Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 May 25

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

Pedro Sandoval

Pedro Sandoval (edit | 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 made attempts to clean up this article, but noticed issues with a history of COI edits. This appears to have been created as

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 23:54, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:56, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:56, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - numerous examples exist of significant coverage in independent reliable sources: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. Furthermore, many of these same sources are already referenced in the article, so I'm very confused as to why the nominator thinks there is insufficient significant coverage. The fact that the coverage is in Spanish takes away nothing. There are many Spanish speaking editors on en.wiki, myself included; for that matter, many of them are native speakers and speak the language far better than I do. Furthermore, as Google Translate has continued to improve, even an editor with zero Spanish knowledge can at least get the basic gist of things, although they won't be able to grasp the details. Now that significant coverage has been demonstrated, the remaining issues cited in the nominator's rationale are not grounds for deletion.
  talk) 01:18, 26 May 2020 (UTC) struck per analysis below.[reply
  ]

Comment - I agree with most of what you said here @

talk) 20:08, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep I saw two good Spanish sources in a search, and there is (at least) one museum collection in addition to the sources cited by
  talk) 05:13, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• The Spanish version of the article cites these sources that are not used in the English version: [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17] Somof those are clearly unusable, like blogspot, or dubious, like the florence biennale, but others are worth considering. like elmundo or revistadearte. Vexations (talk) 12:35, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above discussion, seems it passes SIGCOV, not likely a promo. Drat8sub (talk) 19:28, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per argument made by Theredproject mentioned below. Drat8sub (talk) 20:06, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• delete I arrived at this article because of his participation in the vanity exhibition Florence Biennale. @
  Jooojay
  : and I looked into the claims made in the article and found that they were unverifiable, to say the least. We discussed our research into subject on the talk page, and agreed to bring the page here for discussion.

Working from the artists’ own CV [18] I tried to verify the claims of collections, as that would most clearly satisfy NARTIST. I could not. All I could find was one painting he personally gave to the Boca Raton museum. The rest were not verified:

Most importantly, the claim to be in the Guggenheim is not verified. Seeing a claim like that which is not verified, makes me very skeptical of the rest. Same with the MoCA Mallorca, the Vatican[19] and the Bogotá Museum of Modern Art.

Several of the museum collections he claims to be in don't seem to exist:

• Museum of Contemporary Art in Osaka. Japan (there is a national museum, which does not hold his work [20] and a Osaka Contemporary Art Center which has no web presence in en or jp)
• Museum of Contemporary Art in Philadelphia, USA (there is a Institute of Contemporary Art, Philadelphia but it has no collection)
• Museum of Contemporary Art in Milán. Italia (proposed in 2011, but never built [21])
• Museum of Contemporary Art in Lima. Perú (a ficitonal museum [22])

I did see the sources that @

ThatMontrealIP and Drat8sub

: were there others you found that exceed this?

And the Pro Arte y Cultura Group award is bogus as well: he catalyzed the creation of the award, and serves as the director of Pro Arte y Cultura Group [23] The award itself is completely not notable — I couldn’t find any references to it aside from his biography.

For me, the overriding problem is that everything is built on unverifiable claims. Claims that start with the artist, and Are repeated by the sources without fact checking, proving their unreliability. That combined with his involvement in vanity exhibitions, tips the scale for me. The claims look like they might meet NARTIST but the claims themselves Crumble when you attempt to verify them. Obviously if these claims were verified, then he would meet NARTIST, but the protocol here at Articles for Deletion is to require verifiability. Theredproject (talk) 19:41, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete changing to this !vote, in light of the excellent research done by Theredproject. The articles I saw were in Spanish and looked good enough, but if the artist is trying to pass off fake collections I will up my skepticism and reuqire the existence clearer sourcing than exists.
  talk) 19:57, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Switching to delete based on
  talk) 23:32, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

@

CJK09: Thank you for considering the analysis I offered. I want you to know that I do agree re: non-English sources, and often post comments here opposing to closing discussions BEFORE someone can do a proper analysis of the sources -- especially when these sources are languages that machine translation isn't so good at. Theredproject (talk) 17:09, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete based on research by Theredproject, finding that many claims are unverifiable; and the nominators findings of COI, PROMO. Netherzone (talk) 16:03, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. and the unreliable claims. Alex-h (talk) 07:52, 29 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.

Abhishek Bajaj

Abhishek Bajaj (edit | 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 (

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 06:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 06:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:32, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Keep or Draftify: I presume the nominator is satisfied that
  WP:NACTOR, I don't think deletion is necessary. Dflaw4 (talk) 14:00, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Update: Having thought about this a bit more, I do think the article is worth keeping, or, as an alternative, moving it to "draftspace". Dflaw4 (talk) 03:59, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - does not meet
  talk) 07:24, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment: First line on
  WP:NACTOR is met as said by Dflaw4 above. Mr. Smart LION 14:43, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Draftify Seems to be borderline notable. It would still be worth drafting and improving until it's 100% passable though IMO. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:01, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails SIGCOV, not a notable actor. Drat8sub (talk) 19:32, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete,Does not meet
  WP:GNG . Alex-h (talk) 07:57, 29 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.

Kunal Shah

Kunal Shah (edit | 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 no sources about him. This actor contains original research and fails to establish notability. TamilMirchi (talk) 17:22, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 17:22, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 17:22, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:56, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Doesn't seem notable for anything and the article is overly promotional. It says he's known for a breakout performance in Raam, but then he's hardly even mentioned in the article for that movie. While the film won some obscure, probably not notable, award. He hasn't won anything himself though. So, I'm not seeing anything notable here. Wikipedia isn't a directory. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:09, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No reliable source, fails
  WP:NBIO. Drat8sub (talk) 19:39, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Fails notability criteria. Arunram (talk) 19:27, 28 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.

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

)

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

Subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BLP/N. Sources are about non-notable failed organisations which the subject has started, but not about the subject themselves. The page reads like a CV with adverts for various schemes sprinkled throughout. Furthermore, a very similar page existed under the name Fiona Scott-Lazareff but was deleted for the above reasons. It appears the creator made the page at Fiona Lazareff to circumvent the salt. GDX420 (talk) 13:31, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GDX420 (talk) 13:31, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. GDX420 (talk) 13:31, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. GDX420 (talk) 13:31, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have
  talk) 00:02, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Previous discussions: 2019-11 no consensus

Logs: 2019-07 ✍️ create

• Delete. I don't see any source that discusses her in-depth, some mentions in passing only. That's not enough for NBIO. Ps. Three explicit sources were discussed in prior AfD: 1) [24] - low quality as it is mostly a
  WP:ONEEVENT. Please show me one article that is a proper biography of her? Or otherwise how she meets NBIO (awards, etc.). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:09, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep Dismissing reliable independent sources such as The Times and Legal Futures
  WP:GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:40, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, per
  WP:BLP1E. She seems to have only gotten coverage over a brief one-week period when she called for courts to be made easier to access. Given that both sources are mostly interviews, I am not sure whether they provide significant coverage in any case. Devonian Wombat (talk) 20:51, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep -
  WP:BASIC. FOARP (talk) 21:25, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Weak Keep There is articles in the Telegraph, Times, Metro, Express, Daily Mail, Guardian, Mirror, Scotsman, Glasgow Herald, The Standard. It's only one story. I really don't see a lot of life in the article, certainly it could be reuter's story that has been shared. scope_creep^Talk 10:02, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep based on the similar reasons given by scope_creep. - Hatchens (talk) 14:09, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The sources don't add up to GNG imo. buidhe 08:46, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Yet another foolish effort to delete a biography of someone who has done noteworthy work but has an unremarkable personal life. Our goal is not simply to cover the Kardashians of the planet. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 23:25, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

Suitcase Clinic

Suitcase Clinic (edit | 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 the

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 21:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 21:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:30, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:30, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per Dwaro, below Delete per
  userdude 03:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. It's a primary subject of articles by independent news sources in https://www.berkeleyside.com/2016/07/12/uc-berkeleys-suitcase-clinic-services-for-the-homeless-life-lessons-for-the-volunteers and https://thestreetspirit.org/2015/04/06/stories-from-the-suitcase-clinic/. The topic has also been explored in an academic journal. https://journals.lww.com/academicmedicine/Fulltext/2001/05000/The_Berkeley_Suitcase_Clinic__Homeless_Services_by.58.aspx. – BriefEdits (talk) 22:23, 8 May 2020 (UTC) [reply]
  • Further comment. Therefore these three sources should be able to qualify for
    WP:ORGDEPTH right? – BriefEdits (talk) 22:23, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• The Academic Medicine article appears to be written by one of the organizers of the program, making it not independent (per
  userdude 23:42, 8 May 2020 (UTC); struck per Graywalls (below) 00:57, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• reply @
  WP:AUD criterion of NCORP. #3, finally the journal is also a no because ALAN STEINBACH, MD, JOHN SWARTZBERG, MD, AND VERONA CARBONE, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY Graywalls (talk) 00:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• comment follow up @
  WP:ORGIND policy which explains what's considered DEPENDENT coverage on Wikipedia:"any material written or published, including websites, by the organization, its members, or sources closely associated with it, directly or indirectly". I am wondering if you realized Suitcase Clinic is ran by UC Berkeley and the two of the sources you said are independent are related to UC Berkeley at the time you placed your input. Graywalls (talk) 13:49, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Delete Sorry for the delay. Upon further consideration, I am comfortable with changing my vote to Delete per the notes mentioned by the other editors. Further research have yielded mentions in other scientific journals but not as a primary subject. – BriefEdits

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 20:35, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 20:36, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I agree with User:BriefEdits their evaluation. Dwaro (talk) 11:09, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does that mean you're changing to Delete then?
    HighKing⁺⁺ 20:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • comment @Dwaro:, how did you come to conclude the sources are independent when they're clearly dependent? Graywalls (talk) 08:32, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @
    HighKing: Please see my new comment beneath. Dwaro (talk) 10:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• Delete The coverage is to regional, closely associated with the organization, and also mostly comes from blogs. Non of that passes
  WP:NCORP. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete I am unable to locate any
  HighKing⁺⁺ 20:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge I have looked at some other articles about organizations related to the University of California. More of them have more of less the same issue as this article. I would suggest merging them together, so it can meet the
  WP:GNG as a single article. This could included Associated Students of the University of California, Bear Transit, University of California Jazz Ensembles, CalTV, California Golden Overtones and maybe more. The new article could be named Organizations related to the University of California or something like that. Dwaro (talk) 10:14, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment @
  HighKing: I maintain my position on delete. Opting for merge would encourage the culture of creating a bunch of non-notable thing, then resisting deletion by diverting them to "merge" only after "keep" argument can not be sustainedGraywalls (talk) 11:34, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Hi Graywalls. They might have been close to each other, but I have evaluated the sources of those articles. Even if my viewpoints disagree with the consensus, a discussion happens, which is a good thing. Wikipedia is

WP:NOTPAPER, no problems arise from keeping articles that are properly sourced. Dwaro (talk) 11:59, 29 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:21, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sergio Vargas Gonzalez

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

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

Non-notable boxer that fails NBOX and GNG. ².O.^Boxing 20:31, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 20:31, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 20:31, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 20:31, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable boxer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:47, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails
  WP:NBOX due to not competing in any major competitions or winning any awards. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:28, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete By definition fails
  talk) 16:37, 30 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.

Bug Fables: The Everlasting Sapling

Bug Fables: The Everlasting Sapling (edit | 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 indie game. One brief article about its trailer (and two non-independent sources) is not sufficient to support a claim of notability. BilCat (talk) 11:07, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Panama-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, technically per myself since the nomination rationale is my PROD rationale :) De-PROD'd by creator with rationale "Important game" - but of course no sources were added to substantiate this. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:12, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A quick Google search turned up numerous RS articles about it. A few below:
  • Rock Paper Shotgun
  • Destructoid
  • Nintendo Life
  • GamesRadar
  • Go Nintendo
  • Nintendo Insider
  • The Gamer

Looks good enough to me. Phediuk (talk) 06:02, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The main problem about this one is that the coverage it gets from reliable sources is purely
  Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep - The game is significant. -Splinemath (talk) 23:12, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Simply asserting significance is meaningless without sources to back it up. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:33, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (or back to draft). I agree with
  WP:TOOSOON and move back to draft, so when it gets released it might get some coverage. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 06:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - Has a Metacritic rating that includes two
  video game reliable sources that complement those provided by Phediuk: RPG Site and Vandal. TheGamer also reviewed it but the WikiProject does not yet have a consensus on their reliability. Anarchyte (talk • work) 13:10, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment Striking my vote due to the newfound reference at RPGSite (which appeared after the AfD has started!). That, the Vandal source and Red Bull article should make it for a
  Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:52, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Consensus has been reached as Keep.-Splinemath (talk) 21:41, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As expected, more coverage in
  Jovanmilic97 (talk) 23:18, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep The game has gotten much more exposure thanks to the console release, and the article's pageviews have greatly increased since the beginning of May. More people are interested in the game, so keeping this article is the right thing to do. The Switch version already has amazing reviews. from critics. Condontdoit296 (talk) 23:49, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per above, article now seems to pass
  WP:GNG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 07:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, RS bear out notability. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:09, 31 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 Walmart. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:19, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neighborhood Market (Walmart)

Neighborhood Market (Walmart) (edit | 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 should be deleted. It is not notable separately from the main

• Redirect to the main Walmart article. Maybe salt also so it can't be recreated under a different name. Although, I'm not solid on that because it possible be notable in the future and I don't want to get in the way of recreation if it is. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:12, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:32, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to
  HighKing⁺⁺ 12:22, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

NazzKing

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

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

No evidence of notability. Sources are weak and mostly blogosphere. No evidence of chart success and sources don't seem to confirm claims made for them. Fails

In this edit [36] on the help desk, the article's author refers to the article as "my page". -Arch dude (talk) 22:36, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   22:16, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   22:16, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It appears that this AfD was accidentally listed twice for some reason. I'm not sure what that would do to voting etc, but I thought id let you know just in case you want to delete the duplicate listing. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:31, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - duplicate index entry now removed.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   13:13, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The subject of this article fails
  WP:MUSICBIO. A Google search of him doesn't show in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources. The awards he is a recipient of are not notable.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 13:53, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• CommentThanks for all the moderators,editors for their suggestion on improving the article but l would like to state that ,the Awards mentioned in the above Page are very valid and widely recognized in that part of Africa.Let me ask [[User Talk:Versace1608|,is it because the Awards are not Grammy level or MTV level that the Awards should be degraded?Don't Africans get to have their own Awards? with all due respect ,Who are you to term something as notable or not? How comes this artist https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fancy_Gadam page has literally has been accepted in Wikipedia while having clearly included the awards from the same organisation

, as the person am writing about, yet when l include them and links to support the awards from the same organization as his, it's an issue ?l made changes even removed the "community section" as suggested by User talk:David. I included even more secondary links as you people term it. What is really the criteria for determining which links are secondary while l went and used the links collected from widespread different and many independent platforms.Please don't discriminate my page just because l am an African and we all know everyone has to start from somewhere so not all of us can have MTV,GRAMMY,COLOMBIA MUSIC,SONY MUSIC type of sources, thank you.Ramsey555 (talk) 21:28, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@

notability reqirements. After an article gets nominated for deletion, it is up to the community to decide its fate. The Northern Ghana Entertainment Awards does not appear to be notable; I did a Google search and did not see the awards being discussed in reliable sources. I am an African myself and we do have numerous awards; unfortunately, this particular one isn't notable. Fancy Gadam appears to be notable because unlike like NazzKing, he has actually won and been nominated for two notable awards: Vodafone Ghana Music Awards and All Africa Music Awards. I recently nominated the Fancy Gadam article for deletion but the community reached a consensus to keep it.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 01:20, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete per
  WP:TOOSOON. Awards are local, and not enough to determine notability. Become famous first, then write a Wikipedia article, not the other way round. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Commentthen why is it we have people whose pages have been accepted in Wikipedia yet they have received the same Organization that gives the awards??l have even linked above(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fancy_Gadam ) a Wikipedia profile that has accepted in this platform,yet they have awards from the same source as the subject being written about, biases maybe??Ramsey555 (talk) 10:07, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:MUSICBIO, not because he is a recipient of the same awards NazzKing received.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 13:59, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment::@Versace1608: please help me and tell me exactly what needs to be done for NazzKing page to meet those guidelines?As you can see am putting a lot of effort to improve the articleRamsey555 (talk)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

Hell Yeah! (Tiësto & Showtek song)

Hell Yeah! (Tiësto & Showtek song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 22:08, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 22:08, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as per the nom's analysis, there is no evidence of notability and no obvious redirect target. Ingratis (talk) 02:47, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Same thoughts with similar AfD. Barely found anything about the song. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 02:53, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or redirect - Keep, or redirect. --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:28, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jax 0677: why would you keep it if there are no good sources, and where would you redirect it to if there are two equally notable artists? Richard3120 (talk) 13:27, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply - I said keep OR redirect. Redirect to
  Tiesto, or flip a coin. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:59, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I know you did, I was asking your reasoning for each case. Showtek is an equally valid redirect target, hence WP:XY is the issue here. Richard3120 (talk) 14:45, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply -
  Tiesto is more prominent than Showtek. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:55, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I need feminism because

I need feminism because (edit | 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

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Parker's Red Pen (talk • contribs) 23:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 21:53, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 21:53, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/Redirect? The article states that this was started at Boston University in 2016, but according to
  Who Needs Feminism, the "I need feminism because" social-media campaign started at Duke in 2012. It seems possible that a campaign or campaigns using the "I need feminism because" language are notable or that "I need feminism because" is a notable slogan, but I don't think we need to have separate articles on various manifestations of it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:43, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I understand what you're saying but there's no proven connection between the two movements, it seemed like 2016 US presidential election was the lone catalyst for this one. I don't think there's anything of substance to merge to the original; this one never made it internationally like the Duke one did, and I could easily sell my own branded sporting equipment. While a couple sources have been added since I initially nominated, the only SIGCOV is still from local sources. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 00:15, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that there's a connection between the movements (unless someone indicates somewhere that the MA campaign was inspired by an earlier one, I'd believe they came up with it independently, or at least thought they did) so much as floating the idea that the phrase, or the idea of a social media campaign about why people need feminism, is maybe more notable than a specific campaign that uses it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the misinterpretation. I do agree that a general movement page is a lot better than two specific ones. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 00:30, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Based on these suggestions I have moved all of this content under the "Spread" section of the

Who Needs Feminism page. Thanks for all of the feedback — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve42382 (talk • contribs) 22:52, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Per policy, Articles for Deletion discussions should run a minimum of one week before any proposed outcomes are acted upon. Additionally, there are issues with the current content (specifically tone issues) that should not be merged, if in fact the discussion results in a merge. Thank you for the willingness to do the merge, but we have to wait a week first. Don't forget to sign your posts on talk and discussion pages with four tildes (~~~~) at the end! Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 23:29, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely no need to wait for an AfD to close to edit an article not subject to the AfD, or indeed to edit the article that is subject to the AfD. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 14:33, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The user was trying to implement the “merge” outcome before consensus was made. Not trying to limit editing on pages but trying to wait for consensus on outcomes. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 14:38, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Fails
  WP:GNG. Specifically the topic has not received significant coverage. There were a handful of short human interest stories in the local Boston press in 2016, then nothing. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:16, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Does not pass notability standards, and is promotional. Natureium (talk) 17:40, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable and failed
  WP:GNG but way be appropriate for a passing mention in another more relevant, not orphan articles Ed6767 (talk) 13:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Somewhat related question: Before I pull the AfD trigger, does anyone have an opinion as to whether the
  Who Needs Feminism page should be listed for deletion as well? That page has a bit better sourcing than this one (The Christian Science Monitor) but appears to have many of the same issues this one has; a handful of short human interest stories between 2012 and 2014, then nothing. Note: the citation to The Guardian in that article appears to be about Altrincham Grammar School for Girls, not Duke University. If the Who Needs Feminism page and I need feminism because pages are both deleted, is there a logical article where we can mention these movements, on the assumption that they don't meet the requirements for standalone articles but do meet the requirements for a paragraph or two in an existing article? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  I wouldn't consider the other article to have significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Natureium (talk) 21:59, 29 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.

FledgeWing

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

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

This was not a notable website. Wikieditor600 (talk) 19:10, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
  Talk to my owner:Online 19:35, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The 2009 AfD was closed no-consensus on the basis of 2 references added by the article creator; neither site still exists but they appear to have been typical start-up announcement coverage, which would not now be considered. I am seeing very little trace of this service, beyond occasional listings; nothing to indicate
  WP:NWEB notability was attained. AllyD (talk) 13:00, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment: I find it puzzling when it was first nominated around a decade ago. Why was it closed as no consensus in the first place if majority voted to delete it? 2 delete votes indicated there are strong enough. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 13:15, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WeRead

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

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

This was not a notable website. Wikieditor600 (talk) 18:51, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:09, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:09, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:09, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Doesn't seem to have the reliable in-depth coverage required for notability and everything about it in the article is extremely trivial. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:38, 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.

Award of Distinction (edit | 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 references are too slight for

• Keep, or at worst, merge and redirect to The Furniture Society. Yes, the referencing is thin, but it appears to be a major award in the field. Fine Woodworking describes it "one of furniture-making’s highest honors", Woodworking Network says it is "coveted". SpinningSpark 17:43, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:24, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to The Furniture Society. Sourcing is a bit thin, but this isn't a vanity award that just about anyone can win who's willing to pay. Its recipients are significant in their field. Vexations (talk) 11:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have added several sources to this page to add to to its verifiability and notability. Several articles are in their entirety dedicated to announcing the receipients of the award that year and are from third party sources such as this article from Woodshop News. However, I do also think this article needs more sources covering the award itself and I would support redirecting this article to The Furniture Society as another option. Terasaface (talk) 15:58, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As another option - could we re-name the page to differentiate it from other awards of the same name? Terasaface (talk) 16:13, 27 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.

Commonground (social network)

Commonground (social 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)

Not a notable website Wikieditor600 (talk) 18:23, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Doesn't seem to have the reliable in-depth coverage required for notability and everything about it in the article is extremely trivial. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:40, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:20, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:20, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The article is dreadful, but the organisation is quite big and well known. I dont think we should give up on it too easily. Rathfelder (talk) 08:57, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, references and sources provided do not establish notability. Stifle (talk) 12:09, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

LaiBhaari

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

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

This was not a notable website. Wikieditor600 (talk) 18:09, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:12, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:12, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Doesn't seem to have the reliable in-depth coverage in multiple sources required for notability and everything about it in the article is extremely trivial. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:42, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Nothing exists online about this. No notablity, no coverage. Drat8sub (talk) 00:30, 27 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wepolls.com

Wepolls.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)

This was not a notable website. The references are not directly about the site, just mentioned in passing regarding a broader topic Wikieditor600 (talk) 17:54, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per reasons in nomination JustLucas (they/them) (talk) 20:12, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:13, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:13, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Doesn't seem to have the reliable in-depth secondary coverage in multiple reliable sources required for notability. The sources it does have only mention it in passing. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:44, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: An article describing the start-up financing and proposition of a defunct service, referenced to primary sources and passing coverage. My searches are not finding
  WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 12:50, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. BD2412 T 23:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Valerie, Margravine of Baden

Valerie, Margravine of Baden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats

)

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

The subject is a private individual with no significant coverage in reliable sources. This is a purely genealogical entry but

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 17:49, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 17:49, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 03:10, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the amount of articles we have on people who claim titles that have no authority or power is borderng on the absurd. It probably is not a major contribution to our almost having 1 million aticles on living people, since these people are dwarfed by non-notable beauty queens, not notable criketeers and footballers, and proably non-notable writers, but it is still one of the components.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:39, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Members of formerly reigning houses may be notable (not necessarily, but possibly), but a purely genealogical article doesn't make the case for notability. And there is nothing here but genealogy. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:46, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no notability evident. Anything here could be easily found in the Almanach de Gotha or various websites. - dwc lr (talk) 10:24, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the reasons given by the editors above.Smeat75 (talk) 12:59, 28 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.

Xt3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats

)

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

This was not a notable website. Sources are not reliable; mostly sources with a connection to the subject Wikieditor600 (talk) 17:48, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:14, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:14, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:14, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: into World Youth Day after condensing into two or three sentences. Meticulo (talk) 01:21, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Into the suggested merge target above. Merging seems reasonable to me. Since there is content and sources about the subject, but not enough for an individual article IMO. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:47, 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. BD2412 T 23:46, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mary von Habsburg

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

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

There is no indication of notability. The sources cited, absurdly unreliable, only mention her in passing. There is no mention of any "controversy". Her husband is a private citizen who happens to be a third cousin of the head of a deposed dynasty, so I imagine nobody even cared. But most importantly, the subject herself is a private individual and reliable sources seem to have no interest in her. Surtsicna (talk) 17:20, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 17:20, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:15, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Totally not notable. The dude she married isn't even notable enough for an article. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:49, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete if she married into a roayl family that had any real power, than maybe she would be notable. They don't have any power, so there is no notability here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:48, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for the reasons given by the editors above.Smeat75 (talk) 13:04, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No substantial, in-depth coverage of the subject. Borderline tabloid journalism. Glendoremus (talk) 03:40, 30 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.

Shlomit & Rebbesoul

Shlomit & Rebbesoul (edit | 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. Possible COI. Fuddle (talk) 16:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Fuddle (talk) 16:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:13, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This one is a close call but there is not quite enough
  WP:NBAND, even #6 concerning multiple notable members. This duo has two notable members, Shlomit Levi and RebbeSoul, and as a duo they got some brief concert reviews/announcements ([37], [38]). Even that coverage dwells on the fact that they were both established previously, and I can find nothing reliable that focuses on the duo's work in its own right, and I can find only one single-paragraph review of their album ([39]). Also, it looks like the article was created by one of the members. That is not necessarily a reason to delete if the group is notable... but unfortunately I don't think they are. The duo's existence can be mentioned at each of their individual articles. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:35, 28 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.

Archduchess María of Austria (b. 1967)

Archduchess María of Austria (b. 1967) (edit | 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 was able to find some sources discussing her husband (bare minimum though) but nothing about her. The content of the article indicates that she is only noteworthy from a genealogical point of view, but

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 16:13, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 16:13, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 16:18, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete holding a title with no power does not make one notable. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a geneological database, articles like this make it such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Members of formerly reigning houses may be notable (not necessarily, but possibly), but a purely genealogical article doesn't make the case for notability. And there is nothing here but genealogy. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:47, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable and these types of articles are prone to false information being inserted unnoticed [40]. The sort of websites that could be cited readily and easily by anyone (like some in this article) are not Wikipedia Reliable Sources. - dwc lr (talk) 13:07, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the reasons given by the editors above.Smeat75 (talk) 13:33, 28 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.

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

)

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

Fictional language. I'm not finding enough significant coverage of this language to demonstrate a GNG pass. The three sources in the article are a primary source, a podcast of indeterminate reliability, and a piece referring to a presentation at a fan conference. In other findable sources, [41] describes the language in several paragraphs, but only in the context of Tolkien's legendarium. [42] also is only focused on the fictional history and relation to other forms of Elvish. I'm not finding anything that discusses Taliska in an out-of-universe perspective. Hog Farm (talk) 15:39, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 15:39, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 15:39, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 15:39, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 15:39, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Languages constructed by J. R. R. Tolkien § Mannish languages This is a valid search term. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 22:02, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Languages constructed by J. R. R. Tolkien § Mannish languages I agree with the previous user. Ibn Daud (talk) 00:23, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per above, not much I can say except I also don't see any more RS coverage of this. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:55, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I support a redirect for the reasons mentioned above, but my only concern is, unless I am missing something, the term Taliska does not appear in the redirect target suggested above? Compare this with Adûnaic#Fictional history or Gothic_language#J._R._R._Tolkien, where the term was actually mentioned. --Dps04 (talk) 05:54, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Gothic_language#J._R._R._Tolkien, the only place where there is a sourced mention. buidhe 08:34, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

Heliolevidea

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

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

Critical Existence Failure; I can't find any indication that this species exists. Provided sources (those that are accessible) do not mention it (and some are a little bizarre - see this one), no database contains heliolevidea as a species of Gleba, and even a blank web search on the word comes up empty. Quite a feat on today's internet. Image is "own work", but without any of the background information that would usually accompany what is apparently meant to be a high-tech underwater photo. This looks like either a hoax or something so hot off the press that it is completely undocumented. I have my doubts about opisthobranchs using light signatures to drive social recognition, and supect the former. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:16, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:16, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:16, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unverifiable. Gleba appears to have one member, Gleba cordata. Nothing comes up on a search for Heliolevidea, a name which seems suspect ("Hell of an idea"?). The upload File:Heliolevidea.jpg claims this is a first encounter (2019) and own work by User:Uliana Reu who created this page, maybe it should be deleted as well.--Eostrix (talk) 16:24, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Can't access all sources in article, but WoRMS and ITIS confirm that cordata is the only accepted species in Gleba, and none of the deprecated congenerics are named heliolevidea (which I would interpret as "sun-lifting", as in "holding up a light"). A reverse image search finds no other copies of this picture online, so it's possible that this is a real species being described in a manuscript somewhere rather than a hoax (cf. the strange first-person speculation about social recognition), but even if so this article would have to wait for that manuscript to be published. FourViolas (talk) 19:13, 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.

Francesco Carrozzo

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

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

Poorly sourced biography on a non-notable person. Fails

• Delete There is nothing in terms of in-depth coverage by reliable sources. Also note that a version of this article with the same sources was rejected at Draft:Francesco Carrozzo. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:10, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What are these reliable sources? Are not discog, IMBD, published websites not enough to become reliable sources ?

Wikipedia:Citing_IMDb explains this better than could. IMDb may be okay as an external link, but it's not considered a reliable source because basically anyone can just put anything there. Adam9007 (talk) 15:30, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What websites are reliable sources then since it's 2020 and nobody writes many books about sound engineers anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serotonine69 (talk • contribs) 15:34, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, reliable means that the source has a reputation for editorial oversight and fact-checking. What websites are and aren't reliable can be controversial, especially for BLPs. See also Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Reliable_sources. Adam9007 (talk) 15:43, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are countless of articles with "too close to the subject" websites and imbds that are up and going and no other references, why are we making an exception to this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serotonine69 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please read

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. There are millions of articles and only several thousand editors so sometimes articles just just haven't been flagged yet and they could also stand to be deleted. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:42, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I'd like to know what sources are lacking of credibility and where the article is promoting the subject. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serotonine69 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COI. Best, GPL93 (talk) 23:55, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm an editor inspired and amazed by the accomplishments Carrozzo's had even by been an influential professional on The Game new record and thought it was someone worth an article on here since his contribution to the record as a sound mixer. I do not know him in person nor I am I affiliated with him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serotonine69 (talk • contribs) 01:53, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Serotonine69 and you just happened to have a copy of his professional headshot on hand? You list it as an own work and if you did take the photo you would almost certainly have to known the subject on some level. GPL93 (talk) 02:18, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

you can find this same headshot on his Instagram and his websites/imbds :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serotonine69 (talk • contribs) 03:53, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Serotonine69 If it is not you own work like you declared then it needs to be deleted as a copyright violation. GPL93 (talk) 04:08, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ok I've deleted it :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serotonine69 (talk • contribs) 05:06, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable person in the music business.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:14, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A biography on a non-notable person, with poor sources. Fails
  WP:GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexdlp10 (talk • contribs) 08:51, 27 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.

Biological Laboratories (edit | 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 academic building. One of several de-prodded without reason by User:Another Believer. User:Namiba 14:34, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 14:34, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 14:34, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to List of University of Texas at Austin buildings. Not every building on a university campus needs its own article. Reywas92^Talk 20:14, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to List of University of Texas at Austin buildings. Totally agree that not every building on a campus needs an article. Especially these days with Wikidata. It was probably originally created as part of the The University of Texas at Austin template. Which will now have a red link, but such is life. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:00, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:28, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to List of University of Texas at Austin buildings.Djflem (talk) 06:59, 27 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.

Art Building (University of Texas at Austin) (edit | 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 academic building. One of several de-prodded without reason by User:Another Believer. User:Namiba 14:33, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 14:33, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 14:33, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to List of University of Texas at Austin buildings. Not every building on a university campus needs its own article. Reywas92^Talk 20:13, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to List of University of Texas at Austin buildings. It doesn't seem notable and I totally agree with the sentiment above about articles for random university buildings. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:02, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:28, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to List of University of Texas at Austin buildings.Djflem (talk) 07:01, 27 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.

Benedict Hall (edit | 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 academic building. One of several de-prodded without reason by User:Another Believer. User:Namiba 14:33, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 14:33, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 14:33, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to List of University of Texas at Austin buildings. Not every building on a university campus needs its own article. Reywas92^Talk 20:13, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:28, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to List of University of Texas at Austin buildings.Djflem (talk) 06:48, 27 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.

Grace Garba

Grace Garba (edit | 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, or the first woman officer, but going beyond this into various ranks is getting indiscriminate. DGG ( talk ) 00:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:11, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:11, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:12, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:12, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, fails
  WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 05:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. The first woman to be promoted to the most senior NCO rank in a service is certainly notable. I don't think there would be any question of keeping her if she served in the air forces of the UK, USA, Canada, etc. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete if the postion is not inhernetly notable we need lots of coverage to show notability, not just hand waving that they are the "first x to do y".John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:56, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Clear keep -- going through a glass ceiling in a particular profession is a notable event, and in this case the individual is clearly well covered by the press, Sadads (talk) 22:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Per Necrothesp and Sadads; subject meets our notability for inclusion. Kaizenify (talk) 05:48, 31 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. Or at any rate do not delete; a potential merger can still be discussed on the article talk page. Sandstein 09:48, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arab–Iranian conflict

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

)

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

The article lists

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 23:55, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 23:55, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 23:55, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is a legitimate subject covered in multiple books, as one can easily check by search [43], including even books on the origin of the conflict [44]. What needs to be included to the page should be defined by the sources. My very best wishes (talk) 18:16, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. I appreciate the GBooks link from MVBW, but these sources appear to be variously using the term to refer to an Arab-Iranian conflict that various actors do or do not wish to develop, to conflicts that pre-date (and therefore cannot predict) all or most of the conflicts listed here, or in other ways to specific conflicts rather than to an overarching war a la Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I am inclined to say that this is a generic term. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:16, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, this is very specific, well known and significant conflict, according to the books. For example, a summary to one of them (link in my comment above) tells:

The geopolitical rivalry between the Gulf Arab states and Iran has its origins in the interwar period, the period between the Paris Peace Conference in 1919 which marked the end of the First World War until 1941 when the Persian Gulf became a theatre of the Second World War. The interwar period was a formative period because it marked a transition from a Gulf society characterized by symbiosis and interdependency to a sub-region characterized by national divisions, sectarian suspicions, rivalries and political tension. The introduction of Iranian nationalism to the Persian Gulf waterway, islands and littoral and the unprecedented interventions of the British government in the Arab shaykhdoms including Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Sharjah and Ras al-Khaimah, constituted a watershed in the history of the Persian Gulf, disrupted centuries of unrestricted movement, refashioned frameworks of exchange between the two shores and forged an acute Arab-Iranian dichotomy that would characterize the Persian Gulf into the twenty-first century

Yeah, sorry, I was going to address the Mueller source and I forgot. I agree that this source unquestionably identifies these various conflicts as part of a larger one, but this, while coming from a reliable source, does appear to be one person's analysis of the conflict. I think this could be handled by noting in the Arab League-Iran relations article that "Chelsi Mueller analyzes these things as part of a broader Arab-Iranian conflict..." Unless - are there other sources that likewise talk about these things as manifestations of a single conflict, even if they don't use the term "Arab-Iranian conflict"? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:22, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How come? Dozens books in the search do use term "Arab-Iranian conflict", and many of them tell this specific conflict is important: [45], [46], [47]. Yes, as one of them say, the Palestinian National Authority considers this conflict non-existent for political reasons [48], but this is just an additional reason that makes this conflict notable and justifies having this page. My very best wishes (talk) 17:00, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These are some of the sources I was referring to when I noted earlier that the term is used generically. The first of these sources identifies conflicts in the 300s CE as part of an Arab-Iranian conflict, the second source is a government document from 1973 that obviously can't be speaking of the late 1970s, 1980s, and beyond events that the article discusses, and the third refers to a specific manifestation that it even notes arose in the 2000s. I think you would need much better sourcing to claim that these things represent a single conflict rather than a bunch of authors using the same phrase for different things. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:06, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A disagreement of sources what exactly constitutes the topic (time frame of the conflict, exact list of countries involved, etc.) does not invalidate any subject. Consider definition of terrorism. My very best wishes (talk) 19:16, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's begging the question - there has to be a subject to begin with. I also don't think you're making a very strong case that this is a different subject from the general topic of Arab League-Iran relations, if you do indeed accept that no one has the same definition or scope of this "conflict". –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:29, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, if you do not like books, there are many other scholarly sources on this subject. For example, that one tells: The eight-year war between Iran and Iraq (1980–1988) brought to light the Arab–Iranian conflict, and the fall of Saddam Hussein in April 2003 thrust it onto centre stage of the region’s dynamics.. The concept (see also
  Modern usage of al-Qādisiyyah) was widely used for propaganda. For example, this scholarly source tells that The Baʿthi regime stressed that animosity between Arabs and Persians stretched back to the farthest reaches of ancient history. A radio propaganda campaign aimed at Arabs living inside Iran reminded them that: ‘[f]rom the dawn of history [Persians] have been, and still are, conspiring and plotting against the Arabs’. I am not making a judgement if this is a valid historical concept or a concept misused for propaganda. I am just saying this subject/concept has been covered in a significant number of books and scholarly articles. My very best wishes (talk) 21:52, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep This is one of the most important issues in Asia and the Middle East. You can read about it in Persian and Arabic books. In my opinion, keep the article. Lexy iris (talk) 23:38, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Arab League–Iran relations, we would need stronger sources that the conflict actually exists and is not just one way of characterizing the relations. As it stands, I think this issue could be better covered in the relations article. buidhe 08:52, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Hugely important issue. Wikipedia has some issues of lacking extensive referencing to Non-Latin script based sources, this article needs to be expanded.
  talk) 04:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is clear, after much-extended time for discussion. I have redirected the title to the supertopic, Pullman Hotels and Resorts. BD2412 T 23:35, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pullman London St Pancras

Pullman London St Pancras (edit | 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 hotel Wikieditor600 (talk) 23:31, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:56, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. YorkshireLad  ✿  ^(talk) 17:37, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. YorkshireLad  ✿  ^(talk) 17:37, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I added some reviews and references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:28, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:54, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:52, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The new sources included are nothing short of hotel reviews, nothing significantly covered by secondary sources. Ajf773 (talk) 10:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Ajf773. The added sources do not demonstrate notability. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:17, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the above. - Flori4nKT A L K 16:07, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Hotel reviews don't cut it unfortunately and there doesn't seem to be much else out there that can establish notability. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:06, 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.

Point-Afrique

Point-Afrique (edit | 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. Only operated for a few months and not mentioned by reliable sources Wikieditor600 (talk) 23:25, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 23:59, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 23:59, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and expand. A lot of inaccurate information in the article in its current form, it was definitely not a short-lived charter airline that existed only for a few months. It was founded in 1995 and continues to this day. The website is currently online. I don't speak French, but there is considerable information about the organization contained in the French Wikipedia article of fr:Maurice_Freund (the founder). People with access to French language sources are likely to be able to turn up additional information. RecycledPixels (talk) 21:06, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You are mistaken with another airline. This one last a few months. The website is now owned by a 4x4 company.Wikieditor600 (talk) 04:02, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I am unable to locate any
  HighKing⁺⁺ 14:52, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete Lacking in-depth coverage to establish notability. Short lived charter airlines are a dime a dozen. It's extremely hard for one to be notable for anything within such a short time period and Wikipedia isn't a directory. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:09, 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. – bradv🍁 06:21, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Civil Designer

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

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

REFUNDed PROD. Original reason for deletion was "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (software) requirement." and the article has not been improved since it was recreated. It is still referenced, and fails to offer any claims on why it it is notable. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:07, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:07, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:07, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom (
  SIGCOV). - Flori4nKT A L K 16:15, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete seriously lacks notability. If there was a way to improve it, it probably would have happened after the refund.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamant (talk • contribs) 107:14, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Refunded at [49] as possible merge with
  WP:LINKROTted. I dispute the snide original unsigned comment If there was a way to improve it, it probably would have happened after the refund as per the diff the hope was more for a merge to AllyCAD; and I have quite other RL and WP articles to go round. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:31, 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.

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

)

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

Like it is currently described a usual hotel in Marbella, Spain, nothing extraordinary. Only Reference is a tourist guide entry.

• Delete or merge/redirect to
  notable as a cultural heritage or national heritage or protected structure, then it should have its own article. And any notes on the hotel/environment be covered there. Rather than the other way around. Otherwise, per nom, we have an otherwise ROTM entry with no indication of notability. Acting, as has been the case over the years, only as a magnet for promotional/advertising guff. Guliolopez (talk) 15:24, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge Merge with
  Encyclopædius 07:16, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom and above --Cornellier (talk) 12:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

Nish (musician)

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

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

This article uses twitter, instagram, youtube and some other tribial mentions as references. I think these are not WP:RS. This article should be deleted. UserNumber (talk) 13:40, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. UserNumber (talk) 13:40, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. UserNumber (talk) 13:40, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. UserNumber (talk) 13:40, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
  Talk to my owner:Online 13:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:01, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment he seems to have been featured quite a lot on the BBC which would suggest he is notable. Also as the nominator is the creator of the article can I ask you what has led you to change your mind about him? regards Atlantic306 (talk) 22:14, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ​ I've been on Wikipedia for quite a while, and I created this article early on. I believe it is hypocritical for me to have poorly-written and poorly-sourced articles since I have agreed with deletions of similar articles. Nevertheless, I will most likely create a new article on this individual as time passes and he becomes more notable. At the moment, the only really reliable sources are the BBC and not really anything else. UserNumber (talk) 10:56, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks for your explanation, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 16:55, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]