Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 May 31

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 30 May	1 June >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect to Home Media Magazine. (non-admin closure) Juliette Han (talk) 08:43, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hive4media.com

)

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

This was not a notable website. Wikieditor600 (talk) 23:53, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Home Media Magazine. While the website itself may not be notable(i've been trying for a while to find more sources), the staff is.(John Gaudiosi in particular). Timur9008 (talk) 04:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. Not much coverage. Shashank5988 (talk) 16:15, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Home Media Magazine: Barely found anything about the website. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 03:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to parent organization per the above reasons given.
talk) 20:36, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to Home Media Magazine: it's a defunt website? - BeamAlexander (talk) 13:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Julian Cope. Sandstein 06:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Head Heritage

)

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

Not notable. All of the sources are primarily about Julian Cope and only barely mention Head Heritage Wikieditor600 (talk) 23:41, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to
Stuartyeates (talk) 09:30, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge to the article on the person. As this lacks notability on its own, but would still be worth merging IMO. Adamant1 (talk) 12:53, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:00, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

L. A. Calkins

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

I found no significant coverage. Fails

WP:ENT. SL93 (talk) 23:40, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one role is not enough for notability, and we need more sourcing than IMDb. The fact that such an undersourced article has survived since 24 February 2007, for over 13 years, is a travesty. This level of sourcing should not be able to survive for over 13 hours.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed. One role not significant enough for an article on Wikipedia. Donaldd23 (talk) 19:58, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking in depth independent coverage.
Stuartyeates (talk) 09:30, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per above. Antila ✉ 04:47, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:00, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ConnectNigeria.com

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

Not notable. Wikieditor600 (talk) 23:32, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per OP, as non notable. It looks like the topic has been live for 8 years without much expansion. - Wikmoz (talk) 07:13, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It seems pretty obvious from research that this is a run of the mill regional search engine with nothing notable about it.

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

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

The result was delete.

Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

ICLOAK

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

nnonnotable operation system

talk) 23:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:11, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in independent sources.
Stuartyeates (talk) 09:32, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge to List of Linux distributions if its not already mentioned there. Otherwise delete due to lack of notability. Adamant1 (talk) 12:58, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry disagreed. If there is no reasonable notabilility, we cannot merge per
talk) 18:54, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was merge to

(non-admin closure) b uidhe 23:15, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Ciudad Seva

)

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

Not notable. Wikieditor600 (talk) 23:26, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Luis López Nieves as the website doesn't appear to be notable in itself Pi (Talk to me!) 00:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into
WP:N. Mercy11 (talk) 00:21, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge as listed above, site itself is not notable. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:03, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to When We All Fall Asleep, Where Do We Go?. (non-admin closure) Juliette Han (talk) 17:27, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Listen Before I Go

)

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

Fails

WP:NSONGS. No individual notability and should be redirected to its parent album When We All Fall Asleep, Where Do We Go?. Cool Marc ✉ 22:24, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Cool Marc ✉ 22:24, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Cool Marc ✉ 22:24, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to When We All Fall Asleep, Where Do We Go?: It's not necessary for every song in the album to have its own article. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 02:47, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the parent album, per nominator. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:01, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are now individual sources in the article that are good enough for the song to pass
WP:GNG
Comment There is one and pop sugar is a "pop culture blog", doesn't strike me as a reliable source. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 12:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - No independent coverage from reliable secondary sources, and just generally fails to meet
WP:NSONGS. Would also advise closing delegates to take the above keep comment with a grain of salt, since its unsigned and from a Billie Eilish-superfan.--N Ø 12:38, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was redirect to When We All Fall Asleep, Where Do We Go?. (non-admin closure) Juliette Han (talk) 09:17, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

!!!!!!!

)

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

Fails

WP:NSONGS. All coverage in the article is from albums reviews and interviews about its parent album When We All Fall Asleep, Where Do We Go? The song article should therefore be redirected to When We All Fall Asleep, Where Do We Go?. Cool Marc ✉ 22:15, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Redirect to When We All Fall Asleep, Where Do We Go?, per nom, there is no coverage of this song that is not in the context of an album review, so it fails NSONGS. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to When We All Fall Asleep, Where Do We Go? can be reasonably covered there, not notable on its own. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:37, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:14, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:14, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to When We All Fall Asleep, Where Do We Go?: It's not necessary for every song in the album to have its own article. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 02:47, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the parent album, it fails WP:NSONGS. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 12:30, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to When We All Fall Asleep, Where Do We Go? per above. LOVI 33 14:50, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to When We All Fall Asleep, Where Do We Go? as the song is not sufficiently notable. Koridas (...Puerto Rico for statehood!) 21:24, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to parent article.
talk) 04:07, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn. postdlf (talk) 17:26, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lalbagh

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

~~Unreferenced dictionary definition.~~

talk) 22:06, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Speedy keep. Withdrawn per
talk) 16:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:35, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

list of Disambiguation-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:35, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep - while the opening is an unreferenced definition, this is also clearly a disambiguation page. (And it is not uncommon for disambig pages to contain a short definition.) In any case, at least four articles here state in their first sentence that they are sometimes known by "Lalbagh" alone: Lal Bagh/Lalbagh Botanical Garden, Lalbagh metro station, Lalbagh, Mangalore, and Lalbagh Thana (Dhaka). Even if you wanted to make one of these the primary topic (probably the botanical garden), you would still need a disambiguation page for this many entries. You can debate whether the definition should be included or not (and it looks like at least one editor already agrees with you), but deletion is not the appropriate outcome here. MarginalCost (talk) 02:00, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Obviously a legitimate disambiguation page, linking to articles that have this name. Dream Focus 02:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment But this was intentionally made to be NOT a disambiguation page, the other editor intentionally removed the disambig template and formatted it in a weird way.
You don't try to delete an article because you disagreed with another editor. You can post on the third opinion board to get someone else to come and settle the disagreement. Dream Focus 13:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good point.
talk) 16:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

If you want to continue edit war with him, be my guest.

talk) 05:32, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep as a dab page. The ultimate cause behind this AfD appears to be a disagreement on whether the dab page should or should not have two sentences at the top describing the meaning of the term. That's not for AfD, guys, sort it out on the talk page. Personally, I see it as perfectly acceptable for a dab page to have such a short intro. – Uanfala (talk) 13:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have nothing against about intros. I am against having unreferenced text in wikipedia anywhere.
talk) 16:36, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

@
talk) 16:36, 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. Sandstein 07:00, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of airplane songs

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

List without any reasonable hope of being complete. Vague criteria include referencing airplanes in lyrics or titles. This isn't even worthy of a category for the songs, IMO. —C.Fred (talk) 22:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —C.Fred (talk) 22:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mentioning airplanes does not an "airplane song" make. Not a notable phenomenon. – Thjarkur (talk) 22:40, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per
WP:TRIVIA. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 03:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Unsourced and basically an attempt by a user of putting a sandbox-esque test in the main article space. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.
WP:LISTCRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 09:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Perhaps an experiment by an occasional editor whose WP history shows an interest in planes and pilots. Even so, it's just vague
WP:FANCRUFT in which someone noticed occasional lyrics about planes. I agree with everyone above on reasons for deletion. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:27, 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 no consensus. There is a clear absence of consensus for deletion, and a reasonable policy-based argument that sources provided are sufficient for the article to be kept. Whether this would be better presented by being merged somewhere can be further discussed elsewhere. BD2412 T 18:08, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking Moistly

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

Simply fails

WP:NSINGLE. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 14:43, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete as nom. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 21:06, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it fais

WP:RS news outlets, and even the PM himself tweeted about it. It is a significant quote in the COVID-19 pandemic in Canada. Félix An (talk) 14:55, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Having a few reliable sources about it does not make it notable enough for a standalone article outright. Fails its three criteria and then some. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 15:08, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - I note though that other comical Canadian political events like the
WP:DUE on Justin Trudeau (if that).--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 16:17, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

On second thought, ~~Weak Redirect to the~~ ~~relevant section of COVID-19 pandemic in Canada~~. This is notable enough for the mention there. If people want to know what it is all about they can read about it there.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 16:27, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@

Narcity, and the Daily Hive. Would you be willing to take another look and see if that changes your mind in any way? Not trying to pester; just curious of that would make a difference. Thank you! --Kbabej (talk) 16:42, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, I see "the song" has been covered in some

WP:RS. I tend to think that is more for the comedic value, novelty that Trudeau said that and it was awkward (ie more for the event than the song). I do not have strong feelings either way, but I think the relevance of "Speaking Moistly" is more the event (and the reaction to it, including the song) and less the song itself. Of course sometimes these things go viral like the Bed Intruder Song, not sure we can say the "Speaking Moistly" song really has though. I tend to think its notability (or fame) is secondary to the event itself.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 16:57, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

@Darryl Kerrigan: Thanks for reasessing. We're now up to 11 sources about the song, with only two about the speech (without mentioning the song) to provide context in the article. I've added HuffPost and Brave Words as well as a covers section; I didn't realize at first there have been multiple covers of the song, which I think lends itself for me !voting keep even more. --Kbabej (talk) 17:26, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The song has got a decent amount of coverage and I gather over 2 million views (not sure what qualifies as "viral" these days). Anyway, I am changing/clarifying my !vote to "weak" redirect if that is a thing. If an article is to be left to exist, I am not sure its focus should be this one remix (as opposed to Trudeau's statement and ALL the reacions including this remix, other songs - whether covers, or original riffs on Trudeau's words - and t-shirts, lip balm, beer etc.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:03, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see expanding the scope as interesting as an article about the song, and, as I stated on the talk page, "the song has gotten far more coverage than, say, the lip balm. There are 13 sources about the song so far. Could you say the same for the lip balm? I think this article makes more sense as an article about the song, not about the phrase in general." --Kbabej (talk) 01:10, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine if you don't "want" to expand the scope of the article, that said that isn't really up to you (or me). That said, suggesting all of the reaction to Trudeau's "speaking moistly" comment, was due to the this remix, is simply not true. Its awkwardness was noted by many, Trudeau included, before the remix existed. And there have been many reactions not directly related to the remix, including the sale of novelty masks, t-shirts, beer, and lip balm, as well as other meme's and videos including this kids video about "moist breath zone", this Fake Heritage Minute, this Hair Flip video, this Stratford actors 'speak moistly' video, this "cover" by Ska Band among others. And frankly its notability is less without the other reactions or being about Trudeau actually saying it.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 02:28, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care if you support this article or not at this point. You've made your position clear: expand it to the comment and all associated responses, or you want it redirected. I think this article stands on its own, and I think it should be kept in the scope as the starting editor intended. As for your comment "suggesting all of the reaction to Trudeau's "speaking moistly" comment, was due to the this remix", who argued that, and where? Because I certainly didn't. My argument this entire has been there are enough RS to keep the remix article as an article about the song without widening the scope. If you want an article on the reaction of the phrase and all associated products,

WP:HEYMANN. --Kbabej (talk) 02:43, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't think it is prudent to start a Speaking moistly (event) page until there is a wider discussion of the scope here. That might result in unnecessary move, deletion and merge discussions, which might be avoided if we get down to brass-tax about whether this article should be about the event. Perhaps input from others will help reach a consensus on how best to proceed.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 04:00, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I am going to change my vote to a Weak Keep. I freely admit that I don't have a good policy based reason for doing so, but I would like to keep this piece of Canadiana around. Perhaps, now I have just watched too many of the "cover videos" on YouTube, and noticed that the single has made it onto Spotify. It is an interesting piece of internet culture, that has got some coverage in

WP:INDISCRIMINATE is fair either. Anyway, it is a very soft keep, for me now.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep. NSINGLE states "Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label." The three criteria the nominator is referencing is father down in the NSINGLE criteria, which states "Any of the following factors suggest that a song or single may be notable enough that a search for coverage in reliable independent sources will be successful." My understanding of NSINGLE is that if a song/single meetins GNG and satisfies the first criteria, they do not necessarily have to meet one of the three criteria (those being: 1. Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts. 2. Has won one or more significant awards or honors, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award. 3. Has been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups.) The song has been covered by the sources in the article (CBC, The Star, Toronto City News, Narcity), and additional sources as well that are not yet incorporated into the article as of writing this: I Heart Radio, I Heart Radio (again), National Post, and Daily Hive. --Kbabej (talk) 16:19, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Hive isn't a reliable or notability-supporting source — it's essentially a

blogified version of a tabloid, which means it violates two of our core principles about what it takes to be a reliable source (the operative words being "blog" and "tabloid", if you didn't figure that out.) Narcity, same. iHeartRadio Canada also is not a notability-making news outlet — it's just the platform on which all Bell Media-owned radio stations have their self-published websites hosted, which means everything that any local radio personality in Canada blogs about on his or her own station's website will always automatically have an "iHeartRadio Canada" URL by definition. So it doesn't constitute evidence of GNG-making media coverage either, because it's not an entity that does news reporting — it still just amounts to blogging by non-journalists. Bearcat (talk) 14:11, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Fair points. But there's also The Toronto Star, CBC News x2, CityNews Toronto, The Loop, Exclaim!, Brave Words, and HuffPost. It's varied enough coverage for me, and I stand by my keep !vote. --Kbabej (talk) 01:46, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Canadian pandemic article as per

WP:NSINGLE. Not sure a few clickbait Headliners are sufficient for coverage of an unreleased uncharted song that has zero historical value. This is one of many like this..... Donald Trump song telling us to consume bleach has ten times more hits.--Moxy 🍁 21:36, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep. As Kbabej mentioned above, there are many
WP:RS news articles talking about the song. Félix An (talk) 00:28, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:17, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per points above. Many of the available sources aren't considered reliable. The ones that make mention could support a redirect/merge, but I don't see enough to justify such a random song. –
ᕼᗩᑎᗪOTO (talk) 20:21, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Given the national media coverage this garnered from reputable sources and acknowledgment from the Prime Minister himself, information on this subject should be preserved. Keeping it as its own article makes it easier to find and navigate. Cmm3 (talk) 21:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Odd was going to say the same thing but with a different conclusion

WP:INDISCRIMINATE.--Moxy 🍁 21:10, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Weak Redirect to
3 possible options for possible notability are met, but this is slightly relevant for that section of the pandemic article (where it's already mentioned), though I don't think the reception part is necessary. If this charts (I doubt it will), please let me know and I will switch my vote to keep. Username⁶⁸⁹² 19:24, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

After thinking about it, I think this is not as sound of an argument as I would think it is. I think this is a marginal case, so I'm changing my vote to weak redirect. Username⁶⁸⁹² 22:52, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 15:40, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems to fall within notability guidelines. Juno (talk) 23:16, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to
WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Best to discuss the song in any of the articles. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 03:57, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, seems there's enough coverage. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:10, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or maybe redirect to COVID 19 pandemic in Canada. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:19, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete easily fails
WP:NSINGLE. This is a one-off trivial edit that got some views on the Internet, and it fails all three criteria of notability. Not encyclopedic. 103.42.214.85 (talk) 02:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Significant amount of sources have been added since the nomination, does now pass
WP:GNG Dwaro (talk) 10:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: This article is not encyclopedic. I really don't understand people who want to keep it. Knowledge of a stupid YouTube video will not benefit anyone and this topic is just not encylopedic or notable. Andrew nyr (talk, contribs) 00:09, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, while this is silly, that does not change the fact that it passes
WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:43, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was merge to

(non-admin closure) b uidhe 23:16, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

List of Belarusian regions by GRP

)

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

This will be tedious to maintain (it's already out of date). Do we have articles comparing every currency in the world? At the very least, the abbreviation should be spelled out in the title. Fuddle (talk) 13:08, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Fuddle (talk) 13:08, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I really hate to pull a whataboutism, but if you search for Regions by GRP there's about 380 articles exactly like this one. I'm not sure what to draw from that about this though, it's just an observation about these types of articles. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:23, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 13:45, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 13:45, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamant1: It didn't occur to me that there were others. As there are 180 currencies in the world, we would need 180 x 180 = 32,400 articles to cover this topic. If we're arbitrarily only comparing currencies to the US dollar, then we need 179. And are we keeping historical data or just current? In any case it seems like something that could be done more efficiently by a stable, financial website. Wait, am I now suggesting we delete another 380 articles? Fuddle (talk) 16:35, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:17, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Regions of Belarus. Belarus doesn't have that many regions, so the limited amount of information in this article could be placed in that other article without difficulty. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:52, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Not enough regions for an exclusive list. Kaweendra (talk) 11:39, 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 keep.

(non-admin closure) Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 22:10, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

The Bubble Project

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

Fails to meet

WP:INDEPTH. An event must receive significant or in-depth coverage to be notable. No source, promotional content. 2simple (talk) 15:16, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:11, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 16:52, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ji Lee. Lacks sufficient coverage for stand-alone article. Schazjmd (talk) 20:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That page should be deleted too. I struggle to see any encyclopedic value for successful crowdfunding and personal Facebook pages. 2simple (talk) 06:08, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (or Merge). I found several sources that could meet GNG, for example Wired online, De zeen, My Modern Met, and there was also a video segment on ABC News about the project (though I can't find a good link to it).--Mojo Hand (talk) 21:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:51, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:17, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent

reliable sources

.

Ferrell, Jeff; Hayward, Keith; Young, Jock (2008). Cultural Criminology: An Invitation. Los Angeles:
ISBN 978-1-4129-3127-4
. Retrieved 2020-06-01.

Hann, Michael (2005-09-30). "Please fill in the blanks ..." The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2020-06-01. Retrieved 2020-06-01.
Ahmed, Murad (2009-10-10). "The Bubble Project - Microtrends". The Times. Archived from the original on 2020-06-01. Retrieved 2020-06-01.
Fox, Killian (2006-07-22). "Say what you really think". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2020-06-01. Retrieved 2020-06-01.
Queenan, Joe (2006-10-02). "Rise of the bubble people". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2020-06-01. Retrieved 2020-06-01.
Chung, Ah-young (2014-10-20). "Korean-born artist challenges stereotypes". The Korea Times. Archived from the original on 2020-06-01. Retrieved 2020-06-01.
"Personal projects are key to dream job, says Facebook's creative 'rebel'". Agence France-Presse. 2016-07-01. Archived from the original on 2020-06-01. Retrieved 2020-06-01 – via Yahoo! News.

Sources with quotes

Ferrell, Jeff; Hayward, Keith; Young, Jock (2008). Cultural Criminology: An Invitation. Los Angeles:
ISBN 978-1-4129-3127-4
. Retrieved 2020-06-01.
The article notes:
The Bubble Project (www.thebubbleproject.com) is a form of guerrilla media whereby ex-advertising agency worker Ji Li (2006) and others paste empty, cartoon-style 'speech bubble' stickers over advertisments at bus stops and other public places. The empty speech bubbles invite passeers-by to fill them in with dialogue or critique, and once filled in the bubbles are photographed and archived. As its manifesto argues, 'the bubble project is the counterattack' and 'the bubbles are the ammunition' in a battle to take back public spaces — bus stops, train stations, subways, public squares — that have been 'seized by corporations to propagate their messages solely in the interest of profit'.
In this way The Bubble Project operates as a form of invitational vandalism — an act of illegal defacement that invites further defacement. A process of illicitly interactive street communication, The Bubble Project recalls the newspapers pasted to walls during the political upheavals of Paris 1968 — newspapers that eventually became 'difficult to read … so covered are they with critical comments' (Star, 2001: 66) — or more recently the work of the graffiti artist Banksy (2005: 50–5), whose illicit 'This Wall is a Designated Graffiti Area' stencils successfully invite further graffiti. The Bubble Project also recalls, once again, the concept of detournement, the 'theft of meaning', whereby activists subvert everyday messages by undermining their meaning. 'Once placed on ads', The Bubble Project argues, 'these stickers transform the corporate monologue into an open dialogue'.

Hann, Michael (2005-09-30). "Please fill in the blanks ..." The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2020-06-01. Retrieved 2020-06-01.
The article notes:
"Our communal spaces are being overrun with ads. Train stations, streets, squares, buses and subways now scream one message after another at us," writes the Seoul-born, New York-based artist Ji Lee in the manifesto that accompanies his Speech Bubble Project. So Ji Lee - a former designer for Saatchi & Saatchi, of all things - launched what he calls a "counter-attack".
He plodded the New York streets with 50,000 blank speech bubble stickers that he attached to advertisements. Then he waited for residents to add their own commentaries. The results - some of which can be seen on his website, Pleaseenjoy.com are a sometimes bizarre, sometimes trenchant commentary on life and consumerism in the US. As the manifesto puts it: "Once placed on ads, these stickers transform the corporate monologue into an open dialogue. They encourage anyone to fill them in with any form of self-expression, free from censorship." The resulting captions reveal the anger about the Iraq war and the Bush administration: political messages are dominant among those on the site. They also reveal an unexpected supplicant quality. "Please let me die in peace," begs ET from the basket of the airborne bike in the familiar image from the film. "Date me (please)," demands a corporate drone in an ad for Apple. Even Gollum, of Lord of the Rings, becomes a figure of sympathy: "Desperately seeking purpose," he pleads, in a poster for the movie.
Ahmed, Murad (2009-10-10). "The Bubble Project - Microtrends". The Times. Archived from the original on 2020-06-01. Retrieved 2020-06-01.
The article notes:
Advertising is a one-way conversation. Ji Lee, an artist, has decided to change that. "Train stations, streets, squares and buses scream one message after another at us," he writes on the Bubble Project website. "These spaces are increasingly being seized by corporations to propagate their messages." So he printed 50,000 speech bubbles and applied them to advertisements around the world. Passers-by fill in the bubbles with their own ideas. Lee photographed the results and posted them online.
Fox, Killian (2006-07-22). "Say what you really think". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2020-06-01. Retrieved 2020-06-01.
The article notes:
Human beings can't resist a blank space. It's a truth that Ji Lee was acutely aware of when he printed up almost 40,000 blank 'speech bubble' stickers and posted them on street ads around New York. Frustrated by how every last inch of public space was being invaded by 'bad advertising without any sense of humour or intelligence', ads 'that just scream at us and are not prepared to interact', Lee decided to take action. Almost overnight, the bubbles he placed next to the mouths of waifish young DKNY models and square-jawed matinee idols filled up with wry commentary, political slogans and uncomfortable truths of every description. 'The stickers create a dialogue rather than a monologue and often change the meaning of ads completely - they make them better.'
Queenan, Joe (2006-10-02). "Rise of the bubble people". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2020-06-01. Retrieved 2020-06-01.
The article notes:
Ji Lee is one of those people who cannot purge the advertising bee from his bonnet. An alumnus of the advertising world himself, Lee has devised something called the Bubble Project. It is an online site (Thebubbleproject.com) where ordinary people with no previous experience as dissidents can download bubbles, and then paste them up on posters or billboards they encounter in real life. The downloaders can fill in the bubbles themselves with their own clever or confrontational comments, or can leave them there for other people to write on. They are free to write things that are ingenious, seditious, disorienting, saucy, comical and even vulgar. This, says Lee, will allow the public to regain control of its environment, fight the corporate darkness, and just generally make life more fun.
Chung, Ah-young (2014-10-20). "Korean-born artist challenges stereotypes". The Korea Times. Archived from the original on 2020-06-01. Retrieved 2020-06-01.
The article notes:
Based in New York, he rose to international fame with the sensational "Bubble Project" in 2005, which prompted passersby's to write their thoughts on speech bubble-shaped stickers like in a comic book.
He placed 50,000 stickers on advertisements around the city and hundreds of people started to write comments on them, after a few months, media outlets started to pay attention and soon thousands of people around the world joined in.
He began the project as he resented adverts filling every corner of the street in an ugly and intrusive manner like "visual pollution." He worked at an ad agency at that time, and felt partially guilty for the "junk," and wanted to change the concept so that people could talk back to the adverts.
"Personal projects are key to dream job, says Facebook's creative 'rebel'". Agence France-Presse. 2016-07-01. Archived from the original on 2020-06-01. Retrieved 2020-06-01 – via Yahoo! News.
The article notes:
Lee, who was born in South Korea, raised in Brazil and now a longterm US resident, was able to break out of a dispiriting entry-level New York advertising job thanks to a quirky project he did on his own time and dime 15 years ago called The Bubble Project (www.thebubbleproject.com/).
That involved sticking blank cartoon speech balloons on New York advertising billboards that invited the public to write whatever they wanted.
Lee was fined several times for vandalism and given warnings from advertisers' lawyers. But the experience won him the attention of a boutique ad agency -- and then years later landed him a creative director job at Google.

There is sufficient coverage in

reliable sources to allow The Bubble Project to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

Cunard (talk) 07:08, 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 keep. Save for the fact that

(non-admin closure) Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 22:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Ryan-Mark Parsons

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

There is a possibility that the original article created violated policy regarding conflicts of interest, and information that had been put on the page initially had unsafe data in regards to where it came from, which is available from the page creators history. Potential violation of Speedy Deletion Policy A7 (No indication of importance), which was flagged up at articles for creation and declined - but this article was still made anyway by the OP. Kadzi (talk) 21:37, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hello Dr. Kadzi. Thank you for brining this discussion to the table. I wanted go through what you mentioned above and be absolutely transparent and factual in my response in order to explain why this article shouldn't be deleted.

Regarding the 'possibility' of the original article violating any conflict of interest policy, this was addressed during the early weeks of the article being published and the user that raised the concern accepted after my explanation that there was no conflict of interest with the subject of the article. This can be seen on my Talk Page's history where the conflict of interest notice was removed after coming to an understanding with the user who raised it. The article has never been marked as imbalanced, and when writing about Parsons, a neutral and accurate point of view was always consistent, fundamentally because there is no connection between me and the subject of this article and that has already been explained.

Being relatively new to Wikipedia and grateful to users like yourself, Dr Kadzi, and my own research on the guidelines - I was able to learn that original research is not accepted on here. To address 'unsafe data', anything that fell into this category was removed immediately. Regardless, even factual information from social media brought to the page was accurately cited from secondary sources from Wikipedia accepted publications; anything from MailOnline, Express etc. were also removed and replaced with trustworthy publications which featured Parsons.

Initial concerns were raised about the subject's importance or notability, these concerns were raised PRIOR to Ryan-Mark making an appearance on Good Morning Britain on ITV with Susanna Reid, Ben Shepard and Kate Garraway in January 2020. He was a guest celebrity panelist (all cited from recognised publications). His appearance on GMB led to international news coverage (again, all cited) from Australian and New Zealand press as well as national and regional coverage in trustworthy secondary news sources. If the notability of the subject changes, and according to notability of entertainers, Parsons continued to appear on national TV and radio, along with national trustworthy articles published that surrounded these appearances; I found the original concern over notability no longer accurate.

Since appearing on The Apprentice UK, Parsons has appeared on Good Morning Britain, BBC Asian Network, BBC Radio 5 Live, London Live (upon further research, not all candidates are offered these media interviews) and very recently Hits Radio with Wes Butters and has cited in interviews with trustworthy news sources that he intends to continue media work (all of these appearances were included in the article). Again, criteria for notability includes individuals having significant roles in multiple TV shows - Parsons has been the only celebrity to be interviewed in all of these broadcasts and has received national press coverage for these appearances.

Regular coverage in national news - all secondary sources that have covered Parsons' activities in public and controversies with fellow candidates after The Apprentice was broadcast. At the time of contributing to this discussion, Parsons was featured in serval national publications at the start of May 2020. There is sufficient coverage in

Wikipedia:General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent

of the subject" - these have been cited in the article. This press coverage has sustained from October 2019 and recently in May 2020, where Parsons has been interviewed and secondary articles published about him in national sources. There are significant tabloid citations, but this a reflection of Parsons' tabloid-type and populist persona.

List of significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources:

"'Posh' Apprentice star Ryan-Mark scoffs meal worms as he swaps caviar for creepy crawlies". Daily Mirror. 2019-12-11.
"Meet Apprentice 2019's Ryan-Mark Parsons, the show's youngest ever candidate". Radio Times. 2019-11-23.
"The Apprentice final, review: Carina Lepore makes an unusual winner – she's worthy and also likeable". The Independent. 2019-12-18.
"Apprentice star branded 'sick' after suggesting koala fur should be sold for charity". Daily Mirror. 2020-01-23.
"The Apprentice star Ryan-Mark gets his gold tooth stolen in seagull attack". Daily Mirror. 2020-01-15.
"'Posh' Apprentice star Ryan-Mark lashes out at pal because they gifted him Primark pj's". Daily Mirror. 2020-01-05.
"Twitter is going mad for this moment from last night's The Apprentice". Cosmopolitan. 2020-03-09.
"The most talked about TV moments of 2019 have been revealed – and they might surprise you". Hello!. 2019-12-19.
"FINNAIR TELLS APPRENTICE CONTESTANTS WITH LIFE-THREATENING NUT ALLERGIES: 'IF YOU HAVE AN ISSUE, GET OFF THE PLANE'". The Independent. 2019-11-23.
"A tribute to Ryan-Mark: The Apprentice King who was gone too soon". The Tab. 2019-11-21.
"Ryan-Mark Parsons hits out at Lottie Lion as The Apprentice pair feud over charging fans for photographs". Evening Standard. 2020-01-27.
"The Apprentice star Ryan-Mark Parsons is hospitalised after dropping £1000 of caviar on his foot".
OK! Magazine
. 2019-11-30.
"'Grotesque': British entrepreneur shot down over plan to sell koala fur as bushfire fundraiser".
The Sydney Herald
. 2020-01-27.
"'Disgusting suggestion': Businessman's plan for dead koalas slammed".
NZ Herald
. 2020-01-24.
"Bushfire crisis: Apprentice contestant says dead koala fur should be sold for charity".
7NEWS.com.au
. 2020-01-23.
"The Apprentice 2019: Former Matrix mini-pupil set to become youngest-ever contestant". Legal Cheek. 2019-09-26.
"Former Apprentice candidates Lottie Lion and Ryan-Mark Parsons feud over signed photos". The Independent. 2019-12-31.
"'Posh' Apprentice star Ryan-Mark baffles fans as he eats McDonald's with a knife and fork". Daily Mirror. 2019-12-04.
"Fans reckon The Apprentice's Ryan-Mark Parsons looks like a well known comedian". Daily Mirror. 2019-10-02.
"The Peloton Wife, Ryan-Mark Parsons & K.T. Tunstall?". Apple Podcasts. Who? Weekly.

Another case for importance and notability is having received a well-known and significant honour, it was mentioned on The Apprentice that Parsons was a recipient of the Fellowship of the Royal Society of Arts. With this this particular Fellowship, there is no database to cite and this is the issue most Fellows face on Wikipedia in terms of verifying the award. However, mention of this in national broadcast gave reason to cite in the article and is another reason why I considered this individual to be notable for a Wikipedia entry. Of course, if you advise this should be removed from the article, I will of course make changes to improve the quality of what has been written.

Parsons being the youngest-ever candidate in the history of The Apprentice UK (since 2005 and all cited from official BBC website in press release on each candidate), was a reason to look further into his continued media work and there being a wide press interest in the subject with large fan following.

I thought it might be worth mentioning several candidates from The Apprentice UK who have appeared on further television or have had significant press coverage have been entered onto Wikipedia. Of course, there could be a reason for their deletion and perhaps discussions have been made in each of their articles; but deleting the article on Parsons for the reasons you mention above put all of the existing Wikipedia entries on any of The Apprentice UK candidates in jeopardy too.

I have consulted with more experienced users to improve the page whilst under review as well, and have since made changes to the external links and have removed excess social media profile links from the article; removed 'entrepreneur' from his title as there are no trustworthy independent sources that can support this; and updated the format of the article by moving early life details away from the lead of the article.

I have also added detail of further media work, including Parsons appearance on BBC Two's The Apprentice: You're Fired & You’re Hired in which Parsons co-presented the first part of You’re Fired and was interviewed by comedian Tom Allen.

It’s also mentioned in the original article that Parsons featured in the one of the UK’s most talked-about TV moments of 2019 - which not only received press coverage at the time of broadcast, but more coverage after Freeview made this announcement.

Going forward, to improve the quality of the article I can forward to Articles for Rescue and manually review all citations, to get the best secondary sources that are independent to Parsons that currently exist (if not already cited in the article). I would be completely open to working on any suggestions to improve the article.

The more I learn about Wikipedia the more I understand discussions like this are hugely valuable for the platform. Based on the guidelines I've read and applying this to the subject, I still believe there is sufficient importance and notability for a Wikipedia entry. I hope I have been clear in answering the concerns you raised in regards to conflict of interest violation that was reverted. Also, the initial concern over Parsons' importance (which was before his live TV debate and other TV/radio appearances and subsequent international press coverage). I have always strived to be accurate when contributing to Wikipedia, including this discussion, and I hope that I can use this discussion as an opportunity to learn and take any feedback from you to improve this article, including the ways I mentioned above. JPA24 (talk) 00:50, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:54, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:55, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:55, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My main reasoning for this article being unsafe, apart from the potential conflicts of interest, are that the person is wholly unnoteworthy, and before his appearance on The Apprentice, would relatively be unknown and not of importance to constitute an article. If you attempted to make the article using appropriate references before his appearance, it would not be possible. None of the other contestants from that series have a wikipedia page, and more appropriately, their names redirect to that series' Wikipedia page as a whole, where their names are listed anyway. Redirecting to the apprentice's page or deleting would be appropriate.   Kadzi   (talk) 19:09, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment
WP:GNG
as there is significant independent coverage from reliable sources here in UK and internationally - these are mentioned above here and cited in the article. It has be acknowledged, Parsons carries this tabloid-type, populist controversial persona that attracts sensational headlines, but all sources cited here and in the article are deemed reliable and special effort was made to remove coverage of him in outlets such as The Sun, MailOnline, Daily Star and other banned independent sources that aren't reliable. Many reputable and independent sources are included too e.g. The Independent, Radio Times, The Evening Standard, The Sydney Herald, NZ Herald etc.

Regarding other contestants, Parsons has continued his media presence by appearing on various TV & radio shows e.g. Good Morning Britain, London Live, BBC Asian Network, BBC Radio 5 Live and recently Hits Radio. Whilst conducting research on other candidates, there is only one other candidate from his series, namely Thomas Skinner, who has also appeared on further major TV shows. It's also worth mentioning, Parsons has had significantly more press coverage than the majority of the candidates; recently in May 2020 he and another candidate were involved in a controversy (unrelated to The Apprentice) that was reported by nearly every major online newspaper. But for comparison, other Apprentice UK candidates from previous series have Wikipedia articles, but not all of their fellow contestants from each of their series have their own article. If other candidates from Parsons’ series don’t have Wikipedia articles, this shouldn’t somehow go against Parsons having his own (for all of the reasons I’ve outlined thoroughly), based on precedent.

A lot of his media coverage has been unrelated to The Apprentice, often covering Parsons in public. One example of Parsons eating at McDonald's with knife and fork, which was featured in a popular celebrity podcast based in USA and the majority of online newspapers in UK. Also, after his GMB debate on koalas (again, not related to The Apprentice) press coverage reached Australia and New Zealand, as well as majority of online newspapers in UK. Although this doesn't count towards notability, due to Parsons being youngest-ever Apprentice candidate, this would suggest a wider interest for there to be encyclopaedic coverage on this individual, along with all of the reasons to suggest notability I've already mentioned above.

A further test for notability is "a large fan base or a significant "cult" following"

WP:ENT#2, as The Evening Standard reporter suggests, "after garnering a fan base while on the show" Parsons argued with another contestant argued over him charging for signed photographs and personalised videos.^[1] This story on Parsons was also reported independently by other reliable sources. JPA24 (talk) 21:54, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment Just an update on the discussion. I have made several changes to the article (after getting some tips from experienced users) to make the content more clear and have added further information that covers Parsons' media work and press coverage; cited by a mixture of independent sources and national newspaper interviews (unrelated to The Apprentice and largely from 2020). JPA24 (talk) 15:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A few articles directly after his appearance should not constitute a cult following; and staged tabloid articles do not constitute thorough media coverage. Other contestants gained similar coverage and invitations to talk shows, for example, Skinner.   Kadzi   (talk) 20:39, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Not even the winner has a wikipedia article; other contestants rightly so redirect to the series page

Parsons' had less interest over time according to google data, compared with Thomas Skinner and Pamela Laird, for example ^[2]

Twitter following at time of writing:

Ryan Mark: 15.5k ^[3]

Thomas Skinner: 82.5k ^[4]

(Winner) Carina Lepore: 27.2k ^[5]

Lewis Ellis (Verified): 15.1k ^[6]

Lottie Lion: 16.8k ^[7]

Note: Other twitters not checked but likely to be around the same or lower than Ryan-mark's.

The small amount of press coverage simply does not offset the overall insignificance of the character; and I invite you to attempt to successfully create the other higher-publicised characters if you are such a fan.   Kadzi   (talk) 20:54, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

The Evening Standard
. 2019-12-31.

^ "Google Trends". Google Trends. Retrieved 2020-05-21.

^ "RYAN-MARK (@ryanmarkparsons) | Twitter". twitter.com. Retrieved 2020-05-21.

^ "Thomas Skinner ⚒ (@iamtomskinner) | Twitter". twitter.com. Retrieved 2020-05-21.

^ "Carina (@carinalepore) | Twitter". twitter.com. Retrieved 2020-05-21.

^ "Lewis Ellis (@ImLewisEllis) | Twitter". twitter.com. Retrieved 2020-05-21.

^ "LottieLion (@LottieLion1) | Twitter". twitter.com. Retrieved 2020-05-21.

Comment Thank you
WP:GNG
.

The cult following reference was implied by the journalist in The Evening Standard (previously cited) and other independent sources, after he faced controversy for charging fans for personalised videos and photographs. This was the suggestion in the articles that reported this controversy and of course, if Parsons is charging for this personalised material, there has to be a fanbase to facilitate the demand (as the articles suggest).

Regarding Google Search Trends and Twitter following. Out of 16 candidates from 2019, including multiple candidates from previous seasons, Parsons' ranks near the top for having gained the most followers on Twitter. Regardless, I must urge users to ignore reference to Twitter following, as this is not a consideration for the Wikipedia notability test
WP:GNG
. Many notable and highly successful public figures either don't have a Twitter account or a small following, therefore on the basis of your argument, they're not eligible for Wikipedia coverage if compared to other public figures from the same film, TV show or industry, if they have less followers or no followers at all. There is also no correlation between Search Trends and Twitter following. If you take the example of Pamela Laird, that you cited, even if she allegedly has a greater online interest over time in United States (according to Google Search Trends the nominator cited), her Twitter following is less than Parsons'.

Pamela Laird: 11.7k ^[1]

I must also make clear, the Search Trend you cited was conducted in United States, it would be more accurate to conduct a search trend and cite data from United Kingdom, as this is the broadcast territory for The Apprentice UK. Based on data I've collected from the Search Trend in the UK, I actually found that interest overtime from January 2020 (post-Apprentice broadcast), is very similar for the four candidates, including Parsons. ^{WP:GNG and I merely added this point to the discussion to make a correction to the data Dr. Kadzi
cited.}

If you or any user conducts a simple news search on Parsons' name, you will find significant national coverage that exceeds the majority of any candidate from 2019 series or before. Furthermore, from my research on Parsons and other candidates, Parsons is the only candidate from 2019 series to receive international coverage in USA, Australia and New Zealand (discounting Pamela Laird who is based in Republic of Ireland). The discussion point you made about Parsons receiving 'small amount of press coverage' is inaccurate based on points made before this and now. The same principle must be applied to other Apprentice candidates who have Wikipedia articles (the majority of which did not win their respective series); their press coverage is either less or similar to that of Parsons.

Once again, it is inaccurate to describe the other candidates you have mentioned as 'higher-publicised', as from the research I've carried out, Parsons has gained the most coverage from The Apprentice alongside Lottie Lion and Carina Lepore (winner). A lot of your discussion points aren't supported by any numbers, apart from Twitter following (which isn't a consideration for notability) and Google Search Trends which also doesn't define notability
WP:GNG
. I must raise concerns over your suggestion that Parsons' appeared in 'staged tabloid articles'. There is no suggestion in each of these articles that they are 'staged', the pictures have been taken and the news has been reported in the same way that many other notable figures will be captured in press shots whilst in public and later journalists will report this. I think it's important that if you have evidence to make that suggestion that Parsons' has appeared in 'staged' articles, you make it clear on this discussion.

Your recent discussion comments seem to only address the cult following point I made, but you haven't referenced the several other points I have addressed in this discussion that count towards Parsons' notability and thus eligibility for Wikipedia coverage. The fact you have also invited me to create articles on other notable candidates from 2019 series, would suggest to some degree you accept Parsons' notability and I cannot understand why you would then bring this particular article into this discussion for deletion. If you feel that other candidates with very similar if not less independent media coverage warrant articles on Wikipedia, then of course Parsons' existing article deserves to remain on Wikipedia.

I'm constantly improving Parsons' article and eventually I will accept your invitation to create other articles for the notable candidates that you mentioned from 2019 series. It is precedent with notable candidates from the past series of The Apprentice, which you can find very easily under 'notable candidates' on the main page of The Apprentice, to create articles in the interest of enhancing this platform that I'm truly learning to love. JPA24 (talk) 23:22, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "@Pamela_Laird". twitter.com. Retrieved 21 May 2020.

^ "Google Trends". Google Trends. Retrieved 21 May 2020.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:48, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong keep~~ As mentioned in previous discussion, the nominator has invited me to create articles on other notable candidates from 2019 series, which of course would include Parsons, being one of three candidates to continue work on national TV & radio, alongside other candidates Thomas Skinner and Carina Lepore (winner). Therefore, I'm struggling to understand why this article was nominated in the first place, if nominator believes there are grounds for notability. Furthermore, Parsons has arguably the most press coverage from 2019 series, regularly featured in press (unrelated to The Apprentice) and near the start of May 2020 (most major UK online newspapers). Due to Parsons being the youngest-ever candidate in show's history, I thought they'd be a wider interest to have an article on Wikipedia, along with all of the reasons I have made clear that make him notable
WP:GNG
.

I have cited independent and reliable sources throughout this discussion and in the original article. Significant national and international independent press coverage that was generated outside of The Apprentice (months after it finished airing on BBC One - all cited above and in the article). The nominator also raised points about Twitter following and Google Search Trends to determine notability, which of course aren't factors towards passing the notability test
WP:GNG. I merely referenced the The Evening Standard article cited above, in which a journalist implies Parsons has a cult following or 'fanbase'. Existing Wikipedia articles on past notable Apprentice candidates have survived deletion nominations, as they have proven notability in the same way Parsons has; they have the same if not less independent and reliable
press coverage.

The nominator also suggested that press from Parsons was 'staged', but there is no indication of this by the reporters in their respective articles. This would make me question whether the nominator has a conflict of interest, perhaps they know more than what is written in the articles about Parsons? All of the press shots and subsequent articles of Parsons show him carrying out regular activities, and like any notable figure, they are often caught by press whilst in public. I see this as a further reason to suggest notability, due to independent and reliable news featuring Parsons focusing on these press shots.

In order to avoid being too repetitive, my previous reasons to keep this article are noted above very clearly (also in previous discussion). I'm completely open to feedback in order to improve this article on Parsons. If anyone has any suggestions to enhance its quality, I would be welcome to your messages on the article's talk page or here. JPA24 (talk) 14:52, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article is full of mostly tabloid sources, but there are a few reliable sources in there: Radio Times, The Independent, The Sydney Morning Herald. There does seem to be enough chatter about this person that bare notability can be met.

The nominator's rationales are:

1) "Before his appearance on The Apprentice, [he] would relatively be unknown and not of importance to constitute an article." The argument is that the subject would not have been notable until he did the stuff that made him notable. That's true of pretty much anyone outside of a royal family.

2) Other contestants on the show don't have an article, and they're more popular. This is an
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
argument, and is irrelevant, especially going down the rabbit hole of who has more Twitter followers. Notability is not determined by the relative popularity of the subject compared to other people. It's determined by coverage in reliable sources.

I urge JPA24 to read
WP:WALLOFTEXT, and then take a step back and stop responding on this page any more. All of your long posts are discouraging other people from participating. -- Toughpigs (talk) 20:23, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more input by people other than JPA24, whose walls of text are likely to be disregarded in the closing because we all have limited time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:16, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would also urge
WP:THREE sources and then step back and let others in. Stifle (talk) 09:36, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment I would like to apologise, thank you to the users who have made me aware of this. I won't be adding anymore to the discussion, all of my points are listed above in favour of keeping the article. JPA24 (talk) 11:17, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - subject is notable, meeting GNG with references provided above. Nfitz (talk) 19:19, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DoubleTree by Hilton Hotel Phoenix Tempe

DoubleTree by Hilton Hotel Phoenix Tempe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is not a notable hotel. Wikieditor600 (talk) 20:45, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's all the coverage I dug up that feels noteworthy, and I'm not feeling much here: [1][2][3][4][5] I vote weak delete.
t • c) 00:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:06, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because it seems promotional, was created by a single user probably for the sake of advertising the hotel, and most importantly there's nothing notable about it. Adamant1 (talk) 13:04, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep.
Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Crowne Plaza Manila Galleria Philippines

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

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

This is not a notable hotel. Wikieditor600 (talk) 20:41, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I don't see why this is notable. The two references on the article are broken, and I can't find anything on Google besides the hotel website, tripadvisor etc Pi (Talk to me!) 00:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Crowne Plaza: Majority of the search results show events hosted by the hotel. One source indicates that the hotel is under the InterContinental Hotels Group. ~~Other than that, barely found anything (including history) about the hotel. My vote stands. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 03:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:06, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not a notable hotel. Do not redirect; it is not a useful search term and no content about this hotel is found at the chain's article. Stifle (talk) 09:37, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found a bunch of articles in Philippine news media that establish notability for the hotel, so I wonder how thoroughly the people who are calling for this article's deletion searched for references. Some references include:

The Manila Times reported that the hotel is the new home of Philippine Fashion Week

The Philippine Star reported that the hotel was the first to roll out a mobile Internet solution for its Wi-Fi needs

The Manila Times also did a write-up on the hotel's general manager, as well as the hotel's then-executive chef. BusinessMirror did a write-up on that chef's successor.

ABS-CBN News and Current Affairs has a pretty long section on the hotel's coronavirus easing preparations just a few days ago.

While not a write-up per se on the hotel, the
Sun.Star Manila) picked up on this
as well.

I think these are sufficient for establishing the hotel's credibility, no? --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 19:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Changed my vote. With reliable sources indicated by
WP:SNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 14:32, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)   Kadzi   (talk) 21:08, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anterdol Dandpat

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

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

I'm not sure that any of the information is reliable and a lot seems as if it is a story or an anecdote   Kadzi   (talk) 20:41, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.   Kadzi   (talk) 20:41, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as apparently 100% original research. Mccapra (talk) 21:02, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as
WP:TNT - any article on this subject would need to start again, not be based on a string of unsourced personal reminiscences. - Arjayay (talk) 15:25, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
WP:TNT. The topic may or may not be notable but there is nothing salvageable about the current first-person account. Pichpich (talk) 22:15, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per WP:TNT, nothing useable here. Formatting oddities such as "to be continued", unexplained timestamps and nonstandard quote boxes make me suspect that the whole thing was copy-pasted from another source. –dlthewave ☎ 02:00, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Violates so many major policies it's not even worth listing them here. And even draftifying it would be pointless, as it would need to be completely rewritten starting from scratch. Just get rid of it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:00, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and encourage contributor to start by adding something at Hirakud Dam --Cornellier (talk) 17:28, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and delete all prior !votes as superseded. I spent a little time on the article, deleting the massive wall of text from a relatively inexperienced editor that can't now be verified. But this is a verifiable former populated village. We now have a stub that can be kept. Any of y'all could have done what I did! I hope to make sure we have articles on all of the 249 submerged villages someday, who wants to help!!--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:45, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as reliable sources have been added. Mccapra (talk) 18:14, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a clear pass of
Phil Bridger (talk) 18:54, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GroupLeader.com

GroupLeader.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 is not a notable website. No reliable sources. Wikieditor600 (talk) 20:33, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails
WP:SIGCOV. A search on Ireland's two main newspapers of record returns only trivial mentions and the typical churnalism we might expect for any startup seeking PR or investment. (See: Irish Independent results and Irish Times results). That the article's content reads like an advert and the author an apparent SPA/COI contributor is also a concern. The subject's website also seems to be offline for well over a year. Suggesting it may not be operating as a going concern. And hence unlikely to "gain" notability in the future. In any event, mine is a firm "delete" recommendation (as isn't notable now, and wasn't notable when AfC accepted). Article stands only as an out-of-date advert for an otherwise non-notable company. Guliolopez (talk) 01:13, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. Was not a notable company, and now defunct. Spleodrach (talk) 14:30, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:02, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rina Nagasaki

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

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

Article has no description as to why this artist is notable. Article has 1 reference which points to an archived copy of the subject's website. Article consists of one line which says who the subject is and where and when born, nothing else to establish notability. Article has a list of numbers and letters, with no explanation as to what they mean (possible a music catalog number?) and lists "hobbies" which is extraneous and trivial. Donaldd23 (talk) 19:46, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable entertainer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:40, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1998 Capital Taxi Aereo plane crash

1998 Capital Taxi Aereo plane crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Tragic but cargo plane accidents are very common. Fails
WP:EVENT as there is no lasting effect. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify again - The article as it stands was moved to mainspace from draftspace 16 hours before this AfD but is undersourced. This could easily have had a lasting impact in Brazil as it hit a house and was the first loss of a Brazilian aircraft type, but it needs better sourcing to support this. I'm not willing to categorise this as "non-notable" due to a lack of Brazilian records search, it may be, it may not be, but I don't think it's ready for mainspace. SportingFlyer T·C 19:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer: Comment This is a very minor cargo plane crash with limited ground casualties. Take for instance this South America 1976 crash[6] that killed 88 people on the ground besides the 707 crew of three. BTW that crash doesn't even have a WP article....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:38, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Bolivian crash likely should have an article, that's proof of nothing. Anyways, there's still a chance this is notable, and given it was freshly moved from draftspace, I don't see any harm with just moving it back. SportingFlyer T·C 19:49, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~without prejudice~~. As with many articles based on a single source, it reproduces that source, ASN in this case. The sourced parts of the article are a close paraphrase and several rearranged word-for-word copies. The incident is already mentioned EMB 120 article, and there is very little worth preserving without source-based evidence of stand-alone significance. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

additional comment. After looking at the corresponding pt.Wikipedia article and searching for RS coverage, I am convinced this crash was a breaking news event with only routine follow up. Lasting RS interest in the event and the significance of the crash as the first of that aircraft's variant do not appear to be evident. Fails
WP:NEVENT. • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete No
WP:LASTING coverage. Azuredivay (talk) 02:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom --Cornellier (talk) 17:21, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is not enough coverage from independent reliable secondary sources. Also per
WP:NOTNEWS. Bolhones (talk) 18:24, 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. Sandstein 07:03, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Pfountz

Greg Pfountz (edit | 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 computer guy. Fails
talk) 17:33, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:25, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable computer programer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:57, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:08, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ally Sparkles

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

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

Reviewed through New Page Patrol. BLP of a pornstar, copied and pasted to mainspace after being declined at AFC. Sources are an interview on a porn industry site (not independent), her own website and a list of porn award winners. I was unable to find any substantial, reliable source coverage through a
WP:GNG. Spicy (talk) 17:18, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spicy (talk) 17:18, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spicy (talk) 17:18, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Spicy (talk) 17:18, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails
talk) 17:38, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks significant coverage by reliable sources. The minor award win would not even have satisfied any understanding of PORNBIO after 2012. Nothing to support any claim of notability per WP:BIO. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: A closer look at the Transgender Erotica Awards indicates that the award, especially including the subject's award win, is a studio-sponsored porn award mainly celebrating excellence in that studio's own output. This can't be self promotion, can it? • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable pornographic performer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:24, 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. Already deleted as per
(non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp ✉ 06:13, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Danish Ishtiaq

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

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

Non-notable entrepreneur. ~SS49~ {talk} 15:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 15:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 15:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CSD A7 it. ~ Amkgp ✉ 15:30, 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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:06, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Théophile Figeys

Théophile Figeys (edit | 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 my attempts at verification beyond a genealogy website and a newspaper list of contributors to an orphanage mentioning somebody of this name being alive in the 1910s (no online mention of him as a general, or father of many war dead, except in Wikipedia and derivatives) --Andreas Philopater (talk) 13:49, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've made a request at
WP:GNG... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:13, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

I have again gone above and beyond the call of duty; (this: blacklisted = it's a WP mirror, but there are a few pre-made search queries at the bottom - so just for reference: peoplepill.com/people/theophile-figeys/ ) gives a few queries that I ran through the search engines but they again don't yield any results. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:20, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete likely hoax. b uidhe 01:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons stated. The name is credible but there is no listing in the Biographie nationale (here) or any other of the usual sources. I agree it is likely to be a hoax. I also note the English article was created in 2010—two years before the French article. Can we make sure that the article is deleted in all language versions? —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are French and Spanish versions, both identified as translations of the English version, and a Ukrainian that cites Love, D. (1996). The Second Battle of Ypres, April 1915 – a page that does not mention a Figeys. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 11:30, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to the closing admin: This could go at
WP:HOAXLIST... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:32, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Doing... b uidhe 21:58, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a hoax.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The hoax. ——Serial^# 09:03, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per research by others as noted above. Would also suggest notifying the other wikis to start an equivalent deletion process.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 23:49, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:03, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shubham Kumar

Shubham Kumar (edit | 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 businessman. ~SS49~ {talk} 13:34, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 13:34, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 13:34, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable, most likely advertisement. // Eatcha (talk) 13:54, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - Hatchens (talk) 14:00, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The content which is written is completely promotional as per
WP:PROMO. Abishe (talk) 14:33, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete no indication of notability whatsoever. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:14, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per above.
talk) 18:52, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Wikipedia is not meant to be for people to self promote. We have allowed way too much of that slide by over the years.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:46, 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 Materialscientist (talk) 08:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ayush Kumar Upadhyay

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

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

Non-notable actor. ~SS49~ {talk} 12:45, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 12:45, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 12:45, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete The article actually should be speedily deleted under the criteria G11. The subject fails
WP:NACTOR. Abishe (talk) 14:36, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Agree with Abishe Donaldd23 (talk) 21:10, 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 delete. Sandstein 07:05, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arjun Gupta (venture capitalist)

Arjun Gupta (venture capitalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Highly promotional (
WP:GNG. Calling for an AfD discussion. Hatchens (talk) 12:40, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 12:40, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 12:40, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 12:40, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:45, 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. Sandstein 07:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Satya Narayanan R

Satya Narayanan R (edit | 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 fails notability
WP:PROMO). Calling for an AfD discussion. Hatchens (talk) 12:33, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 12:33, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 12:33, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessperson and poet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:42, 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn.
(non-admin closure) Mhhossein ^talk 05:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Elliot Norton Awards

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

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

~~It exists, but doesn't meet~~
~~WP:NOTABILITY.~~ Boleyn (talk) 14:36, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:54, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:55, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. If article says how long this award has been given out, I missed it. But historically, when shows that were destined for Broadway went on tour prior to opening in NYC to work out the kinks and get feedback from critics and audiences, Boston was usually the last stop. It wasn’t totally because of its proximity to NYC but because the audiences and critics were the most similar to what they were expecting on Broadway so it was sort of a final test. If a play fared well in Boston, it stood a good chance of succeeding on Broadway. So, if the awards have been around for some time, then they’ve been awarded to some of the greats in the theater world. I would say give it some time to incubate. Let others work on improving it. Then revisit the isssue of keep or delete in the future if someone feels it isn’t up to snuff. Postcard Cathy (talk) 18:46, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just noticed there was an article for Mr. Norton. And there are plenty of wiki links to this particular article. So, there seems to be an interest in the subject. If the consensus is the awards don’t deserve a wiki article of their own, then I suggest a merge with Elliot Norton? Postcard Cathy (talk) 19:06, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:42, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A search shows that the Awards are still running after more than thirty years, and continue to attract coverage in the theatre press. Mccapra (talk) 02:38, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:01, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mccapra, where exactly is the coverage you mention? Online, I've only been able to find this. Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 17:30, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I’ll share it here when I’m back on my laptop. Mccapra (talk) 17:57, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. These awards have been covered by the national theatre press such as Variety (see [8], [9], [10]) and Playbill (see [11], [12]). That's aside from coverage it has received from the local Boston-area media like WGBH and The MetroWest Daily News. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:00, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 2020 awards in the Boston Globe, Playbill, Broadway.com, and an older one from Variety, plus lots of local news and radio in MA. Mccapra (talk) 18:15, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources identified above. Please add them to the article, and not just the AfD discussion. :) — Toughpigs (talk) 18:17, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination per great comments above. Thanks for your work on this, Boleyn (talk) 18:58, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 07:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

National Coalition for Homeless Veterans

National Coalition for Homeless Veterans (edit | 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-remarkable organization. Going to summits is what these organizations do as part of their routine business and article is built off of these primary sources (their own, as well as relevant summit pages). After trimming out things that were not relevant, what's left is based on primary source. I don't believe there are sources that can establish this organization to
WP:NORG level. Graywalls (talk) 02:17, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 02:17, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 02:17, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Trying to find sources that show direct
WP:SIGCOV is like trying to find a needle in a pile of needles. I gave up after ten pages of wading, as they are referenced for statistics and comments in hundreds of articles that they aren't the direct subject of. However, their quotes and statistics being regularly used and the fact that C-SPAN has on multiple occassions covered their yearly conference [13] leads me to believe that someone with more patience or better googling skills could come up with a few good sources. Sulfurboy (talk) 04:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

@
WP:NCORP. C-SPAN is not discussing or making extensive analysis of the NCHV's speech or the organization and you didn't supplement it with a policy suggesting this sort of coverage would qualify and until then, I'm convinced this should be deleted. If a needle can get lost in a pile of needle, it's just a needle. It's not a distinctively unique and notable needle in a sea of needles. Graywalls (talk) 16:25, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:16, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Sulfurboy Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 12:09, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Sulfurboy. Seems reasonable to keep the article based on that. Dwaro (talk) 11:13, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have searched for references and like Sulfurboy, I agree that not a single reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability can be found. Unlike Sulfurboy though, that's a clear and simple reason to Delete for me. Topic fails GNG/NCORP.
HighKing⁺⁺ 20:19, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:01, 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 no consensus. From a nosecount point of view, opinion is more or less evenly split. I'm having trouble finding good policy-based arguments on either side. The gist here is that people mostly agree this information should be included in the encyclopedia, but disagree on whether it belongs here in a stand-alone article, or merged into any of several suggested higher-level articles. Whether to merge or not is fundamentally a content issue which should be resolved by editors building consensus on the talk pages. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:02, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

COVID-19 pandemic in the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base

COVID-19 pandemic in the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Guantanamo Bay Naval Base is not a nation. There is only 1 confirmed case, and only a few sentences, not information for having a stand alone article. If this is the standard, we can have an article of every city in the United States and world wide. COVID-19 is not even mentioned in the article Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, so not major for the base. All content can easily be merged into Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, COVID-19 pandemic in the United States and/or COVID-19 pandemic in Cuba. SportsOlympic (talk) 11:28, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:08, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:08, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:08, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:08, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/merge We do not need separate articles for single cases in every square mile on earth, easily covered in the above articles without listing every minor tidbit of info in the news as it has now. Reywas92^Talk 08:03, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep most (if not all) subnational jurisdictions in the united states have their own article. while the reported case count in low, article is notable due to the DoD not providing updates and the shut down of travel between the base for legal services. Epluribusunumyall (talk) 09:27, 23 May 2020 (UTC) (wrote this a while ago, but forgot to sign it, my bad)[reply]

Comment The base not being a nation is not good reason for deletion.
talk) 13:09, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
I agree, but the reason for nominating is not only that it’s not a country. SportsOlympic (talk) 20:14, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment , "most (if not all) subnational jurisdictions in the united states have their own article.", look forward to other jurisdications getting similar treatment, i dont think this means all subnational jurisdictions (Part-I.pdf around 1/2mill worldwide) but at the state/regional level of each country it would still number in the thousands. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:52, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, i know we're talking about ~~USpedia~~, oops Wikipedia here, but do we really need a separate covid article for Guantanamo naval base (and not even the province, just the base)?, we already have an imbalance in these covid articles ie. a separate article for each US state, and each province in Canada, compare that to some other countries; Australia has 16 states/territories - COVID-19 pandemic in Australia, China has 34 provincial level admin divisions -5 separate articles, France has 13 metropolitan/mainland regions - COVID-19 pandemic in France, India has 36 states/union territories -29 separate articles, New Zealand has 6 provinces - COVID-19 pandemic in New Zealand, Sweden has 25 provinces - COVID-19 pandemic in Sweden. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:59, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's worth pointing out that Canada and the United States are federalized states and much of the healthcare response has been delegate to either provinces or states, and thats partially why they may deserve their own articles. New Zealand and France are unitary states on the other hand their response has been led by their federal governments. Regions in france don't have legislative authority over health policy, unlike provinces/states in canada and the us. This just ins't a good comparision because even though all states have subnational jurisdiction, they don't all have the same legislative or political authority to deal with the covid-19 pandemic. Epluribusunumyall (talk) 09:27, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to a more general article on Covid-19 in US controlled military locations. This is 1 case, it is not a sustained outbreak.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:50, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are many news stories about the impact of COVID-19 on Guantanamo naval base so I vote to keep this article and can help improve it Serenewilliams (talk) 17:10, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As stated above, this should be merged into a bigger article (the one for the Base, or the one for COVID). --
talk) 03:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:44, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Now get into your orange jumpsuits and begin the water-boarding. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:51, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect I don't think we need a separate article like this and better to merge it with COVID-19 pandemic in the United States as per nom. Abishe (talk) 20:46, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Serenewilliams. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 12:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:00, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep because there is currently no article about COVID on US military bases, only one on the impact on militaries in general. It might be merged without another discussion, if and when editors can put together such an article. NotBartEhrman (talk) 02:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unhelpful, indiscriminate article. I claim that many of these articles lack content. I've seen other of the, before, but this one is simply about a military base, which isn't even a community. Koridas (...Puerto Rico for statehood!) 22:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because article COVID-19 pandemic in the United States may be too long to read and navigate comfortably if merged with all cases of US States and Cities, ships, care homes, etc. Notable, because wide presence in american mass media ([14]) is also about to keep. PoetVeches (talk) 14:48, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the important info can be written in a few sentences, as all the other information about taken measures is the same as in the US. An option might also be to merge it into COVID-19 pandemic in Cuba as it is located there. And yes, the one or two sentences are of encyclopedic relevance, but might not deserve a stand alone article. SportsOlympic (talk) 08:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:01, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dangerous Sex Games

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

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

A non notable straight-to-cable pornographic film Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:54, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:54, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:54, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:54, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there is a lack of coverage in reliable sources, for example there are no external reviews at IMDb and no entry at all at Rotten Tomatoes, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:37, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article was created five years ago, with three sentences of prose, the only sources being external links to the film's pages on IMDb and AllMovie, and empty "Plot" and "Reception" sections. Now, after having been edited by nine other Wikipedians, the article still has only three sentences of prose, the only sources are still the external links to the film's pages on IMDb and AllMovie, and the "Plot" and "Reception" sections are still empty. I see no indication of notability per
WP:NFILM. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:03, 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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:01, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pleydell Street

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

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

A non notable road with no notable buildings on it Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:51, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:51, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:51, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:51, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:51, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:04, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails notability --Cornellier (talk) 12:46, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:01, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bradford Ophthalmic Optics Student Association

Bradford Ophthalmic Optics Student Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A non notable student organisation Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:47, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:47, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:47, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:47, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:47, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing particularly notable about it - I would have suggested merge to Uni of Bradford Union if there was anything worth keeping, but the awards are either nominations or internal (from the student union), and nothing unusual for the highest membership to be a subject-related society. EdwardUK (talk) 12:41, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails
NORG, no independent sources, BEFORE shows nothing better. John from Idegon (talk) 09:30, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:01, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Carlstrom (businessman)

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

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

Fails
WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 11:29, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:26, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:26, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – in addition to the lack of sources mentioned in the nomination, there are also no independent sources talking about him in any depth when his last name is spelt correctly (Carlström rather than Carlstrom. Although some of the English-language sources in the article use the Anglicised form, not all of them do and he doesn't use that himself.) Most of the sources are press releases or directly based on press releases, some have taken phrasing straight from Carlström's own website, and nothing suggests in-depth coverage or notability beyond BLP1E. --bonadea contributions talk 10:32, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:53, 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. Fenix down (talk) 17:25, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FC Lisznyó

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

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

Nowhere near notable. Geschichte (talk) 09:42, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only thing on this club I found was a Facebook post. Dougal18 (talk) 14:12, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:38, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable. Giant Snowman 11:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article clearly fails
WP:NSPORT, creator hasn't added any citations or external links, Google doesn't appear to be helpful on the subject from a glance. Govvy (talk) 12:43, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Not notable as they have not played in a top-level league or cup, and there don't appear to be reliable sources to establish notability on any other grounds Pi (Talk to me!) 17:30, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Juliette Han (talk) 11:53, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Who Shot Ya?

Who Shot Ya? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Been visiting this article every now and then for some time now. Until most recently, it’s long been composed as a list of quotations sourced by
original research. It would appear the article–as well as the average IP, sockpuppet/throway account
and registered editor–is more concerned with stringing together references and rumors associated with various, often disputed events orbiting the song at the time of the recording, rather than structuring the page on the song itself. Moreover, much of the actual criticism I’ve come across is self-professed speculation pertaining to the purposely ambiguous allusions made throughout the lyrics.
Combine all that with the fact it didn’t chart and was not released as a single. Does not meet
WP:NSONG.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ascribe4 (talk • contribs
)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 09:35, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This AfD was incomplete. I added the banner on the article, added discussion headers, and relisted as today's date. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 09:37, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Clearly notable. The immediately accessible articles on Slate, MTV News and Vibe make the notability clear, even without delving into the book references. The current quality of the article and the intentions of some of the contributors do not affect the notability of the topic. AfD is not cleanup. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:14, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Even after excising all the problematic sources, there would still be more than enough RS. Notable not only to rap, but to general '90s pop culture. Caro7200 (talk) 12:53, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per
fancruft removed, but as was said above, that is a matter of cleanup which has no relevance for the song's notability. There is plenty of reliable evidence that the song has a place in rap history, as part of the big east/west feud and for fueling plenty of future rap developments. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep: As the present article's main author, but having first reached the article only a few days ago, I have deleted unreliable sources and included only reliable sources to heed due weight. (XXL and The Source are reliable sources for beliefs and reputations in the rap community.) Still, in edit notes, I myself have suggested that some content, as in section "Pervasive suspicions", would optimally go elsewhere—in a dedicated, succinct, tidy article or section like "Tupac and Biggie". (I mean this in contrast to the massive, bloated, convoluted articles at present on related topics.) Yet until such exists, lack of the content here would gratuitously shroud the "Who Shot Ya" story and impact. Deleting the saga of friendship, fallout, and accusations among, plus statements by NYPD detectives about, the central persons—including speculations that Tupac had shot himself—unrealistically shutters view of the song, which, not an abstract artistic creation, always implied guarded knowledge, insinuation, accusation, and menace. Even if abstract art were Biggie's intention, he never exerted appreciable effort to debunk the contrary, consensus view. Biggie's assertion that he wrote the song well before the November 1994 shooting is fully compatible with, or even supports, the consensus view, although I never so editorialize. The article covers only the central persons and the minimal, mainstream events or facts implied by "Who Shot Ya"—in November 1994 at Quad studios or who potentially would on, he raps, "Brooklyn streets"—a saga that explains, well arguably, some 80% of the song's sociocultural impact. As to the allegation of "fancruft", I was never a Biggie fan, and in 1999 outgrew the influence of Tupac's persona on my life. I've evolved opinions on and critiques of the persons, personae, events, reasons, and consequences, but none of these are in the article, which would be much different if it were my opinion piece. If the article seems to one like original research, I ask, please, to vet the sources, whereby one may ultimately discern that I simply, diligently whittled the morass of circulating claims to the saga's undisputed core via authoritative consensus, so that readers don't have to undertake that arduous task merely to ponder "Who Shot Ya" through an accurate historical lens. This is not to say that the article cannot be improved through criticism and assistance, but merely that it lacks the glaring, pervasive defects alleged. — Occurring (talk) 14:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article easily meets
WP:NSONG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 04:32, 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. Sandstein 07:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpool International College

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

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

This is one of hundreds of private businesses providing two years of intermediate education between school and university, it being neither. It should be required to meet
WP:SIGCOV would be a start, which I couldn't locate. Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination ~SS49~ {talk} 10:18, 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 no consensus. Merge it somewhere perhaps.
Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:50, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Fuel bunker

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

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

ReasonReviewed as part of new article review/curation. Appears to be an unused two word combination. Zero sources, tagged for having zero sources since mid-april. I could even find usage of the term much less sources on it. Also / probably because term is somewhat self-conflicting. North8000 (talk) 10:18, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@
talk) 13:06, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
@
WT79 The Engineer: That was a sidebar comment but what I meant was that in the context of where there is storage to power an engine, fuel generally means liquid, and, as the article notes, such storage for liquid is termed a tank rather than a bunker. BTW thanks for all of your work. With this AFD I'm just trying to do my job properly, Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:15, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

@
talk) 23:01, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
@
WT79 The Engineer: I agree with all of that but it does not address or refute my comment. Applying my comment to your example, IMHO in that case the common terminology would be "coal" rather than fuel, and the common names for the storage container would be "bunker" or "coal bunker" rather than "fuel bunker". Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:33, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
@
talk) 10:44, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Thus the only part of your reason is not addressed is that the article has 0 sources (tagged since mid-April), which is true, but a stub article which has been unsourced for about a month (so far) is not very long compared with
talk) 10:54, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
You've not addressed the main question I raised which is: Is the term "fuel bunker" commonly used? Your logic seems to be "if coal or wood is fuel, and they are stored in a bunker, therefore "fuel bunker" is a commonly used term" but that does not follow. And I was bringing up sources as the arbiter of this. If you are arguing that this is a commonly used term, why not settle it and find a source or two that uses the term "fuel bunker"? Or, is your argument in essence "we should have an article on coal bunkers and wood bunkers and "fuel bunker" is the best title that we can create on that, even though it is not a commonly used term"? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:39, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

^{talk) 16:11, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]}

References

ISBN 978-1-291-07973-9
.

ISBN 978-0-253-34219-5
. Retrieved 19 May 2020. the brakeman rode in this tiny enclosure, which is usually located on the tank immediately behind the fuel bunker

ISBN 978-1-4456-9462-7
. Retrieved 19 May 2020. In this experimental form No. A629 was shedded at Eastbourne, where a special fuel bunker was erected

ISBN 978-0-486-13619-6
. Retrieved 19 May 2020. the trailing truclk's function was to carry the weight of the fuel bunker behind the cab

ISBN 978-0-7385-2882-3
. Retrieved 19 May 2020. The conductor waits on the platform of the passenger coach while the engineer peers over the locomotive's fuel bunker

^ "Beyer Peacock". scienceandindustrymuseum.org. Retrieved 19 May 2020. The positioning of the water tank and fuel bunker above the bogies also gave the engine better traction,

As mentioned in the article, fuel bunkers are commonly known as simply bunkers; feel free to move if you think that 'Bunker (fuel)' better conforms to the
bunker fuel
.

Rename/redirect. Supposedly,
Bunker fuel is the generic term given to any fuel poured into a ship’s bunkers to power its engines. Deepsea cargo ships typically burn the heavy, residual oil left over after gasoline, diesel and other light hydrocarbons are extracted from crude oil during the refining process. Devoutman (talk) 15:37, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

That;s a different use of bunker, but by "pour" does reinforce that for stored fuel for an engine fuel typically means liquid. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:24, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge It is easy to find substantial sources such as An Introduction to Bunkering and there's an obvious
alternative to deletion – merger to Fuel_oil#Bunker_fuel. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:31, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
@
talk) 23:01, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:45, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect> Bunkering, the loading and storage of fuels in which a bunker might be used.Djflem (talk) 15:07, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@
Speak to me | account info) 09:27, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

In other words bunkering is the loading of fuel into a bunker. How is the space where fuel is stored not part of the process of storing fuel?Djflem (talk) 09:39, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The storage container for storing fuel is not part of the process of loading fuel into storage containers. This can be analogised to the pouring of a glass of water; the glass is not part of the process of tipping up the jug.
Speak to me | account info) 10:02, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Exactly, when pouring a glass of water, the glass is very integral to the process. Otherwise you are "pouring water" into a bucket, on he ground, into a hole, into your mouth or all the other myriad of places where you can pour water. Loading fuel into a bunker requires a bunker, doesn't it? The term bunker is used in the article Bunkering and specifically states: The term originated in the days of steamships, when the fuel, coal, was stored in bunkers. Nowadays the term bunker is generally applied to the storage of petroleum products in tanks, and the practice and business of refueling ships. Djflem (talk) 15:32, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Loading fuel into a bunker requires a bunker, but that's not my point. The bunker is not part of the process of filling it, and the article about bunkering only mentions bunkers as being the target of the bunkering, it doesn't give any explanation of what the term means.
Speak to me | account info) 20:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment / analysis There was no real response to my questions above, but they seem to be raising a different rationale for the naming. I AFD'd this thinking about the article purporting that "fuel bunker" being a commonly used term (which, IMO, it isn't) and also that it implies that bunkers are used to store liquid fuels (because coal and word are not commonly called fuel in this context). Seeing the additional discussion above, I think that I see the creator's rationale. They basically are writing an article about bunkers that store coal and wood. The only common name in common to these is "bunker", but "bunker" is ambiguous....it can have completely different meanings, and already has an article by one of those other meanings. So "Fuel bunker" is a best attempt to create a title and is not necessarily saying that "fuel bunker" is a commonly used term. In this light, I'd support either keeping as is or renaming to Bunker (fuel). North8000 (talk) 12:25, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Expand on this comment by proposing to merge into fuel tank – When I created the fuel bunker article, I never considered the possibility of storage containers for liquid fuels being termed 'bunkers'. My speciality is steam locomotives, which almost solely use solid fuels, and the fuel tanks for those that don't are never (at least in my experience) referred to as bunkers. I have very little experience of ships, and since none of the articles I had searched through (steamship, steamboat, steam-powered vessel) contained any information about fuel bunkers, I didn't think that anything would be different in ships. In recognition of the comment above, I wish to propose merging this article into fuel tank, and expanding the article/section of merged article to include information about bunkers for liquid-fueled ships, etc.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:28, 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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:00, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Martha Liversedge

Martha Liversedge (edit | 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 notability. Fails
WP:NMODEL John B123 (talk) 07:59, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:16, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:16, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Charitably it is
significant and reliable media coverage that is necessary for notability. She can only be found in typical promotional sites and industry directories. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:18, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete a non-notable model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:29, 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 speedy keep. Nom withdrawn, no other deletes, meets NFILM; close per WP:SKCRIT
(non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 10:58, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Bamboo Gods and Iron Men

Bamboo Gods and Iron Men (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

~~Doesn't meet~~
~~WP:GNG.~~ Boleyn (talk) 07:39, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:10, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it has been the subject of significant coverage as shown here. Not all of those reviews are reliable but DVD Talk and TimeOut are, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it contains several well known actors and does have coverage online, including TCM (http://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/title/488251/Bamboo-Gods-and-Iron-Men/). Donaldd23 (talk) 22:58, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:25, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination per comments above. Thanks for your hard work, Boleyn (talk) 18:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:SKCRIT Lightburst (talk) 02:15, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: With additional sources indicated above, the article easily meets
WP:NFILM. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 07:24, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:00, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nazan Azeri

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

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

Borderline - successful artist, but doesn't meet any part of
WP:GNG that I can find. Boleyn (talk) 07:37, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable artist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree, nothing notable about this individual Donaldd23 (talk) 15:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The required work to get to AfD does not seem to have been undertaken just yet for these articles as a collective. Some of the articles may be individually renominated, or may end up being merged or redirected individually, but consensus is in favour of keeping the entire group, in lieu of any more specific nominations.
(non-admin closure) Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 22:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Embodiment of Scarlet Devil

Embodiment of Scarlet Devil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Failed to meet
WP:DEL#8. Nightvour (talk) 02:04, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Nightvour (talk) 02:04, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because
WP:DEL#8
:

Perfect Cherry Blossom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Imperishable Night (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Phantasmagoria of Flower View (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Mountain of Faith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Subterranean Animism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Undefined Fantastic Object (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ten Desires (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Double Dealing Character (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Legacy of Lunatic Kingdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hidden Star in Four Seasons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Immaterial and Missing Power (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Antinomy of Common Flowers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nightvour (talk) 02:25, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ambivalent, if not weak delete. While I understand that it's likely these pages may be deleted due to insignificant coverage in sources, the franchise itself is absolutely notable (Medium article, PC Gamer article 1, PC Gamer article 2). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:22, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like it would be good to hear from some Japanese-speakers in this discussion. There may be japanese-language sources us non-speakers are missing. Also the Japanese-language articles seem better sourced, but I can't tell if the sources are of any value. ApLundell (talk) 06:08, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:30, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even if this content isn't notable (I haven't looked), there exists at least one redirect target.
WP:BEFORE check? --Izno (talk) 12:54, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep all. They clearly meet
WP:DEL#7. Some of them could possibly be merged and redirected into the main Touhou Project article, but that is not something that needs to concern AfD. —Xezbeth (talk) 06:32, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:49, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all for now. There are significant differences between these articles in quality, length, and number of references, so we really cannot make a decision to just delete all of them. The nominator should try to get consensus (on the relevant talk pages) to merge into Touhou Project on an article-by-article basis. Such a merge is probably the right course of action for the ones that don't cite any sources. PJvanMill (talk) 21:31, 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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:00, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Gaunt's Ghosts characters

List of Gaunt's Ghosts characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Characters from a series of novels. Unsourced original research. Contains only detailed in-universe plot-summary (
WP:NOTPLOT). Such content is better suited to the WH40K fan wikis. Sandstein 06:38, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 06:38, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, an impressive amount of fancruft for a series that is skirting on notability itself. This page fails
WP:PLOT, since it is written from an entirely in-universe perspective. Gaunt's Ghosts already has more than enough fancruft as it is, enough to create a sensible list of characters, there is no need to Merge more. This level of extreme fancruft should not exist anywhere on Wikipedia. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was
Death of George Floyd. No prejudice against the deletion of the dab page, but that can be done through non-snow discussion. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:30, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

George Floyd

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

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

Unnecessary disambiguation.
Death of George Floyd. Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 06:12, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 06:12, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 06:12, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 06:12, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 06:12, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 06:12, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This might have made more sense at
t • c) 06:25, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
I was thinking of
WP:RM at first, but (maybe because I’m tired) I couldn’t and still can’t wrap my head around how it would work through that process. Because I don’t want to move “Death of George Floyd” to “George Floyd” and I definitely didn’t want to move the content of the disambiguation page to the “Death of George Floyd” page. To me this was the easiest method, logistically speaking. Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 07:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Oppose. This is not the way to address
WP:ONEOTHER. There are better ways to achieve this outcome. WWGB (talk) 06:38, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

@
talk) 06:51, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Why seek to delete the page and then immediately recreate it as a redirect? Why not just start an RfC on the talk page to turn the article into a redirect to
Death of George Floyd? WWGB (talk) 07:20, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
RFCs tend to take much longer than a week. Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 07:43, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@
boldly changing this to a redirect; no real need to AfD delete its history. Still, if you weren't sure, then a discussion can't hurt.—Bagumba (talk) 08:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong Support Redirect - Seems clear that the George Floyd in
talk) 06:46, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Furthermore, I feel like this is a
talk) 14:38, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment No issue if the primary topic for George Floyd is a redirect to
WP:PARTIAL title matches handled by the dab's "see also". Anon0098 commented on partial titles at Talk:George_Floyd#Recent_Protests, and Paintspot attempted to add another partial title before.[15] No opinion currently if that is sufficient reason to keep but move the dab.—Bagumba (talk) 09:19, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to
Death of George Floyd and add hatnote there to point to the sportsman; add appropriate items (those partial matches mentioned above) to the "See also" of that target page. Clear primary topic. PamD 10:07, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
@
WP:PARTIAL only applies to "see also" of a dab page, not regular pages. If the partial matches were deemed meaningful, we would not want to force a reader to scroll all the way down to the "see also" of a non-dab (nor is it customary so that they would know to look there). Given the number of PTMs of "George Floyd", they would not fit in a hatnote either.—Bagumba (talk) 11:39, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete and Move
Death of George Floyd to George Floyd. Redirect not necessary, and notability is established for the subject to have an article. —Locke Cole • t • c 10:32, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Per
Death of George Floyd .—Bagumba (talk) 11:39, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
@
WP:RM bureaucracy idea. We can make that decision here, as this is technically still a discussion. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:39, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

OpposeIf George Floyd (American football) is notable than I do not think that the disambig should be removed, as it may well be what people will look for.Slatersteven (talk) 11:00, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's the job of a hatnote on the redirect target, either directly to
Cryptic 11:09, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

As far as I am aware there is no policy that says a redirect has to be to more than two subjects.Slatersteven (talk) 12:23, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How on earth did this redirect attempt not stick? —
Cryptic 11:09, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

@
talk) 12:39, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
@
Elephanthunter: "barely notable enough to warrant an article"? You may not be a football fan. George Floyd was inducted into the College Football Hall of Fame ===> clear and sustained notability. Cbl62 (talk) 15:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect per OP. We do not need a disambig. A hatnote is sufficient. ---
Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:46, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect per Coffeeandcrumbs. Given that the death of George Floyd is the primary topic, I agree that a hatnote to the american football player should be done instead. OcelotCreeper (talk) 15:23, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Snow immediate redirect: It's embarrassing for Wikipedia to have an unnecessary disambig page in the middle of an obviously notable crisis. -- Toughpigs (talk) 17:39, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect to
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. --letcreate123 (talk) 18:25, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Also, as an added Comment, I wouldn't call this the right venue to propose a redirection in the nomination. The D in AfD is for Deletion, not Discussion. I would have voted Procedural close, but a lot of people have already put their two cents in. --letcreate123 (talk) 18:28, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Could someone please post a link to whatever discussion resulted in the page ending up being kept? --Guy Macon (talk) 02:19, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. consensus is that GNG is met, but that it should be renamed. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:21, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie, Princess of Prussia

Sophie, Princess of Prussia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No significant coverage in independent sources, those used in the article are either about her husband or their wedding. No notability career-wise, and I don't think being the wife of a great-great-grandson of a monarch is sufficient to confer notability. Note that the German Wikipedia does not have an article on her.
talk) 11:08, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:42, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is a faction of people on here who believe being royalty is inherent and inherited notability (see below), but the standard is that any BLP must meet perceived GNG standards. Unfortunately, she does not. Trillfendi (talk) 15:46, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak... keep? I guess. Today I nominated several articles about descendants of deposed monarchs for deletion:
WP:SINGLEEVENT case, but she is very much still around in the German media. In general, I support the effort to reevaluate the notability of this sort of people, as well as the manner in which their biographies are written. Surtsicna (talk) 20:31, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. She already belongs to a royal family before her marriage of Prince of Prussia and the article's sources are reliable, so I think this article should be kept. JeBonSer ^{(talk | sign)} 17:13, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a few sources cannot over come the fact the position has no power or recognition. At best this person can be mentioned briefly in an article on the royal house she is part of through marriage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:08, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A person does not need power or governmental recognition to be considered notable, however. Significant coverage by reliable sources is all that's needed. There is even the entire concept of being famous for being famous. Surtsicna (talk) 16:11, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Surtsicna's rationale. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:4360:6C9A:42B2:C9B2:BEF4 (talk) 18:18, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator, no notability independent of her husband and her husbands article mentions her education etc so maybe merge anything not already mentioned into that article. - dwc lr (talk) 10:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Surtsicna. Meets
WP:BASIC. Ejgreen77 (talk) 10:51, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete or move to her legal, untranslated name. It seems ludicrous to label living people "Prince or Princess of Prussia" since German royal titles were abolished more than 100 years ago and " on 25 February 1947, Prussia was officially proclaimed to be dissolved".Smeat75 (talk) 14:32, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Surtsicna. Richiepip (talk) 18:50, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, qedk (t 愛 c) 06:03, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Surtsicna. Subject has been covered extensively in both international and German media, she clearly passes GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 08:01, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this individual passes GNG- if only because of media interest in the nobility.
talk) 08:24, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep There are plenty of online sources for her, Govvy (talk) 18:59, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, delete, or weak keep, but not at this title. You can't be a Princess of Prussia because the Prussian royal family was deposed in 1918 and Prussia ceased to exist in 1947. Guy (help!) 12:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per JohnmgKing, but also rename per JzG and Smeat75 --DannyS712 (talk) 08:59, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but change the title. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 11:19, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus.
Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:52, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

EGS-CC

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

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

A google search of "EGS-CC" provides a website for the initiative doesn't come up with any reliable sources. We have some non-independent papers like [16],[17], and [18]. And there's one news article that seems to be more of a copied press release: [19]. Nothing really to indicate notability. Sam-2727 (talk) 02:04, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Sam-2727 (talk) 02:04, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Sam-2727 (talk) 02:04, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect To European Space Agency. Mccapra (talk) 02:25, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments in favor of keeping the EGS-CC article

A google search of "EGS-CC" provides at least 70 different links to articles all around the world wide web. The EGS-CC initiative is a multi-million euros project funded by the European Space Agency with a Consortium composed of multiple companies.
There are many independent papers about EGS-CC:

An EGS-CC based Core Control Segment [20]

The Design of the European Ground Systems - Common Core (EGS-CC) [21]

The European Ground Systems – Common Core (EGS-CC) Initiative [22]

The Operational Adoption of the EGS-CC at ESA [23]

Evolution of Mission Control System development with EGS-CC [24]

An EGS-CC-based Core Control Segment [25]

OPALE : Reducing complexity of EGS-CC Automation Procedures [26]

Monitoring and Control Operations Preparation Framework for EGS-CC Based Environments [27]

EKSE: A Command Line Interface for EGS-CC based Systems [28]

Challenges to evolve a S2K-based PROBA GS towards EGS-CC [29]

Objectives and Concepts of the European Ground Systems Common Core (EGS-CC) [30]

The articles above will be added to the EGS-CC article page.
EGS-CC will replace SCOS 2000 in the future. EGS-CC is target to be used in the ESA mission Jupiter Icy Moons Explorer. Link here: [31]
The information above indicates that the topic EGS-CC is highly notable in particular in the Ground Segment Systems for Spacecraft. CesarCoelho (talk) 07:47, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you @CesarCoelho for highlighting those. The nominator pointed out that while there are papers about the project, the ones they found are ‘non-independent’, i.e. they are published by people involved in or associated with the project. As this is a collaboration between many different agencies and organisations, it is hard to pick out which authors are linked with it. Could you please add a comment about each of the sources you’ve listed, indicating whether you think it is independent or not? Many thanks. Mccapra (talk) 05:20, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you @Mccapra for your comment. Please notice that the sources mentioned above are
AIAA (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics) website: "AIAA publishes its peer-reviewed content in advertisement-free publications, ensuring that research results are presented in an unbiased environment." [32] CesarCoelho (talk) 07:30, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment Thank you. Yes I understand that these are scientific papers. What I’m trying to understand without investing many hours of time is whether those papers are all/mostly/not at all authored by people involved in or delivering the project. If they are by people independent of the project then notability is certainly established. If they’re by people involved in the project, it’s less clear. Mccapra (talk) 04:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A random sample of four of the papers provided have "ESA-ESOC" listed as the affiliation of at least one of the authors, suggesting that these scientific papers aren't independent. I'll evaluate all of them if that is necessary. I agree too that if you could provide independent ones (i.e. one of the authors isn't affiliated with ESA or some other institution involved in the collaboration), this would be a clear cut case and I would withdraw my nomination. Sam-2727 (talk) 04:32, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems that ESA-CC information is disseminated through the ESA but in the future will meet more notability once it takes over for SCOS and is covered by other independent sources. In this regard I would say the entry has future potential. In response to @Mccapra does it make a difference that the acceptance of some of the articles by peer review process into the
~~WP:RS/AC? Bioforce12 (talk) 19:39, 20 May 2020 (UTC)~~[reply
]

~~Also~~
~~WP:Primary seems to show that the primary source could be used as it is reputably published. Bioforce12 (talk) 20:12, 20 May 2020 (UTC)~~ Blocked sock. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 23:13, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment Loking through the papers, I found one which would classify as a independent and secondary source: "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources". The paper is: "Challenges to evolve a S2K-based PROBA GS towards EGS-CC" [33] In short, the paper talks about the challenges to evolve the PROBA mission Ground System from its current SCOS 2000 (aka S2K) into an EGS-CC system. The authors are associated with Spacebel, a company which is not part of the EGS-CC consortium according to the EGS-CC official website. [34] CesarCoelho (talk) 07:03, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, qedk (t 愛 c) 05:58, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There has been a lot of discussion on independent sources above, but it raises the question of what counts as independent. In this paper, for instance, the authors' affiliation is to CNES, the French space agency, so not directly involved. But CNES is a member of ESA and is on the steering committee of the project. That paper makes clear that not only CNES, but DLR (the German space agency) and major aerospace manufacturers like Airbus and Thales Alenia are also involved. Clearly, the project is not just a handful of researchers at ESA trying to push their idea, and with so many organisations involved has gone well beyond what
WP:5P5 which says in regard to guidelines that [t]he principles and spirit matter more than literal wording. By the way, Spacebel (mentioned by CesarCoelho above) may not by in the consortium, but they have worked on the project [35]. Which would kind of makes my point, there's hardly going to be a major aerospace organisation in Europe that isn't involved in some way. SpinningSpark 14:33, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Xbox 360. Black Kite (talk) 22:08, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Xenia (emulator)

Xenia (emulator) (edit | 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
WikiProject Video Games custom Google searches. Xenia gets mentioned in plenty of reliable sources, but these are simply that: trivial mentions. It also appears on a few listicles, but most of them seem to be published by sketchy SEO affiliate sites. Then there are the press releases, download sites, forum posts, YouTube videos, and other low-quality sources you tend to find on software. What we need is significant and independent and reliable coverage and I'm not seeing it. Woodroar (talk) 05:00, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Woodroar (talk) 05:00, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Woodroar (talk) 05:00, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The emulator has been the primary subject of numerous articles written in reliable news outlets that extends beyond trivial mention. The following reliable sources have covered the subject in significant, non-trivial ways.

CinemaBlend

Polygon

VGR

PC Gamer, PC Gamer

DOSGaming, DSOGaming, DSOGaming, DSOGaming, DSOGaming, DSOGaming, DSOGaming, DSOGaming

HappyGamer

WCCFTech, WCCFTech, WCCFTech

SegmentNext

--Odie5533 (talk) 08:17, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DSOG and CinemaBlend are
significant coverage of the emulator itself. IceWelder [✉] 09:24, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

You declare CinemaBlend is unreliable, but Ars Technica, IGN, Newsweek, USA Today, Deseret News, Herald-Standard, The Canberra Times, Patriot-News, ScreenRant, DigitalSpy, and countless other news outlets rely on their reporting. I believe they are reliable. --Odie5533 (talk) 12:11, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CinemaBlend has been discussed at
VGRS and found to be generally unreliable. But even if it wasn't, the source is unquestionably trivial: there's one sentence about Xenia that gives no real information, a pull-quote from the developer, and 5-6 paragraphs about game system architecture. Xenia is mentioned two more times in the article, but never with any detail. That's true of all coverage of Xenia, save for extremely niche, unreliable sources. And that's the point of GNG: if reliable sources can't be bothered to cover a subject in significant detail, why should we? Woodroar (talk) 13:39, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
That's not the point of GNG. If we actually cared about removing articles that had essentially no reliable sources, then we would remove the hundreds of thousands of no-name athletes from this website. The GNG serves to pointlessly restrict this website. This article has more sources than 90% of Wikipedia articles. Bluedude588 (talk) 14:51, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The point of GNG is to stop Wikipedia from being flooded with thousands of articles that will never go beyond one or two sourcable sentences. As an encyclopedia, such restrictions (if you can even call them "restrictions") are perfectly reasonable. If you think that GNG should be changed, please bring the issue to GNG, not here. IceWelder [✉] 12:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, most of these sources only mentions Xenia in
notability. TheDeviantPro (talk) 01:50, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. Run-of-the-mill news articles and articles detailing how one specific person got one specific game to run on the emulator does not pass GNG. Even the few sources that focus on the topic fail to go into any detail about it. IceWelder [✉] 09:24, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep IceWelder pulled up good sources and I wouldn't be surprised if there were more. It's notable enough. Bluedude588 (talk) 14:45, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You probably skipped a line there. I did not pull up any sources but actually explained why those given by Odie5533 are far from sufficient to demonstrate notability. If have no reliable sources with which we could build a proper article for it, we shouldn't have an article at all. Please try to use the reliable sources from Odie's comment to rewrite the article. You will find that, beyond like one feature, some run-of-the-mill news and a bunch of games that have been emulated through it, there is nothing significant about the engine itself that you could possibly write from these sources alone. IceWelder [✉] 12:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom and IceWelder. TheDeviantPro (talk) 01:50, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:20, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP The coverage of it in Polygon and elsewhere is enough to prove this is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Dream Focus 19:32, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have you actually checked the sources? Are they not
WP:SIGCOV? No, they don't. In terms of reliable sourcing (not considering thr aforementioned issues), the article is currently complete. I went over exactly these issues above multiple times. IceWelder [✉] 19:35, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Are you kidding? Two sources that don't even offer significant coverage doesn't constitute notability. The subject is best left as just a mention on the article for the Xbox 360, it doesn't need its own page. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 20:28, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Other coverage such as https://www.polygon.com/2014/3/29/5560764/video-shows-xbox-360-emulation-pc https://www.pcgamer.com/see-gears-of-war-2-fable-2-lost-odyssey-silent-hill-downpour-and-more-emulated-on-pc/ Click on those two links. Dream Focus 23:32, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I clicked the link, and looking at the sources, it makes me wonder whether you actually clicked on them. The first source is already in the article, and is a
significant coverage, but you probably knew that already. IceWelder [✉] 05:38, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Two sources don't automatically make something notable on Wikipedia. Could not find much from reliable publications, either. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 20:15, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Little to no significant coverage. You can't build an article on two sources. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:22, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – No notable sources, it's a topic that could be mentioned on the xbox 360 page itself. QueerFilmNerd^talk

Redirect to Xbox 360, where the subject can be covered. JOE BRO 64 23:19, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or at least Redirect to Xbox 360. The article appears to suffer the same problems as the one in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/XQEMU exactly a year ago. Not counting the Red Dead Redemption fan remaster project, even after looking it up on Google via a link above, I can't find any sources that are more than just "Game(s) emulated on PC/playable on Xenia". theinstantmatrix (talk) 01:02, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
WP:GNG. Regards Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 11:46, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep — but most importantly revert to the state before the article was made deletion-worthy by removal of all content coming from the most informative sources (first-party ones, simply because gaming websites considered reliable do not care about information that was deleted from the article because it's not their purpose and goal) in this context. Triang3l (talk) 11:06, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note to the closing admin: This user has disclosed a conflict of interest. IceWelder [✉] 11:23, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — It is the only tool able to efficiently imitates Xbox 360 on PC 1 2, it is the best Xbox 360 emulator for PC. 3 4 5 6 It is capable of playing approximately 170 Xbox 360 games. 7 There is taken huge rigor, compared to other articles, look to other articles in Free emulation software. For example 1964 (emulator) and others? Xenia is also on Emulator-zone.com and SourceForge.net. In my opinion, the "Template:More citations needed" would be enough. Jirka.h23 (talk) 13:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You know the template will require you to provide reliable sources for
notability, right? Something that you have not done, both on the article and here. TheDeviantPro (talk) 16:45, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, qedk (t 愛 c) 05:58, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Significant indepth coverage is missing. We have fans and COI editors in this afd, as well as "it's useful" type keep votes. Primary and unreliable sources do not establish notability. I'm fine with a redirect as well, or TNT it first then redirect. -- ferret (talk) 18:36, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.
Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:53, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

List of countries by women's average years in school

List of countries by women's average years in school (edit | 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 list only cites one source, and the source does not contain the data. The closest thing I could find on the cited site are stats for the ratio of time women spend in school compared to men by country. The list is therefore unconfirmed and may be misinformation. – XYZt (
talk | contribs) – 07:54, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:25, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:26, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:26, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:26, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What other sources might be available for the data? Did you follow
WP:BEFORE? Deletion is only an answer if the topic is inappropriate and/or there are no sources that verify the information. We don't delete content for problems that can be fixed. postdlf (talk) 16:43, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep: the source contains the data, so the nomination is invalid. I've added a note to the talk page to explain the route to find it. PamD 11:42, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:27, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The list is interesting, but the single source does not seem to satisfy
WP:RS. The website was constructed in a such way that does not allow linking to specific tables. These data can be found in source, but how reliable they are? For example, it tells that women in Kyrgyzstan spend 14 years in school (?!). This is based on another original source, i.e. : http://ghdx.healthdata.org/record/ihme-data/global-educational-attainment-1970-2015 , and it is not clear where these data even came from (see this disclaimer). Without referencing to specific publications (which would qualify as RS), those are data of highly questionable origin. My very best wishes (talk) 01:34, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. This is one particular study for one particular year for women 25-34, which is too restrictive to be of much value per
WP:SALAT. It also means the article title is misleading. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac 1 5 04:42, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In its current form, the article is not reliably sourced. The title is misleading and makes a bigger claim than its sources can support.

— Preceding
talk • contribs
)

Delete Non notable list even though the foundation who issued the list is notable. Azuredivay (talk) 02:56, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Karolina Skorek

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

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

Reviewed as part of NPP. I'm not seeing any evidence that this photographer passes
interviews
are not independent sources and none of the other sources are independent, reliable and provide significant coverage of her, I'm not seeing how she passes GNG.
The article claims notability in that her photographs have been featured in various media including Vogue etc., which is true, but it doesn't really satisfy any of the criteria of NARTIST, which requires gallery holdings, notable exhibitions or substantial critical attention. The assertion that She recently placed 19th in the Portrait Masters competition in the Teens and Seniors Portrait Category is rather underwhelming. Overall, seems to be a successful photographer but not notable by Wikipedia standards. Spicy (talk) 03:33, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spicy (talk) 03:33, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Spicy (talk) 03:33, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Spicy (talk) 03:33, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an independent search did not turn up SIGCOV, which it should of had she been notable, as her name is quite unique.
talk) 03:46, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete a non-notable photographer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:26, 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. Black Kite (talk) 22:05, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Charles Heads

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

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

Article appears to be an attempted
single purpose account who has only worked on this article. Most of the article's current sources are not about him but are about his field of work (magic/psychology), or are about events or locations in which he appeared while mentioning him briefly or not at all, or the social media pages of associates. Can find nothing else beyond his own social media and listings in self-promotional services. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 03:23, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 03:23, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 03:23, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per nom, no evidence that this individual is notable. Strange choice of references. Looks like promotion. — Preceding
talk • contribs
) 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Delete Purely promotional, not notable. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 09:25, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is high time we make it so a first edit by a user cannot be the creation of an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:38, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing notable here. Ira Leviton (talk) 01:27, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. SpinningSpark 13:18, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Safari Rally

2020 Safari Rally (edit | 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 rally was cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The details of this are covered in the 2020 World Rally Championship article. This article only contains basic information about the event, which all rally report articles contain. The event's return to the calendar after nearly 20 years is notable, but not notable enough to justify the creation of an article that was cancelled weeks in advance. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 02:48, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly redirect to 2020 World Rally Championship, retaining the categories. Geschichte (talk) 09:46, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even if the subject fails
WP:5P5. Not to mention the article actually passes the GNG. Unnamelessness (talk) 14:14, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Unnamelessness (talk) 14:17, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Unnamelessness (talk) 14:17, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

keep has some noteworthy content. Proposed target article for redirect does not cover it all. Pelmeen10 (talk) 21:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has the details which would have been the backbone of the article if it wasn't for the fact that the event was cancelled due to the virus. HawkAussie (talk) 05:35, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Motorsports-related deletion discussions. A7V2 (talk) 00:50, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. The one "keep" opinion does not even attempt to address the detailed analysis of sources presented by the "delete" side. Also salting just like El Goonish Shive. Sandstein 17:19, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EGS: El Goonish Shive

EGS: El Goonish Shive (edit | 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
COPYVIOs because of unattributed copying and close paraphrasing from the userfied version. Woodroar (talk) 02:35, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Here's a breakdown of the sourcing issues that I made for the article author:

The Webcomic Book Club is not reliable because it consisted entirely of amateur user-submitted reviews. We require reviews from professional critics published by reputable media.

Sequential Tart likely isn't a reliable source—for example, it's not mentioned at
WP:CMC/REF
and I can't find it refenced by other reliable sources—but that doesn't really matter because it's from an amateur reviewer that's not even part of the site's staff, plus at four paragraphs it's borderline trivial coverage.

The History of Webcomics likely isn't a reliable source and it's a "pictorial reference" which isn't significant coverage.

Edutopia may be a reliable source but it's a one-sentence passing mention in an article about something else entirely, which isn't significant coverage.

The Reflection isn't a reliable source, the reviewer isn't a professional, and it's one paragraph long which isn't significant coverage.

Appearances on lists aren't significant coverage, especially when they're based on some kind of user-voting.

Bisexuality Research Today was not a reliable source—there is literally 1 Google result for it—and the reference doesn't even mention which paper it's from. None of the abstracts mention it so it's extremely unlikely to be significant coverage, either. Woodroar (talk) 04:24, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Woodroar (talk) 02:35, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. Woodroar (talk) 02:35, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Woodroar: The article in question you speak of was deleted in 2011. There are more sources now than there were then, and I would say it is enough to keep, even if it does need to be shortened significantly. KMWeiland (talk) 02:48, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, I must note that this article already exists in several forms of Wikipedia other than the English language one. KMWeiland (talk) 02:48, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there's a French language article that uses all primary sources and a German language article with those same trivial references in The History of Webcomics and Edutopia, plus unreliable user-submitted reviews at a defunct "webcomic book club". Those don't matter because we have different notability requirements on the English Wikipedia. All of the additional references on this version are trivial, passing mentions in yet more unreliable sources. GNG requires multiple sources that are significant and independent and reliable all at once. Woodroar (talk) 03:15, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I want to comment on this more, but some notes before I do. The
Webcomic work group's page on webcomic sources discusses both Sequential Tart and A History of Webcomics – the former was classed as reliable, the latter as situational – but see the page for full information on both. Also, the title of this article if it is to be kept should just be El Goonish Shive and I agree with the original poster that this current title was probably chosen to get around admin restrictions on the proper title. HenryCrun15 (talk) 09:14, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Thank you for that! I should have known that there'd be a separate page on Webcomic source reliability. I can't say that this changes much for me, however. The discussion on Sequential Tart brings up valid concerns about that site's editorial process and its contributors' lack of credentials, and I can't find any evidence that this specific reviewer is a well-known critic. And, of course, being mentioned in the situational History of Webcomics would still be trivial coverage. That being said, I'm looking forward to your comments. Woodroar (talk) 12:26, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, an article on my favorite webcomic was recreated again? I have been keeping my eye on sources for El Goonish Shive constantly with the intention of creating an article on it as soon as I feel confident there are enough reliable sources. Alas, we're not there yet. El Goonish Shive is probably the most impactful webcomic that doesn't meet notability guidelines, and it frustrates me greatly, but I have to !vote delete as well. There just aren't enough reliable sources to write an article with yet. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Maplestrip: I have found five additional reliable sources in addition to (and better than) the ones above. Would you say there are enough now? KMWeiland (talk) 14:33, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The
After Ellen in any way. the video doesn't even link to it. Digital Strips is a fairly random podcast; I host my own podcast about El Goonish Shive too so :p – The Sequential Tart source has always been a strong one, and the Women Write About Women and Geek Reply sources seem fairly good as well (though I don't know these two publications very well). I am starting to think that keeping might be possible, though all the unreliable sources really need to be trimmed out and I'm still not sure if those last two are usable. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 16:01, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

@Maplestrip: While Digital Strips is a podcast, yes, their website also does have actual articles as well, which are what the sources link to. KMWeiland (talk) 16:12, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Avocado is an offshoot of the AV Club comments section, anyone can create an account and start publishing. Women Write About Comics and Geek Reply are both trivial, a mere 3 paragraphs and 1 paragraph, respectively, even if ~~they are reliable~~ further research and discussion determines that they're reliable. (The fact that Geek Reply offers a writing job to literally anyone is a strong indicator that it isn't, at least.) Even the Sequential Tart, at 4 paragraphs, is borderline trivial, plus—as I mentioned above—the author doesn't appear to have any background or history in criticism. Woodroar (talk) 16:23, 31 May 2020 (UTC) Updated this to clarify my meaning. Woodroar (talk) 13:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the articles aren't as in-depth as I would like them to be, and if just one of those three fall out (like Geek Reply), I again feel there's just not enough to write a fully sourced encyclopedic article.

Looking a bit deeper into Digital Strips, I really thought it was just some random website, but the about page does say: Daku has been interviewed by the New York Times and by T Campbell for the Blowing Bubbles series of the online magazine Broken Frontier. The Digital Strips website was mentioned as a major milestone in T Campbell’s book, The History of Webcomics, and has been linked on a continual basis by ComixTalk, Journalista!, and Tom Spurgeon. Maybe this is more usable than I thought? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 16:38, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so sure. That interview in the New York Times? It's a pullquote in an article about someone else. And these specific articles were written by an archeologist who hasn't been cited by anyone that I could find. It looks like the site is really eager to hire just about anybody, too. That doesn't instill a sense of confidence. We even have precedence at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Loves Crappy Movies for it not to count towards notability, and it doesn't appear to have developed a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy in the 15 years since then. Note that I discovered that deletion discussion while doing a Google search for "digitalstrips" and "digital strips", which found the New York Times mention and basically nothing else. Woodroar (talk) 17:20, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Maplestrip: So Digital Strips is apparently seen as a reliable enough source for it to be cited in the Wikipedia pages for Kevin and Kell, Scott Bieser, Wendy Pini's Masque of the Red Death, Kris Straub, Templar, Arizona and Inverloch (webcomic). Does this count for anything further speaking as to supporting the website as being a reliable source in addition to what you mentioned above? I would think it should. KMWeiland (talk) 13:04, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am voting to keep the page by the way; it does need work, but I do believe there are just enough sources to keep it for now, in the long run I do believe it is worth keeping. KMWeiland (talk) 23:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Rab V (talk) 23:50, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Note that !voting continues after this source discussion!)

Source discussion

Given there are 17 references in the article, I thought I'd do a proper Source Assess Table on them. I've been cautious so far, with a lot of "?"s, while people discuss the validity of sources. I would encourage people to edit the table once consensus is reached, for example, on the reliability of a given source. HenryCrun15 (talk) 21:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table:

Source
Independent?
Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward
GNG
?

Geek Reply https://geekreply.com/geek-culture/comics/2017/07/26/five-webcomics-probably-read ? To be discussed ? Brief - only 214 words on EGS ? Unknown

El Goonish Shive Comic 1 http://www.elgoonishshive.com/d/20030923.html ✘ No

El Goonish Shive Comic 2 http://www.elgoonishshive.com/d/20020529.html ✘ No

Webcomic Book Club https://web.archive.org/web/20070927164653/http://www.masterzdm.com/enter/webcomicbookclub/full.php?cid=76 Woodroar notes "The Webcomic Book Club is not reliable because it consisted entirely of amateur user-submitted reviews." ✘ No

http://www.sequentialtart.com/reports.php?ID=5184&issue=2007-04-01 ? Sequential Tart is considered reliable by the Webcomics Work Group, but with some caveats. Decently long review of the work ? Unknown

The History of Webcomics ? Webcomics Work Group says "A History of Webcomics can be used as a situational source, granted the above [discussion of its issues] is kept in mind and the book is only used to source noncontroversial information. Alternative sources are generally preferred." ? I do not have access to this book ? Unknown

Edutopia http://www.edutopia.org/magazine/ed1article.php?id=Art_1605&issue=sep_06 or https://www.edutopia.org/tions-and-ligers-and-geeps-oh-my ? Lead-in as an example ? Unknown

Transgender.org http://www.transgender.org/lntsss/news/2005-02.pdf or https://web.archive.org/web/20060518002753/http://www.transgender.org/lntsss/news/2005-02.pdf ? ? General summary only ✘ No

Top Webcomics http://topwebcomics.com/ Probably ✘ No

The Webcomic List http://www.thewebcomiclist.com/profile.php?order=ranking Probably ✘ No

Bisexuality Research Today https://web.archive.org/web/20070729134529/http://bisexuality.researchtoday.net/archive/4/2/ ? ? The URL linked here links to the contents page of the cited issue, but the referenced article isn't in that list ? Unknown

Digital Strips 2017 http://www.digitalstrips.com/2017/08/pandora-monium-character-change-in-el-goonish-shive.html ? ? Unknown

The WCBN http://webcastbeacon.com/2008/08/22/webcomic-38-genderswap-or-transmorph-webcomics-w-dan-shive/ Author is present ? To be discussed ✘ No

Needs More Gay https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmyHfWgt-XE ? ? ? Unknown

Women Write About Comics https://womenwriteaboutcomics.com/2018/10/webcomics-roundup-some-spooky-some-heartfelt-some-both/ ? 331 word review of EGS, as part of a larger article ? Unknown

Digital Strips 2018 http://www.digitalstrips.com/2018/02/queer-eye-for-the-comics-guy.html ? ? Unknown

The Avocado https://the-avocado.org/2019/01/02/day-thread-of-el-goonish-shive/ ? ? ? Unknown

Keenswag http://www.keenswag.com/home.php EGS is or has been part of Keenspot Broken link ✘ No

This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Here's a breakdown of the sources in question. I tried to format it so that other editors can intersperse their own comments.

Geek Reply
Unreliable: The publisher isn't widely cited or referenced, there's no masthead, no editorial policies, no editorial credentials. Their Jobs page indicates that they'll hire without experience. The author isn't widely cited or referenced, but has written for publications that we consider unreliable (Twinfinite, ZergNet). The source is 1 paragraph long, so trivial as well. Woodroar (talk) 23:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sequential Tart
Unreliable: The publisher is considered reliable at
Wikipedia:Webcomic sources but notes that its reliability has been contested. I would consider them unreliable. Their Masthead and bios don't include important details like editorial credentials and experience, plus there's no editorial policy. (These issues are exactly why its reliability has been contested.) The author isn't widely cited or referenced and doesn't appear to have a background or history in criticism. The source is 4 paragraphs, which is borderline trivial as well. Woodroar (talk) 23:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

The History of Webcomics by T Campbell.
Unreliable: The source is considered situational at
WP:BURDEN we can't consider this source until its actual claims can be verified. Woodroar (talk) 23:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

The Reflection
Unreliable: The Reflection was a monthly newsletter of a chapter of a Transgender organization. The publisher isn't widely cited or referenced, there's no real masthead (only first names and pseudonyms), no editorial policies, no editorial credentials. The author is named "Barbara" and we know nothing more. The source is 1 paragraph, which is trivial as well. Woodroar (talk) 23:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Top Webcomics
Unreliable: It's an open voting page where anyone can vote, which is
WP:UGC and by definition unreliable. Woodroar (talk) 23:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

The Webcomic List
Unreliable: It's an open directory of webcomics. Literally anyone can add their webcomic and even get it featured for $15 per month. Woodroar (talk) 23:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bisexuality Research Today
Unreliable. This is not a respected journal. There aren't even any Google search results for it. In addition, the reference doesn't even indicate which journal article supports the claims. None of the article abstracts mention El Goonish Shive at all. I suspect, like so many other "sources", this is simply a trivial mention. But again, per
WP:BURDEN we can't consider this source until its actual claims can be verified. Woodroar (talk) 23:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC) Update: after further research, this was just a mirror of our article on Bisexuality, which definitely makes it unreliable. See further down for details. Woodroar (talk) 13:31, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Digital Strips 2017
Unreliable: The publisher isn't widely cited or referenced, the About page includes scant editorial credentials, and there are no editorial policies. There are plenty of impressive-sounding firsts but no evidence. The owner/editor-in-chief's claim to have "been interviewed by the New York Times" was a one-sentence pullquote in an article about someone else. I suspect that all of these claims-to-fame won't stand up to scrutiny. They also appear to hire basically anyone. The author isn't widely cited or referenced and has a background in archeology, not criticism. Woodroar (talk) 23:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Needs More Gay
Unreliable. This is a self-published YouTube video. Woodroar (talk) 23:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Women Write About Comics
Reliable: The publisher has a masthead of sorts, editorial credentials, editorial policies, etc. The author is also an editor—which can pose issues—but her background and credentials are also good. However, at 3 paragraphs, this is a trivial source and wouldn't count towards notability. Woodroar (talk) 23:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Strips 2018
Unreliable for the same reasons the 2017 article was unreliable. Woodroar (talk) 23:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Avocado
Unreliable: This site is where AV Club commenters went when The AV Club closed its comments sections. No, it's not affiliated with The AV Club, it's a comments section turned into a site. Anyone can create an account and publish an article, which makes it
WP:UGC and therefore unreliable. The author also isn't widely cited or referenced and doesn't appear to have a background or history in criticism. Woodroar (talk) 23:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Edutopia
Probably reliable? It doesn't matter because it's a trivial passing mention in an article about hybrid animals. This doesn't even approach significant coverage of El Goonish Shive itself. Woodroar (talk) 22:50, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have institutional access to most of the journals listed in the Bisexuality Research Today link. Do you know which article the praise appeared in? I did a quick check but didn't see anything but I may have overlooked it. Perhaps the issue date was wrong? Axem Titanium (talk) 17:18, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Axem Titanium: It would be sometime in-between January 2002 and February 2007. If that’s too-wide a range I can see about shortening it. KMWeiland (talk) 22:12, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a look but that is quite wide. Do you remember what the article was called? Axem Titanium (talk) 01:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Axem Titanium: I do not, though I can say what it was about, being discussing the depiction of bisexuality in the series, specifically the character Ellen Dunkel, as well as the comic’s popularity. KMWeiland (talk) 11:13, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I looked through all the journal articles with titles that sounded promising/related and couldn't find it. Was it in a journal article or in some kind of editorial section of Bisexuality Research Today? I can't find pdfs of the actual collected magazine, fwiw. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Axem Titanium: I think it was an article, although I can’t be certain. I would be surprised if it wasn’t. KMWeiland (talk) 17:18, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm not seeing it unfortunately. Do you remember how you came across knowing about this article? Just trying to jog your memory or find an alternate way to locate it. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:05, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Axem Titanium: The note I made on it references 17 February 2007 and both the main and about sections of the website, so it should still be visible on the archived website by at least that date at the latest? KMWeiland (talk) 12:35, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've done some digging and this claim doesn't appear to have ever been made in the journal. It was pointed out in one of the earlier AfDs that Bisexuality Research Today simply mirrored Wikipedia's article on
WP:MIRROR of Wikipedia, which makes it unreliable. Woodroar (talk) 13:31, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
@Woodroar: And we are certain it was mirroring Wikipedia, and not the other way around? Just to clarify? KMWeiland (talk) 15:15, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Because the archived version from July 2007 had our article from the month prior. It also says "The content on this page was obtained from the Wikipedia and is therefore licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License." at the bottom of the page. Woodroar (talk) 15:24, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

!Voting continues below

Delete per Woodroars conclusion on sourcing. I don’t see how this meets the GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 01:30, 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. Black Kite (talk) 21:51, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neal Sales-Griffin

Neal Sales-Griffin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Candidate for office who fails to meet Wikipedia:Notability (people). Mpen320 (talk) 22:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. --Mpen320 (talk) 22:54, 23 May 2020 (UTC)– Muboshgu (talk) 16:51, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. --Mpen320 (talk) 22:54, 23 May 2020 (UTC)– Muboshgu (talk) 16:51, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete He has never held a notable office so
WP:NPOL is out of the question. I would maybe keep him for his business career, but all the coverage of that appears to be local, so fails GNG. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 11:36, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. People do not get articles just for being non-winning candidates for political office; to qualify for an article he would need to either have preexisting notability for other reasons independent of the candidacy, or be referenceable to such an unusual depth and range and volume of media coverage that he had a credible claim to being much more special than other non-winning mayoral candidates. However, there isn't nearly enough sourcing here that's covering him in the context of his business career to get him over our notability standards for businesspeople, so he hasn't passed the former test — and even the political sourcing is not strongly enough about him to get him over the latter. Candidates are not handed a
WP:NPOL just because some local coverage of the election campaign exists — local coverage of every election campaign always exists, so if that were how it worked then every candidate could always exempt themselves from NPOL, and NPOL itself would be completely meaningless if nobody ever actually had to pass it anymore. Bearcat (talk) 15:34, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete being a candidate for mayor is not a sign of notability, and nothing else comes even close to showing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:57, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He's clearly a delete on the candidate bit. He might be a notable businessperson, though. Effectively neutral. SportingFlyer T·C 07:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:34, 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 delete. Article deleted by
(non-admin closure) Dps04 (talk) 15:15, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Coreen Davis Hampson

Coreen Davis Hampson (edit | 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 individual is not notable. Fails
WP:GNG. cookie monster (2020) 755 06:37, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:32, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:35, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:35, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some minimal discussion of why she is not notable would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:26, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:33, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the
general notability guideline. The fundament of the general notability guideline is that the subject should have 'received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject' and I’m not seeing that here. P.S. This is eligible for a CSD G7 speedy deletion is it not? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:08, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

CookieMonster755, you could have tagged this with CSD G7 as you want to have this deleted. In any case, delete as a GNG fail. Java Hurricane 05:30, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Soft delete, so that it can be uncontroversially restored if the film is ever released SpinningSpark 12:24, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spring Break '83

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Spring Break '83 (2nd nomination)

Articles for deletion/Spring Break '83 (3rd nomination)

Spring Break '83 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Appears to fail
Wikipedia:NFF as it was never released. The sources are simply a directory listing and some coverage of union issues. No evidence this is a notable film StarM 20:11, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. StarM 20:11, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. StarM 20:11, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am unable to find the first nomination. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Spring_Break_'83 is a redlink, so I think this is really just the second. The alleged second was close to when it was due to have been released, but twelve years later it hasn't been StarM 20:14, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete still unreleased and with insufficient coverage in reliable sources so does not pass
WP:GNG. If it does have a release and receives reviews in reliable sources then it would qualify for an article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:01, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:32, 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. I am astonished that the nominator can mention that the station has won awards, but provide no argument that these awards are not significant. Since no one else has filled that obvious omission, this is a keep SpinningSpark 12:08, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

God's House of Hip Hop Radio

God's House of Hip Hop Radio (edit | 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 radio station. Most of the sources I could find in a search were about the summer fest which does have its own Wikipedia article, but other than mentioning that the radio station has won some kind of awards, there's no mention that I can find. Java Hurricane 09:16, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:35, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:35, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:35, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for
talk) 00:03, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Logs: 2020-05 ✍️ create

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article needs some clean-up, but the sources seems reliable. It's good enough to pass
WP:GNG. My vote stands. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 01:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

How: is this a "non-notable" radio station when there is documented fact that station has been recognized by most of the validated news sources in which there are verifiable links within the article itself that link directly from "notable" press announcing that this station not only exists, but has won multiple awards, most notably
Dash Radio, which even mentions and lists the station in it's article. The station is mentioned with the festival, because it's the station's festival! As mentioned in Billboard, Pollstar, Grammys and the article clearly speak about the radio station as well as the festival. The sources listed with links are from reputable news and magazine outlets regarding the station. Press Release ^[2] L.A. Sentinel ^[3] Hip Hop On Deck ^[4] Dash Radio ^[5]^[6] 34th Annual Stellar Awards ^[7] GMA ^[8] ^[9] Billboard ^[10] Grammys ^[11] Pollstar ^[12] HipHopDX ^[13]Right On^[14] all talk about the station and its owners. Can the article be improved upon? Yes, but to say it's non-notable is actually disrespectful when it's the first of its kind and broke historic ground for Christian Hip Hop and radio. IMusicFacts (talk) 00:38, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

References

^ https://www.thestellarawards.com/2019winners.html

^ https://www.pr.com/press-release/783014

^ https://lasentinel.net/emcee-n-i-c-e-and-chani-g-takes-christian-hip-hop-global.html

^ http://www.hiphopondeck.com/2020/02/celebrating-black-history-month-gods.html

^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dash_Radio#Emcee_N.I.C.E.

^ https://dashradio.com/emcee-nice/

^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/34th_Annual_Stellar_Awards#Radio

^ https://www.gospelmusic.org/stellar-awards-nominees-announced/

^ https://gospelgoodies.com/gospel-news/emcee-n-c-e-curate-christian-hiphop-radio-station-gh3/

^ https://www.billboard.com/articles/news/festivals/8527794/gh3-radio-inaugural-2020-summer-fest

^ https://www.grammy.com/grammys/news/2020-music-fest-coming-create-space-minded-believers

^ https://www.pollstar.com/article/2020-summer-fest-lands-at-los-angeles-banc-of-california-stadium-exclusive-140766

^ https://hiphopdx.com/news/id.54304/title.dee-1-derek-minor-more-to-headline-gods-house-of-hip-hop-20-20-summer-fest

^ https://rightondigital.com/2020/01/25/upcoming-summerfest-gods-house-of-hip-hop-line-up-announced/

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (talk) 21:49, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1893 De La Salle Institute football team

1893 De La Salle Institute football team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article concerns a high school
WP:NOTINHERITED, playing a game against Notre Dame (a program that was in its infancy in 1893) is not a basis for notability. Cbl62 (talk) 03:29, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Cbl62 (talk) 03:31, 23 May 2020 (UTC) [reply]

~~Keep~~ I'm good with this one actually, but I'll probably end up being on the short end of the stick. I'm not particularly enthusiastic and would agree to a redirect of some type.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:07, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the season itself isn't notable, just a couple routine game blurbs, no
WP:GNG. Just because a team played Notre Dame doesn't make their season notable. If there's a requisite Notre Dame season article some of the information can be moved there, or to any De La Salle article we might have. SportingFlyer T·C 04:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge to article on De La Salle Institute, we struggle enough to have well sourced information on high schools, we do not need to split of sub-articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:13, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per SportingFlyer. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 00:20, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:30, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Delete because in this case
WP:RELISTINGISEVIL. Consensus is clear and there was no reason to relist. (Thanks, though!)--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:21, 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 delete. SpinningSpark 11:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jackie Valentine

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

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

Unsourced, promotional article. Fails GNG due to lack of secondary sources/significant coverage. Page created by the bassist of the band, as per the talk page. I can only find one decent secondary source https://thetyee.ca/ArtsAndCulture/2011/03/03/JackieValentine/
talk) 01:51, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 02:20, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:04, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:04, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:30, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet
WP:BAND. Mccapra (talk) 06:16, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete.
Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:00, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Ola Enoch

Ola Enoch (edit | 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 20:13, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 20:13, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 20:13, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 20:13, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac 1 5 02:18, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:30, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Subject meet
WP:NBOX. Kaizenify (talk) 05:51, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Kaizenify What? He literally fails every criteria in both; never participated in a major (not even a minor) amateur or professional competition and never won any honours, let alone significant, so a complete fail of NBOX. Unless I’m missing something, there is no significant coverage of any depth (not even routine sports results), so a complete fail of GNG/BASIC. I’d like to see some sources to validate your vote please. – ².O.^Boxing 10:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My search found no evidence that he meets any of the boxing notability criteria or has the significant independent coverage required to meet
WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 03:51, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Notable boxer per [36][37].
talk) 07:18, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

@
WP:GNG. – ².O.^Boxing 11:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
That last source says "But we cannot forget the disappointment to Nigeria caused by the retirement of Ola Enoch, former triple champion". I think we should establish what that championship was before deleting the article. SpinningSpark 11:51, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn't hurt to know that, but there's no evidence he won (or even fought for) any titles that would show WP notability. Boxrec shows he had only 7 pro fights--all in England and all in a span of 5 months. Passing mentions do not show that he meets
WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 13:55, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
If the title was a notable one per NBOX (listed here) it would be listed on boxrec. There’s a chance it could be an amateur title, but it’s hard to establish what title it was when the subject completely fails GNG. That failure to satisfy GNG makes whatever title he may have held irrelevant. – ².O.^Boxing 14:44, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus.
Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:08, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

The Rightly So

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

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

Coverage appears to be limited to blogs, with the sole exception being a review in HuffPost. The primary editor of this article also has a pretty clear, but technically undisclosed, conflict of interest with the subject based on the article's contents. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:22, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:22, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:22, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This band has pages of Google results from a wide variety of sources with more than enough information to write a complete article. They have toured nationally, this isn't a "garage band" situation, it may just need to be expanded further. Leeglynn7171 (talk) 22:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Leeglynn7171, could you provide some examples of such coverage? Looking over the sources that you've added to the article, they look promotional, and thus likely are not usable for establishing notability. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:21, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Working on it. I'm fairly new here, can you point me to some documentation that would help me better understand what determines if something is promotional? Those sources appeared informational over promotional to me, especially if the tone and structure of the HuffPost article are considered acceptable. Leeglynn7171 (talk) 22:43, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:A/S. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:54, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Got it. In that case I would argue that the following articles that are currently listed as sources meet the outlined criteia:
https://www.headstuff.org/entertainment/music/review-rightly-catharsis-vandura/ https://www.nashvillemusicguide.com/folk-duo-the-rightly-so-releases-vandura-to-rave-reviews/ - the second paragraph is a quote from the band, but below that there is a comprehensive review. https://www.forfolkssake.com/reviews/39086/album-the-rightly-so-vandura?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook
These are all bylined, album review articles in publications that are run by teams of people, not individuals running blogs, nor do these seem like outright promotion. In that same vein I'd argue the following sources could be added as well:
https://www.music-news.com/review/UK/13976/Album/The-Rightly-So http://www.sidestagemagazine.com/rightly-sos-self-titled-album/
And third, although potentially not as compelling but still possibly relevant due to the publication, Jess Chizuk had lyrics published in American Songwriter (listed in
WP:A/S
) after placing in a Lyrics Contest, for a song that was also featured on The Rightly So's debut album.
https://americansongwriter.com/january-february-2016-lyric-contest-winners/
Still working on restructuring this to reflect using the improved sources, but the large majority of the content on the page currently is referenced in each of these links. Leeglynn7171 (talk) 21:03, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete The Huffington Post author is a CONTRIBUTOR, and it is most definitely unacceptable, per
WP:RSP. See "Huffington Post contributors". Graywalls (talk) 03:38, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:32, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:28, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In reply to Graywallis, the Huffington Post is not "most definitely unacceptable per WP:RSP". Huff Post is actually listed on that page as no consensus and is, in fact, used as a source in thousands of articles. I'm not sure what you meant by CONTRIBUTOR.
WP:CONTRIBUTOR redirects to that part of WP:V dealing with newspaper blogs and users' comments. Radic is a professional writer and the piece he wrote for Huffpost is neither a blog nor a user comment. SpinningSpark 23:48, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
I think that the capitalized "CONTRIBUTOR" was just for emphasis, not an allusion to a policy shortcut. HuffPost contributors (which Radic's article is listed as) have a separate entry from HuffPost in general at RSP, and is currently listed as generally unreliable, although if Radic is a generally respected journalist there may be an argument for considering this speciific article to be reliable. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh right, I missed that entry at RSP, but as you say, Radic probably qualifies under
WP:SPS since he is published as a music journalist in multiple magazines. SpinningSpark 08:03, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. I'm willing to send a copy to anyone who wants to put it on a fan-wiki, assuming there is one. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:43, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Skulduggery Pleasant characters

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/List of Skulduggery Pleasant characters (2nd nomination)

List of Skulduggery Pleasant characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Double checked and could not find sufficient coverage in third party sources to establish
WP:WAF. This kind of passing mention is already described in each book's plot summary and doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards for an independent article. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:35, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
userdude 01:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
userdude 01:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 06:46, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, an unsourced mess that fails
WP:PLOT. Since it is completely unsourced, there is nothing to merge and there is no suitable redirect target. Devonian Wombat (talk) 09:47, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: perhaps ideally this would be merged in a severely shortened form (i.e. as a bullet-point list), since there's no reason the
WP:SIZESPLIT mandated the main article be split, having an article on this topic could be reasonable, but it doesn't, so it's not.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:25, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Absolute Keep: There is clearly enough information and history here to warrant the article, which exists and has been contributed to for well over a decade. 2606:6000:6205:4D00:DC46:27E3:2CFC:5806 (talk) 18:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:19, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Thousands of words of unsoruced
WP:FANCRUFT. This should be on a Fan Wiki and not on Wikipedia. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 02:30, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. In some ways it feels like a shame to remove what would surely be a beloved gem n a fan wiki -- those tables have been lovingly crafted in incredible detail. Unfortunately, however, this is not a fan wiki, and this articles doesn't even really attempt to claim notability or an encyclopedic point of view. Overwhelming amounts of detail almost all in in-universe POV, with no sourcing. I agree with
talk) 05:28, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was merge to Greg Ginn. Black Kite (talk) 21:47, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dale Nixon

Dale Nixon (edit | 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 cites no sources. It has been suggested that this article be merged with Greg Ginn however, that page contains no information on the pseudonym Dale Nixon, and cites no sources pertaining to Dale Nixon. If there are more sources and reliable information related to Dale Nixon, I contend that it be added in future to the Greg Ginn article and the Dale Nixon article be deleted. Torpedoi (talk) 14:34, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources to support notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:25, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:37, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~; while I agree that this is currently an unsourced stub, this is extremely sourceable. There's definitely decent coverage of its use by Greg Ginn in the book "Spray Paint the Walls: The Story of Black Flag"; which I do have a copy of somewhere and will look into in future. There's also some decent mentions in other rock history books on Google Books. A lot of those (including "Rough Guide to Nirvana") also provide some info on Dave Grohl's use of the name in the Melvins release in 1992, and passing mentions of Brian Baker's use of it too. I think it's reasonable to maintain a separate article for navigation purposes given there's verifiable sources showing its use by multiple artists; Greg Ginn's article is already rather bloated with all the side projects he's been involved with. ~ mazca ^talk 15:54, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Greg Ginn, I had a look at the book mentioned above and there was less coverage of his use of the name than I recalled. The name's discussed in passing in several reliable sources to the point that I could make a notability argument, but there just isn't actually enough information in any of them to make a standalone article worthwhile. ~ mazca ^talk 12:00, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:18, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a Merge with Multiple-use name? It's a little more fitting if this name has been used by many people. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 00:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Fails
talk) 21:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to Greg Ginn: The mentioned artist has used the alias more than the others. It's best for that to be discussed in the targeted article. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 04:39, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:42, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scott L. McGregor

Scott L. McGregor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Person fails notability requirements, including
WP:BASIC – subject has only a few trivial mentions in reliable secondary sources. Non-notable details abound, entirely without reference. I searched Google, Google Scholar, and Google News. A page on his scholarship shows he has one citation. The only secondary source to mention him on Google Books describes one of his inventions as, "not going to become widely visible in the UNIX market." No mentions in Google News. The article reads as a resume-biography, and has had autobiography, notability, and reference issues unresolved since it was created in 2009. Authorship analysis shows 94% of the page is attributable to either the subject (User: Mcgregor94086), a single-purpose account (User: HollyScott), or an IP one time around the page's creation. Shrinkydinks (talk) 01:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete fails notability and serious issues with guidelines. Drat8sub (talk) 01:51, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:51, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:51, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable as a playwright or a businessperson.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:43, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable as anything other than a person. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:07, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

~~Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2020_May_31&oldid=961620867"~~

[1] The Evening Standard
. 2019-12-31.

[2] "Google Trends". Google Trends. Retrieved 2020-05-21.

[3] "RYAN-MARK (@ryanmarkparsons) | Twitter". twitter.com. Retrieved 2020-05-21.

[4] "Thomas Skinner ⚒ (@iamtomskinner) | Twitter". twitter.com. Retrieved 2020-05-21.

[5] "Carina (@carinalepore) | Twitter". twitter.com. Retrieved 2020-05-21.

[6] "Lewis Ellis (@ImLewisEllis) | Twitter". twitter.com. Retrieved 2020-05-21.

[7] "LottieLion (@LottieLion1) | Twitter". twitter.com. Retrieved 2020-05-21.

[8] "@Pamela_Laird". twitter.com. Retrieved 21 May 2020.

[9] "Google Trends". Google Trends. Retrieved 21 May 2020.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[1]

Dr. Kadzi