Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 July 1: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 23:56, 1 July 2020

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 30 June	2 July >

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Donaldd23 (talk) 21:42, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chameleon Street

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

~~Non notable independent film with no 3rd party independent reviews found.~~ Donaldd23 (talk) 23:56, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination Withdrawn Newly added references establishes notability. Donaldd23 (talk) 21:42, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:56, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:56, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per here. If there's washington post coverage then it's notable. 108.54.126.79 (talk) 00:31, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I added a Reception section to the page, with reviews from the Washington Post, Hartford Courant and Philadelphia Inquirer. — Toughpigs (talk) 04:28, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Nomination Withdrawn, sources found. (non-admin closure) Donaldd23 (talk) 23:17, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Open Door (2008 film)

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

~~Non notable, independent film with no notable 3rd party reviews.~~ Donaldd23 (talk) 23:30, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:30, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:30, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as found some reliable sources reviews here, and here. Hopefully more can be found, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:31, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:17, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NFILM Lightburst (talk) 19:17, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination Withdrawn. Thank you Atlantic306 for locating those reviews that my search did not show. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:16, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:30, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Lights Below EP

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

Non notable EP from a short lived, non notable band. No significant coverage for this EP was found. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:28, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:28, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:28, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:28, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 02:53, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:21, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kamrouz

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

Ineligible for PROD due to previous de-PRODing. No indication this is a culturally notable name. Not suitable for reworking into name-based disambig page, as there are no article titles which contain this name. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No assertion of notability, not a single source. --Lockley (talk) 03:23, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced page and nobody with this name has an article to meet WP:APO/S.—Bagumba (talk) 08:33, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom no source and no articles with this name to have a isambig page.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:41, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:03, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Last Jazz Musician

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

Non-notable film per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 23:13, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 02:53, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, non notable film with no indication as to why it would justify its own article. Donaldd23 (talk) 12:00, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable film.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:19, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 14:14, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Rønnes

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

Non notable musician. Whilst WP:BEFORE shows evidence that he has released recordings, there are no reliable independent sources that would demonstrate notability under WP:GNG. AfD result in 2010 was Keep but with no evidence of secondary sources located since then. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article has zero sources that are indepdent, reliable secondary sources. Listings in a set of holdings of works by a person do not prove notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:03, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:44, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet GNG. – DarkGlow (talk)}
Delete per nom Devokewater (talk) 20:37, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there are fairly broad claims, but little evidence to back them up. Bearian (talk) 03:13, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:28, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Duffy

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

this article has no sourcing. i tried to search some sources myself unsuccessfully. AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 15:14, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bodybuilding-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:19, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough sources to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:12, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:45, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:49, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:51, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I was not able to find any reliable sources on this person. Fails WP:GNG. Ealuscerwen (talk) 01:05, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The problem with sourcing might be a result of Duffy's name: he's mostly known as Bull Stanton - it's his gay porn pseudonym - even among bodybuilding fans. There are many sources that could be used in the article and that could prove his article should not be removed. I will improve the article over the next few days, so please don't delete it. AngelOfDestiny (talk) 19:23, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Giving more time so the changes and sources being added by AOD can be assessed more thoroughly here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:06, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AngelOfDestiny: if you have good sources to prove notability I would withdraw the nomination. thank you for your contribute. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 22:36, 1 July 2020 (UTC) hi @AngelOfDestiny:, the sources added so far do not prove any notability. do you have more sources?. thank you. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 08:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean, they not prove any notability? It's clearly stated that he was: 1) a first widely acclaimed bodybuilder to appear in gay pornography, which is remarkable; 2) the US professional bodybuilding champion - not state-level, nationwide. Also: a widely celebrated fitness cover model, and a well-know 90s porn star. If he was only one of those things, yes, it might not be enough but all things considered he's clearly eligible for a Wikipedia article. Beverly Hills Housewives have their own articles - Christian Duffy is okay, too. AngelOfDestiny (talk) 11:07, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AngelOfDestiny: according to WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, WP:ENT and WP:SPORTSPERSON we need secondary sources to state what you say. so far we only have a few primary sources. the idea behind it is that to prove that an achievement is truly relevant we need a secondary source to talk about it. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 10:39, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AlejandroLeloirRey: Look, if you want me to find analyses or academic writings on a '90s bodybuilding champion, there's not much I can do. Bodybuilding already is a niche sport. The sources I found about Christian Duffy are pretty much all there is on the internet. It clearly gives all the information anyone interested in him should gather, and if that's not enough, I literally can't provide more. AngelOfDestiny (talk) 14:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AngelOfDestiny: you said that he was on the cover of a few important magazines, I would than be surprised if none of them has ever written a bio. we don't need much but just a couple of good sources. this is not to satisfy me but to satisfy the guidelines for notability. as I said if you and your achievement are notable someone must have written something about it. this is an enciclopedia after all and if we want wikipedia to be taken seriously and be considered reliable we can not rely on anything but good sources, otherwise the whole project will be considered a joke. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 13:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AlejandroLeloirRey: He was on the cover of the most important bodybuilding magazines but that was before the internet era. Today that would equal with a series of articles on websites of Flex, IronMan or Muscular Development. But it was before mid-90s so everything remains in those printed magazine - which I do not own. Obviously, I can't win this one; I can't provide any sources you want from me. I still think those given are legit. There are tons of bodybuilding-related biographies on Wikipedia and a lot of them are from the "golden age" of bodybuilding ('70s, '80s, '90s). Most of them have the same type of sourcing like this page and there's no drama involved. AngelOfDestiny (talk) 16:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AngelOfDestiny: do you believe we can have the exact number or date those magazines were issued? if so we might write to the magazine and try to get a copy of the article. that would take time but i would withdraw the nomination and see if we can prove notability through them... would you be willing to do that? --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 16:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AlejandroLeloirRey: I can tell you're judging Duffy on a base of his porn star achievements. He did not win any porn industry awards but is notable as a bodybuilder-turned-gay porn actor, and as an athlete he achieved enough to have his own Wikipedia article. US-level champion on behalf of the NPC federation is a big deal and a definitely a notable success. AngelOfDestiny (talk) 11:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AngelOfDestiny: first of all I am not judging a person but an article and mostly I am wandering if its notability has been proven by the sources. what I need is a in depth coverage of the subject in a secondary source. So far you only gave us sources where the subject is mentioned. this is not enough to prove notability. check WP:SPORTSPERSON --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 09:19, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Obiously an accomplished bodybuilding figure, successful enough to being a cover model for the most important bodybuilding magazines in the United States. Famous for his gay pornography work even among bodybuilding aficionados, and probably the very first athlete of such masculine sports to openly admit both his porn history and sexual orientation (homo- or bisexual). Should be kept definitely. Adriano16 (talk) 11:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Adriano16: basing on your personal perception of this subject or on sources? I am tired of people taking AFD as a voting process, we should present facts based on sources not what we think about the subject. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 09:24, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment In order to help those who are adding sources to save the article I will give you my opinion about the sources that have been found so far. 1) this is an interview and generally interviews are not considered to prove notability as they are primary sources. nevertheless, this one is a good interview so I believe that it has some weight but it is not enough. 2),3),4),6),7) totally primary sources, they only proves he wan some competitions, this type of sources have almost no weight at all into proving notability. 5) this is only something that someone has posted. 8) this is a very short bio (about 4-5 lines) stuffed with pictures. this has no weight into proving notability. 9) another interview, see 1. 10),11) mere mentions, they do not says nothing about the subject. 12) it's 2 pics of the subject. 13) IMDb is not reliable, this source should not even be used. 13) another interview and it reads "advertisement". now, if you want to keep this article, in my opinion, you should either add more sources or tell why my judgment on these sources is wrong and point out exactly which sources you believe prove notability. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 13:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
comment So far no one showed a reliable source and the arguments for keep are based on the fact that they are sure that somewhere more sources exists. are this type of argument considered here? --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 11:18, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:17, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment @Gene93k: i think there is a problem with the relisting. it doesn't appear in the correct date. can you check if everything is ok? thank you.--AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 09:17, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The 8 July 2020 relisting did not show up in the daily log.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, • Gene93k (talk) 10:52, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No proper references available. killer bee  11:26, 9 July 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by K6bee9 (talk • contribs) [reply]
Keep -- Per WP:ENT and WP:SPORTCRIT Accomplished bodybuilding figure: cover model for the most important bodybuilding magazines in the United States. Search term of Bull Stanton reveals even more SIGCOV Lightburst (talk) 19:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lightburst: cool, basin on which sources please? --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 20:26, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the sources are sufficient for notability. Neither is the fact that he was on a cover of "the most important" bodybuilding magazines in the United States. Since pictures are not in-depth coverage. Which is required for notability. Plus, notability isn't inherited anyway. So being on the cover of anything, no matter how "important" it is, doesn't automatically qualify someone for an article. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:36, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
comment this article was relisted because AngelOfDestiny said he could find some reliable sources but he needed some extratime. well, no reliable extensive covers of the subject have been shown so far and all the keep votes are based on the fact that "there might be more sources"... might... may be I can fly...--AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 10:16, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't mind a little good faith "criticism", I'm sure everyone can figure that out the crux of this by reading through the discussion. So, there isn't a need to comment after every other vote. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:06, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, you are right. it is just that I saw it happening a few times. someone pop out and says wait, give me time, I have some good sources and than he adds a few (or many) bad sources. but, yes you are right. sorry. (i am AlejandroLeloirRey) --79.35.212.95 (talk) 08:15, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He gets chronicled in Jack Fritscher Gay San Francisco: Eyewitness Drummer, and is listed in Superstars: Gay Adult Video Guide. So even on his gay porn career, he is probably notable. See no reason to delete this. Britishfinance (talk) 12:04, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. He also gets three pages in Michael Alago's autobiography, which I have used to expand the article. Britishfinance (talk) 13:35, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your contribution. I never knew sources like that existed in the first place and they really benefit the article. AngelOfDestiny (talk) 16:18, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:27, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Airrosti

INVALID WITHDRAWL BY NOMINATOR, DISCUSSION IS STILL OPEN. THANK YOU. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contributions)

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

This is written like an advertisement. This possibly is not notable. Support Per nomination as nominator. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contributions) 16:06, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:16, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:16, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is about a company. This page was originally a redirect to manual therapy. Airrosti is a company, not a massage technique. Also this is not written as an advertisement. What was stated was fact. It is the same as stating "Apple inc. is an American multinational technology company headquartered in Cupertino, California, that designs, develops, and sells consumer electronics, computer software, and online services." Here is a link to the company's Better Business Bureau page' Sneasel talk 16:32, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:49, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it does not appear to be written as an advertisement, and even if it was that would require cleanup not AfD. With regards to notability, the article is not well sourced but there are plenty of news stories which probably pass WP:CORPDEPTH. Polyamorph (talk) 08:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 June 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:22, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep needs work but not an afd. Not written as an advertisement as per nominator.User:Davidstewartharvey
Weak delete fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Just because the company exists doesn't mean that it's notable. There's coverage in texas publications like CBSAustin and san antonio press news that doesn't substantiate notability per WP:AUD, neither does a paragraph or maybe two in Dallas magazine. I cannot read the San Antonio Biz Journal, but my guess is that it doesn't substantiate notability outside of the locality, particularly given that bizjournals.com is a domain known because it "churns out press releases and propagates native advertising for companies". Active Life DC doesn't seem to be reliable. The rest of coverage consists of passing mentions like this and this. The BBB profile accredits around 400,000 local businesses, meaning that it doesn't establish notability also. It's unreasonable to think a redirect to a target that doesn't even mention the company would help whatsoever. To meet NCORP I'd expect multiple non-local publications covering it that are unambiguously not promoting the product. The San Antonio Press News is perhaps the best coverage, but it really isn't enough by itself. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:52, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Good analysis by Eddie891 and I would add that none of the references contain "Independent Content" including the bizjournals reference which relies entirely on an interview with company executives. References fail WP:ORGIND as they have no "Independent Content". I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:53, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sourcing is weak, local, in passing, and/or referenced to clients. Bearian (talk) 17:12, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 20:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see how the sources listed establish notability, even taken in total. The San Antonio Express-News article is the only source that is both reliable and significant coverage. The Dallas Magazine article is reliable, but not significant in the context of notability. Everything else is either an unreliable source, primary source, or a truly trivial mention. –Darkwind (talk) 00:36, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:33, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mezzo Secolo Di Ritornelli

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

Self-published book by non-notable author (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stefano Cilio)×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 10:11, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 14:19, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Doesn't appear to meet any of the notability criteria in WP:NBOOK. -- S.Hinakawa (talk) 21:26, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and read carefully It's ABSOLUTELY not self-published, miss Merynancy should get herself a life and stop taking out here her frustrations... Arcana Edizioni is the number 1 music book publisher in Italy. Please get her a life, she needs it. Delete her please, it's obvious she has history with the author and just wants revenge. If an author with 110k followers on Facebook and 100k on Instagram is non-notable, who else is? Please give up with this and go get lives. Torsy
110k Facebook likes and yet his likes haven't made it to the three digits on any of his recent posts? Hmm. I don't know the author personally nor did I know about him before the umpneenth attempt to spam him on it.wiki, which resulted in the indefinite salting of his page. I also wouldn't take the claim that "Arcana Edizioni is the number 1 music book publisher in Italy" seriously, as you also wrongfully claimed the unofficial music chart made up by this man is the "Italian primary popularity chart" (not to mention the fact that this book is self-published emerged on the AfD on it.wiki). ×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 09:23, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, not sure "Arcana Edizioni is the number 1 music book publisher in Italy", but for sure it is an important and authoritative publisher with 50 years of history and important authors in its portfolio. More importantly, the three sources in the article (which include Sette and Adnkronos) are reliable and seems to be the bare minimum to pass GNG. Probably the page was created as part of a Wikipedia:Walled garden, but at least this one seems notable in its own. --151.74.138.45 (talk) 07:24, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Said wall garden was actually rejected and salted from it.wiki because of persistent spam and non-notability, I really don't think en.wiki should be the dumpster of articles the other wikis shunned for all the right reasons. ×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 08:25, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Totally agree with 151.74.138.45, Arcana is famous in Italy, Marynancy has history with the author and made it personal. She invented the fact that the book is self-published, while it is under contract with Arcana. Please ban her, she is not able to judge notability since she makes it personal. 46.28.25.172 (talk) 09:13, 2 July 2020 (UTC) Strike logged out multiple votes. Java Hurricane 06:53, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Repeating the same thing all over from different IPs won't help your cause. Would you mind logging in, User:Torsellino? ×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 13:44, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 20:49, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing I can find to indicate this book meets WP:NBOOK or the WP:GNG. Despite the determined efforts to get articles on this subject and his works onto Wikipedia, the fact remains that Wikipedia is not for promotion. --Jack Frost (talk) 09:50, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK, no reviews found for this book, what is telling is, according to WorldCat, the number of libraries that hold this book is one. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:10, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:15, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:15, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What are you saying? It’s full of reviews, are you able to read or are you full of envy just like miss mary “who cares” nancy??? Please stop this discussion, it’s censorship. Wikipedia is censorship at its best... The only criteria you use are envy and anger for being nobodies and wannabes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.159.7.209 (talk) 14:26, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete as a failure of WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. Java Hurricane 06:53, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it has reviews on SETTE (Corriere della Sera) and interviews on 4 national radios (m2o, Radio Montecarlo, Radio Capital and the most important one, RTL). If this is not relevant what is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.159.165.166 (talk) 07:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC) Strike logged out multiple votes. ×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 08:48, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is the third time you've said the same thing. No need to repeat your point. This IP is User:Torsellino, by the way. ×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 16:35, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please go on with your life if you have one. Live your life, don’t try to sabotate the others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.159.211.29 (talk) 20:16, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EVERYBODY PLEASE READ CAREFULLY Stop deleting the “keeps”! This is not Marynancypedia! Ban that user, she has history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.159.58.110 (talk) 20:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to remove the strikethroughs, you should probably remove the </s> part at the end as well as the <s> part at the start. I've reinstated them because they're there to indicate the belief that these are multiple comments from the same person but different IP addresses. Note that nobody is deleting anything: it's perfectly possible for the closing admin to read the struck comments if they so choose. (PS "She has history" could be read as casting aspersions, which isn't particularly welcome. To quote the Arbitration Committee (from the page just linked), "Legitimate concerns of fellow editors' conduct should be raised either directly with the editor in question, in a civil fashion, or if necessary on an appropriate noticeboard or dispute-resolution page.") YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 22:36, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Man, “casting aspersions” is exacty what Marynancy is doing, telling a lot of lies for personal reasons. This is it by me. Do what you want but censorship is not the right way to act, Wikipedia is under the spotlight and a lot of users are unhappy about the way you manage things. Totally unknown people are accepted because they are linked to admins, while people who deserve a page are rejected because they are not liked by admins. The only interesting comment is “weak keep” one: Weak Keep, not sure "Arcana Edizioni is the number 1 music book publisher in Italy", but for sure it is an important and authoritative publisher with 50 years of history and important authors in its portfolio. More importantly, the three sources in the article (which include Sette and Adnkronos) are reliable and seems to be the bare minimum to pass GNG. Probably the page was created as part of a Wikipedia:Walled garden, but at least this one seems notable in its own. --151.74.138.45 (talk) 07:24, 30 June 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.82.169.167 (talk) [reply]

Doesn't change the fact that this article, along with the other two articles related to this author, was deleted and salted from it.wiki for spamming and non-notability. Not every book published on a notable publishing company is automatically notable. As I said before, en.wiki isn't the dumpster of the articles rejected by the other wikis, and this clear attempt of self-promotion should have no place in here. The fact that the original author has to resort to personal attacks from IP in order to defend his article should say it all! ×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 09:23, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"I've reinstated them because they're there to indicate the belief that these are multiple comments from the same person but different IP addresses." Dear User:YorkshireLad, I've seen that the IPs are from Catania, Milan and Aosta. If you find a map you will notice the three towns are far from each other and, most of all, you will realize that the author is known all over Italy. That's why strikethroughs are totally unfounded as well as Marynancy's comments, that I repeat are influenced by personal reasons. You should ban bad admins instead of good entries. By the way this is my last message, the Keeps are very well explained while the Deletes are unfounded, so use your brain and be METICULOUS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.238.63.200 (talk) 14:18, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll leave it un-struck (I don't believe it should be, but I don't want to get into an edit war). For the record, though: as far as I can tell, nobody who's commented on this page is an admin on the English Wikipedia, so "banning admins" has no relevance to this discussion. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 15:17, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, @YorkshireLad: but those comments should be struck for two reasons: it's clearly either the same person or a group of people with a blatant conflict of interest, and the "reasonings" are actually personal attacks directed against me due to the lack of arguments to keep this spammed mess that's only here because we repeatedly rejected it from it.wiki. ×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 10:32, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merynancy, I think you're preaching to the converted! I'm sorry, my words weren't very clear: but I agree in principle that the comments should be struck. I just didn't think it was worth getting into an edit war over when the closing admin will (presumably) read this discussion upon closure (presumably sometime today) and see exactly what's going on. If you or anyone else wanted to reinstate the strikethroughs, I wouldn't revert that either. I actually drafted a longer reply to the most recent IP pointing out that it was unlikely that there was an uncoordinated mass movement of people popping up to defend an article with 239 views in the last month, and that IP geolocations are incredibly easy to fake should one wish to, so they don't really prove anything. I decided not to post it, per WP:DFTT. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 11:10, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Koridas 📣 04:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No Regrets (Hardcore Superstar album)

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

I found no reliable sources for the album. I tried some WP:BEFORE, but none of the websites seem to be reliable. They are either user-generated content, spam, or unrelated pages. Koridas 📣 19:53, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Koridas 📣 19:53, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Koridas 📣 19:53, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. User-generated databases, lyrics sites, YouTube videos, Wikipedia mirrors and retail sites do not cut it. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 14:42, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I found some reliable sources which talk about the album: Expressen, Matallus, Metal Rules, Metal.it, Rock Hard and Metal Storm. With these, the article is good enough to pass WP:NALBUM. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 00:51, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One of the first hits in the linked WP:BEFORE search is from a major Swedish newspaper. When looking through a newspaper archive, with articles not necessarily freely available online, I find e.g. "Redo för nytt party i helvetet", Göteborgs-Posten (the dominating daily in western Sweden), 2003-07-21, about the upcoming album, the shorter 2003-08-23 review in the same newspaper, "Ångrar ingenting", Göteborgs-Tidningen, 2003-07-16, "Hardcore Superstar satsar på partymusik", Göteborgs-Tidningen, 2003-10-24, reviews in a number of other newspapers and so on. I've added a couple of them as sources. /Julle (talk) 11:46, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Added a citation to a reliable source, meets WP:NALBUMS. @Koridas: Linking to an open Google search pretending that you have evaluated 1.7 million hits for reliability is not convincing. WP:DRIVEBY is perhaps a good read? Sam Sailor 20:58, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:11, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harney, Nevada

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

Stub on a Nevada unincorporated community based on GNIS data, which isn't very reliable. Almost all sources mention it in the context of the 1939 City of San Francisco derailment, which took place nearby. I'm not seeing much evidence that there ever was a populated settlement here. Our article on the derailment describes it as a "rail siding", and this 1941 court judgement describes it as a "railroad section crew headquarters". I suspect the railway had something here but that doesn't translate to a community. There's clearly no community there now, satellite imagery just shows a patch of desert next to the railway and a river, with no structures visible. If it's not a populated place then per WP:GEOLAND it needs to pass the WP:GNG and it clearly doesn't. Hut 8.5 19:42, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Hut 8.5 19:42, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a good place to put this? It's not notable enough for a standalone, but I think we should preserve the place and coordinates somewhere, given there was a railroad section foreman stationed there. SportingFlyer T·C 20:03, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose we could redirect to the article on the derailment, which does mention it. Hut 8.5 20:06, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Places should have at least one government citation, and I found a few Nevada and USA documents at Google Books. Koridas 📣 20:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at those hits? The vast majority have nothing to do with Harney, Nevada. The first two relate to Harney County, Oregon. The third one is a statement by a Mr Corbin Harney who lived in Nevada. The fourth one is about Harney Peak Granite. The fifth one is actually about Harney, Nevada, but it's a record of a labour dispute and doesn't show anything other than that in 1957 it had a section foreman and a telephone line. The next one is about Harney Lake (Oregon), the next one is about Corbin Harney again, etc. Hut 8.5 20:28, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete I found a 1950s aerial which shows the station (long gone, of course) but there isn't anything there otherwise, and now there is nothing at all except the railroad and surrounding desert. Its only notability is in relation to the wreck; possibly it could be redirected there with some cleanup of the latter. Mangoe (talk) 21:36, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the derailment article, pretty clear this is a rail siding not a community. Hog Farm (talk) 22:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. As per my comments on the talk page:

"Carlson writes that Harney was/is a non-agency Southern Pacific station, so WP:STATION appears to apply. The only reason Harney is of note is because of the 1939 City of San Francisco derailment, possibly an act of sabotage that killed 24 people. Perhaps the Harney page should be removed? Cxbrx (talk) 17:00, 7 March 2020 (UTC)"[reply]

"I believe that Harney, Nevada is not notable because WP:GEOLAND says that geographic locations do not inherit notability from events. Cxbrx (talk) 18:40, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cxbrx (talk) 03:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:18, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another case of identification by GNIS. All evidence says Harney is a rail station and not a community. Not notable. Glendoremus (talk) 15:52, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Eternal Shadow Talk 03:45, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Twelve Sky

AfDs for this article:

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

Exists, but that's all - doesn't meet the coverage or significance requirements needed to meet WP:NOTABILITY. Was deleted in 2008 but that was probably quite a different version and a long time ago, so may not indicate anything about this one. Boleyn (talk) 19:17, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:24, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As an administrative note, the previous speedy deletion in December 2008 was actually an invalid speedy deletion. There wasn't a whole lot of content there that a) isn't already captured here and b) is entirely unsourced, so it's not worth reviewing that deletion, but just wanted to leave a headsup. --Izno (talk) 20:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Some thoughts: RPG Vault has an interview (same as IGN) already in the article. Several announcements. A review from IGN. Then there's chatter about Twelve Sky 2. There's probably something worth writing about here. --Izno (talk) 20:56, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Leaning to that right now, finding lots of non trivial coverage from 4Gamer [1] [2] [3] [4], and a review from The Games Machine (Italy) [5]. That, combined with the IGN review, should be enough for a WP:GNG pass. I assume there is more coverage in Korean (where the developer is from). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:34, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Reliable sources giving it significant coverage have been found. Dream Focus 00:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. While foreign-language sources may exist, hypothetical sources do not affect notability. –Darkwind (talk) 00:40, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mohini (1957 film)

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

An article about a Bollywood film, sourced only to (non-WP:RS) IMDb since its creation in 2016. A WP:BEFORE search didn't even turn up anything about the plot, which the article lacks. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 19:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:01, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:01, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable, no assertion of notability, and not a single source. --Lockley (talk) 02:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is film starred several notable actors, maybe someone should try to search for sources in the language spoken in the film. A ton of Bollywood film articles are in poor shape because most sources are not readable to most English speaking editors.★Trekker (talk) 23:16, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - to date there is no evidence of notability Spiderone 14:35, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:35, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of Blue (band)

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

Unref article on living people, that has been in CAT:NN for 11 years. Eurovision is their only link to notability and it isn't strong enough. Boleyn (talk) 18:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:59, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:59, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Another non-notable band. Yay! I looked them up with the keywords "kind of blue German band" and "kind of blue Eurovision" but the results were all about the Miles Davis album of the same name. When I searched with "Eurovision", only one result was about the band itself, the official Eurovision page which is not independent. The rest of the results were the words "Eurovision" "kind" "of" "blue" separately and not about the band at all. Most of them were articles about the contest and the words "kind", "of" and "blue" appeared in them separately and not in the context of the band. So I did not find anything about this band other than the official Eurovision site. Maybe others had better luck, I did not. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 07:50, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly non notable. Being in Eurovision does NOT give a band notability. Eternal Shadow Talk 17:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non notable band. Alex-h (talk) 10:33, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:43, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shrimati 420

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

An article about a Bollywood film, sourced only to (non-WP:RS) IMDb since its creation in 2016. A WP:BEFORE search up turned up the usual listing sites, but nothing WP:RS; the only source which gave any sort of detail was a non-RS blogpost, which describes the film less than encouragingly as "by and large forgotten by now". Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 18:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:59, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:59, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:31, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pinner and Grammarians RFC

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

Even after reading last AfD (2011, no consensus) I cannot see any evidence of this meeting the notability criteria for sports teams. Boleyn (talk) 18:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article was kept at afd in 2011 on the basis that it played in an RFU organized league. This is, however, an extremely low bar as most sunday leagues in football and rugby are organized or at least recognized by their respective governing bodies. However, with no guidleine to say that this is incorrect, it is hard to argue against this. Several of the teams that are in the same league also have articles, so if this is deleted, they will have to be nominated as well. This exposes the need for a guideline on whether rugby teams are notable or not, consistent with other sports. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 22:13, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I happened to have stumbled across this article, so am not a regular rugby editor, but I don't see how it makes either WP:N or the guidelines for rugby clubs at Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby union/Notability. While well sourced, only one of the sources appears to match the cirteria of being indpendent and substanial coverage about the topic itself ([6]), and even that probably falls into the category of routine sports/news coverage. FWIW, looking at AlessandroTianelli333's comment, I see no basis of notability for similar clubs in the same league either. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 10:49, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify. Consensus, such as it is, agrees that this should not be kept as it is. The draftification allows repurposing the content as proposed by Peterkingirron if editors so desire. Sandstein 18:55, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vlastos

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

A hopeless mess of an article trying to link disparate people with the same surname, or similar surnames, across several centuries back to ancient Rome and Greece. While the people mentioned existed, the claim that they are related is entirely unsubstantiated, almost throughout the article. This is beyond salvaging as it stands, and should better be deleted and replaced by a dab page on the surname. Constantine ✍ 18:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:44, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:44, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Split -- I agree that the article cannot survive in its present form. However, it contains material that is capable of becoming free-standing articles on Siphis Vlasto (a rebel leader) and Nicholas Vlasto, an early printer. The first of these is preceded by a rambling section on Venetian rule in Crete, which does not actually refer to the family and should be removed. Having extracted these, there will not be much left. However we do have list articles on people sharing a surname. The remains might be cut down to an article Vlasto (surname). Peterkingiron (talk) 15:36, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:38, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:21, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:05, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Radio with a Twist

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

Sounds like an interesting show, but didn't attract the coverage, or have the longevity or significance we would be looking for to meet notability. Boleyn (talk) 18:03, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:07, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The time period makes it a touch tough but I found exactly one mention of this show, very promotional, when searching the typical radio industry sources. While it was definitely from a notable syndicator (Premiere Radio Networks, an arm of then-Clear Channel), and it then was added in early 2008 to the basically online-only Pride Radio service at the time, it definitely does not meet the GNG. Raymie (t • c) 21:49, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete inadequate sourcing to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:02, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about the show. Not even a single mention of its home station. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:06, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:06, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Front Fareast Industrial

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

has had one (potentially) notable produce, but the company itself does not seem to have any other significance or the coverage needed to meet GNG. Boleyn (talk) 17:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:01, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:01, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:01, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I conducted a search for coverage via Google News (no results) and on Google (no WP:SIGCOV, just Crunchbase-like listings or its FB page) for the Chinese name as well. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 20:22, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:43, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:21, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pentz, California

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

THis one is a bit borderline, and perhaps others may be able to get a better picture of it than I. At any rate, there's nothing much there now, nor on topos going back into the 1950s. Searching produces a lot of hits on a soil type, and others that are clearly about the place; but a lot of those refer to it as the Pentz Ranch. I also have to say that Durham's story of the origin of the name isn't terribly plausible, and the Butte County histories are full of people named Pentz. This is right in the middle of the ongoing issue with these GNIS-based articles: I really don't see how we can justify having an article on a place that we cannot describe well, nor clearly characterize. Mangoe (talk) 17:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there are various references, especially in geology books, but I can't see anything which unambiguously says this is a populated place. It's clear from satellite imagery that all that's there now is a few of what look like farm buildings. Hut 8.5 18:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:42, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It was a 400-acre ranch owned by a man named Manoah Pence. For a brief time he ran a post office spelled Pentz. I don't see any indication that it was ever a community or settlement. Glendoremus (talk) 19:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Not a populated place, no sign of notability.Alex-h (talk) 12:43, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per non Devokewater (talk) 20:38, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 07:52, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shmoo Group

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

It is borderline, hence the 11 years it's been waiting in CAT:NN. A successful organisation that works in different countries and has some coverage. Most of the coverage is in primary sources/advertising. It has the involvement of notable members but I can't find evidence of it meeting the level of significance and coverage we need for WP:GNG or WP:CORP. Boleyn (talk) 17:32, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:42, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable Devokewater (talk) 20:39, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A general websearch turned up nothing that suggested notability to me. However a Google book search throw up plenty of references in RIS sustained over man6 years. None of it seems particularly in-depth but there may be a case for a GNG pass. Mccapra (talk) 02:46, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:25, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm leaving toward delete because the coverage seems to be adverts, trivial, or things that otherwise don't pass WP:NORG. There doesn't seem to be the reliable in-depth secondary sources needed to pass it. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:50, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not finding anything substantial myself. Ravenswing 07:44, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:48, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Base58

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

This is an obscure implementation detail of Bitcoin Core (base58 encoding does not exist in the blockchain). There are no reliable sources, and the IPFS hashes work differently too (see talk page), so it makes little sense to have one article generalizing over both these encodings. The article is currently citing exclusively unreliable sources like the Bitcoin Wiki (not a reliable source since it is an open wiki) and Flickr documentation (self-published). Github cannot be cited either, that is a primary source for the IPFS claims. The book may be citable, but given that the subject is so obscure, I don't think it makes sense to have this article. Ysangkok (talk) 17:08, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 17:08, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or ~~Merge with List of bitcoin forks~~ Fails WP:GNG. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 18:08, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@P,TO 19104: how does this belong in a list of forks? I don't understand, could you explain? --Ysangkok (talk) 19:06, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ysangkok: Wait you're right. I thought it has something to do with Bitcoin Classic... P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 19:11, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Anyone can come up with a new way of encoding Base2 (binary) in some other base. They might even get it mentioned in passing in a few sources. And creating an implementation in various languages would be trivial. I could create, say, Base11 (for Spinal Tap fans) and Base666 (for use by daemons), write up some routines for Python, C, Forth, GW-BASIC, LOLCODE and Whitespace, and publish them on GitHub. Notability? Not so easy. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:13, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like someone already had the Base11 idea. See Base 11. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of numeral systems § Standard positional numeral systems. We certainly do not have the sources to argue notability here. I removed the github and wiki sources, leaving on a single book (with admittedly good coverage) and some technical documentation from Flickr. But the one source, and a sentence or two from the article, would be well-suited to the table of bases in the merge target. BenKuykendall (talk) 04:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing special with this encoding base 2, this is not a notable issue. Nika2020 (talk) 22:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ysangkok (talk) 16:10, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete: This is pretty useful to show document IDs in URLs. We are using this in our products. I always refer to this page new developers to read about it. I do not get why delete it at all. It is a valid concept used in software in practice. I do not get an argument that "book might be citable" but that this is not enough. Why not? And obscure? There are 110 packages only on NPM implementing base58. I would not call this obscure? GitHub finds 333 repositories in all possible programming languages. There is a Debian package. And Google finds about 1,950,000 results when searching for base58. Mitar (talk) 18:43, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:41, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Connection (2014 documentary film)

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

A health article from student editing, I cannot find notable coverage of this film. The article does not appear to meet GNG or NFILM. On searches, take care that there is another documentary by the same name, and yet another film by the same name. Several articles from this course used sources For the plot summary that were blogs or were not about the film, rather the medical conditions themselves; after removing those, one source is left. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:04, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:04, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:04, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:04, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see Shalor has added some new sources to the article. I am unconvinced that this passing mentions serves for notability, and I can't get anything from this link except a noisy obnoxious pop-up! And there is a blog. The bottom line here is that no significant media outlet has reviewed this film. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 19:04, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Though the director Shannon Harvey might be well notable. Tessaracter (talk) 15:23, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Second relist; hopefully there’s more of a discussion this time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eternal Shadow Talk 16:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, marginal passing mention in one book, one college newspaper, and one local interview—barely passing mentions, no significant coverage. The film was made in 2014 (six years old) and has barely garnered any mention anywhere. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:26, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:41, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JBrout

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

Fails Wikipedia:GNG. The only source on the page currently is the home page for the project and there is not any significant news coverage that I can find. snood1205^{(Say Hi! (talk))} 15:56, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. snood1205^{(Say Hi! (talk))} 15:56, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; found no indication of notability. - Flori4nK ^{t • c} 16:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I searched for reputable coverage and I could not find it. --Ysangkok (talk) 23:09, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) ~ Amkgp 💬 02:59, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley Riethmeyer

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

Fails WP:GNG. Poor references. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 15:49, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:02, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:02, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:NMOTORSPORT for having a few NASCAR Truck Series starts. NASCARfan0548 ↗ 17:06, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Since he has run six Truck Series races, he meets WP:NMOTORSPORT's guidelines of contesting at least one race "in a fully professional series". Yes, the article is pretty bad, but it can probably be salvaged as there is some coverage out there of him outside of results listings and press releases. There aren't many, but after some quick digging, I found the following (although the sites are reliable sources that are regularly used in motorsports articles, the articles themselves vary in quality): Speed Sport, a national magazine (another one; an anecdote from a fellow driver in Speed Sport; Paved Track Digest; newspaper article from The News Leader; Jayski's Silly Season Site, one of the top NASCAR news sites, also has a segment. I can try to get some work done on the page and see how things turn out. Zappa⚡Matic 17:55, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to work done on the page since nomination. However, I totally understand why the page was nominated at that time. It was a very low-quality page. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 02:48, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsports-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 18:50, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 14:14, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Taku bullion coin

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

Fails WP:GNG. Poor references. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 15:38, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:31, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:31, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:13, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom on failing the GNG. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:39, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:41, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per non Devokewater (talk) 20:40, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am Coinfused. Are coins automatically notable, or do they need to satisfy WP:SIGCOV? Bearian (talk) 03:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 14:16, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stefano Montanari

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

Per it:Wikipedia:Pagine da cancellare/Stefano Montanari and it:Wikipedia:Pagine da cancellare/Stefano Montanari/2 and long deletion history at it:Stefano Montanari Frietjes (talk) 15:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:02, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:02, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The writing here is down right atrocious. It is broken English, and there is no sign that he is actually notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:24, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT, even if there's a notability case buried somewhere within it (a prospect that I doubt). This reads like an antivax screed that was machine-translated from Italian to English and then back again several times. XOR'easter (talk) 23:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This might very well be a non-notable individual (I’m not checking those foreign sources to find out), and it might very well be irreparable and a case for TNT (I’m not checking because the subject doesn’t interest me)...but the reasons given by the nom are completely irrelevant. A deletion history on Italian Wikipedia has absolutely no impact here. Just saying. – ².O.^Boxing 20:21, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unreadable mass of bad translation. The Italian discussion is actually useful, despite not being based on the English-Wikipedia policies: they concur that as a losing politician for a party so minor that they would not be expected to win even one seat, he is not notable as a politician, with a few of them disagreeing on the basis of his scientific publications. But here, publications alone are not enough; one needs evidence of impact of the publications, and that is lacking. So he fails both WP:NPOL and WP:PROF. On top of which, WP:TNT applies. I have to assume that whoever left a "stub, please expand" tag at the top of the article did so as a joke; the last thing it needs is more expansion. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am try to put his biography and try to talk with Montanari or Robert Kennedy Jr. to leave a possible strong source or decent english page. Has the italian wikipedia page has being remuove several times since 2011 for vandalism and are controled by some italian politics (like Conte's Task Force) and others authority that don't wanna make visible on Stefano Montanari. As I metionad is a personal friend of Robert Kenndy Jr. Please give time to find decents source and help me improved this page. Montanari is always been censored by italian mainstream for his personal electron microscope used for reaserch in any medical fields, include vaccines. In this moments is call by all country to explain the coronavirus and medical advised on pulmanary thrombosis (Disseminated intravascular coagulation) with the best virologist (Giulio Tarro / Luc Montagnier) and medical expertise on the subjects. For now is stub page from an old one italian not much known how to use the correct Templares, sorry my bad. Please protect from vandalism or make it edit by a good administrator. as Me are very bad in english page, I did it Planck Units derivates. I am sorry for not much competent in wikipedia pages, but trully people should know who is Stefano Montanari as Trump himself ask advised by Robert Kennedy. Montanari is very hated by Beppe Grillo's onlus Bortolani for stolen his microscope beacause Montanari was put his nose into vaccines 16 years ago. Then he been always cesored or make him his phones or web under control, they try many time to block him his speak or knowledge, or his own research on cancers or SIDS (Sudden infant death syndrome, cause it by vaccine as say many times Montanari)or Thrombosis by nano-micro heave meatal or not metal in blood by almost evething. check Children Healty Defence website.--MarianGheorgheWiki (talk) 05:40, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Devokewater (talk) 20:42, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT, WP:OR, WP:NOTINHERITED, and WP:SOAP. Much of the article literally is multiplicative, and there is a wall of links that are meaningless and would take considerable time to sort out. It seems to be a soapbox for one guy's theories of medicine. We do not publish original research. I don't care if he's BFF with a Kennedy. Bearian (talk) 03:30, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 World Future Society. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 21:36, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Friedman

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

Fails WP:GNG delete or redirect to the marginally more notable World Future Society. Theroadislong (talk) 14:23, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sourcing is not of the type that would demonstrate notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:46, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to World Future Society, I don't see independent, reliable sources giving her in-depth coverage. There's a Julie Friedman quoted about watching the rose parade parade in the news, but little more, and little to no coverage suggesting she is notable. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:52, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to World Future Society: The subject has written a short advocacy piece which is published at brittanica.com ("The Need for a Futurist Mind-Set", 2018) but neither that nor coverage arising from her 3D printing business, nor a TEDx presentation seem inherently enough to establish her biographical notability here. A redirect to the organisation which she currently chairs seems a reasonable outcome. AllyD (talk) 13:46, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:25, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jackelin Arias

AfDs for this article:

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

The coverage is not enough about her to pass GNG. It is also just plain not enough. It is all focused at one point in time thus boiling down to one event. I have no idea why the last discussion closed no consensus. 2 people wanted a deletion besides the nominator, 1 wanted a redirect, which is funtionally the same as a redirect. The last insisted on a keep on the grounds the Bolivian title is enough to establish notability. We have consistently insisted beauty queens need coverage, they do not get exempted from sourcing requirements on the mere assertion of titles. Beauty awards are not the type of awards that lead to notability per se, only if they lead to widespread coverage. John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:32, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 July 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:46, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:46, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bolivia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:46, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP1E. pburka (talk) 15:16, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Simple google search shows a lack of coverage. Per WP:BLP1E she should be redirected to Miss Bolivia 2008. Samsmachado (talk) 18:36, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The sources do not show significant coverage. Koridas 📣 17:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ANYBIO / WP:ONEEVENT. Dan arndt (talk) 03:26, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP1E. Nika2020 (talk) 22:21, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:44, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jio#Jio apps. No consensus to Keep, and a rough consensus to Redirect as an ATD. (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 11:46, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JioMeet

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

Not notable. After it was moved to draft space by another user, the author blanked the draft and recreated the article, so while I normally would move this to draft space to allow it to develop further, not sure that would be productive here. DannyS712 (talk) 12:31, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. DannyS712 (talk) 12:32, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Fails WP:NSOFT. DMySon 13:21, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: to Jio#Jio_apps. It doesn't pass WP:NSOFT, not because there is no reliable and significant coverage ([7], [8], [9], [10], [11] - these could qualify as reliable and significant), but because Notability is not temporary. Similarly, a burst of coverage (often around product announcements) does not automatically make a product notable.. All coverage is around the same date i.e date of the app's announcement. - Harsh 19:56, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - Harsh 20:23, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jio#Jio_apps, where it is mentioned per WP:ATD (t · c) buidhe 08:48, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Product is notable. Passes GNG and gains slightly more notability with praise from NITI Aayog's CEO, plus the Aatmanirbhar movement initiated by Modi. 1 2 3. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 14:49, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have not sufficiently countered the point I made. - Harsh (talk) 22:19, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's up to the closing admin (or non-admin) to take into consideration. In the meantime, here is more: Zoom considering legal action against Jio], another one on Zoom and JioMeet, this time detailing the latter's downloads and an Op-Ed that looks at the comption here. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 01:24, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, @Rsrikanth05:, are you just pasting reference links from the article? Your second link is dead. Anyway, I went through the sources and I don't think there is any convincing coverage that is not just from the announcement or something. @Rsrikanth05: why do you mention it has received praise? That is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if it is great or not, why do you think that would matter? The only thing that matters is the coverage and if there a sufficient amount. Why do you mention that it was praised by a movement initiated by Modi? That is such an indirect appeal to authority! --Ysangkok (talk) 23:24, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The link isn't dead. I forgot to put a space between the link and 2. It's very much a live one. Why is it relevant? By that line of reasoning, 80% of Wikipedia articles would be up for deletion because a bulk of the coverage rests on it being given 'significant' coverage. Indirect appeal to authority? That's very silly. Also, no need to ping me twice in the same message. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 09:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I most *certainly did not* paste links from the article. I'm not as unaware of policies as you seem to be insinuating. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 01:24, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:23, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:25, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:25, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Darkwind (talk) 00:42, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Not really non notable. But given that it doesn't have sufficient sources specifically mentioning it, it should be redirected to Jio#Jio_apps as it's coverage won't endure for long on independent unless it becomes extremely popular. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 05:57, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The best sources offered up are just articles saying it's been released. But we need significant coverage of a topic to actually write an article. Fails WP:GNG. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 00:19, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and perhaps merge a bit of the content to Jio if need be. -Kj cheetham (talk) 07:38, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:29, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Radharc Archive

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

Non-notable organisation/project. WP:ORG and WP:GNG not met.

As part of a patrol of Category:Ireland articles needing attention, I came across this article. Which had been tagged for "immediate attention" since Feb 2016. I started to look for reliable secondary refs and coverage which could establish notability, and be used to expand the article beyond its current DICDEF format. I couldn't find any. In the newspapers of record in Ireland. Or elsewhere. Or print sources. Or otherwise.

In terms of the subject of the article ("Radharc Archive") a search in the main Irish newspapers returns a single/solitary result from the Irish Times. And zero/none from the Irish Independent.

Considering that perhaps we could move/rename the article to the charity organisation that oversees the archive ("Radharc Trust") I did an equivalent search. I found just 5 results in the Irish Times. And little more in the Irish Independent. None that could be used to establish notability and/or to expand the article beyond a single sentence.

While there are a few trivial/passing mentions of the subject in a few books (including in acknowledgement pages of books which have used the archive's services for research), these only establish that the subject exists. Not that it is notable.

Other than, perhaps this article in a 2015 edition of the History Ireland magazine or this from the Irish Film Institute, I can find little to no sources which cover the subject in its own right. Not to the extent that might be expected for SIGCOV and ORG. Guliolopez (talk) 12:28, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 12:31, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 12:31, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

COmment Just a quick search as I have not got time to look at this properly but the Irish Film Institute have this [12].Davidstewartharvey (talk) 14:47, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have now added refs and more detail to article which I think now shows enough for gng. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 17:14, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thanks for that Davidstewartharvey. However, per my note above, those sources (and that content) don't directly related to the subject. The archive. The content (and the sources) largely relate to the original production company. And the charity that runs it. Not the archive itself. Of which there is very scant coverage/sources. Happy to see what consensus arises from this discussion. But, if the result is "keep", then we should consider whether the current title is the correct title for the retained content. Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 18:02, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to the production company with also information on the archive and charity as alltogether for those topics there is enough coverage for a standalone article in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 22:08, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the improvements in RS. Consider Atlantic306 renaming suggestionLightburst (talk) 19:27, 9 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Comment*** I have no argument with renaming.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 07:57, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) (t · c) buidhe 08:52, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Biplob

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

Fails WP:GNG. Calling for an AfD discussion. Hatchens (talk) 12:15, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 12:15, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Hatchens, According to your userpage language babel, you do not seem to read Bengali. How did you evaluate the references and came to a conclusion that it fails WP:GNG? ~ Nahid ^Talk 12:24, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Dear NahidSultan. You should be aware there are some tools like Google Translator which helps in these kinda situations. Instead of focusing on my language skills, kindly feel free to discuss this AfD and help in deriving required consensus. -Hatchens (talk) 12:29, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know about machine translators and also know that they produce very very poor translation from bn to en. Now, there is a daily star (most circulated English daily in Bangladesh) in depth coverage and it mentions him as iconic vocal, veteran artiste etc. The reason I asked how you evaluated because there are also in depth coverage in Prothom Alo (second most circulated daily) here and here (along with the band). IMO, this is a poor judgement- nominating articles for deletion based on google translation when most of the sources are in a foreign language. Best, ~ Nahid ^Talk 13:52, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Of the five references, three (The Daily Star, Prothom Alo, Manabzamin) are significant coverage solely focused on the singer. The singer has also released several albums independent of the band. --Zayeem ^(talk) 14:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Mr. Zayeem has shown us good resources to verify the subject's significance. - Julian ray 789 (talk)` —Preceding undated comment added 11:54, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passing W. P GNG, but some improvement is still neededMajun e Baqi (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion is mostly voted by SPAs
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 03:07, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject passes WP:GNG as per Nahid's sources. Java Hurricane 06:29, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yathish Chandra

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

This article is qualifies for WP:TOOSOON. Calling for an AfD discussion. Hatchens (talk) 12:13, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 12:13, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Leaning delete. Found many RS but they revolve around either one of his two incidents i.e making people do sit-ups in a lockdown [13], [14], [15]. Other sigcov is regarding his different shenanigans at Sabarimala [16], [17].
Delete position is not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:28, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:56, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per all of the above Spiderone 06:24, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 14:19, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Shea Hunt

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

This career officer existed. His promotions are sourced to gazettes, as can be done for any other career officer. His peak rank was Brevet Major and he was promoted Lt. Col on retirement. Does not meet WP:SOLDIER or GNG. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 12:13, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:16, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:16, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 13:11, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Does the inclusion of his position as a justice of the peace for Hampshire add anything to his notability for this decision? Vexed Cassidy (talk) 14:08, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to be a rather non-notable soldier. Coverage of the name that I found is in a genealogical publication, national archives entry (for his house), and various listings of promotions, not enough to pass GNG. I'm not aware of anything that makes justices of the peace otherwise notable. Our article Magistrate#United Kingdom suggests there are 28,000 magistrates in the UK (though it's unsourced), so I'm inclined to think that isn't enough alone to establish notability. Our Justice of the peace#United Kingdom says that English JPs "decide on offences which carry up to six months in prison, to a maximum of one year of imprisonment" and says "No formal qualifications are required", and Magistrate (England and Wales) calls them "people from the local community who are not required to hold any legal qualifications", and that they handle "less serious criminal cases" suggesting the position isn't particularly notable. While of course Wikipedia isn't itself a reliable source, I get the clear impression JP isn't notable on it's own. Best, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:21, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that the article subject isn't notable enough, if the image tied to the article File:Lieutenant Colonel Charles Shea Hunt, JP.jpg could be deleted simultaneously by an admin, I'd appreciate it. Vexed Cassidy (talk) 14:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Can we keep this article with a stub-tag (and assigned it to a certain Wikiproject) and let others add content to it for a period of 6 months? If nothing substantial is added, then we can again nominate it for an AfD. Just a thought. -Hatchens (talk) 03:44, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subaltern, hence does not meet WP:SOLDIER. No evidence of having done anything notable. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:04, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- A lieutenant-colonel is hardly a subaltern! -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:57, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Devokewater (talk) 21:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as not reaching encyclopedic notability. --Lockley (talk) 23:26, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:MILL - his highest earned commission was that of Captain, and his highest civil office was justice of the peace. If he had done anything else, or had been ennobled, that would be different. Bearian (talk) 03:34, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:33, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alaska (solitaire)

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

Non-notable article that cites no sources and for which I can find none in reliable book sources, such as Arnold, Parlett, Morehead and Mott-Smith. It appears to be merely a variation of Yukon being promoted commercially online. Bermicourt (talk) 12:09, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:16, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, basically. Delete as a non-notable patience variant failing WP:GNG with no reliable independent in-depth sources. I have no clue where to look for in-depth coverage of the topic, so I defer to nom's book review on this. Web hits do not look GNG-compatible and mostly look like implementations and guides. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 12:30, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, I found nothing to suggest WP:GNG. There's quite a few mentions in google, but nothing seems to be reliable and/or significant coverage. The variation doesn't seem to be notable at all, so a possible redirect to List of patience games wouldn't make sense. I found almost nothing on Newspapers.com or various encyclopedias. The Encyclopedia of Play mentions "Alaska" in passing as a variation of Solitaire, but goes on to say "Counting all of the variations, the total Solitaire game repertoire is over 1,000", suggesting that just existing doesn't establish notability. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 , in the absence of evidence that the award in question is significant enough for a nomination for it to confer notability. There is support for a redirect, but no consensus on a target for it. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:27, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Passage to Cathay

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

I couldn't find any sources beyond the single "capsule review". A result for White Dwarf 76 seemed promising, but it was an advert. Nothing further in the 26 Google hits. Company has no article, so no obvious redirect target. Fram (talk) 09:34, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 09:34, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In addition to the Space Gamer review, this game was nominated for a Charles S. Roberts Award in 1985. Guinness323 (talk) 16:20, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is an extremely obscure honour. This nomination is listed at one website, that's it... A site which is, judging from the "about", actually a wiki, not even a reliable source in the first place. Fram (talk) 17:31, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Charles S. Roberts Awards are perhaps the most prestigious annual games awards on this side of the Atlantic. Of the hundreds of games created each year, only five are nominated in each category. While I don't use Board Game Geek for reviews, since they do not give the reviewers' names, it is an excellent source of factual and accurate information about games.Guinness323 (talk) 19:43, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this is pretty obscure. I'd prefer to merge it if there were a reasonable merge target. Hobit (talk) 16:37, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Dave Nalle per above comments since there are WP:RS to retain, per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 17:51, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, you first have to ignore that the lone reliable source,Space Gamer, claims that the article was created by Eric Olson and doesn't mention Dave Nalle... Too bad that the only part of your vote which isn't identical to all your other votes all the time seems to be wrong, but there you go! Fram (talk) 18:17, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - That was an error of omission on my part. Board Game Geek and Spotlight on Games both credit Dave Nalle, founder of Ragnarok Enterprises, but Eric Olsen co-wrote this and several similarly-themed games with Nalle in 1983-1985, including Middle Passage and Pacific Passage. Article has been corrected, thanks for pointing this out. Guinness323 (talk) 18:45, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - BGG (or the rather retro layouted Spotlight) is not a reliable source, Space Gamer presumably is, so you should go with that source and credit it only to Olson (as does your other source[18], but that's probably no more reliable either). Fram (talk) 18:54, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Good points. They both definitely collaborated on Middle Passage (both their names are on the title page). However, Nalle's several autobiographical sketches often include Middle Passage but never Passage to Cathay. Olsen seems to be the clearer choice. Thanks for your help with this. Guinness323 (talk) 19:48, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 11:39, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Ashishkafle (talk) 12:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Aside from the single review, all of the other sources seem unreliable, and no additional RS can be found. We're not a game database. Even the game publisher is NN. Hog Farm (talk) 14:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Which sources seem unreliable? Luding, although in German, is an accurate source of information in a country somewhat obsessed with board games. Board Game Geek is likewise an accurate source of information about games. The article uses these sites to establish facts about the game, which are not in dispute. Notability, currently obtained from a lengthy independent review from a RS and a nomination for a major award, is what is being questioned. Guinness323 (talk) 19:43, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Boardgamegeek is a wiki and already has been shown to be incorrect on this game. The "nomination for a major award" is so important that it has received no attention in reliable sources whatsoever and is only found in that unreliable wiki. Which still leaves us with only the one review. Fram (talk) 07:13, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:05, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Charles S Roberts nomination is enough to demonstrate notability. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:20, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Andrew Davidson: The Roberts award seems to be very minor and it's only a nomination. I'm not sure how that provides a free pass through notability when GANG is not met. Hog Farm _Bacon 14:10, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirecrt. One obscure award, one minor review (by definition, capsule suggests a very passing one). This is better than nothing but not enough to merit passing NBOOK/GNG. I wonder if there is a wikia this kind of content could be preserved, though. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:14, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable in my opinion. - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:26, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) ~ Amkgp 💬 03:00, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AB Nyköpings Automobilfabrik

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

Unreferenced for over ten years, fails WP:V. Does not appear to meet WP:NCORP. Stifle (talk) 13:27, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:31, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:31, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:31, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please check again. // Liftarn (talk) 15:04, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect into Saab, which would preserve some of the recent improvements. Even in the Swedish-language version this commercial enterprise is of mild interest but does not seem notable enough for its own entry. --Lockley (talk) 18:04, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It existed as an independent auto manufacturer between 1937 and 1960 and is now again independent (altough they are a reseller and customiser now). // Liftarn (talk) 05:22, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Of note is that references were added to the article after the nomination for deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the added sources establish notability per WP:SIRS. // Liftarn (talk) 08:03, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 11:38, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Saab. Ashishkafle (talk) 12:02, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sourced good enough. Geschichte (talk) 18:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per improvements since it was taken to AfD. /Julle (talk) 11:23, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per improvements made since nom. Per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 13:18, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:39, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greenfield airport

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

Nothing in this article shows a difference between a greenfield airport and a new airport project. All airports were once greenfield airports because airports can't be built on abandoned industrial land within cities. It could be changed to a list of new airport proposals, but I doubt if that would be very useful. Grahame (talk) 04:09, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:18, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are only two references with just a mention that these airports are being planned or opened. Does not meet WP:GNG. Bingobro (Chat) 13:13, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Being poorly written is not a valid reason to delete. Not being sufficiently referenced is not a valid reason to delete. This is a stub article, badly written at that. It needs work, not deletion. The concept itself is notable enough for an article that does a much better job than the current form at explaining the concept, the distinction between traditional and greenfield development, pros and cons of greenfield airports vs redevelopment within existing urban boundaries, and so on. A quick search for the term reveals that this is not a term that someone made up one day, even though it is unfamiliar to me. RecycledPixels (talk) 19:01, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 21:26, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:11, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:11, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Partial merge to Greenfield land. There is little related to the concept of greenfield construction that is specific to airports making that a distinct topic. Reywas92^Talk 18:01, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:47, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:07, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 11:36, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep But article needs improvements. --Ashishkafle (talk) 12:07, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 10:07, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stini

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. A notability tag has been placed again, so still doubt. No coverage. No fans. Failure to launch. scope_creep^Talk 11:24, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete considering the last discussion on this musician including a keep vote trying to convince us a press release and an interview with her were enough to pass GNG, it is very clear she does not pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:27, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:39, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:21, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: falls far short of WP:NMUSICIAN and I can't find any significant coverage. At best, a case of WP:TOOSOON. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 09:32, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:03, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cycling age categories

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

Fails to assert importance. Content is unsourced. OXYLYPSE (talk) 10:51, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:01, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is not sourced at all. Ashishkafle (talk) 12:10, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – @Ashishkafle: Note that per WP:NEXIST, "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article". North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:43, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Of note is that some sources were added to the article (by another user) on 3 July 2020‎ (UTC). In the user's edit summary, part of it stated "meets notability per WP:LISTN" (diff).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:44, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per non --Devokewater (talk) 08:56, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:15, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Reasons given for RfD no longer apply. Article is now referenced, and per admin above, meets notability. — WILDSTAR^talk 22:31, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Initially deleted but after some comments were raised, I decided to relist instead so that the newest edits to the article can be evaluated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 19:45, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the recent improvements. I've struck-through my previous reply. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:49, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unimportant details that don't merit a standalone article. The title is really misleading; it's only the categories for two specific organizations. If desired, the first half could be merged into British Cycling, while you'd have to wait until someone created British Schools Cycling Association to find a home for the second half. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:51, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT - only edits to try to improve the article have been labeled as minor, and I agree. Bearian (talk) 17:12, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my note above, and because the article now has references, and asserts importance; satisfying the two reasons provided why the AfD was initiated. — WILDSTAR^talk 14:57, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. Perhaps the topic is valid but certainly an appropriate article titled "Cycling age categories" covers information much more globally relevant than two UK organisations. I don't believe the content on British Cycling is useful to that article. — Bilorv (talk) 16:45, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MaskedSinger (talk) 15:27, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:33, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Wheeler (businessman)

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

Fails WP:GNG. I can't find any independent sources with WP:SIGCOV. Daask (talk) 10:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Daask (talk) 10:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is mainly sourced from one website. No notability either. Ashishkafle (talk) 12:11, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:48, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:33, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Stanley (rugby union)

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

Player does not qualify for WP:NRU as he has yet to play in any professional game in any professional league. Therefore fails WP:Notability guidelines. A previous page for this player has already been moved to a Draft page. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Not notable. Not enough references. Ashishkafle (talk) 12:12, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:59, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable rugby player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:45, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Skeene88 (talk) 15:13, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not understand the rules and regulations. I do these pages when I like to at certain times. I'll redo it this again once its approved through certain guidelines. NikeCage68 (talk) 16:09, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:32, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpool Live 247

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

New digital/internet radio station, not on air yet, and more importantly coverage of Liverpool Live is constrained to its own website, so does not meet WP:NCORP. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 09:47, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The station is on air having launched in April 2020. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CCCC10 (talk • contribs)

Delete Not notable. Article is not sourced at all. Ashishkafle (talk) 12:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject appears to have no coverage in reliable sources and fails WP:NMEDIA.--Tdl1060 (talk) 08:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about the station, not even a single article about its launch. Most likely WP:TOOSOON. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 00:51, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 13:07, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Gaudino

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

I don't think being an academic and writing a book alone makes this subject notable. They have very little coverage in sources and I don't think they meet any of the academic criteria? OXYLYPSE (talk) 09:15, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. OXYLYPSE (talk) 09:15, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Doesn't meet any of WP:NPROF but seems to be a really interesting character who inspired a generation that he taught - I have added a few more refs which show this and [19] and here [20] this gives more clues into the guy.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 11:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have found more sources including an article in the Boston Globe about his influence 15 years after his death, and that his book has been quoted in several publications. Still not sure he meets academic notability for Wikipedia.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 12:27, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:01, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:02, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:02, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I'm making an WP:NAUTHOR argument. His book The Indian University has been reviewed [21] (also in brief [22]). I was unable to find reviews for his Uncomfortable Learning book. However, the idea (or some version of it) has gotten a fair bit of press coverage, enough that the fund established in his honor disassociated themselves with some of it [23]. The book is on the recommended reading list for the Peace Corp [24]. It's harder to find online materials on someone who died in 1974, so I'm grading a little bit on a curve here. But I weakly think that his books have had the impact that we're looking for. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:03, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep just scrapes by GNG including the coverage of his books, imo (t · c) buidhe 08:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, feminist 光復香港時代革命 04:02, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kj cheetham (talk) 08:45, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We have only a borderline case for WP:AUTHOR (I found more full-length reviews of his first book so now we have three for it but only a brief review of the second) but I think together with the extensive WP:GNG-type coverage of his life and teaching I think it's enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:54, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. bibliomaniac 1 5 02:11, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Colorado Book Awards

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

Subject fails WP:GNG. I did a WP:BEFORE search and found reliable sources that announce winners but nothing about the award and even briefer mentions. A source like this is something but coming from an author who thinks they were overlooked is questionable. I don't see a case for notability. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:37, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:37, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:37, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:37, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:21, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

Milofsky, David (2010-02-04). "Colorado Book Awards' odd nominating process". The Denver Post. Archived from the original on 2020-06-29. Retrieved 2020-06-29.
"Colorado Book Award Finalists Named; Sabrina & Corina Didn't Get Picked". Westword. 2020-03-09. Archived from the original on 2020-06-29. Retrieved 2020-06-29.
Walker, Tom (2000-12-03). "11 step up at Colorado Book Awards Winners run gamut in literary field". The Denver Post. Archived from the original on 2020-06-29. Retrieved 2020-06-29.
Dumas, Alan (1995-04-29). "'Moonlighters' Win Colorado Book Awards Lawyer, Teacher, Rancher, Journalist Among Honored Writers". Rocky Mountain News. Archived from the original on 2020-06-29. Retrieved 2020-06-29.
Beck, Cathie (2004-11-17). "An Examination of American Innovation - Colorado Book Awards Speaker Writes of Those Who Altered Landscape". Rocky Mountain News. Archived from the original on 2020-06-29. Retrieved 2020-06-29.
Ellis, Barbara (2018-06-10). ""The Newcomers" among winners". The Denver Post. Archived from the original on 2020-06-29. Retrieved 2020-06-29.
Walker, Tom (2004-11-19). "Books of "Heaven" and earth earn Colo. awards - POLYGAMY AND ALFALFA - Jon Krakauer and Kent Nelson explore unique families: two Mormon brothers who murder, and three women and an Indian boy on a farm". The Denver Post. Archived from the original on 2020-06-29. Retrieved 2020-06-29.
"Book-awards gala laden with local celebs". The Gazette. 2006-10-29. Archived from the original on 2020-06-29. Retrieved 2020-06-29.
Thorn, Patti (2007-11-18). "13 others win Colorado Book Awards". Rocky Mountain News. Archived from the original on 2020-06-29. Retrieved 2020-06-29.
Ellis, Barbara (2017-05-23). ""Rough Riders," "Revelation" win at Colorado Book Awards". The Denver Post. Archived from the original on 2020-06-29. Retrieved 2020-06-29.
Thorn, Patti (2005-10-07). "Colorado Book Awards Marked by Diversity in 14th Installment". Rocky Mountain News. Archived from the original on 2020-06-29. Retrieved 2020-06-29.
Bohlen, Teague (2019-05-20). "Colorado Book Awards Announce 2019 Winners". Westword. Archived from the original on 2020-06-29. Retrieved 2020-06-29.

Sources with quotes

Milofsky, David (2010-02-04). "Colorado Book Awards' odd nominating process". The Denver Post. Archived from the original on 2020-06-29. Retrieved 2020-06-29.
The article notes:
Regular readers of this column know I view most literary awards with a jaundiced eye, but I make an exception for the Colorado Book Awards — because I won one once. Perhaps because of this and knowing very little about the mechanics of the award, I had the idea a while back of nominating Bin Ramke for an award this year for his remarkable “Theory of Mind: New and Selected Poems.” My reasons were simple: I think Ramke is the best poet in Colorado and he hasn’t received the recognition he deserves.
On calling the Colorado Endowment for the Humanities, which now handles the awards, however, I found out this wouldn’t be simple. A very pleasant young woman informed me that in addition to filling out an entry form, there was a $50 fee, and I’d have to provide seven copies of Ramke’ s book for the judges.
...
No argument there, but it still seems as if something called the Colorado Book Awards should have a nominating process that is somewhat more removed from self-promotion and even approaches objectivity. Not that this is the job of the Center for the Book, nor am I the one to tell them how to run their contest, but there should be an impartial way to recognize and celebrate all those fantastic writers Jones was talking about. One happy result of all this, though, is that Ramke’s book did finally get nominated — by his publisher. I have a feeling someone at the endowment may have made a call.
"Colorado Book Award Finalists Named; Sabrina & Corina Didn't Get Picked". Westword. 2020-03-09. Archived from the original on 2020-06-29. Retrieved 2020-06-29.
The article notes:
While there are plenty of deserving authors on this list (including Westword's own Teague Bohlen), the absence of one work of fiction has already stirred up debate: Kali Fajardo-Anstine's Sabrina & Corina was snubbed, and some in the literary community are crying foul.
Fajardo-Anstine was Colorado's biggest breakout literary success of 2019. Her collection of short stories was a finalist for the National Book Award and was recognized by Mayor Michael Hancock's office for artistic excellence. It also ended up on plenty of year-end reading lists.
"I am writing in shock at the very conspicuous absence of the book Sabrina and Corina by Kali Fajardo-Anstine from this year’s Colorado Book Award finalists," Arvin Ramgoolam, the co-owner of Townie Books in Crested Butte, wrote in a statement. "In a time when readers recognize that stories from marginalized communities are vital and necessary, this omission is more than an absent minded mistake on a list that is deeply lacking in diversity, it is a concerted effort to sideline an author and further marginalize communities in Colorado, and needs to be scrutinized by not just the literary community, but all artistic communities and financial supporters of the Colorado Humanities."
Walker, Tom (2000-12-03). "11 step up at Colorado Book Awards Winners run gamut in literary field". The Denver Post. Archived from the original on 2020-06-29. Retrieved 2020-06-29.
The article notes:
There were familiar faces and newcomers at the dais as the Colorado Center for the Book handed out its annual Colorado Book Awards Tuesday night in the Donald R. Seawell Grand Ballroom at the Denver Performing Arts Complex.
Longtime author Dan Simmons went home with the award for fiction for "The Crook Factory" (HarperCollins, $24), a tale of espionage based on novelist Ernest Hemingway's real-life desire to run a spy ring out of Havana during World War II.
Former Denver Post business writer Stephen Keating was given the award for nonfiction for "Cutthroat: High Stakes and Killer Moves on the Electronic Frontier" (Johnson Books, $32.50), an inside account of the often brutal, high-stakes battle for market share between cable and satellite companies in the telecommunications industry.
Dumas, Alan (1995-04-29). "'Moonlighters' Win Colorado Book Awards Lawyer, Teacher, Rancher, Journalist Among Honored Writers". Rocky Mountain News. Archived from the original on 2020-06-29. Retrieved 2020-06-29.
The article notes:
Literature doesn't pay the bills anymore, as Friday night's Fourth Annual Colorado Book Awards proved.
...
The annual awards are presented by the Colorado Center for the Book and sponsored by the Colorado State Library and Adult Education Office and the Rocky Mountain News.
...
The surprise of the evening came when host Greg Moody of KCNC-TV announced that the Colorado Center for the Book had decided to give a special award to a book that had been nominated, but not chosen to win, in the fiction category, Timothy Hillmer's The Hookmen.
"Reid's 'No Place Safe' tops list". Rocky Mountain News. 2008-10-09. Archived from the original on 2020-06-29. Retrieved 2020-06-29.
The article notes:
The Colorado Book awards, by the Colorado Humanities and Center for the Book, were moderated by Channel 2 anchor Natalie Tysdal, at the Tivoli Turnhalle on the Auraria campus of Metropolitan State College.
Beck, Cathie (2004-11-17). "An Examination of American Innovation - Colorado Book Awards Speaker Writes of Those Who Altered Landscape". Rocky Mountain News. Archived from the original on 2020-06-29. Retrieved 2020-06-29.
The article notes:
Some might say that any man whose name has a "Sir" in front of it might be a bit highbrow for an out-West audience. But Sir Harold Evans, keynote speaker for the Colorado Center for the Book 13th Annual Colorado Book Awards, comes off as anything but pompous.
...
The Colorado Book Awards ceremony, held at the Wings Over the Rockies Air and Space Museum, is open to the public. This year, 217 books were judged in 14 categories.
Ellis, Barbara (2018-06-10). ""The Newcomers" among winners". The Denver Post. Archived from the original on 2020-06-29. Retrieved 2020-06-29.
The article notes:
Helen Thorpe's "The Newcomers," about immigrant students at South High School, was recognized at the 2018 Colorado Book Awards last week at the Sie FilmCenter.
...
The book won the Creative non-fiction category, beating out "Guidebook to Relative Strangers" by Camille T. Dungy, "No Barriers" by Erik Weihenmayer, and "The Long Haul" by Finn Murphy.
The awards are provided by Colorado Humanities.
Walker, Tom (2004-11-19). "Books of "Heaven" and earth earn Colo. awards - POLYGAMY AND ALFALFA - Jon Krakauer and Kent Nelson explore unique families: two Mormon brothers who murder, and three women and an Indian boy on a farm". The Denver Post. Archived from the original on 2020-06-29. Retrieved 2020-06-29.
The article notes:
Salida's Kent Nelson won the fiction award and Jon Krakauer took home the nonfiction prize as the 2004 Colorado Book Awards were handed out Thursday night at the Wings Over the Rockies Air and Space Museum.
...
Sponsored by the Colorado Center for the Book, the evening also featured an address by Harold Evans, whose book "They Made America - From the Steam Engine to the Search Engine: Two Centuries of Innovators," has just been released. The book is a companion volume to his "This American Century."
"Book-awards gala laden with local celebs". The Gazette. 2006-10-29. Archived from the original on 2020-06-29. Retrieved 2020-06-29.
The article notes:
More than 300 guests attended the 15th Annual Colorado Book Awards Gala on Oct. 18 at the Denver Center for the Performing Arts.
They celebrated books judged as the best of 2005 in 10 genres, including fiction, nonfiction, children's books, poetry and pictorial.
The event was emceed by etown radio host Nick Forster. Nick Urata, lead singer and guitarist for the Denver-based band DeVotchKa, performed.
...
The Colorado Center for the Book, a program department of Colorado Humanities, sponsors the event to recognize Colorado's finest authors, encourage a love of books and promote literacy.
Thorn, Patti (2007-11-18). "13 others win Colorado Book Awards". Rocky Mountain News. Archived from the original on 2020-06-29. Retrieved 2020-06-29.
The article notes:
A novel revolving around a family's dark secrets and a book about people fanatically pursuing their passions are among this year's Colorado Book Awards honorees.
The 14 winners in 10 categories were announced Wednesday night in an event sponsored by the Colorado Humanities and Center for the Book.
...
The event, held at the Seawell Grand Ballroom at the Denver Performing Arts Complex, was attended by more than 300 people. The winning authors were selected out of 39 finalists.
Ellis, Barbara (2017-05-23). ""Rough Riders," "Revelation" win at Colorado Book Awards". The Denver Post. Archived from the original on 2020-06-29. Retrieved 2020-06-29.
The article notes:
Colorado authors in 14 categories from anthology to young adult literature were recognized at the Colorado Book Awards this week.
Among the winners was Carter Wilson’s “Revelation,” which Denver Post regional book reviewer Sandra Dallas calls “a dark and brooding thriller” that delves into the mind of a psychopath who wants to control and manipulate those around him.
...
The awards, presented May 21 during a ceremony at the Parker Arts, Culture & Events Center, are given by Colorado Humanities, a nonprofit that is affiliated with the National Endowment for the Humanities, and Colorado Center for the Book. For a list of previous winners, click here.
Thorn, Patti (2005-10-07). "Colorado Book Awards Marked by Diversity in 14th Installment". Rocky Mountain News. Archived from the original on 2020-06-29. Retrieved 2020-06-29.
The article notes:
The winners of this year's Colorado Book Awards include the poignant story of small-town life on the Colorado plains and the moving tale of a transgender teen.
In other words, diversity was the order of the day for the 14th-annual event, which honored nine titles released in 2004.
The ceremony, which took place at the Donald R. Seawell Grand Ballroom, was sponsored by the Colorado Center for the Book.
...
The eclectic titles were feted in an equally wide-ranging program, moderated by Nick Forster of the music and environmentally oriented radio show etown.
Bohlen, Teague (2019-05-20). "Colorado Book Awards Announce 2019 Winners". Westword. Archived from the original on 2020-06-29. Retrieved 2020-06-29.
The article notes:
Authors, judges, and lovers of all things literary gathered on Saturday, May 18, to celebrate the 28th annual Colorado Book Awards, presented by Colorado Humanities and Center for the Book. The awards, which honor the best in literature from calendar year 2018, was sponsored this year by First Western Trust, Outskirts Press, Shaw Construction and the Colorado Sun. Held at the Arvada Center for the Arts and Humanities, the festivities drew a crowd of nearly 200 to celebrate the winners and the finalists in fourteen categories of written wonderfulness.

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Colorado Book Awards to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

Cunard (talk) 01:38, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:55, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Cunard has given us refs but I think only no.1 can be classed as significant coverage, while the rest are about the awards themselves. This [25] is local but is more about the awards. As per most awards difficult to actually find enough independent in depth stuff as it is normally about the winners.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 15:13, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage in reliable sources established.★Trekker (talk) 23:17, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the WP:RS available. Lightburst (talk) 19:29, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - yes, there's coverage, and yes, the sources are reliable and independent. But almost none of it is significant coverage that actually discusses the awards themselves or their meaning or relevance to the literary community etc. Without more significant coverage, I don't see how the article can be expanded past what it is, without turning it into a mere list of winners. This is a clear example of why the notability guidelines require significant coverage, not just mentions. –Darkwind (talk) 00:53, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I consider the criticism of Colorado Book Awards in these three sources to be substantial analysis of the awards:

Milofsky, David (2010-02-04). "Colorado Book Awards' odd nominating process". The Denver Post. Archived from the original on 2020-06-29. Retrieved 2020-06-29.
"Colorado Book Award Finalists Named; Sabrina & Corina Didn't Get Picked". Westword. 2020-03-09. Archived from the original on 2020-06-29. Retrieved 2020-06-29.
Wurth, Erika T. (2020-05-04). "Opinion: On the Colorado Book Awards' Ongoing Diversity Issues". Westword. Archived from the original on 2020-07-10. Retrieved 2020-06-29.
This article is from an author who had been nominated for the Colorado Book Awards and wrote "Unfortunately this year, the Colorado Book Awards' failure to recognize Sabrina & Corina has overshadowed the accomplishments of writers of color who, like me, are finalists."

The other sources I've listed discuss what has happened at the awards ceremonies and provides details about the awards. An example: "More than 300 guests attended the 15th Annual Colorado Book Awards Gala on Oct. 18 at the Denver Center for the Performing Arts. They celebrated books judged as the best of 2005 in 10 genres, including fiction, nonfiction, children's books, poetry and pictorial. The event was emceed by etown radio host Nick Forster. Nick Urata, lead singer and guitarist for the Denver-based band DeVotchKa, performed. ... The Colorado Center for the Book, a program department of Colorado Humanities, sponsors the event to recognize Colorado's finest authors, encourage a love of books and promote literacy." These sources contribute to notability.

Cunard (talk) 08:40, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:06, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Steadham

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

The subject of this article is not notable. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contributions) 15:59, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 16:07, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 16:07, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete aside from [26], all the sources I can find are either non-significant coverage, interviews, or user generated/shop listings. Danski454 (talk) 19:26, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- My !vote is unchanged by the added sources, as aside from the Issuu and www.familymediasite.com, none are significant coverege. The Issuu source is primary and www.familymediasite.com doesn't inspire confidence in its reliability. Danski454 (talk) 22:50, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:02, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I respectfully disagree. Steve Steadham is a skateboarding pioneer and legend. As a member of the Bones Birgade, Steadham was part of the most well known skate team in skateboarding history. Additionally, he has gone on to found multiple companies and have a career a as professional musician. I added additional sources.--Wil540 art (talk) 21:16, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Based on WP:BASIC a lot of small refs show he was once notable, and you don't lose notability.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 18:20, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 03:01, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources are either unreliable, primary or passing mentions without going into significant coverage. Fails GNG and NBIO. Java Hurricane 06:42, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I respectfully disagree, to quote Davidstewartharvey: "Based on WP:BASIC a lot of small refs show he was once notable, and you don't lose notability." --Wil540 art (talk) 22:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You only vote once, Wil540 art. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 17:01, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Darkwind (talk) 00:57, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Success and Failure Based on Reason and Reality

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

This book has little media coverage and the article is written in a very promotional way. James Richards (talk) 16:04, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. James Richards (talk) 16:04, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. James Richards (talk) 16:04, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. James Richards (talk) 16:04, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. James Richards (talk) 16:04, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. James Richards (talk) 16:04, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you James Richards, i have tagged a request for Edit, it is not my intention to make it in a promotional context, Kindly advice what should be done for it to be neutral/meet Wikipedia Standard. I look forward to becoming a better contributor. Mark Mulwanyi (talk) 19:56, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note I am probably too involved to give an unbiased opinion at this AfD discussion. Point to note for other editors. The author of this article identified as social media marketer here. There are conversations at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hamis Kiggundu and his talk page about managing conflicts of interest and paid editing. The editor confirmed having worked commercially for the subject through an agency before. He claims to be making Wikipedia edits "undirected", such as Ham Palm Villas, Ham Group of Companies, Ham Enterprises (U) Ltd, Haruna Sentogo, Haruna Enterprises (the latter two being the brother of Mr Kiggundu)._pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 00:20, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note Like Jake Brockman I am also too involved in trying to assist the creating editor to make a 'Delete vs Keep' !vote. The editor is receptive to help and guidance. While the editor is finding his way might I suggest Draftify in order to allow him to continue under WP:AFC guidance? Fiddle Faddle 10:14, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has WP:BEFORE been abandoned? This book apparently has significant press coverage, an award, and is on a national curriculum. Deletion is not cleanup, so promotional or CoI issues should be handled elsewhere. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:42, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:40, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I find the addition to the national curriculum significant, but the award is likely minor, and the so is the press coverage - I have serious doubts about the reliability of sources, much of the press coverage is a WP:INTERVIEW. I guess per WP:SYSTEMICBIAS we can lump all of that coverage and the award together and argue they make up for the second source... And try to ignore that the article reads like a promotional piece :/ --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:25, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the WP:RS available and per WP:BOOKCRIT#1. Lightburst (talk) 19:32, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:39, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fort Ann, California

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

THis is a test run for a much larger tranche of California place stubs which were copied into WP from Durham's California's Geographic Names: A Gazetteer of Historic and Modern Names of the State without reference to other sources. In this particular case, a look in GNIS shows it to be the "Fort Ann Mine" (GNIS entry), so it's clearly not a notable community or even a community at all, but that's not the point. The thing is that there is a great deal of labor to be wasted in going over each of these and fishing for sources and either not finding anything or finding that it's not a community. I'd rather nominate the lot of them as gazetteer dumps and let someone recreate them individually if real material can be found.) Mangoe (talk) 20:25, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 20:56, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 20:56, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This one does actually have a bit of coverage [27] [28] [29] [30], but the sources confirm that this was indeed just a mine in an area with many mines and that claims of a military post are unlikely.

In this case it might be possible to write an article if more/better sources can be found, but I agree with Mangoe's suggestion to WP:TNT anything that's based solely on gazetteers and the like. We do a disservice to our readers by maintaining hundreds of poorly-sourced and often inaccurate stubs, and the work of searching for sources should be done by those who wish to keep and expand them. –dlthewave ☎ 03:27, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Generic mine, not a notable community. The bulk-produced lot should go. Reywas92^Talk 07:57, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Former verifiable populated place, close to 100 years of human habitation/activity around it. I added a bit to the article a few days ago.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:13, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow time for analysis and commentary regarding the additional sources that were added to the article between 17:14 and 18:04 on 25 June 2020‎ (UTC).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:37, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is literally a gold mine and so it was naturally noticed and so is notable. Place names should not be deleted in some crude and disruptive manner because it has long been accepted that one of Wikipedia's functions is to be a gazeteer. Deletion is rarely appropriate as there will usually be a sensible alternative such as expansion or merger. There is no necessity or need to reduce our number of pages because there is no practical limit to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, have notified the mining wikiproject of this afd by leaving a message on their talkpage. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:20, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Andrew and Milowent, above. Might need to be renamed to the name of the mine? I didn't look into the fort claim, but th mine is certainly verified by RSs, and there's no reason to delete it because of (apparent ) pique over it being a gazeteer entry. --Pete Tillman (talk) 01:53, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep,It is notable with its gold mines. Alex-h (talk) 20:05, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:48, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic Temple art & music festival

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

This is an event that did not happen. The coverage I found, like https://www.dispatch.com/news/20200612/coronavirus-music-festival-organizers-concert-goer-sue-dr-amy-acton, is WP:ROUTINE, and falls into the category of "this is going to happen" or "this band is scheduled to appear at the festival". It may happen next year, but unless third-party sources can be found, it doesn't seem to meet notability criteria. If it does stay, let's move it to the correct capitalization: Temple Art & Music Festival. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:CRYSTAL. (t · c) buidhe 08:35, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep images of the event"info". columbusunderground.com. Retrieved July 8, 2020.. (t · c) RazorJackal 05:06, 8 July 2020 (EST)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per RazorJackal, it appears it did happen in 2019, which weakens the nominator's argument. But was it notable?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:19, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per PMC, reviews of festival."review". newnoisemagazine.com. Retrieved July 8, 2020."review". loudwire.com. Retrieved July 8, 2020."review". cincymusic.com. Retrieved July 8, 2020."review". musicfestnews.com. Retrieved July 8, 2020."review". columbusalive.com. Retrieved July 8, 2020. Previously Rock on the Range for 11 years"info". metalnexus.net. Retrieved July 8, 2020., Sonic Temple art & music festival held an inauguration."info". thechimeramagazine.com. Retrieved July 8, 2020.(t · c) RazorJackal 03:12, 8 July 2020 (EST)
Comment It's best not to conflate Rock on the Range with this festival. They're two separate topics. And we don't use refs. I removed the ref tags. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per PMC, The inaugural Sonic Temple Art + Music Festival capped off the Danny Wimmer Presents 2019 spring festival season with sold-out crowds of 120,000."attendance". domaincle.com. Retrieved July 8, 2020.(t · c) RazorJackal 05:29, 8 July 2020 (EST)
Comment Thanks for the updates, RazorJackal. It appears that the only edits you've made have been to events related to Danny Wimmer Presents. In light of of Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guidelines, do you need to declare your involvement with the company? At the very least, you're a Wikipedia:Single-purpose account, and this is concerning. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:02, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per Walter Görlitz, No, WP:DNB.(t · c) RazorJackal 10:34, 8 July 2020 (EST)
- I am not trying to bite, but I am quite concerned at your choice of subjects and the facility you have with the system. If you say you have no CoI, I accept that, but I still find it suspicious. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:40, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep then delete 90% of the material in this COI-like terribly written article. IMO it appears to have enough coverage and real world prominence to where it can and should have the article. The next step would then be to delete 90% of the material as this terribly-written article has the kind of material that a COI promoter would want in it rather than what readers would want to read / what is in the sources. North8000 (talk) 13:45, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:24, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) (t · c) buidhe 08:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seattle Youth Garden Works

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

WP:NORG/WP:NONPROFIT failure. Local run of the mill thing. Graywalls (talk) 22:09, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 22:09, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 22:09, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 22:09, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete articles need more coverage then the organizations own website.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:37, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article lacks enough independent reliable sources. Nika2020 (talk) 19:15, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

Taylor, Mykel; Young, Doug; Miles, Carol (2010-01-01). "Direct Marketing Alternatives in an Urban Setting: A Case Study of Seattle Youth Garden Works". Journal of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Education. 39. American Society of Agronomy: 165–172. doi:10.4195/jnrlse.2010.0010. Retrieved 2020-06-28.
Hughes, Tyler (2016). "A Case Study: Seattle Tilth Empowers Urban Youth". In Synder, Elizabeth Hodges; McIvor, Kristen; Brown, Sally (eds.). Sowing Seeds in the City: Human Dimensions. New York: Springer Science+Business Media. ISBN 978-94-017-7454-3. Retrieved 2020-06-28.
Winterbottom, Daniel; Wagenfeld, Amy (2015). Therapeutic Gardens: Design for Healing Spaces. Portland: Timber Press. pp. 278–279. ISBN 978-1-60469-442-0. Retrieved 2020-06-28.
Podsada, Janice (1995-07-14). "Off the Street, Into the Peat - Garden Project Aids Homeless Teens". Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Archived from the original on 2020-06-28. Retrieved 2020-06-28.
Carlton Harrell, Debera (2003-09-28). "Seattle's at-risk youths dig garden program". Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Archived from the original on 2020-06-28. Retrieved 2020-06-28.
Beason, Tyrone (1995-09-17). "Youthful Gardeners Cultivate Roots". The Seattle Times. Archived from the original on 2020-06-28. Retrieved 2020-06-28.
Roberts Trott, Nancy (1996-12-11). "Gardening Gives Youths New Start - Program Helps Steer the Homeless to Jobs". Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Archived from the original on 2020-06-28. Retrieved 2020-06-28.
Lewis, Mike (2005-02-09). "Urban youths create show's best garden". Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Archived from the original on 2020-06-28. Retrieved 2020-06-28.
Easton, Valerie (March 2006). "Patchwork". Horticulture. Vol. 103, no. 2. F+W Publications.
Kelly, John (2007-04-01). "Seattle Youth Garden Works". Youth Today. American Youth Work Center. Archived from the original on 2020-06-28. Retrieved 2020-06-28.
Fischer, Kathleen; Hart, Thomas (2009-04-17). "Healing the planet, healing ourselves". National Catholic Reporter. Archived from the original on 2020-06-28. Retrieved 2020-06-28.

Sources with quotes

Taylor, Mykel; Young, Doug; Miles, Carol (2010-01-01). "Direct Marketing Alternatives in an Urban Setting: A Case Study of Seattle Youth Garden Works". Journal of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Education. 39. American Society of Agronomy: 165–172. doi:10.4195/jnrlse.2010.0010. Retrieved 2020-06-28.
The article notes:
In Washington State, for example, the Seattle Youth Garden Works (SYGW) program offers employment opportunities to youth, aged 14 to 22, who are homeless or involved in the juvenile justice system. The streets of Seattle are home to an annual average of 800 youth who do not have a permanent residence and are susceptible to dropping out of school, drug and alcohol use, and other exploitations (J. Dilworth, personal communication, 2008). Since 1995, SYGW has employed young, homeless people at one of two urban farms to develop job and social skills and help them find more stable employment or return to the school system. For some youth, the chance to work in a market garden or sell their produce at a farmers' market is the kind of life-altering experience that can turn it all around. The success stories are inspiring and positively impact not only the youth, but the communities in which they live. However, managing the day-to-day operations of this organization and overseeing the market garden poses sizeable challenges to the SYGW staff.
The focus of SYGW is youth development, but the vehicle for delivering their program is the urban market gardens in the University District and South Park neighborhoods of Seattle. This concept of pairing social programs and market gardening has been employed in several cities where urban agriculture is often part of bigger projects aimed to reduce poverty, increase food security, and provide employment and education opportunities for at-risk groups including the homeless, pregnant teens, former prisoners, and others (Feenstra et al., 1999; Kaufman and Bailkey, 2000). The staff of SYGW is well-trained to work with homeless youth; however, a good youth counselor is not necessarily skilled at growing vegetables or direct produce marketing. To help with this imbalance of knowledge, SYGW contacted cooperative extension state specialists from Washington State University to assist in developing intensive production and marketing plans for the Marra Farm market garden in South Park. This case study is based on the plans developed for SYGW by WSU specialists in agricultural economics, horticulture, and soil science.
Hughes, Tyler (2016). "A Case Study: Seattle Tilth Empowers Urban Youth". In Synder, Elizabeth Hodges; McIvor, Kristen; Brown, Sally (eds.). Sowing Seeds in the City: Human Dimensions. New York: Springer Science+Business Media. ISBN 978-94-017-7454-3. Retrieved 2020-06-28.
The book notes:
A Brief History of Seattle Youth Garden Works

Seattle Youth Garden Works was founded in 1995 and fiscally sponsored by the Church Council of Greater Seattle. The program started as a volunteer landscaping project to address the needs of homeless youth in Seattle's University District. The program developed its mission to empower homeless and underserved youth through through garden-based education and employment and grew to having paid staff and offering wages to qualifying youth, offering multiple 12 week employment opportunities during the year. By 2006, youth grew produce at two Seattle-area gardens, one in the University District and the other at Marra Farm in South Park and providing fresh produce to area food banks and selling harvests weekly at the local Farmers Market.
In 2009, the Seattle Youth Garden Works advisory council decided to suspend operations due to financial challenges. Under the leadership of Executive Director Andrea Dwyer, in 2010 Seattle Youth Garden Works became a program of Seattle Tilth, fitting well into Seattle Tilth's array of programs and mission to inspire and educate people to safeguard natural resources while cultivating an equitable and sustainable local food system. The addition of SYGW supported Seattle Tilth's expansion towards production-scale agriculture, green jobs and social justice programs. Seattle Tilth was able to offer an existing organizational infrastructure to quickly re-launch and stabilize the program.
The book notes:
Volunteers provide essential support for Seattle Youth Garden Works. The number of volunteers typically changes depending on the season but there are usually around 12 volunteers at any given time. The volunteers serve as mentors to the youth and assist in other programmatic ways. To become volunteers for the SYGW, mentors go through a Seattle Tilth screening process and also receive program specific training. Additional volunteers help with harvest during the spring and fall when the youth crew isn't able to come in the mornings due to school schedules.
Seattle Tilth partners with over 20 organizations to ensure the success of Seattle Youth Garden Works. For example, SYGW partners with Goodwill to provide program participants with job readiness and resume training. They also partner with Boeing Educational Credit Union, which provides financial readiness classes including banking 101, budgeting and credit information.
Winterbottom, Daniel; Wagenfeld, Amy (2015). Therapeutic Gardens: Design for Healing Spaces. Portland: Timber Press. pp. 278–279. ISBN 978-1-60469-442-0. Retrieved 2020-06-28.
The book notes:
Seattle Youth Garden Works, a program of Seattle Tilth is an after-school job training and education program for youth who are homeless or at risk of dropping out of school, and the community farm is their outdoor classroom. Participants are paid a modest stipend to plant, grow, harvest, and sell their produce at local farmers' markets, all the while acquiring meaningful experience in urban agriculture. For many, it is their first exposure to nature and gardening, not to mention personal responsibility and teamwork. Participants spend half their time working at the farm and green market stand and the other half in classes focusing on nutrition and business and leadership skills. The farm is adjacent to the University of Washington's Center for Urban Horticulture; it is a nonthreatening, green sanctuary where gun violence and the temptation to engage in deviant behavior are absent. Enthusiasm for gardening may be perceived as being "uncool" in their home environments, but when at the farm the youth embrace it, and their shared endeavor unites them. Deep and unique bonds of trust form between group members, strengthening self-identity and building confidence and sense of mastery. Staff and mentors not only instruct the youth but serve as role models, providing guidance, connecting them to housing and social services, and troubleshooting problems to ensure they stay in school. The mentoring and support the youth receive may be the critical component that transforms their lives for the better.
Podsada, Janice (1995-07-14). "Off the Street, Into the Peat - Garden Project Aids Homeless Teens". Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Archived from the original on 2020-06-28. Retrieved 2020-06-28.
The article notes:
The garden is the brainchild of Margaret Hauptman, a part-time graphic designer who got together with several University District organizations this spring to create a small oasis for troubled teens in a neighborhood beset by street kids and the tensions over their presence.
The fruit of their labors is the Seattle Youth Garden Works project at the University Heights Center at Northeast 50th Street and University Way. The project is sponsored by the Church Council of Greater Seattle's Task Force on Housing and Homelessness and the University District Youth Center.
Seattle Youth Garden Works is designed to teach social and entrepreneurial skills to street kids - teens who often live in transitional housing or come from troubled homes where violence and abuse is the norm.
...
Thus, with funding from United Way and Seattle's Summer Employment Program, the Seattle Youth Garden Works project was born.
Carlton Harrell, Debera (2003-09-28). "Seattle's at-risk youths dig garden program". Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Archived from the original on 2020-06-28. Retrieved 2020-06-28.
The article notes:
But for the homeless and at-risk youths working in Seattle Youth Garden Works, life is full of welcome ironies. Being outdoors, they say, helps them stay in school. Tiny plants make them feel taller, and hard labor yields pride.
...
Seattle Youth Garden Works employs and houses eligible low-income young people ages 14 to 22, using garden-based education to redirect the lives of those who have taken a hard left from Eden.
...
Eight years ago, it provided employment for 18 youths at one site; now the two-site program employs 50. It could expand further with more donations, thanks to a public service campaign announced earlier this week by Seattle-based advertising company Ad 2.
Beason, Tyrone (1995-09-17). "Youthful Gardeners Cultivate Roots". The Seattle Times. Archived from the original on 2020-06-28. Retrieved 2020-06-28.
The article notes:
In a world where there are few opportunities for advancement, a small group of street youth in the University District have found hope in a heap of dirt.
They are taking part in the Seattle Youth Garden Works, a seven-week employment and educational program designed with street youth in mind.
Yesterday, eight of the 15 current youth workers spent the morning preparing a radish and lettuce garden at a plot next to the University of Washington's Center for Urban Horticulture.
The kids who participate in the Garden Works are, in some way, disconnected from home and family. Most either live on the streets, sleep at homeless shelters or stay at youth transitional homes. Some have problems with substance abuse.
That 3,500-square-foot plot, then, is both figuratively and literally a nurturing foundation, a place that promises new life.
The article notes Margaret Hauptman is the program's originator.
Roberts Trott, Nancy (1996-12-11). "Gardening Gives Youths New Start - Program Helps Steer the Homeless to Jobs". Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Archived from the original on 2020-06-28. Retrieved 2020-06-28.
The article notes:
The Seattle Youth Garden Works, one of several programs honored yesterday by the King Conservation District, gives homeless young people who want to get off the streets a chance to gain work experience by growing their own vegetables and flowers and selling them at a farmers' market.
In the winter, participants make wreaths they sell at holiday fairs.
Throughout the program, participants also receive employment counseling, help getting a place to live, occupational therapy screening and job placement assistance. The Church Council of Greater Seattle, which sponsors the project, pays $5 an hour to participants who also split the profits from their sales.
...
Since the program's inception nearly two years ago, Hauptman boasts about a 70 percent success rate, meaning most of the program's graduates go on to find jobs and places to live.
Lewis, Mike (2005-02-09). "Urban youths create show's best garden". Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Archived from the original on 2020-06-28. Retrieved 2020-06-28.
The article notes:
Yesterday, as he stood near the Best in Show gold medal he helped win for Seattle Youth Garden Works, a non-profit that turns homeless and impoverished kids into accomplished gardeners, Squirrel admitted he was caught off guard by this recent success: the group's and his own.
...
Show organizers said it was astounding that a non-profit with a few low-paid staffers and a crew of young people with troubled pasts could win the Founder's Cup at the prestigious garden show, the third-largest of its type in the nation. It was Garden Works' first-ever entry.
...
To the people who work in Seattle Youth Garden Works, beautiful gardens are not all they are trying raise. The organization, with offices in the University District and South Park, annually accepts 60 people between 14 and 22 years old who have had problems with poverty and homelessness.
The youths are taught to work in the growing, marketing and selling of the plants cultivated by the organization. A few of those, like Squirrel, are offered a one-year internship. He said he found out about the organization while getting his GED through a youth services organization in the University District.
Easton, Valerie (March 2006). "Patchwork". Horticulture. Vol. 103, no. 2. F+W Publications.
The article notes:
At Seattle Youth Garden Works, disadvantaged kids ages 16 to 22 learn life and job skills and earn money by growing vegetables and herbs and selling them at local Farmer's markets. Their display garden at last year's Northwest Flower and Garden Show--rows of corn, carrots, fennel, and European pears garnished with primroses and a hand-painted mural--vanquished flashier and more professional displays. The judges were wowed by the authenticity and charm of the nonprofit's first-ever entry and awarded it Best in Show.
Seattle Youth Garden Works is part of the thriving community gardening scene in and around Seattle. And Seattle's community gardens--from subsistence farms to butterfly borders--are part of a nationwide trend toward urban havens where the sowing of vegetables and flowers reaps a harvest of shared purpose.
Kelly, John (2007-04-01). "Seattle Youth Garden Works". Youth Today. American Youth Work Center. Archived from the original on 2020-06-28. Retrieved 2020-06-28.
The article notes:
In a Nutshell: Seattle Youth Garden Works (SYGW) provides job training through garden-based education and employment. Youth grow organic produce and sell it at local farmers’ markets and garden fairs, and to a small number of local restaurants.
Youth work after school hours for 10 to 20 hours a week, earning a wage and a share of the profits. The initial program lasts 12 weeks, with a few youths continuing in leadership positions as “lead youth gardeners” for up to one year.
...
Who Started it and Who Runs It: Margaret Hauptman founded SYGW in 1995 because she wanted to provide jobs and training for homeless youth in the University District. She had become aware of the disenfranchisement of street youth while she was volunteering at a drop-in center.
The organization is headed by Director Janice Dilworth, who oversees an urban farm and an employment development manager, an AmeriCorps manager and five AmeriCorps volunteers. SYGW uses about 300 additional volunteers each year.
Fischer, Kathleen; Hart, Thomas (2009-04-17). "Healing the planet, healing ourselves". National Catholic Reporter. Archived from the original on 2020-06-28. Retrieved 2020-06-28.
The article notes:
From left, Joey, Trung and Brandon work in a greenhouse at Seattle Youth Garden Works, which trains homeless and at-risk youth through garden-based education and employment.
...
That something was a program sponsored by the Church Council of Greater Seattle that teaches homeless and at-risk youth how to raise organic crops to sell at local farmers' markets. Darvell says that Seattle Youth Garden Works is more than a job or learning about gardening: "It's not just growing plants, it's helping to grow yourself. It's life-changing."
In the spring, the program's young participants can be found seeding kale, carrots, chard and tomatoes, and rooting the young plants. Though Darvell describes his favorite part as the farmers' markets where he sells the produce, there is also the work on native plants.
...
Through the eco-education found at Seattle Youth Garden Works, the lives of couch-surfing or runaway youth are stabilized as they learn about nature within a community that believes in them.

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Seattle Youth Garden Works to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

Cunard (talk) 08:06, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment Something like "Journal of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Education. American Society of Agronomy." is great for information accuracy, but it is highly specialized resource tailored to those who specifically go research something in the narrow field of discipline, so sources of this nature is no pass on WP:AUD for the purpose of establishing notability under WP:NORG. Graywalls (talk) 07:48, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AUD says:

The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary.

The case study published in the New York-based Springer Science+Business Media book meets the WP:AUD requirement that "at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary".

Cunard (talk) 08:23, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's one way to look at it, but, I'm looking through the lens of "limited interest" per WP:AUD "on the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability" (the underline in quote added by me). Source as an authoritative area on the specialized interest which can extensively discuss obscure things of little general interest is different from being extensively discussed in the spotlight of a widely circulated general interest publication, which is what is being sought for the notability establishment purpose. Graywalls (talk) 14:08, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:ORGDEPTH and meets WP:AUD, as per a source review. I consider the Seattle Post-Intelligencer to meet the requirements of WP:AUD. When it was a print publication, its circulation included all of King County, not just Seattle (source, from 1962). As such, this qualifies as regional coverage. The Seattle Post-Intelligencer has since changed to an internet-only format, but that does not automatically mean that its reach has all of the sudden shrank to exist only within Seattle. Irregardless, Seattle Post-Intelligencer articles such as this published about the topic in 1995 were published before the newspaper went to online-only in 2009. I'm unable to access the Springer Science+Business Media source in entirety, but per the "Sources with quotes" box atop, I consider three decent-sized paragraphs specifically about the topic to comprise significant coverage.

I noticed that both of the delete !votes above after the nomination appear to be basing notability upon the state of sourcing within the article when it was nominated for deletion (diff). However, notability on English Wikipedia is not gauged by the state of sources in an article. Per WP:NEXIST, "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article" (bold emphasis mine). It is unclear whether or not these !votes are also based upon source searches, because they do not state if said searching occurred.

It is important for notability guidelines to be applied correctly and accurately, rather than basing notability upon a simple conflation of an article presently lacking verification. This is why WP:BEFORE-style, due diligence source searches prior to !voting is important, and should be performed. While it is important that articles are properly verified, a lack of verification being present does not mean that a topic is then somehow automatically non-notable. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:54, 30 June 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) 07:56, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:29, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Romani Jews

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

Fails WP:V. For sourcing, the article relies on a single, error-ridden opinion piece in an obscure pop culture magazine. That’s simply not enough to demonstrate the existence of an ethnic/religious group. - Biruitorul ^Talk 07:53, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:58, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:58, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one source is never enough to create an article on an ethno-linguistic group.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability Spiderone 19:02, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks enough reliable sources to be notable. Nika2020 (talk) 22:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:29, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Williams College commencement speakers

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

There is a recent AfD very similar to this. Whilst the organisation is notable, I would argue that the list alone does not deserve a place in the Encyclopedia. OXYLYPSE (talk) 07:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. OXYLYPSE (talk) 07:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. OXYLYPSE (talk) 07:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete I just don't see this as a notable topic; perhaps it is easy enough to document but as a rule nobody cares except in rare circumstances when a controversial choice is made. Mangoe (talk) 17:42, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG. Not a notable topic and unsourced. Ajf773 (talk) 20:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If they are really notable appearances it can be included in the the Williams College article, no reason for a stand alone article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:48, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 10:07, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

European Beer Star

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

Exists, but doesn't have the coverage or significance to meet WP:CORP or WP:GNG. This and the other language articles on it seem to have been written for promotion. Boleyn (talk) 07:37, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's been running for 16 years now and seems to be reasonably substantial. There's coverage to be found such as this. The worst case would be to consolidate into a page such as list of food and drink awards#Beer_awards per WP:ATD-M. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:30, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:30, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:30, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (t · c) buidhe 08:33, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (t · c) buidhe 09:05, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article cites no third-party coverage even after 3 weeks of AfD. Fails WP:GNG. Sandstein 08:12, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:29, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elecom

AfDs for this article:

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

Nowhere near a consensus at 2017 AfD, and has been in CAT:NN for 11 years. I've removed notability tag now, as if it survives a 2nd AfD, even with no consensus, there is nothing to be gained from keeping it in CAT:NN.

I'm aware that I may be missing points as I cannot read Japanese, but I can't find anything to show the level of in-depth coverage or significance that I would look for to meet WP:CORP or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 07:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:35, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:35, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the list of articles posted at Talk:Elecom#Possible refs to use for the article. I may have time over the next few days to review them more thoroughly and add information to the article. I picked only those articles that seemed to be about the company rather than articles about its products (of which there are many). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 08:48, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I've expanded it significantly and added a lot of reliable sources. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:28, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please pick two of those sources which you think meet the WP:SIRS requirements of WP:CORP an link them here. SpinningSpark 18:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Spinningspark: See below. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 13:15, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (t · c) buidhe 08:32, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I had a brief look at some of the sources on the list indicated above. They all fail WP:CORP big time. #1 is a review of one of the ompany's products, not about the company itself, #2 and #3 are Japanese Yahoo, #4 is a routine dividend announcement. I'm not seeing the "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources" as required by the new guidelines. SpinningSpark 18:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem unfamiliar with Japanese news, based on your comments here. NHK OhaBiz is a highly-regarded morning business show. The equivalent would be something like Nightly Business Report (link). The news of Elecom winning their lawsuit against Epson was quite big, and ITMedia News is considered reliable (link). Winning all of the BCN Awards for four years running in the categories mentioned in the articles is certainly notable, as is winning the Good Design Awards. All of that, taken together, more than meets WP:GNG, let alone WP:CORP. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 13:14, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, the only "Japanese Yahoo" (which is quite different than Yahoo over here, BTW) is the news about Elecom sponsoring the charity golf tournament. I'm not sure where you're seeing a second one from Yahoo, as there isn't one. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 13:18, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - From your comment it seems you are unfamiliar with the relatively new requirements for corporations. WP:CORP has been deliberately made a more onerous requirment than GNG. GNG is no longer enough. Please read the requirement carefully to make sure you understand it. The first link you gave is an interview. Interviews are explicitly stated to be primary sources and thus fail SIRS for notability which requires secondary sources. The patent dispute with Epson is more about the ink cartridge product than the company. CORP has this to say for example, an article on a product recall...is a significant coverage for the Wikipedia article on the product...but not a significant coverage on the company (unless the article...devotes significant attention to the company itself). Maybe we can give that one some points towards notability, but more than that is needed directly on the company itself. SpinningSpark 15:03, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm familiar with it. The link has interview segments, but the coverage is more than just the interview. The patent dispute article was about the company, as Epson sued the company, not their ink cartridges. The article covers the settlement of the suit. Additionally, the company has won the multiple awards for product design across multiple years in multiple categories, which also confers notability. Taken all together, they more than meet CORP and GNG, and a specific notability guideline cannot override a company meeting GNG. If any topic (including a company) can meet the GNG, it is considered notable, regardless of anything else. See WP:SNG for more details. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think we should introduce "hard" notabilty to NCORP (as per NPROF) for certain attributes. Certainly a quoted stock with a capitalisation over USD1bn, and employees over 500, should be automatically considered notable. It would save a lot of time imho. Britishfinance (talk) 15:59, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        @Britishfinance: I would support that as it would make things easier when trying to figure out notability. A smaller company could certainly still be notable, but this would set some clear thresholds beyond which a company is always notable. You should start up a discussion. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:04, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        
        @Britishfinance: I would support hard criteria too. In fact, I would go further and say we should have hard criteria for everything that does not meet the Fifty year rule, especially organisations, people and products. At the same time, subjects within that ambit and failing to meet the hard rules should be subject to enhanced GNG a la WP:CORP. But the bottom line is Wikipedia standards do not always match my (or your) personal standards and that's what we have to go with in the meantime. SpinningSpark 13:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        @Spinningspark: But right now, there is no such thing as "enhanced GNG" (whatever you mean by that). The specific guidelines such as WP:CORP are only there as an alternate way to meet WP:N. If any topic meets GNG, it passes WP:N, regardless of anything else. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:54, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Didn't I just say we don't have it already. Why do you find it necessary to tell me what I have already said (and whatever do you mean by "whatever you mean by that" – didn't you read the linked essay explaining what I mean). As for GNG v SNG, no. NCORP was rewritten explicitly to put stronger requirements on company articles: These criteria, generally, follow the general notability guideline with a stronger emphasis on quality of the sources to prevent gaming of the rules... There was a massive RFC about this rewrite in 2018. SpinningSpark 19:02, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        A more specific guideline for meeting notability cannot override GNG. If any topic meets GNG, it doesn't have to meet a more specific guideline. NCORP cannot be more restrictive than GNG. It can only provide an alternate to GNG. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:18, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY by Nihonjoe. It would be hard to argue now that this company is not notable in Japan, and should be deleted. Note that Elecom is a quoted stock in Japan (No. 6750, with its own news feed on Bloomberg) and with a USD$2bn market cap [31] Britishfinance (talk) 15:06, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:01, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can anybody find some analyst reports that cover the company? Analyst reports meet the criteria for establishing notability and quoted companies on important stock exchanges are usually covered. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @HighKing: Not sure what they are supposed to look like, but I found this and this. I'm not sure where to even look for anything else. This isn't my area of expertise. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:50, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Unfortunately most major analyst reports are not publicaly availalbe (you can't even pay for them). Elecom have some analyst reports on their own IR site here, and they appear in IR Street lists here. They are also covered by one of the big credit analysts, Dun and Bradstreet (these are the most comprehensive analyst reports), and their DNB page is here. There are four Japanese analysts currently covering the company (see here), although I cannot see their names. Britishfinance (talk) 18:08, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - HighKing, per the conversation above the re-list, should we have some kind of WP:LISTEDCORP that clarifies these rules (like NPROF) that would guarantee notability (not just imply). E.g. quoted market cap above $USD1bn (at some time), and covered by at least one analyst (or do we have this already). Britishfinance (talk) 18:10, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think your suggestion would certainly streamline a lot of discussions that take place on the notability of listed companies. I've checked the links posted above in relation to analyst reports but none meet the criteria - I'll explain why. The reason why analyst reports are usually good for notability is that the analyst will provide in-depth information *and* their own opinion. The reports linked above are simple directory listings. The analyst reports linked to from here are also simply regurgitating company announcements (e.g. this) and do not contain Independent Content as per WP:ORGIND. So on the basis of finding an analyst report, so far I've drawn a blank. But given that the company generates nearly USD $1Bn annually in revenues and has assets of over USD $80bn (see here) is does seem that [WP:NCORP|our guidelines] need to provide for these companies. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:36, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        I agree with you HK. Those IR reports looked odd to me too. I think the Morningstar (who are an analyst, although not an i-bank anlyst), and DNB (who are obviously doing reports on their credit – although behind a paywall), would be the best candidates. I can see a 10-page 2011 analyst repot from Morgan Stanley MUFG on them on the bloomberg feed, but the link to the document is empty? At least Morningstar and DNB allow one to be aware of the existance of reports on companies, however, it is pretty rare to find good quality analyst (e.g. investment bank) material freely downloadable on the web (even for USD 100bn companies)? Britishfinance (talk) 20:55, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 07:04, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Da'am Workers Party

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

Very minor Israeli political party, which has never recieved more than a few thousand votes in elections. There is a seperate page, List of minor political parties in Israel, which mentions all small parties in Israel. Article fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:Notability. Eight of the eleven references are from Da'am itself, or organisations very closely linked with the party.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:28, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:28, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:28, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:SIGCOV is demonstrated through articles like 1, 2, 3, and 4. Zoozaz1 (talk) 18:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:37, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

J-Roudh

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

Rapper has received no significant and reliable coverage to meet the notability requirements for biographies or musicians. The most robust source I was able to find is in a publication called Simply Bhangra (already cited twice in the article), which is merely a three-sentence announcement of a new song. Otherwise the rapper can only be found in the routine retail, streaming, and social media services. The same is true of his apparent hit single "Oh Soniye" and his record label Sikboyz Music. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 01:51, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 01:51, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 01:51, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 06:19, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:37, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trillium Circle

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

Extremely outdated article on a never-built shopping mall. Existing sources are WP:LOCAL, 404, or both. No other development has occurred here since, and the name has completely evaporated from use other than the street that the theater's on. I was the article's creator a billion years ago, but as other editors have done at least some degree of work I'm not sure if this counts as a G7. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:18, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. 02:19, 24 June 2020 (UTC) Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:19, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:26, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:27, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 06:19, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mt. Olympus Water & Theme Park. (non-admin closure) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 17:29, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Opa (roller coaster)

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

This is not a notable roller coaster by industry standards, nor does it warrant a standalone article. It already has sufficient coverage at Mt. Olympus Water & Theme Park with better sourcing. No need to merge. This should ~~be deleted~~ simply be redirected. GoneIn60 (talk) 21:46, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Amusement parks-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 23:47, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (t · c) buidhe 08:31, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 17:22, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Mt. Olympus Water & Theme Park , where it is mentioned, per WP:ATD and useful redirect. (t · c) buidhe 09:03, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a redirect. --GoneIn60 (talk) 09:13, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of Naruto video games. czar 05:41, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Naruto Online

AfDs for this article:

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

Promotional, lacks significant coverage needed to meet WP:GNG DannyS712 (talk) 05:37, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. DannyS712 (talk) 05:37, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. DannyS712 (talk) 05:37, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. DannyS712 (talk) 05:37, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Several announcements in Silicon Era and a couple things in HCG, including a preview. WP:VGSE turns nothing else up. --Izno (talk) 13:51, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Barring an editor identifying WP:GNG-worthy sources, merge and/or redirect to List of Naruto video games. --Izno (talk) 18:56, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Such a massively popular series, reliable sources are mentioning this already such as https://venturebeat.com/2016/07/13/naruto-online-is-coming-to-the-west-on-july-20/ Dream Focus 16:56, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Announcements are not evidence of notability. --Izno (talk) 18:55, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't just an announcement, it list information about it as does https://www.gamespot.com/articles/naruto-online-officially-releasing-in-the-west-for/1100-6441750/ which is already mentioned in the article. If anyone speaks Japanese, probably more coverage to be found there. Dream Focus 20:45, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I searched the game's Japanese title through Google and could find little else outside of more announcements. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 21:52, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The only things that seem to turn up for this game are announcements, which doesn't constitute notability. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 20:01, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- Dream Focus 21:18, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Naruto video games If WP:VG folks can't justify this as the game has been out for several years now, and there aren't any detailed reviews. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:55, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Naruto video games as a valid WP:ATD. The only decent source about the game that I can find in my searches is...Hardcore Gamer one mentioned here already. Otherwise, they are all pure WP:ROUTINE announcements/release date articles that just repeat what press releases are noting, with slight changes. Doesn't meet WP:GNG, and the list entry with notes should be more than enough to WP:PRESERVE it. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Naruto video games: With one of the links indicated by Dream Focus, it's best to briefly discuss it in the target list. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:36, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Naruto video games as a valid alternative to deletion per arguments above. While notability of this particular game is not established at this time, redirection to the list of games as a valid search term is enough to say this exists and that covers the extent of its notability. Red Phoenix ^talk 21:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 2020 Green Party of Canada leadership election. NPOL sets a standard that can seem a bit higher than GNG but that reflects the fact that campaigns are often the subject rather than the individual. Over the years, the community has supported the case that multiple unsuccessful candidates either have to win something or we cover them in the campaigns. Once all these arguments were aired and the article.relisted there was no disagreement with this argument. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:41, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Perceval-Maxwell

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

WP:BLP, referenced entirely to primary sources with no evidence of reliable source coverage shown at all, of a person notable only as an unsuccessful candidate for political office. As always, this is not grounds for a Wikipedia article in and of itself -- but this article demonstrates neither that he had any preexisting notability for other reasons independently of the candidacies, nor a credible reason why his candidacies could be considered more significant than other people's candidacies. And while there is a "this article may be expanded with text translated from the corresponding article in French" tag at the top, the French article is just a very short stub with nothing to actually translate that isn't already here and citing no sources at all, which means it's deletion bait over there as well. Bearcat (talk) 05:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 05:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 05:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - achieves bare notability between some recent coverage of a controversial policy he proposed to combat racism, and significant WP:ABOUTSELF info that can be used to build the article into something more than just the campaign. I think a very narrow GNG pass is in effect here. NPOL is for politicians who fail to meet GNG, not some super extra special guideline that also has to be met. Even if that weren't the case, I don't care, because in that case it's clearly a rule detrimental to building the encyclopedia and should be ignored. People expect Wikipedia to contain information about political candidates. Wikipedia seeks to be the biggest repository of free information in the world, and people have come to rely on it; it's often hard to find info about candidates, and most people would reasonably expect candidates for office to have articles. He's also run for god knows how many elections, making him a perennial candidate which can in itself create notability in certain cases. This is also a pointy nomination (see here, CTRL+F "WP:WAX") and should be speedy closed for that reason alone. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 05:34, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NPOL is not "for politicians who fail to meet GNG". We don't always do a very good job of actually finding and using all the sources necessary to write a substantive article that looks like the person passes GNG, but that's not the same thing as the person actually failing GNG — NPOL-passing politicians always pass GNG, and we just aren't always on the ball about doing the work to make their articles good. That's a "lazy Wikipedians" problem, not a "the people don't pass GNG in the first place" problem.

And a brief blip of coverage in the context of announcing a policy proposal during a leadership race just makes hima a WP:BLP1E, not a person who has attained permanent notability yet. We are WP:NOTNEWS: we consider the enduring notability of potential article topics, not just their temporary newsiness: our job here is to look past the daily news and sort out what information is still going to matter in 2030, not just to indiscriminately keep an article about everybody whose name happens to have shown up in the daily news cycle one day.

And also, WP:WAX is not WP:POINT. There's nothing disruptive about responding to a WAX-based argument by listing the named WAX article for a deletion discussion — WAX literally says that that's one of the standard responses that people should expect to a WAX-based argument. Bearcat (talk) 06:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG worse than most, as the only potentially qualifying coverage is the fact there was a documentary film made about one of his campaigns - the review of the film in the article focuses solely on the filmmaker, and not on Perceval-Maxwell. The rest of the article is his CV, a couple Facebook posts, routine election results, a National Post article about a Green Party debate, and a press release which doesn't even mention him. The French language article has zero references at all and is unhelpful. On top of WP:PROMO concerns related to the fact he's a current candidate, which was the reason why this article was created, this is a clear delete. I also want to address a point made above - there is no way at all this is a pointy nomination, as Bearcat generally does an excellent job at bringing articles that need AfD review to our attention and has for a long time. That accusation must be retracted. SportingFlyer T·C 06:30, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I will not retract it, because it is correct. In fact I will double down. Bearcat's crusade against politician articles is one of the worst things I've seen at AfD. He gleefully misuses policy, lawyers it to mean the opposite of what it plainly says, and bludgeons the process with his walls of text of randomly italicized words and meaningless blather. Wikipedia would be far better off if he were topic banned from AfD, or even desysopped or sitebanned entirely. I'm done here. I'm not going to waste my time on a failed encyclopedia run by deletionist zealots like him. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 06:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep and Topic Ban User:Bearcat from AFD nominations - It's a very pointy nomination, ~~as it's clearly vengeance for another editor pointing out the nominator's lack of competence in the Annamie Paul AFD,~~ and a quick WP:BEFORE shows lots of other articles relating to this environmentalist's similar activities, such as his hemp business, and his famous car that ran on discarded deep-fryer oil from fast-food restaurants (even I remember that one - and a good "Do you know" candidate). I've added several more references to the article, some routine, but some meet GNG, such as the 2005 Montreal Gazette article, the 2009 car articles, the 2008 piece on his hemp business (did User:SportingFlyer see these?) The nominator really should withdraw this nomination. This nomination meets the speedy keep criteria 2 (created for disruption). Though it's also clear that the mandatory BEFORE checks were not done. Nfitz (talk) 06:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsing discussion between two editors that is not relevant to the article at hand

Once again, responding to a WP:WAX argument by listing the WAX article for discussion is neither disruptive nor pointy — listing the WAX article for deletion is exactly the standard and expected response to a WAX argument.

I also do not have any "lack of competence". If you would like to propose that we change the established consensus around non-notability of political candidates, that's one thing — but I am not incorrect about and do not misrepresent what the existing consensus is, and the sheer number of deletion discussions where I've voted to keep because I was able to salvage an article with better referencing than had been provided is also plain proof that I know what I'm doing when it comes to WP:BEFORE. Salvaging inadequately referenced articles is literally 75 per cent of the work I do on here at all, in fact — and kindly read WP:ATTP, which specifically states that "As well, be very careful about flinging around accusations of a nominator's or commenter's perceived failure to follow WP:BEFORE. Not everybody has access to the same research tools, so the fact that you were able to access a database that provided more coverage than somebody else found in other databases is not, in and of itself, proof that the other editor was negligent in their duties. If you can salvage the article, then just salvage it and don't attack other editors for not finding what you found." Bearcat (talk) 07:10, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I completely disagree with everything you have said here. WAX hardly applies when it's overwhelming clear that the original nomination is heading towards a keep - and to suggest otherwise raised WP:CIR questions. If WP:BLP1E applied you might have a point ... but in both cases you've raised, the coverages goes back decades. And when it's shown to you that that is the case, instead of doing the honourable thing, and withdrawing the nomination, you dig deeper with spurious and irrelevant arguments, trying to twist WP:SNG and ignore the clear guidance in WP:N that A topic is not required to meet both the general notability guideline and a subject-specific notability guideline to qualify for a standalone article. I can understand you making mistakes, and misinterpreting things ... lord knows it's not all clear ... but to let your ego take over, and create disruptive nominations, and waste everyone's time is disgraceful, and I believe you should be topic banned from further AFD creation until you have time to reflect on this. Nfitz (talk) 07:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not withdrawing anything so long as you're speaking to me in that unacceptable tone — and it wouldn't matter whether I withdraw it or not anyway, because if you've salvaged the article enough for people's satisfaction, then they'll vote accordingly and it will be kept regardless of whether I withdraw it or not. This is, after all, exactly how AFD works: if articles get salvaged and improved enough to turn the tide on an AFD discussion, then that's a win for everybody, not a "competition" that I've "lost". If you start speaking to me civilly, then maybe I'll consider your position — but I have no obligation to obey the commands of anybody who's talking to me in this kind of blatantly uncivil and inappropriate manner. And allow me to point out as well that I have never, not once, attacked you in any of this. Bearcat (talk) 08:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking perfectly civilly - though if you think that your decisions should be based on how people speak to you, rather than the facts, then that raises even more quesions. There's no doubt that this was a pointy nomination ~~- likely in retaliation for the same user doing a pointy AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/9th Jutra Awards. The hypocrisy of complaining about that and then doing the same thing stuns me.~~ Also ... who said that you attacked me - I didn't think you had? And what has rescuing the article got to do with it ... we don't decide to delete based on the quality of the article - AFD guidelines clearly say that one should improve the article if one can, rather than deleting. It is your failure to WP:BEFORE that is the prime issue here ... and then you seem to think that the rest of the discussion be some kind of transactional exchange - rather than failing to do the right thing, and withdrawing clearly faulty nominations. Stop wasting our time. Nfitz (talk) 08:19, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, you may think you're talking civilly, but the comment I was responding to was very angry and attacking and uncivil. And this article was created by a user named Fulserish, not by Cactus Jack, so I don't know why you think nominating this for discussion was retaliation against anything Cactus Jack did. I'm also going to remind you, once again, of what WP:ATTP says about accusing people of failing to do BEFORE: "Be very careful about flinging around accusations of a nominator's or commenter's perceived failure to follow WP:BEFORE. Not everybody has access to the same research tools, so the fact that you were able to access a database that provided more coverage than somebody else found in other databases is not, in and of itself, proof that the other editor was negligent in their duties. If you can salvage the article, then just salvage it and don't attack other editors for not finding what you found." And finally, again, it doesn't matter whether I withdraw a nomination or not — if people are convinced that you've salvaged the article enough, then it will be kept regardless of anything I do or don't say, and if people aren't convinced that you've salvaged the article enough, then any withdrawal I make would almost certainly be followed by somebody else immediately initiating a renomination anyway. So not immediately complying with an order from you is not evidence that I'm "failing to do the right thing", or that I'm being "transactional" — it's evidence that I'm trying to respond calmly to a personal attack I didn't deserve. Bearcat (talk) 08:42, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies ... I thought it was Cacti Jack who had mentioned this article ... re-reading the discussion it was User:TimeEngineer ... however within minutes of their mentioning this article, you not only nominated this article for deletion, but (to me at least) seemed to gloat about it. It's hard to believe that in the intervening 16 minutes after their post, you had time to not only see their post, but to read it, do the AFD nomination for this article, and do a proper BEFORE. Which the amount of GNG material relating to him, that's not related to his candidacy, would have found. Nfitz (talk) 08:56, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Nfitz (talk) 07:11, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the article as it stood at 06:30 and you updated it with a single new article afterwards, which isn't really significant coverage in my book as it was a late 2000s blog post. I do not think the mention that his car runs on cooking oil is enough to make him notable or is considered a separate "event" considering a quick search shows his notability stems mostly from a single documentary with one review or the fact he's standing to be the leader of the party, which is a candidacy. The claim for WP:GNG is exceptionally weak even for candidates, who we expect to receive WP:GNG and that's why we've carved out the exception. You also need to consider your response. A topic ban for Bearcat would be absolutely ridiculous. This was a very legitimate nomination. SportingFlyer T·C 08:12, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough - I'm not sure when you looked at it. There's three articles referencing the car ... and I certainly remember seeing reports about it, there was significant media coverage of him and the car at the time. There's significant coverage about his Hemp business. And there's significant national coverage about his candidacy for leadership a major federal party ... it's not like he's running for Senator in Red Neck, East Dakota, and just retired as a schoolteacher with no profile. My gosh ... if we applied this depth of GNG to sportsplayers, they'd be about five per league. Nfitz (talk) 08:27, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per above comments, he passes GNG, and as he received coverage prior to his campaign he does not fall to any possible WP:BLP1E problems, though I am not convinced there would be one anyway. Devonian Wombat (talk) 10:10, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you strip away anything that's not campaign related, he was the subject of a non-notable documentary, was interviewed, and was mentioned in a couple blog posts. WP:GNG is not met. SportingFlyer T·C 01:29, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets GNG with sources, some of which are in French. His candidacies are essentially beside the point, there's enough here for an article. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:28, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. His political activity, while a noble endeavor, does not meet the guidelines for notability Wikipedia:Politician. The fact that there are newspaper articles that cover his candidacy is irrelevant to the criteria that running for elected office in of itself is not notable. While there is a documentary, the subject of that is the campaign which would warrant either special detail in the article about that election OR the documentary itself. The articles covering his activism do not have him as the subject. Rather he is simply "one of the proponents," of biodiesel. He might meet some notability as an inventor if he actually invented the original systems, but I could not find anything to that effect.--Mpen320 (talk) 02:31, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Someone should mark the French article for deletion too if this article is going to be marked. Just thought I should point that out, since there's no point in only removing it on one wiki and leaving it on another. Fulserish (talk) 3:30, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

That's a completely separate project, with separate inclusion standards. SportingFlyer T·C 04:32, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E and redirect to 2020 Green Party of Canada leadership election - the only thing he has ever done that meets any of our inclusion criteria (and that just barely, media have hardly covered it) was to be expelled from the Green Party leadership contest over racist remarks, and it's inappropriate to center a BLP around such an incident (it's already described in as much detail as is necessary at the election page). The rest of this is the biography of a perennial candidate who hasn't ever really even come close to winning an election, and a generic "businessman" wiki-resume otherwise. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Hopefully, relisting this discussion will allow time for additional analysis and comments about the article itself, without further ad hominem attacks against either the nominator or the participants.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Darkwind (talk) 01:04, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Ivanvector. This is clear BLP1E territory, the sourcing leaves the article way short of WP:BASIC and fails NPOL by a couple of yards too. ——Serial^# 17:47, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to 2020 Green Party of Canada leadership election. Multiple failed candidacies for office, including a failed bid for leadership do not meet WP:NPOL. Additionally, as Ivanvector mentioned, his comments in the debate are WP:BLP1E and probably won't meet the ten year test. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Bertschi, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Takach, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Singh. Bkissin (talk) 20:00, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on User:Bkissin, given that much of the significant in-depth coverage is from the decade before last - how can you say they won't past the ten-year test? And why does NPOL matter when they pass GNG? Nfitz (talk) 08:15, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see the point of redirect in this instance. The subject is the very definition of a mediocre politician, and why foist him on the Green Party. scope_creep^Talk 22:56, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2020 Green Party of Canada leadership election as ATD.Djflem (talk) 06:40, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Darkwind (talk) 01:06, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Enes Batur

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

This article is basically a WP:COATRACK for a not very significant spat. The subject himself is flagged as an actor but with no significant roles, aYouTuber but with no evidence of significant coverage, anbd a blogger but with no evidence of any reach or significance. Two "awards" are listed, they are not notable (the "golden palm" is not the palme d'Or). Overall this is a BLP1E fail - even the 1E is not much. Guy (help!) 07:44, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, out of the two awards that you mentioned at least one is notable. The Golden Butterfly Awards is given by Hürriyet and takes both people’s votes and judges’ opinions into consideration, thus making it an important award ceremony in Turkey. The fact that national newspapers such as Milliyet and Habertürk and news agencies such as İhlas News Agency have articles on him makes him even more notable. And the article itself is balanced in the way it approaches the topic, as it also discusses allegations of copyright violations by him which were reported in the Turkish media. I wish you had done some research on the subject before going on with the nomination. Keivan.f^Talk 07:57, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keivan.f, the voting system doesn't make the award notable. Popular <> notable, see WP:GNG. Guy (help!) 11:28, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously it doesn't. We have tons of awards that use this system, but this ceremony appears to be among the most notable ones in his country. And, the fact that national newspapers have covered his biography or published news about him makes him somewhat notable. Keivan.f^Talk 19:54, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:46, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:46, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:47, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable individual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:39, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Spiderone 13:34, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus at DRV, where new sources were brought forward, was to relist this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:42, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is a Turkish YouTuber and an actor. Also there is a version of his article on Turkish Wikipedia. If he is not notable, then we have to delete Berkcan Güven. Baran Ahmet 06:36, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a source for Wikipedia, it is the outside sources that matter. Also, another subject's notability doesn't and shouldn't influence the results of this discussion. Your argument should be based on his popularity in his home country. Keivan.f^Talk 06:42, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok @Keivan.f:, but also there are lot of sources on web Baran Ahmet 06:48, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Baran Ahmet: That's true. A deletion review for this article took place about a week ago and as a result of that the deletion discussion was reopened and the article was restored. The article already has some reliable sources listed, and is in better condition compared to what it was before. It will probably be kept this time. Keivan.f^Talk 06:51, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article has been improved by me and divided into subsections. There were reliable sources in the body of the article before its initial deletion and now I have added a few more, all of which can be viewed by anyone who might be interested. Based on the nature of the sources introduced and considering his popularity and the statistics of his YouTube channel, I think the article can be kept. Keivan.f^Talk 06:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep can pass GNG, well known in Turkey, he is most famous youtuber in turkey who have more than 10 million subscriber, actually he is MrBeast of Turkey. Feloniii (talk) 08:36, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:57, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Angustha purusha

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

Unreferenced essay that makes no claim to notability, it is very difficult to understand what the article is even about and it is written like a high school paper, almost certainly the entire article is original research, and needless to say it fails WP:GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:35, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not verifiable. It's not nonsense, I don't think it's OR, but reliable 3rd-party sources regarding the little man the size of a thumb who lives in your heart are going to be hard to locate. --Lockley (talk) 05:19, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:36, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom this is gibberish Devokewater (talk) 21:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. -Hatchens (talk) 05:25, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator - my eyes hurt after reading that little article JW 1961 Talk 21:18, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 10:08, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ten Inch Hero

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

Not notable. Couldn’t find any significant coverage about this film anywhere. Dronebogus (talk) 02:53, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 02:53, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:29, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Found 2 reviews, [[32]], and [[33]]. Seems notable enough for a direct-to-DVD feature. Donaldd23 (talk) 16:13, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (t · c) buidhe 08:31, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (t · c) buidhe 09:02, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It looks like this lacks the notability required to pass WP:NFILM. Although two sources were provided in this AfD both seem to be blogs. Which aren't reliable or usable as a way to establish notability. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:44, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:CSK no. 1: Nomination withdrawn and no opposing !votes (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:35, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Terror Trap

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

Only found two reviews. Probably not notable. Dronebogus (talk) 02:45, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 02:45, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 06:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Two reviews are enough to establish notability. I did a quick search and found a review from Bloody Disgusting (which is a WikiProject Film reliable source).[[34]]. Other reviews are available. Remember, just because the reviews aren't in the article doesn't mean the article isn't notable. Donaldd23 (talk) 13:47, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then. I guess it’s notable enough. Consider my nomination withdrawn. Dronebogus (talk) 23:52, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. CSK no. 1 (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Smitty (film)

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

Has only one or two in-depth reviews. Probably not enough to prove notability. Dronebogus (talk) 02:41, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 02:41, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 06:23, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NFO; the film features three notable cast members (Peter Fonda, Mira Sorvino and Louis Gossett Jr.), two of which are recipients of the Academy Award. Keep also per WP:NFSOURCES since the film has been mentioned by The Hollywood Reporter, Business Wire and Patch Media. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 15:15, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NFO; Your reasoning included reasons to keep the article. WP:NFO says, "Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release." and your reasoning says "Has only one or two in-depth reviews." If there are 2, which there are (see Hitcher vs. Candyman's "Keep" vote), then the article should not be deleted. Donaldd23 (talk) 16:06, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I’ve added sources from the Midland Reporter-Telegram and the Ventura County Star to further qualify per WP:NFSOURCES. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 21:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay. I guess I was trigger-happy with this one. You can withdraw my nomination. Dronebogus (talk) 23:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:35, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Movie TV Tech Geeks

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

Reviewed through NPP. Not seeing any indication of notability for this pop culture website. Sources are an Alexa listing, their own website, passing mentions that don't say anything more than "Movie TV Tech Geeks reported that..." , e.g. [35][36][37], and some non-notable awards/PR stuff [38][39]. Through WP:BEFORE, I was unable to find any coverage of this website that would satisfy WP:WEBCRIT. Spicy (talk) 07:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Spicy (talk) 07:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spicy (talk) 07:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 14:27, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As news organizations report the news, they don't become the news so there is rarely going to be news stories about them. Thus, I used citations from reputable news organizations like The Washington Post and Entertainment Weekly who sourced this news organization. Being cited from top news sites shows the trustworthiness and legitimacy of a news site. I added these after the article was marked for deletion as I was trying to follow Wikipedia's guidelines exactly. As the founder of the news site is a filmmaker who has two award winning films listed in Wikipedia (Thoth documentary and Your Mommy Kills Animals), that also seemed to give this article the legitimacy needed. If more is needed, please let me know as I have literally spent years trying to better understand Wikipedia's rules. Thank you ~ Gooma2 Gooma2 (talk) 19:36, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-02 ✍️ create

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 02:27, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep This site appears to have gotten some reliable coverage.★Trekker (talk) 22:35, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- *Treker, what coverage are you seeing? While it's true that the site has been mentioned in some reliable sources, WP:GNG is very clear that passing mentions do not contribute to notability. The sum total of the coverage in the Entertainment Weekly source is a credit for one picture [40] and I don't see where the Washington Post article even mentions it at all (maybe the author pasted in the wrong link?) [41]. Their content being used by major sites may indicate that they are "trustworthy and legitimate", but it doesn't indicate that they are notable according to Wikipedia's standards if those sources do not discuss the website in depth. Notability is not inherited from being founded by a notable person, either. Spicy (talk) 23:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - The question of inherited notability (the Founder of site) was not the sole reason for the article being notable. It was only yet another factor. As the not inherited states, "notability not being inherited is not by itself grounds for deletion."Gooma2 (talk) 21:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Also, where it states 'find sources' on the article page, you can find them under 'News,' 'Books,' ^[1] and 'Scholar.'^[2]. Having such a combination of sources from a wide variety covering a wide space of time should surely prove this to be a notable article worthy of being included in Wikipedia.

Strong keep I have confirmed with the photo editor at Entertainment Weekly that it is actually three (3) photos they have used from the subject. I also confirmed with the journalist at The Washington Post that they have sourced the site and he did not post in the wrong link. He was more perplexed at the thought of Wikipedia questioning the veracity of The Washington Post's reporting. Twelve more respected source citations have been added to the article proving 'notability' as per Wikipedia's standards which states, "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article." WP:GNG I have been more than confused that I have repeatedly asked for help in making this article fit exactly into the Wikipedia standard but have gotten no answer. I have used my husband, who is a contract lawyer to scour the language, and he is not seeing how this article doesn't fall within the standards set in Wikipedia. Gooma2 (talk) 21:29, 8 July 2020 (UTC)Gooma2[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:50, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Camila Loures

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

This was deleted under WP:A7, and reviewed at DRV, where the outcome was to list at AfD. My listing here is a purely administrative action; I am neutral. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:35, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this biography of a living person lacks sourcing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:49, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:47, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:47, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment - After a quick google, there appear to potentially be sources in Portuguese. As I do not read Portuguese, I cannot evaluate whether these sources are reliable. This AfD needs attention from a Portuguese speaker.Samsmachado (talk) 23:55, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Samsmachado (talk) 23:55, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative Delete based only on the sources currently in the article. The first two (based on google translate) are both about Loures's purchase of a house in which to do recordings, and lack any significant coverage. The third more closely approaches SIGCOV, but seems a bit short of qualifing -- in any case it is only a single source. The fourth confirms an award, but says nothing else. I don't know how significant that award is, but I doubt it establishes notability on its own. Should additional significant reliable sources be presented, this view may be considered canceled as far as any such sources are concerned. I have not searched for additional sources myself. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:13, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To allow further assessment of available sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 02:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the article was created by CharliAmelio (talk · contribs), blocked on pt.wiki for being a puppet of Irisvalverde1 (talk · contribs) (long term abuse in: pt, en, es wiki and commons). Edmond Dantès ^{d'un message?} 13:00, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Brazilian media is full of sources of gossip, triviality or rumors. In this case, most of the sources are reliable; traditional mechanisms in the Brazilian media that surrender to publishing trivial news. None of the sources attest to notoriety outside the Youtube-Instagram cycle. Well, the situation gets worse because the sources only mention that "YouTube is so successful, so many followers on Instagram"... Edmond Dantès ^{d'un message?} 13:00, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Edmond Dantès. She's mentioned in a number of articles (in Brazilian), but was barely talked about. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 08:11, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (WP:NPASR). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:35, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tyree Scott Freedom School

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

De-PROD'd. Original PROD rationale: Although there are several cited sources, none of them are suitable indicators of notability per WP:NORG/WP:GNG. None are substantially about the subject, and some (like the Seattle PI sources) don't even mention it. On a WP:BEFORE search, I found a few small articles from Seattle papers, but nothing from outside the region, meaning that the sourcing falls short of WP:AUD. It's likely that Tyree himself is notable, but the sourcing just isn't there for the school.

De-PROD'd by Grand'mere Eugene with this rationale: Article needs wokr, but sources are available, inclucing 2018 Seattle Times and 2006 Seattle Post Intelligencer pieces.

As my original PROD rationale mentioned, yes, Seattle-based sources do exist. But WP:N and particularly for organizations WP:AUD make it clear that local coverage alone does not suffice when it comes to supporting a claim of encyclopedic notability. There must be sufficiently significant attention by the world at large – and how do we assess that that attention exists? Non-local sources, of which I found none. In the absence of sources that support a claim to notability, we cannot retain the article as a standalone. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:40, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:40, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:40, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. When I de-PRODed this article, I listed 6 sources covering this subject on the article's talk page. Of these, The Seattle Times has the largest circulation of any newspaper in the Pacific Northwest region (almost 230,000 daily, 330,000 Sunday), and it has won 11 Pulitzer Prizes. It is second in circulation on the West Coast only to The Los Angeles Times. It is definitely a regional paper. Since WP:AUD specifies at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary, The Seattle Times easily meets this criterion, and its article is substantial. Regarding this article from the The Seattle P-I, The Seattle Times was the P-I's main regional competitor until the P-I became an online-only publication in 2009. The remaining 4 four sources I listed are indeed local, with the International Examiner serving mainly an Asian and pan-Asian audience, an important audience for this topic. I agree this article needs work, but since these sources do exist, and since Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article, it should therefore be kept. Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 18:53, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I removed some copyvio and essay elements, and added content, then cn tags to content not yet found in sources. I may have time later this week to locate supporting referneces. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 19:40, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:03, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 02:21, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 21:21, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) -- puddleglum^2.0 19:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

V. H. Lewis

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

Person possibly does not pass WP:GNG. No third party given in article, non found. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:48, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:48, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:48, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:48, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:48, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- General superintendent of the Church of the Nazarene is the highest elected office in the Church. This is the equivalent of archbishop in denominations that have bishops. He held that post for 25 years, though overlaping with other holders of the post. If this were a minute denomination, it might be different, but I do not think that applies here. The problem with this article is that so far we only have a brief stub. This is a denomination with 2.6M adherents. The difficulty is that we do not have his full names, so that it may not be easy to locate sources on him. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:02, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The heads of signiciant Protestant Denomincations are default notable, this is a case of such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:01, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Johnpacklambert, even without the proof of any sources? --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:02, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:01, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Fails WP:BASIC, and English Wikipedia presently provides no presumed notability for religious subjects in its notability guidelines. My own source searches are only providing name checks and passing mentions (e.g. this article), and primary sources, none of which establish notability. Note that the the subject also goes by the title, "Dr. V. H. Lewis", but source searches including the title, including various customizations in searching, are providing more of the same, along with a few snippet views of primary sources such as those from the Journal of the General Assembly, which is published by the Church of the Nazarene, General Assembly. Simply put, the subject does not meet any notability guidelines to qualify for an article. Name checks, fleeting passing mentions and primary sources do not establish notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:40, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 02:21, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to JPL and others -- Yes - Keep despite the dearth of sources, but retain tags for lack of sources. We should assume good faith by the creator. There is enough detail for it to be unlikely that this is invention. If we knew a forename, it would be probably possible to locate an obituary. The alternative is to delete the article and leave him having a red-link is the list of general superintendents, but that represents destroying what may well be correct info. I contest Northamerica1000's assertion that he was not notable. He is notable because of the office he held. The problem with the article is the lack of sources; this shows he was a general superintendent; and he is also mentioned in this and this. All seem to be internal publications of the denomination and thus not independent, but LA Times reported his retirement, and is surely WP:RS. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:26, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

His full name was Voyle Herbert Lewis but it seems he was known as V. H. Lewis. I find what appears to be a paid for death notice, on a genealogy site[42] (about nine paragraphs down), presumably a copy of what appeared in the Olathe Daily News on 14 November 2000 (unfortunately, I cannot access any archives to confirm this). This supports a few of the facts but does not constitute ‘significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject’. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:22, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Someone might want to look him up in 'Who's Who in America. 39th edition, 1976-1977' or 'Who's Who in Religion. Second edition, 1977', though I think these are not considered reliable sources? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found a book source that has V. H. Lewis as "general superintendent in jurisdiction". Holiness Abroad: Nazarene Missions in Asia p.182 Here's another link to the Oklahoman, 1982. On this website you can also find pdfs of his articles in print magazine, which addresses him as "general superintendent". And apparently he appointed this other guy as district superintendent. I will update the article accordingly. Awsomaw (talk) 13:56, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I found another article from the Oklahoman that confirmed much of the other information in the article. Awsomaw (talk) 14:09, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of bitcoin forks. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:15, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bitcoin Classic

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

The reputable source Wall Street Journal references Classic only in passing, according to David Gerard (see talk page). Therefore, the subject does not fulfill the general notability guideline. The other sources are not reputable, as they are either primary or just plain obscure. Ysangkok (talk) 01:38, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 01:38, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to List of bitcoin forks - the mention is evidence it existed, but I'm pretty sure it was never significant - David Gerard (talk) 12:06, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bitcoin Classic is only given a trivial mention in one reputable source. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 14:19, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge List of bitcoin forks because it is a fork of bitcoin. No reason to delete outright. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:38, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jtbobwaysf: You must declare a reason. WP:NOREASON. --Ysangkok (talk) 19:31, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:GNG. List of bitcoin forks already mentions that it existed. I think we can move the existing mention in passing citation to the mention in list of bitcoin forks; to be on that list there should be at least evidence that the fork once existed. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Bitcoin forks and use anything that's reliably sourced to create a brief description to go with the currently naked entry in that list. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:32, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Do not delete, it is better merge it to List of bitcoin forks. Nika2020 (talk) 22:30, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Renaming can be addressed via WP:RM. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 08:30, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgarian umbrella

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

There may be some information worth merging into the Georgi Markov article, but there is no real information known at all about the alleged umbrella, even whether the dropped umbrella that Markov reported was definitely the means of injection. Kevin McE (talk) 17:52, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This goes well beyond Markov's case. The article needs some work but the number of interwiki articles, and their citations, makes it clear that this is a real thing and sufficiently notable. --Lockley (talk) 18:46, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:43, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:43, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:43, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:47, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Poisoned umbrella. There is clearly enough material about poisoned umbrellas in general to support an article, but no evidence that the term “Bulgarian umbrella” is generally used at all. Of the four sources provided, the first three do not even contain the term “Bulgarian umbrella”. The fourth source is a brief listicle piece that is definitely not a reliable source. Mccapra (talk) 21:42, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:51, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (t · c) buidhe 01:18, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I see the term "Bulgarian umbrella" used in the following sources:
- Kostov's 1988 book, The Bulgarian Umbrella: The Soviet Direction and Operations of the Bulgarian Secret Service in Europe
- The Global Investigative Journalism Casebook ed by Mark Hunter for UNESCO (2012)
- A Spy's London by Roy Berkeley and Rupert Allason, Pen & Sword Books (1994)
- Communication in Eastern Europe: The Role of History, Culture, and Media in Contemporary Conflicts ed by Fred L. Casimir, pub by Lawrence Erlbaum (1995)

I believe that this demonstrates notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 19:45, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (alternatively rename to Poisioned umbrella) in addition to the coverage listed by Toughpigs, I found
- "'Bulgarian umbrella' case closed unsolved". The Mercury (South Africa), September 12, 2013 Thursday.
- Nehring, Christopher (2017). "Umbrella or pen? The murder of Georgi Markov. New facts and old questions". Journal of Intelligence History. 16: 47–58. doi:10.1080/16161262.2016.1258248. The ‘Bulgarian umbrella’ turned into a synonym for cold-blooded, well-organized, and deadly operations, particularly those associated with socialist state security services.
- The Umbrella Murder
- The KGB's Poision factory
- Ricin--from a Bulgarian umbrella to an optional treatment of cancer
- beyond the Bulgarian umbrella
- various passing mentions in books

A very eclectic mix of sourcing, for sure, but these make it clear that the topic is discussed, and the term is used. Some of the sourcing is specific to the 'Bulgarian Umbrella case', but the term 'Bulgarian umbrella' has been widely used and the case widely discussed. Best, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Finneas O'Connell. Stifle (talk) 15:36, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Landmine (song)

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

The article fails the Notability guidelines for songs in Wikipedia as not only none of the three bullet points in the guidelines are met, but also there is not a single "subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label." Furthermore, in the links, there is one interview with the artist "This excludes media reprints of press releases or other publications where the artist, its record label, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the work", which is the case of Elicit as it clearly states on the site that is a press release. The "One to watch" source is under a discussion for being unreliable, See here as it published under Live Nation umbrella, so it is biased. There is only one source that is reliable "Variance", however, it should be multiple according to the guidelines above, which it is not the case. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 00:17, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 00:17, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 00:17, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Finneas O'Connell: Per nominator. The song has been mentioned in a number of articles, but was barely discussed. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:27, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (my preference) or Redirect to Finneas O'Connell - We have a bunch of new song articles related to this singer, all from a user named DarklyShadows who is surely enthusiastic about providing information on the songs, but might be unfamiliar with the requirements at WP:NSONG. A song is not notable just because it was released as a single. It needs to become a matter of reliable media coverage in its own right. If not, the article is just fan trivia and that is not appropriate for Wikipedia. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:21, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable song.—N Ø 19:24, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Finneas O'Connell — WP:ATD and helpful redirect to where it is mentioned in article space. (t · c) buidhe 08:29, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Finneas O'Connell. Straightforward {{R from song}} and mentioned at the target. feminist 光復香港時代革命 04:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttps://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q=%22Movie+TV+Tech+Geeks%22+-wikipedia

[2] ttps://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Movie+TV+Tech+Geeks%22

[1]

[2]

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chameleon Street}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Open Door (2008 film)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lights Below EP}}