. The article is not suitable for the mainspace as is. There has got to be a point where it is broken down and retried a different way since allowing it to stay has proven to provide little value to the project as a whole. I would actually argue that allowing it to stay has resulted in a worse article since any attempts to remove MoS deficiencies result in instant reverts by editors who simply assume it is a worthwhile piece.

And the issue with notability of the topic as a whole. Why not Human Rights in the Eurasion Continent? Iraq is wildly different than Japan. Human rights in The Philippines is not relatable to Tajikistan any more than it is with Peru. Attempting to compartmentalize it by continent over region doesn't give the reader a better understanding of the general topic of human rights. Orangejuicedude (talk) 06:09, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, one should simply check books on the subject (like that one), and they explain why combining different countries in Asia was appropriate. This is not about territorial compartmentalization, but about common history or common problems with human rights in certain parts of the world. No, I do not see enough sources on Human rights in Eurasia because Europe is very different from Asia in terms of human rights. But about Asia, - yes, there are multiple sources. My very best wishes (talk) 23:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to closing administrator. Please check contributions by user Orangejuicedude :::::Please, for the sake of discuasion, tell me why you think Tajikistan and Japan should share an article other than the notion of continental plates. What is binding between the two culture, language, or history wise besides a centuries old trade route and the incorrect definition of lamdmass? The sources don't try to so I won't bother.[User:Orangejuicedude|Orangejuicedude]] (talk) 05:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[60] who started this AfD. With comments like that one, Orangejuicedude is certainly not a new user. My very best wishes (talk) 23:39, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
Serial # 14:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

::No I am not a new user. I have a dozen FA and GAs under my belt, probably well more than you. COVID-cation has presented an opportunity to edit on Wikipedia. I chose to honor the whole "fresh start" thing by simply logging in and and attempting to make edits in topic spaces I was never previously involved in. So thanks, a lot of us are bored as fuck and trying to pass time during a pandemic--the last FA has to be at least 5 years old and was about sports, if I am not mistaken. I don't see how any of that is your concern or not an argument solely directed towards ignoring the reasoning I have presented to instead rely on a personal attack. You should actually feel bad and be admonished for steering the discussion towards the person making the argument instead of the context, nerd. "Winning" is not the goal of Wikipedia. I can say we were better than you when I was active.Orangejuicedude (talk) 04:20, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck through Orangejuicedude's comments. Not only is this not a fresh start, he's shown that his indefinite block for harassment was justified at his talk page and by harassing another editor. Doug Weller talk 13:56, 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) 02:51, 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.

Spartaz Humbug! 22:44, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Putu Ayu Saraswati

Putu Ayu Saraswati (edit | 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 beauty pageant winner. Fails GNG MistyGraceWhite (talk) 14:49, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Are you sure she is non-notable beauty queen"??? she is popular not only in Indonesia. You can check her page, all of the references from reliable sources (via RS) is not only using Bahasa Indonesia Article on websites but also an english article, french article and also some Indian website that posted about her. How come she is non-notable beauty queen like you said?? You're the one that don't want to check first before deleting the article pages. Plus

Putu Ayu Saraswati has been reviewed already by User:Darwinek a long time ago, so many wikipedian has been contributing to give a hands for the page. I don't know why you guys dont want to check first instead of report and report deletion.I Nyoman Gede Anila (talk) 19:47, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

John Pack Lambert >>> For your information she is an Indonesian People's Consultative Assembly Ambassador.[1][2] Which she is part of our Indonesian government parties beside of being a beauty queen. You should check first before commenting and propose deletion for her page.

References

  1. ^ "Ayu Saraswati Dkk Jadi Duta MPR RI" (in Indonesian). Nusa Bali News. Retrieved March 13, 2020.
  2. ^ "Puteri Indonesia Jadi Duta MPR RI" (in Indonesian). Detik News. Retrieved March 12, 2020.
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:44, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:44, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:44, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:44, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:44, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 16:49, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:42, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gunkarta please help to fix this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.74.92.171 (talk) 13:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ User:I Nyoman Gede Anila One line mentions are not enough to pass GNG. Notability is not inherited. SIGCOV required in RS. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 10:54, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@
Putu Ayu Saraswati article. And what do u means by saying "ONE LINE MENTIONS"?? She is the main headline topic in every article I mentioned here, its just all her SIGCOV of her, nobody else mentioned in the article. You better check it out first>>>Kompas Newspaper Article, Indonesian Times, Liputan 6 article, Insert live Infotainment, and many ReferencesI Nyoman Gede Anila (talk) 14:22, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
@User:I Nyoman Gede Anila only one vote per account is allowed. An ambassador for a country may be notable if mentioned in RS, but she is not a true ambassador. so not be confused by the word ambassador, it is just a trumped up title of no political bearing. she is not an elected member of the parliament, nor a true ambassador. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 16:43, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist to allow for further consideration of sources presented.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:42, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete absolutely no in-depth, persistent coverage in reliable sources. Fails our most basic BLP requirements at ANYBIO. And could the article's creator not keep voting keep? Or
    Serial # 14:13, 26 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! 22:45, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Karan Singh Chhabra

Karan Singh Chhabra (edit | 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 fails to pass notability (

WP:PROMO). Hatchens (talk) 06:35, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 06:35, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 06:35, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
→https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/archive/lifestyle/script-of-a-lifetime-789394 – The source is The Tribune, for which I haven't been able to find a consensus as to reliability, although I haven't found any claims that it is unreliable, either; and the coverage goes beyond what I would consider to be trivial.
→https://www.ibtimes.co.in/raabta-movie-review-ratings-by-audience-live-updates-sushant-singh-rajput-kriti-sanon-director-730009 – The source is International Business Times, which has an average rating in terms of reliability, and the coverage here is just some very brief praise.
→https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tv/news/hindi/karan-singh-chhabra-shoots-for-half-girlfriend-on-ye-hai-mohabbatein-set/articleshow/58772055.cms – This is an article dedicated to the subject—however, the source is The Times of India, which, following the recently consensus, is a source we have to be wary of.
There are several other Times of India write-ups, too, as well as The Indian Express and The New Indian Express articles which provide mentions. Given that I believe there to be a good
WP:GNG case is enough for a "Weak Keep". Dflaw4 (talk) 13:21, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:19, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete coverage, being in the vein of passing mentions and WP:MILL, is insufficient to pass the basic requirements of either NACTOR or ANYBIO.
    Serial # 14:16, 26 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. Noone argues they pass gng and demonstrated not to meet prof. Argumente about scholorships are not compelling on their own.

Spartaz Humbug! 22:48, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Rifaat Hussain

Rifaat Hussain (edit | 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 profile, WP is not a LinkedIn. Fails

WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 07:58, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:17, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:17, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 08:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:52, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:52, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If someone would show me how he meets
WP:NACADEMIC, I would be happy to change my vote. Papaursa (talk) 18:31, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 14:54, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Qualifies for a relist to try and provide clarity about which NPROF/NACADEMIC criteria, if any, this person meets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My reason for !voting ‘keep’ was a. He is a department chair in a major national university and b. If he’s a visiting professor at Stanford then he has senior status within his field. Mccapra (talk) 04:42, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An average professor can likely arrange to be a visiting professor at Stanford, if she knows someone there and can swing it financially. And
WP:NPROF, or something else? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 01:13, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:NAUTHOR? That would generally require multiple reviews of his books in independent reliable sources. I didn't quickly find any, but would be interested if someone else did. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Thank you for providing a more detailed explanation than I provided. No one has yet provide any evidence that he meets any WP notability criteria. Papaursa (talk) 02:06, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See here for some previous discussion on Fulbright notability. I'd generally agree that a Fulbright per se does not confer notability, but it certainly adds to it. However, given the pool of potential applicants for a Fulbright is in the millions and 800 visiting scholar awards are given annually, someone who has one represents a very, very small minority and they are simply not easy to get. I think it is important in this case to see the Fulbright as contributing towards notability rather than taking a reductive approach and trying to find a single element signifying notability.--Goldsztajn (talk) 19:35, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response. I agree that getting a Fulbright is an achievement, but the problem I'm having is that I'm not seeing that he meets any of the notability criteria for academics nor does he seem to meet
WP:GNG. Being successful in your profession is not the same as being WP notable. There are many successful people who aren't considered WP notable. Papaursa (talk) 19:52, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
I won't say anything more than quote
WP:BASIC for your consideration: If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability.... Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 20:03, 26 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! 22:49, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

ShortScience.org

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

Seems to be spam. The sources aren’t very good either. Signed,The4lines |||| (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 02:25, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Signed,The4lines |||| (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 02:25, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 11:56, 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.

Spartaz Humbug! 22:49, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Derek Angol

Derek Angol (edit | 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, no good references (BLP issues)

talk) 11:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:41, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 02:22, 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 delete.

Spartaz Humbug! 22:49, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Institute of Engineering and Technology (Pakistan)

Institute of Engineering and Technology (Pakistan) (edit | 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) 16:57, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:29, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:34, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 02:22, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We can't keep articles on the base of assumptions. Your comment is not policy based as it changed after RfC. The article has to pass
WP:RS. Störm (talk) 18:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
The highly controversial RfC only referred to secondary institutions. It most certainly cannot be extended to tertiary institutions when they were never mentioned in it just because some editors would like it to be. No assumptions here, just consensus, which has always been as I said. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:54, 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 redirect to

Spartaz Humbug! 22:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

The Ballad of Mark Warner

The Ballad of Mark Warner (edit | 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 campaign/novelty song; fails

talk) 02:02, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:57, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:57, 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. Blps where the subject clearly does not pass gng are not usuwlly kept for technical sng passes. Producer grammys are a weaker argument anyway

Spartaz Humbug! 22:52, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Joel Someillan

Joel Someillan (edit | 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:MUSICBIO. The subject has added a fair bit to the article over time, as "Joelsom", but the content is mostly unsourced and feels like a personal web page for the subject, not an encyclopedic entry. I can't find sources to support GNG and the references present mostly mention the subject in passing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:25, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:25, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:25, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not forbidden but heavily discouraged, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but upon a search of him I couldn't find articles written. His references #2, and #3 don't work, and most are passing mentions. Sweetteaplz (talk) 01:43, 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.

Spartaz Humbug! 22:52, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

ZingSoft

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

Data visualization company with no reliable secondary sources or notability as far as I can tell. Article currently unreferenced. Nanophosis (talk) 00:59, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Nanophosis (talk) 00:59, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:55, 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.

Spartaz Humbug! 22:54, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Matthew Kennedy: One Man's Journey

Matthew Kennedy: One Man's Journey (edit | 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 but original reasoning still applies. "Fails

WP:NFILM. Article was created by the film's director, who has a long history of promotional editing. All of the reliable sourcing either is actually about the subject (AKA doesn't mention the documentary at all) or are passing mentions in relation to a non-notability conferring award it received at the Nashville Film Festival." Two new sources have been added, an NPR interview and post by a Huffington Post contributor (i.e.: non-reliable). Deleting and then redirecting to Matthew Washington Kennedy might be most appropriate course of action. GPL93 (talk) 00:07, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 00:07, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 00:07, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#List of criteria --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:35, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

If you delete this article, you will be contributing to the lack of diversity on Wikipedia. One would be left to conclude that this lack of diversity is intentional and deliberate.[1] Nina07011960 (talk) 15:11, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_bias_on_Wikipedia
doesn't the racial bias article have serious Original research problems? Clone commando sev (talk) 00:00, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
in bad faith, to attribute other editors' actions and comments to ulterior motives rather than to those guidelines. Largoplazo (talk) 15:58, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
I second Largoplazo's comment above, and concur that the accusation from Nina07011960 was made in bad faith. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:32, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
talk) 01:34, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
  • I would be very reluctant to attribute frustration to bad faith. That term is usually applied only to deliberate attempts to interfere with our processes. It should not have been used here. DGG ( talk ) 23:48, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
we have always had difficulty in covering material from areas and fields for which there are not mainstream sources. This is due to the basic orientation of WP on determining coverage by the existence of sources, and sometimes our own ignorance, not a deliberate attempt to decrease diversity. If anything, we make a special effort to be flexible in order to increase diversity in all its aspects--- at least in the fields where I usually work. -- FloridaArmy, perhaps you can help here--you work sometimes on similar films and people connected with them. -- Nina07011960 I would advise serious consideration to a merge with the article on Matthew Washington Kennedy--this material can always be expanded to a separate article when more sourcing is found. DGG ( talk ) 23:48, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • DGG, we weren't saying Nina was acting in bad faith, we said she was implying that those who are recommending deletion are acting in bad faith. "Assuming good faith... is the assumption that editors' edits and comments are made in good faith," with "good faith" linked to the Wikipedia article that explains it in the ordinary English sense. Nina was implying our edits and comments have not been made in good faith. Further, "Rather, editors should not attribute the actions being criticized to malice unless there is specific evidence of such." For example, attributing the prospective deletion of an article to an intentional opposition to diversity, i.e., malice, to nefarious motives not in Wikipedia's interest. Largoplazo (talk) 00:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with DGG who suggests merging the article with the biographical article on Matthew Kennedy. The time to create an article on a film is after it has gained dissemination and received press. When the time comes that the film has received more published attention, then it might be considered to fork the article on the film. - kosboot (talk) 00:45, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did a search in Google for everything matching "Matthew Kennedy: One Man's Journey" and went through the results; you can see the sources I found and my notes on the article's talk page. It would appear that, though reliable, secondary, and independent sources have mentioned this film, usually in passing in a larger bit about Matthew Kennedy, there is not significant coverage, and thus it does not appear to be notable on it's own. I am in support of a merge, provided that everything merged can be sourced. Vermont (talk) 02:41, 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_18&oldid=960421967"