Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 June 15

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 14 June	16 June >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect to The Return of the Space Cowboy. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 01:33, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just Another Story

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

This song is barely notable in comparison to its album. The article additionally has original research. 웃O O 01:40, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:43, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:43, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - If it isn't independently notable, it should be redirected to the album it is in. ~ GB fan 09:42, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Return of the Space Cowboy: A number of articles mention the song, but is barely discussed. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 02:20, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Academic Challenger (talk) 21:34, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Sheridan

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

A non notable BLP. WP:BEFORE shows no evidence of reliable sources to improve article. Was nominated for BLPPROD by another editor but this was deprodded as some sources (IMDB) were already present on the page. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:33, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:33, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:33, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:33, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:33, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, not enough RS to be found. Caro7200 (talk) 12:52, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Having one source is not sufficient for notability, especially if it is a passing mentions. I PRODded the article, but it was declined by GB fan. Koridas ^talk? 17:11, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- User talk:Koridas I agree with you. I’ve fallen into this Wiki-bureaucracy trap before. It looks like it was declined because with a BLPPROD, there must not be any sources at all, even if it’s one as unreliable as IMDB. If you’d done a normal PROD, it would probably have been deleted by now. Personally, I think this is needlessly bureaucratic but it is the consensus of the community. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 19:41, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am unable to find any significant coverage in reliable sources that would establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 14:27, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Academic Challenger (talk) 21:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Revelation Space races

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

Article deleted via WP:PROD, undeleted as a contested PROD at WP:RFUD by me. But, I agree 100% this should be deleted. PROD nominator says this fails WP:LISTN. I say it also fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE as it is a summary-only description of works. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:17, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:24, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As basic failure of WP:LISTN. List of Revelation Space characters also fails LISTN and you should consider nominating that too._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:31, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Zxcvbnm, agreed. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:08, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pure WP:FANCRUFT that belongs on Wikia, not here (fails WP:NFICTION). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:58, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the exact same reasons already given that I don't feel the need to repeat. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:42, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- per all above. This is badly sourced fancruft, written in an in-universe plot summary style. Reyk _YO! 07:17, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All of the above, plus its not even referenced and reads as original works, all no nos. User:Davidstewartharvey
Delete - as has repeatedly been noted, this is fancruft with no sourcing outside the works themselves and no evidence of notability even within fandom, far less any substantial coverage of this (frankly) comparatively obscure series. --Orange Mike | Talk 07:30, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Java Hurricane 16:03, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:FANCRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 09:49, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:49, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As non-notable fancruft. Even if there were the slightest indication of notability, the article would need to be blown up and started over... --Jack Frost (talk) 05:42, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Comprehensive failure of WP:LISTN. I don't see the reason for contesting the PROD in the article history, but I don't see a way this article could ever be made policy compliant, as policy is now interpreted. Hog Farm (talk) 15:57, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus . Academic Challenger (talk) 21:41, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zelma Maine-Jackson

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

Described as a scientist, but notability by any of the points in WP:NACADEMIC is highly dubious. A single portrayal in a local radio channel does not suffice for WP:SIGCOV either. bender235 (talk) 23:06, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:10, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No pass of WP:Prof. Mentions in media not enough for WP:GNG so WP:Too soon at present. Clearly an admirable person but Wikipedia notability not there yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:37, 16 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:43, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to the creator of the BLP: It might be best if you go first for the low-hanging fruit i.e. those cases where notability is rock-solid so there is no need for a discussion that could cause discomfort to the subject. Also, you might consider as a courtesy asking for the consent of persons about whom you write (although this is not required by Wikipedia policy). Xxanthippe (talk) 07:03, 16 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]
- To follow up on that suggestion, if anyone reading this AfD happens to be particularly interested in creating articles about female hydrogeologists with less likelihood of pushback, then there are a number of Fellows of the Geological Society of America in the Hydrogeology Division who are presumably notable through WP:PROF#C3 but appear not to have articles: Sarah L. Lewis, Laura K. Lautz, Dorothy J. Vesper, Alicia Wilson (hydrogeologist), Gwendolyn Macpherson, Susan Swanson, Michelle M. Lorah, Maureen A. Muldoon, Martha S. Phanikumar, Margaret Eggers, Karen Johannesson, Margaret A. Townsend, Richelle M. Allen-King, Laurel B. Goodwin, Madeline E. Schreiber, Laura J. Crossey, Elizabeth J. Screaton, Anne E. Carey, Isabelle M. Cozzarelli, Eileen P. Poeter, Laura Toran, and Carol M. Wicks. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:47, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For background on where the article comes from: it appears that there's a USA Today story about the MissingSciFaces twitter feed. The featured tweet on the story appears to be about the subject here, with the tagline "She should have a Wikipedia page!" It'd be a bit strange to be notable for not having had a Wikipedia page. I don't see evidence of WP:NPROF (34 cites for top-cited pub, trailing off quickly after that), and the other coverage consists of a blog and a local news piece. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 06:40, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. She appears not to be an academic or research scientist at all, so judging her by WP:PROF is inappropriate. Instead, the relevant notability criterion for someone like her should be WP:GNG, which demands multiple sources that are independent of her, in-depth, and reliably published. The story by the Nature Conservancy appears to be in-depth, but non-independent because she's a trustee. On the other hand, the Scientific American and Northwest Public Broadcasting stories do seem to be in-depth and independent, giving her the minimum for notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:04, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for clarity that the Scientific American piece is not from the main publication, but from an affiliated blog published under a pseudonym. WP:NEWSBLOG suggests it is usable as a source, but with caution. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:58, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per David Eppstein. XOR'easter (talk) 16:50, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The "Daughter of Hanford" award qualifies her for this category "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor". I just added many more citations to the page including another newspaper article for additional independent sources.MethanoJen (talk) 16:57, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MethanoJen: could you please explain what kind of award "Daughter of Hanford" is? What group of people and/or academic discipline is it limited to, if any? How long did it exist, how often is it awarded, and who won it in the past? Do any of those past awardees have Wikipedia biographies? --bender235 (talk) 16:40, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Membership on a National Academy panel and authorship of numerous National Academy reports qualifies her under "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline". Pcgr1ff1th (talk) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Pcgr1ff1th (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.
Delete MethanoJen Where the heck did you get the idea that Daughter of Hanford is an award or honor, much less that it's "well-known and significant" lololol??? The citation is about a series of profiles of women who worked on the Hanford site, not something that bestows automatic notability. Pcgr1ff1th, membership on a board is not the same as being an elected member, and merely co-authoring reports does not mean these reports had "significant impact"! Reywas92^Talk 23:43, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: Her status of a co-author of these reports is not clear, nor is their "significant impact"! I removed seven citations that noted her as a member of the Board an Earth Sciences but not that she actually wrote them. [1] notes over 50 people on the relevant boards publishing this report; only one of the other 14 on her board has an article. Reywas92^Talk 23:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Reywas92 Your talk page states "Be Polite". Your statement above in which I was tagged is anything but polite. MethanoJen (talk) 01:58, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I trust other editors will recognize the comment by Reywas92 as gratuitous and ad hominem. Yes, I know the difference between being a Fellow of the National Academy and serving on a board, a position that is only offered to persons of established expertise. Nat Academy reports are solicited as advisory documents and by definition are high impact: "The Board on Earth Sciences and Resources was established in 1988 to provide a focal point for activities related to Earth science policy. Through its committees, panels, and working groups, it oversees a wide range of Earth science issues, including research, the environment, natural hazards, resources, geographic science and geospatial information, and data and education. It also provides guidance on U.S. participation in international Earth science programs." Pcgr1ff1th (talk) 14:30, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You have no idea what ad hominem means if you think that is it. I know nothing about you, and commented only on the argument, not the person making it. It was downright false to say she has "authorship of numerous National Academy reports" because she did not write these reports. Even if this hydrogeologist was writing reports on coal mine dust exposure, nothing can be "by definition" high impact, which would entail newly discovered information with content citing it and demonstrating how it affected the discipline, not just being "Proceedings of a Workshop". Reywas92^Talk 18:39, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ As per what David Eppstein said. Seems not to be an academic, but has had a bit of media coverage. Kj cheetham (talk) 08:41, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kj cheetham and XOR'easter: no concerns about the Scientific American report actually being a blog post, as Russ Woodroofe pointed out? --bender235 (talk) 15:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My position is that blogs that come under the imprimatur of a major magazine, as this one does, are not significantly different in reliability than regular columns in the magazine — both likely subject to sufficient editorial control. They may differ from the print-edition columns in how widely-read they are, but that's also true of columns in one magazine vs columns in a different magazine. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't doubt the reliability of the material either, but isn't it usually the lack of notability that leads to certain material being relegated to an affiliated blog rather than the "main" magazine/website? --bender235 (talk) 18:07, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In this question, you appear to be using "notability" in a different sense than the sense used in Wikipedia deletion discussions, which refers to the passage of certain specific Wikipedia notability criteria. I am certain that Scientific American does not refer to Wikipedia notability criteria in determining which columns to include in its print edition and which to relegate to blogs. I am also confident that its decisions about the significance (not notability) of certain columns relative to each other is based other criteria than the significance of the individual topics covered in specific instances of those columns. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:54, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I was using notability in the general sense of the word. Maybe I'm wrong, but blog posts seem to be "all the news that wasn't fit to print." Again, I'm not saying that makes it unreliable (where here I mean our WP:RS), just that we're stretching WP:GNG very far. --bender235 (talk) 23:56, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where in GNG does it say anything about taking into account tea-leaf-readings of the publication's opinion of the significance of the column in which the source article appeared? Or even direct statements of opinion of the significance of the subject herself? GNG is purely about the existence and reliability of sources, not about significance. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:53, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

True, but GNG's "reliable sources" clause refers to our WP:RS corpus of guidelines, which includes provisions on news blogs and human-interest pieces, for instance. Again, I'm not saying these sources are untrustworthy, just that we should be cautious when using them to establish notability. --bender235 (talk) 13:38, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete After further thought and especially after what ProcrastinatingReader added, I'm changing my vote. Kj cheetham (talk) 21:14, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There may have been canvassing on Twitter relating to this AfD. This Afd should be closed by an experienced administrator, not with a non-admin closure. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:35, 19 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Delete: This is a rather on-the-fence one. The arguments made by David Eppstein and bender235 leave me somewhere in the middle. I think David Eppstein's argument has been stronger on matter of policy, but I'm still not convinced WP:GNG is met. The Scientific American post about her is certainly part of a blog, and though I lack familiarity with this magazine's structure, I don't believe she works for the magazine itself; she only blogs there. Here is her about page on the blog. I believe this scenario falls under WP:NEWSBLOG which states Several newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host online columns they call blogs. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because blogs may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process.

Narrowing this down further to get a clearer guideline is more difficult. Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(science)#Other_sources suggests Personal or group blogs from prominent scientists writing in their field of expertise may be usable when properly attributed. Nature Blogs, ScienceBlogs, and Discover blogs host many such experts.

The archives for WP:V discuss the suitability of news blogs more generally, not just in the science field. A previous discussion on the issue suggested that the writer's credentials as a subject-matter expert, as evaluated under WP:SPS, may be helpful in determining how much weight to give to the source. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.

Looking into Dana Hunter, the writer of the post, it appears she is mostly a hobbyist with a passion for geology. She is not employed by Scientific American, from the looks of it, and only maintains a blog there. Combined with some more digging on her, I do not believe she classes as a subject-matter expert, for the purposes of WP:SPS. Applying the reasoning from the WP:V archives, I would thus say that the article should not receive the same amount of weight, and I would say the difference is relevant in this AfD.

Hence, WP:GNG has not been met, in my opinion. We do not have multiple reliable, independent secondary sources to show that this individual meets the notability criteria, yet. I would like to echo the words of David Eppstein, in conclusion, by noting that there are multiple individuals in this area who are more likely to meet the relevant criteria, and I'd encourage the creator of this article (and others with interest) to consider looking into creating content for those. It's certainly an underserved area and I think this encyclopedia would certainly benefit from more articles here. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:31, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:33, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Triumphalism

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

The article as it stands appears to be a hybrid Wikitionary/Wikiquote page. Its lead admits it is "not an articulated doctrine" and the content here is quite questionable, leaving just the definition of the word. But Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and definitions are not notable for encyclopaedic articles. GPinkerton (talk) 05:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. GPinkerton (talk) 05:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is an analysis section beyond just the definition, but there is not much there. If it could be expanded then there would be something worthwhile here.★Trekker (talk) 21:19, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:24, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete I cannot find anything that isn't either a dictionary definition (and ours is at variance to what the dictionaries say) or discussion of a specific example— usually American post-Cold-War politics. Mangoe (talk) 13:23, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ for now - the current sources are two political essays that use the concept to make their point, and a bunch of quotations that use the word. That does at least show that it is a somewhat relevant concept. Still though, it does seem like no one is writing about triumphalism itself as an actual phenomenon, and instead it's only people using the concept to make a point about something else, particularly religion. I also see substantial overlap with In-group favoritism. PJvanMill (talk) 14:31, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - The term is not a neologism and is backed by two sources (the first two references) that are just about OK. The article isn't great as it stands: the 'analysis' section is not all that substantial and the quotes section is kind of arbitrary. — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:05, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the best source I can find is this, but I don't think that's enough to keep on its own. Could be rewritten to be about "Cold War triumphalism", a (rejected) historiographical school[2][3][4] Otherwise I don't think this can be much expanded beyond DICTDEF + OR + random quotes. b uidhe 18:32, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Captain Galaxy (talk) 22:39, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. DICT DEF at best, and this article is not the best, shot through with unsupported generalizations and OR. --Lockley (talk) 20:03, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after all, mainly because the sources are not really about the subject. PJvanMill (talk) 20:14, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:33, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Frederic Casagrande

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

Non notable project manager; article supported by unreliable sources. Does not pass WP:ANYBIO. Mccapra (talk) 22:26, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:26, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:26, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:26, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:26, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not in any way a notable person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:07, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The apparent claims for notability are that he is a project management expert, and a martial artist. The only support for martial artists is a dojo profile. The rest of the sourcing is about the claim for notability in project management. The sources are not independent being mostly affiliated to the Project Management Institute, and conference speaker profiles. I can find no coverage that would establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 14:39, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close. This is the wrong venue. Discussion moved to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Mugeez (non-admin closure) Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 21:08, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Mugeez

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

duplicate and with a wrong name Ml4lyfe (talk) 20:48, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Comment I'm not sure if this is the right area or miscellany for deletion since its in the Wikipedia namespace, either way this should be deleted as it is just a copy of the Mugeez article that already exists. Zoozaz1 (talk) 20:59, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. withdrawn, missed the recent keep (non-admin closure) Vexations (talk) 20:39, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sakimichan

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

Subject appears to have attracted more attention for her views on black people than for her artwork. Fails to meet WP:NARTIST. Vexations (talk) 20:35, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 20:35, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 20:35, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:21, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Audra Mari

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

Fails WP:BLP1E. There is nothing out there about her unrelated to pageant life. John from Idegon (talk) 20:30, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep won a major title of Miss World America and competed at Miss World as well as winning a number of other pageants as confirmed in reliable sources such as Vanity Fair and regional press. Apart from winning Miss World this is about the highest achievement for a pageant holder, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:44, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:53, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:53, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This isn't "one event". She's famous for excelling in the field of beauty pageants, and she's even received significant media coverage for it. Are we going to delete 90% of articles about athletes because they are only notable for their participation in sport? Mysteryman blue 23:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The community has decided that at a certain level of achievement, we can assume certain athletes are notable. The community has also decided that we do not assume that about pagent participents. Specifically, we have decided that there is NO level at which pageant participation implies notability. In other words, if all you can show is the person has participated in beauty pageants (no matter the level of achievement), then that person is not notable. Your argument is entirely a red herring, Mysterymanblue. John from Idegon (talk) 04:00, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that Audra Mai has received significant media coverage, as she has been covered by a number of independent sources due to her successes in pageantry. You contend that this coverage is not significant because it is only related to her pageant life, providing WP:BLP1E as evidence. I counter with the idea that WP:BLP1E only covers people receiving coverage due to a single event; Audra Mai is famous due to a number of events which she has excelled at. I'm not proposing that we keep this article because she crossed some line in the sand that makes her accomplishments article-worthy. I'm proposing that we keep this article because she received significant news coverage as a result of her participation and success in the field of beauty pageants. Pageant participation may not imply notability, but the level of news coverage does, and Mai's participation in pageants does not diminish that coverage. Mysteryman blue 04:44, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:44, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The competition she won is not covered enough in the United States to justify notability on its own. The coverage is not enough to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:39, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG in relation to other parts of her life. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:45, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG in my opinion. Plus, keep result from 2nd nomination implies that she was notable then and notability cannot be lost. Samsmachado (talk) 00:54, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with this point. Consensus from the second nomination was to keep. What has changed since then? This WP:BLP1E issue was even asked an answered in the previous nomination. Is this article going to be persistently nominated for deletion until the desired result is achieved? Mysteryman blue 05:15, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:02, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tante Gaby

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

Biography of a recently deceased performer, with no properly referenced claim to passing our notability standards for entertainers. The only substantive notability claim on offer here is that she worked as a drag queen and DJ in one city's local club scene, which is not "inherently" notable work -- people are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they had jobs, but require evidence of distinctions, such as noteworthy awards and/or enough media coverage about them to clear WP:GNG. But of the three footnotes here, #1 is just a photograph of her and #3 is her death notice on a WordPress blog, neither of which are notability-supporting sources at all. And while #2 is a real magazine article that is actually about her, it takes a lot more than just one such source to get a person over GNG in lieu of actually having to have a real notability claim.
Note that per WP:WAX, the fact that there's an article on the French Wikipedia is not in and of itself a reason why there has to be one on the English Wikipedia too — especially since the French article also has a "notability is in question" tag on it. Bearcat (talk) 20:25, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:25, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:25, 15 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, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-06 ✍️ create

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

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

The result was redirect to Connecticut Central Railroad#Operations. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:01, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Middletown Secondary

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

there are absent two meanings (ie one is red link) Estopedist1 (talk) 20:07, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:45, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - am I missing something here? The word "secondary" never appears on Middletown and Cincinnati Railroad, and thus fails WP:DABMENTION. Middletown Secondary Line does not now, nor has it ever existed. Seems a clear delete. MarginalCost (talk) 04:37, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 04:38, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. To Connecticut Central Railroad#Operations. Probably should've done that from the beginning, but I was young and naïve. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 07:12, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. To Connecticut Central Railroad#Operations.Djflem (talk) 18:21, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SpinningSpark 19:03, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shin Ultraman

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

Non-notable future film, no evidence main production has begun, does not meet WP:NFF BOVINEBOY2008 23:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:13, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:13, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject has plenty of coverage in news sources: https://www.cbr.com/shin-godzilla-ultraman-name-connection/ http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/AJ202002020009.html https://comicbook.com/anime/news/shin-ultraman-new-design-first-look/ https://www.slashfilm.com/shin-ultraman-movie-hideaki-anno/ https://screenrant.com/shin-ultraman-movie-release-date-2021/ https://variety.com/2019/film/asia/shin-ultraman-japan-hideaki-anno-and-shinji-higuchi-1203287912/ Passenger pigeon (talk) 02:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, this film in particular isn't notable enough to have an article about it yet, at least not until the film will have been premiered. Also, the article lacks independent sources, but those can be found on Google. Sam1529 (talk) 05:06, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:22, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There may be more coverage in the future, but so far nothing substantive enough to make an article. Therefore, I concur with the policy-based argument made by Bovineboy2008. Handy History Handbook (talk) 20:05, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to be adequately sourced. WP:FILM doesn’t supersede WP:GNG.—Prisencolin (talk) 18:53, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 19:57, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is standard to not have article for films which have not yet begun filming, all the coverage is routine for planed films of a well known studio/franchise, nothing here indicates that the project could not be covered in the franchise article in a very small section.★Trekker (talk) 02:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I’m gonna have to agree with Trekker over here. This type of pre-filming coverage is routine, therefore it doesn’t satisfy GNG. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 06:11, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus and delete. This was not a successful WP:BUNDLE. However, as no one seems to be making any kind of argument for notability for Barn Coppice and Holming Wood with any policy or guideline based argument there does seem to be consensus to delete those two articles. As there were policy and guideline based reasons offered for keeping Upper Rapeland Wood and Graylands Corpse I find that there's no consensus here with no prejudice to a renomination where their notability (or not) can be discussed individually. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:41, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Upper Rapeland Wood

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

Non-notable cluster of trees. No sources to support WP:GNG, not the subject of any coverage. User used to creating hoax pages.

I'm also nominating the following similar related pages:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:45, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Graylands Copse. The moated site associated with this location is a scheduled monument [5]. SpinningSpark 01:12, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Upper Rapeland Wood (note that is spelled "Rapelands" in some sources). The iron workings mentioned in the article seem to be of some interest to archeology, there is non-trivial discussion in this article from the Proceedings of the Geologist's Association. Even the "Dismal Castle" seems to have some local notability. SpinningSpark 02:05, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. For example, a house doesn't meet the notability criteria for inclusion here just because a celebrity lives inside it. Similarly, an archeological site, even if notable, doesn't inherently confer notability on the small cluster of trees that happen to surround it. Largoplazo (talk) 10:50, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's a misapplication of NOTINHERITED. A physical place is notable (or not) for the things that are at that place and what people write about them. SpinningSpark 11:30, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A just gave an example of a physical place (a house) that is not notable just because a notable person lives inside it so, no, a place is not notable by virtue of what is at that place. (If by "physical place" you mean something other than a house, I could just as easily have said "the 1400 block of XYZ Drive" or "the Foo-Bar tract" or some other such cartographical detail.) You mention places are notable for things people write about them. Yes, about them, not about things that are in them. Largoplazo (talk) 12:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

so the article is renamed to "Iron workings (Upper Rapeland Wood)", and lets hope nothing else wikinotable has occurred there or else we could end up with half a dozen articles on the one location. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:31, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure these should be covered by the same deletion discussion. To clarify the nominator's comment, these were all created by the same user who, in addition, at around the same time, created two other articles that have been deleted as hoaxes, and created a third such article in the past. Still, they're four different subjects and their respective potentials for notability are mutually unrelated. (Further clarification: I had PRODded all four of these articles.) Largoplazo (talk) 10:57, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it was a bad idea to bundle the nominations. But smearing the creator is not helpful towards deciding whether the articles should be kept. For the avoidance of all doubt, these are definitely not hoaxes and mentioning that was irrelevant at best. SpinningSpark 11:30, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was relevant to rebut any sense one might get that the fact that someone took the time to write the articles suggests some significance on the part of their subjects. That's normally a reasonable presumption, so this was an alert to the situation here, that that presumption isn't warranted. Largoplazo (talk) 11:54, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Since the nominator pasted here the rationale I'd given for my PROD nominations, well, that's my rationale here as well. Largoplazo (talk) 11:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:11, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:11, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment so "redirects" to relevant hamlets/villages weren't considered? Coolabahapple (talk) 02:55, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It might be appropriate—if they are at least significant enough that for their existence to be raised in the articles on those hamlets villages. Otherwise the redirects would lead to no relevant information. I would be surprised if someone added to my locality's article information on every cluster of trees, every green patch with benches or children's recreation equipment, every residential street, or any other feature that might be designated on a map but that nobody outside of their respective neighborhoods would ever have heard of or have had any reason to. Largoplazo (talk) 10:00, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If these articles are deleted, I will quit Wikipedia I have visited these locations in person, and carried out research for WikiProject Sussex to create these locations. I have a good track record of creating geographical articles about this area north of Horsham. All references are there, and no one had any problem with these articles until I created a couple of Polynesian hoax articles out of boredom and then someone slapped deleted templates out of spite. My woodland and hamlet articles are beautifully written and researched. --Polegåarden (talk) 11:52, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(a) Threats and grievances and praise for the quality of one's own work don't address the matter at issue: my contention (that I cited in my PROD nomination and reiterated by the AFD nominator) that the articles' topics don't appear to meet the notability criteria for inclusion. (b) Of course after I realized you were a repeat hoax article creator, I looked to see what else you'd done, to find out whether you'd contributed false information elsewhere. These articles were not a hoax—but the topics didn't seem clearly notable. So I researched them as I do any time I'm concerned that a topic fails WP:N, and it seemed to me that they did fail. So I nominated them for PROD. Your attribution of my action to spite is a violation of the requirement to assume good faith when there's no evidence to the contrary. (c) Even if any spite on my part had been involved (it wasn't), it doesn't alter the notability or lack thereof of the topics, which you haven't addressed. (d) As you can see, I'm not the AFD nominator. So I'm not the only one who found the articles questionable. Largoplazo (talk) 13:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I am struggling to see or find notability of any of these questionable articles. "Upper Rapeland Wood" sits on a hill and is listed as having "a mixed mature woodland", so is a strand of trees. The "Holming Wood" article is about a "Woodland Or Forest" (according to the source) that shows it exists but does not advance notability. That article states of Rapeland Wood "an area of mixed ancient woodland" but this was not corroborated. "Barn Coppice" has vague sources, some pits (minepits), and possibly some "hedgerows" (heritage assets) as noted from a "desk based" (non-intrusive) assessment. It does not appear to be listed as a particularly notable place of interest. The source states "An alleged moat at Bush Lane, probably a stream diversion of 18th century date". The quarry, castle, and moat ("Moated site 200m west of Graylands Copse" [scheduled monument]) may be of interest but what exactly does that have to do with "Graylands Copse"? I do not know if there is any suitable redirect to any "hamlets/villages" but the nom seems to be accurate with "Non-notable cluster of trees". -- Otr500 (talk) 06:59, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep all I'm surprised they are even nominated. There is plenty of history to fill to fill these articles up. The place where they are located are choked with history. Upper Rapeland Wood is mentioned as a doing iron working, lime and iron mining. They are likely to mentioned in the Domesday book. All power to these articles. There is stuff on notable walks. More than enough to define notability. scope_creep^Talk 19:17, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You declared them five times to be notable without supplying a speck of evidence that they are. Largoplazo (talk) 19:21, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looks like these trains are getting awfully close, but let's give it another week.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 19:54, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The fact that the user used to create hoax pages is disappointing, and it is reasonable to inspect their other work as a result of such a revelation. However, the past actions of the user should not be brought up in this deletion discussion. It is not relevant to the quality/notability/verifiability of the topics; let them stand on their own merits. That being said, I believe the articles should be kept until a concerted effort is made to find better sources. Even if a quick Google search does not bring up much, historical sources may exist in print which indicate the notability of these places. On this front, the article I find most likely to not fulfill notability guidelines is Holming Wood, but I still think that effort should be made. At the very least, Template:Notability should be added to these articles. Mysteryman blue 23:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to point out that this is an occasion for making that effort. I mean, I'll be perfectly happy if someone presents evidence here that these are notable. It isn't as though I have any prejudice against these places. I'm just surprised how much of this discussion involves believing they're notable. I mean, I have friends who have clusters of woods behind their houses, woods that cover about the same area as the ones discussed in these articles. By default, I assume they aren't notable. Largoplazo (talk) 01:38, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Face value reading of the article doesn't reveal anything notable there: some iron mining, a castle once on the border, a minor building. While I don't doubt that the area might have provided some inspiring natural beauty to hikers, Wikipedia is not a trail guide. Blue Riband► 02:37, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing notability guidelines at WP:GEOLAND, which looks like unpopulated places need WP:GNG to pass. While the article has lots of photos from someone who likes walking there, there is no indication of any notability. I note the keep !votes do not provide any indication of notability other than to assert there could be. That's insufficient. Ifnord (talk) 19:59, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SpinningSpark 13:07, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zama Khumalo

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

Autobiographical article where subject of the article is a journalist but doesn’t meet WP:JOURNALIST. Furthermore his only claim to notability is celebrating the death of 42 caucasian/white children Celestina007 (talk) 19:50, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:50, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:50, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:50, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable journalist. I'm more concerned that this is possibly an autobiography because the user who created this, goes under the pseudonym ZS Khumalo and the full name of the subject of this article is Zama Steven Khumalo. LefcentrerightDiscuss 20:16, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lefcentreright, yeah! Definitely! You know how it is, same old, same old. Just another monday with yet another random individual seeking Wikipedia presence. Celestina007 (talk) 20:34, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Celestina007 Eish, some people just can't grasp the concept that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not an webhost. I have "templated" the user for creating an autobiography. Best, LefcentrerightDiscuss 20:44, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, these are all very good concerns raised by Lefcentreright. The notability of the subject is questionable but and the prospect (which seems reasonable) that the subject of the article wrote it about himself is highly problematic. I support the deletion proposal.--Discott (talk) 13:02, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Celestina007: I saw that ZS Khumalo added his "event" to Racism in South Africa (I reverted his edits). I also saw that he is the one who created the 013NEWS article (Mentioned in the lead of his autobiography). What should be done about this? LefcentrerightDiscuss 16:44, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lefcentreright, I’d say it’s the classic using Wikipedia for promotional purposes situation. I’d leave a few warnings on the tp of the editor but nonetheless the other article should be treated on merit, if it’s deserving of a stand alone, it stays & if it doesn’t we nominate it for deletion accordingly. Celestina007 (talk) 17:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We really need to make sure to rid Wikipedia of Autobiographies. We also really, really should go to making all articles go through the articles for creation process. It is much, much easier to create an article than to delete an article. It is one act to create, and at least 4 acts to delete, and nominating something for deletion opens one up to the type of pushback one does not receive for creating an article. We desperately need to reform the process.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:13, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not notable. It could possibly be an autobiography. We should ban Wikipedians from creating autobiographies. Globbett (Spl4t Sh3rm4n) 19:42, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neither his journalism career nor his now-regretted social media post reach GNG. Blue Riband► 02:25, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Czech Republic–Poland relations. There is a consensus that this article fails to meet the standards imposed by the WP:NOTNEWS policy. Those who disagree with this consensus suggest that the incident is unusual enough that it will provide lasting notability. Those who form this consensus offered evidence to suggest that it is not unusual enough. This group of editors are split over whether the correct response to this failure to satisfy policy is to delete or to merge. As our deletion policy (as well as the relevant guideline cited by those who feel the article should be kept) make clear alternatives to deletion should be honored. As such there is a consensus to merge appropriate information to Czech Republic–Poland relations which will retain the content and attribution in the case the consensus is wrong and this does have lasting notability. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:29, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Polish invasion of Czech Republic

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

Non-notable incident that recently hit the international news as a "curiosity story" from abroad. Article fails our WP:GNG, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:10YT, among others. What happened is the following, just to illustrate the situation. Polish troops tasked with guarding the border to enforce the COVID-19 restrictions, crossed accidentally the Czech border in a hilly region, basically in the middle of nowhere. They set their border barriers there without realizing they are several hundred meters in the Czech Republic. The area where this happened is sparsely populated since the expulsion of the native ethnic German population after World War II, so no one really noticed the error until some Czech citizens tried to visit the local chapel (basically a pile of rubble now), and were denied passage by Polish soldiers guarding the border. The whole event is a short funny story without any real weight, yet the sensationalist media outlets throw away dramatic words like "invasion", "annexation" or "occupation", making the event sound a lot more significant than it really is. Therefore, I propose to delete the article, or alternatively redirect it to Czechoslovak-Polish border conflicts. Darwinek (talk) 19:45, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Darwinek (talk) 19:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Darwinek (talk) 19:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I created this after reading this today on BBC, NPR, CNN, and other places. Coverage has been going on for a few days, and there are national Czech, Polish, and German sources as well. The church had been restored by Polish and Czech activists, is not a pile of rubble, and is a site of worship. The incident, while accidental, was a serious diplomatic/military incident. The Czech-Polish border, as all borders inside the EU, has been quiet for decades. The situation of COVID border shutdowns and accidental invasions is very irregular in Europe. Poland and the Czech Republic haven't had a similar incidents from the 1990s at least.--Chuka Chief (talk) 19:57, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge into Czech Republic–Poland relations. It certainly seems to have enough coverage to satisfy the GNG. Whether it's a big enough event to justify its own article or a subtopic of the wider relations between the countries is another matter. Neither article is super long so perhaps it could be merged. Don't need to delete the material though. — Amakuru (talk) 20:07, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article's subject matter seems notable and worthy of encyclopedic inclusion, and the article itself has sufficient supporting references. - Indefensible (talk) 20:10, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there is a precedent with such things, the several similar incidents between Switzerland and Liechtenstein, and the standard is to merge the info to the article on diplomatic relations. However, this incident seems considerably more serious than any of the ones between those two countries, in that it seems to have caused a minor diplomatic row. Therefore, I think it has a chance of passing WP:10YT, to the extent it would be better to delete it later if coverage is not sustained in the slightest. If the article is kept, it should be renamed to May 2020 Czech Republic-Poland border incident or perhaps Accidental Polish invasion of the Czech Republic. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:44, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Multiple, independent, reliable sources giving information about this topic meets the notability guidelines. Perhaps at a later date, it will become clear that this event does not merit its own article and that it should be merged into Czech Republic–Poland relations. Until then, it should stay as it clearly can stand on its own two legs. Mysteryman blue 23:29, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, while there have been a number of similar incidents between Switerland and Liechtenstein, this appears to be a serious, if bloodless, incident with diplomatic reprecussions, as opposed to a couple of troops taking a wrong turn. --Varavour (talk) 01:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:46, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete come on. WP:NOTNEWS, especially not sensationalist, inane news. Just because there’s a newspaper story about something doesn’t mean we need to have an article about. This is ridiculous. Volunteer Marek 04:05, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Czech Republic–Poland relations then delete redirect (maybe also add a see also or a footnote to Polish–Czechoslovak border conflicts). Given that nobody was hurt, and it was just a local military error, I very much doubt this can pass the mentioned WP:10YT. WP:NOTNEWS, this is a minor diplomatic incident that got written up because slow news season in Europe, I guess, outside corona news, and it is related. The title is a WP:EASTEREGG, if it is kept, it should very much be renamed to May 2020 Czech Republic-Poland border incident. Amd frankly, if it was properly named like this originally it would likely not end up here, the current name is the gist of the problem, blowing this tiny incident out of proportion. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:09, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If kept, it should be renamed Polish invasion of the Czech Republic. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:38, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The picture in this AfD is wrong, the occupied building was the chapel of st. Anne (Czech Wikipedia) which is an historic building that lays across a bridge from the castle ruins. I think the St. George church was not occupied. The historic chapel has been undergoing major restoration (compare 2012 to 2020). The incident itself is notable and is covered by reliable sources that call it an invasion: "Poland accidentally invaded the Czech Republic in late May and briefly annexed a corner of its neighbour’s territory, the country’s military has admitted" or "The Polish military has admitted it accidentally invaded the Czech Republic last month, but it insists its brief occupation of a small part of the country was simply a "misunderstanding"". Thank god this all ended well and with smiles in the end. What makes this bizarre is that instead of realizing the mistake and withdrawing after it was pointed out in late May is that Polish troops remained on the Czech side until June 11th and imposed restrictions (blocking access, no photos) on Czech citizens. --Bob not snob (talk) 05:42, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Chuka Chief. Plenty of news coverage to meet WP:GNG. This looks like perfect DYK fodder too. The precise naming of the article can be addressed after this AfD closes. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:51, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - LOL! Keep? Really? This should be deleted per WP:NOTNEWS, but if we decide to keep it, then the title should be changed to "Accidental invasion of the Chech Republic by Poland", as per sources.But seriously, if we cover every newspaper news pumped up to get readers' then this is not going to be the Encyclopedia anymore but a news site. :) Come on "keeper" people :). GizzyCatBella🍁 07:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Czech Republic–Poland relations. This article shouldn't be a stand-alone, but it would make a good addition to the relation article (part of it ofc). Cheers! Nadzik (talk) 08:42, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOTNEWS, this is a minor, recent event that isn't notable enough for Wikipedia article.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This event is extraordinary, in the literal sense that it is extremely unusual. The delayed response is particularly striking — in a world of instant communication, it took them two weeks to withdraw the troops. That's an argument based on WP:INTERESTING, but I think the invocation of WP:NOTNEWS here is essentially a WP:NOTINTERESTING argument. o choose one example from above, "if we cover every newspaper news pumped up to get readers" is suggesting that the story is inherently inconsequential, and therefore doesn't meet notability standards. When have we, in human history, treated sending troops into foreign countries and holding (a small piece of) foreign territory for two weeks as an inconsequential event? I am arguing that the very fact that we're treating it as a joke is itself indicative of changes in the last century of European law and practice, and I'm sorry, but that is actually (wp:)interesting. As far as notability standards go, this event has been described as an "invasion" by many reliable sources, including BBC News, NPR and Politico, and that coverage happened two weeks after the original event. — Toughpigs (talk) 14:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge with Czech Republic–Poland relations: This is a great example of WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS. It is almost certainly not even a real invasion (an act of aggression) under international law. There is absolutely no comparison between this and Poland's actual invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1938.—Brigade Piron (talk)
Merge in a very shortened version to Czech Republic–Poland relations. Two-three sentences are enough for "notability" of this unintentional incident. Pibwl ←« 15:01, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. There Tis sufficient material here to stand on its own, and this is an unusual event, certainly covered by many RS, and is important to relations between the two countries. Davey2116 (talk) 15:45, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a total failure of the not news guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is completely ridiculous! Wikipedia should deliver important, serious matter, not such minor or strange events with such detailed description which might suggest that it is something really important. It is such an shamefully unimportant thing! It was such a weird and odd piece of news and it was treated that way in the news and in this article it is treated in a way in which an important events should be described. It is really misleading! And the worst thing is the "background". It has definitely been the accidental thing - the word "invasion" is terribly over the top in this case - and what's more - it is compared with (or shown against) the Polish-Czechoslovak war or with the 1938 annexation of Zaolzie. I have never come across such an exaggeration. It's hard to find a proper word to describe this impropriety. Seriously - what is the connection between this accident and the war of 1919 or the 1968? Ridiculous association. Unbelievable much ado about nothing.--Eduardschnack (talk) 20:11, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as a chapter/section with Czech Republic–Poland relations as a minor diplomatic incident with coronavirus background.
If kept, it should very much be renamed to proper and real name, for example: May 2020 Czech Republic–Poland border incident.
Julo (talk) 20:22, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it is relevant. Per Toughpigs or Chuka Chiefs. --Frettie (talk) 05:52, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS - GizzyCatBella🍁 03:20, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge into Czech Republic–Poland relations. In case of keeping consider renaming per Devonian Wombat.Jklamo (talk) 08:09, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Its not trivial as some have claimed, but does it need its own page when we already have Czech Republic–Poland relations, which it falls into. User:Davidstewartharvey
Delete and merge into Czech Republic–Poland relations or move to WikiNews, if there isn't article with this topic...--MrJaroslavik (talk) 15:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge it is reminiscent of events between Liechtenstein and Switzerland, and those incidents are covered in their respective Liechtenstein–Switzerland relations article. Kaiser matias (talk) 20:39, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Let us be serious. Wikipedia is not a repository of factual jokes about particular nature of Polish-Czech relations, Bacus15 (talk) 21:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 03:46, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. This should be covered briefly in the articles on COVID-19 in these countries. Incidents where parties of European military personnel accidentally cross the border into a neighbouring friendly country are fairly common. Each time it happens there are some silly news stories about it being an "invasion", despite it being nothing of the sort. There are no lasting consequences of these accidents, except possibly for the careers of the junior officers in charge of the military force. This is just another example of this, and definitely doesn't warrant an article - much less a silly one claiming this was an "invasion" and there was an "occupation". Nick-D (talk) 23:57, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick-D:, I agree some of the coverage by CNN and other international media was exaggerated. Czech coverage such as [6][7] and Polish [8] is better. This also prompted an outburst of memes that were all over the place ([9]). This is different from other border incidents (which normally last a few hours). The Polish army occupied a religious shrine for a few weeks and prevented worshipers from accessing it. It also wasn't a junior officer, see https://10blog.wp.mil.pl/u/tn_2_Z2yIS95.jpg where a Polkovnik (Colonel) officer is standing in front of the Czech shrine. The Polish opposition called for the Polish defence minister to resign.--Bob not snob (talk) 05:56, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Czech and Polish coverage is better and more balanced of course, as the incident pertains to both countries, though I wouldn't use Parlamentní Listy as a source - it's a disinformation web portal full of fake news and nationalistic rhetoric. Also, the fact that Polish opposition called for the minister to resign is of no value here. Polish political scene is (always was) a very heated arena where tough words and calls for resignation fly every week for any reason.--Darwinek (talk) 23:43, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete per WP:ATD. Agnostic on keeping versus merging, but the content (not the title) is encyclopedic and should be kept. b uidhe 06:37, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant incident, widely covered in world press. The title appears to be of some concern, and I agree the article could be moved to a better title. Vici Vidi (talk) 09:24, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Toughpig. This seems to pass WP:GNG and is encyclopedic enough to keep. Not everything in Wikipedia is big world-changing news but that doesn't mean it isn't notable. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 17:49, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Czech Republic–Poland relations, much as how we cover the many Swiss invasions of Lichtenstein at Liechtenstein–Switzerland relations. Though I fully expect that this would be closed as no consensus—this kind of thing is why we have WP:DELAY/WP:RAPID. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:37, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOTNEWS applies, or brief mention in Czech Republic–Poland relations. Stifle (talk) 11:25, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Czech Republic–Poland relations and briefly mention there. This is much ado about nothing, and the article title is inaccurate, as this was in no sense a real invasion. WP:NOTNEWS applies. As mentioned above, Liechtenstein–Switzerland_relations#Incidents_involving_the_Swiss_military is a template for how to cover such things. Sandstein 17:32, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This incident is much more serious than any of those mentioned in Liechtenstein–Switzerland_relations#Incidents_involving_the_Swiss_military, as discussed by Bob not snob above. b uidhe 03:05, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Define 'serious'. The fact that in 2020 we have social media, and memes and such, and they didn't have them back then, doesn't make the incident more serious, just better covered by the media. And I think it is already forgotten. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:28, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All the Swiss events were a small group of soldiers taking a wrong turn and were resolved within hours immediately after the Swiss were informed of their mistake. The Swiss also didn't take enforcement actions against foreign citizens. In Pelhřimovy a permanent checkpoint was placed in Czech land, forces remained for weeks and took enforcement actions (barring entry and photographs) against Czech citizens. This is not forgotten, Polityka had a 1,200 word piece a couple of days ago titled "What a mess, how Polish soldiers entered the Czech Republic", [10].--Bob not snob (talk) 05:37, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My impression from WP:ARBEE et al. is that in Eastern Europe, excessive nationalist zeal is a pervasive problem that extends into the media of these countries and into Wikipedia. We don't need to support this through our editorial judgments. Covering events from an international perspective, as we do, calling this an "invasion" in the title is just silly. Sandstein 16:29, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ Sandstein - you have a wrong impression....I would appreciate it if you could restrain yourself from making negative comments aimed at people from that (Eastern) part of Europe. - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:07, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - well-referenced, bizarre yet notable incident. Bearian (talk) 15:16, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Czech Republic–Poland relations, per Alpha3031 who has brought up a similar incident. In two weeks this one-time news event will be forgotten, there appears no long-term effect created by it. Ifnord (talk) 20:04, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Academic Challenger (talk) 21:46, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 United States Air Force F-15 crash

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

Tragic but military training accidents are very common and therefore rarely notable. WP:NOTNEWS also applies. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:43, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:43, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:43, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:43, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:43, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:43, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I concur with wiliam. Military accidents are non-notable in themselves, unless notable for other reasons, like:- notable passengers, notable crew, casualties on the ground, mid-air with civilian aircraft. Anything where the notability is gained from something other than the crash itself. Just another pile of scrap in RAF Dogger Bank, is definitely not notable.--Petebutt (talk) 20:19, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:AIRCRASH. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:38, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Apologies, I created the article to soon, violating WP:RECENTISM and of course WP:AIRCRASH. (Regarding the latter) I'm not familiar with the WikiProject and I didn't see the page linked on WP:N...
Once again, apologies for the inconvinience - it was my mistake to create it. Giraffer (munch) 20:58, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Colleagues above are citing WP:AIRCRASH as a grounds for deletion. It says: "Because this is an essay and not policy and also because it should not be applied to stand-alone accident articles, it is recommended that it not be cited at Articles for Deletion discussions for either keeping or deleting. ". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:05, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWS, military planes crash frequently, nothing to indicate anything notable about this crash. Mztourist (talk) 03:12, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet notability. USAF planes crash a lot, each of them doesn't need an article of its own Field Marshal Aryan (talk) 10:04, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fighter jets crash all the time. Vici Vidi (talk) 05:26, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. --Lockley (talk) 11:24, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The few !votes for delete are WP:DIDNOTWIN or WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE; while the keep !votes demonstrate GNG and a bit of WP:HEY. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:58, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Niven Jr.

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

There is no claim for significance apart from that he is the son of actor David Niven and his Primetime Emmy Award nomination in 1985. There are a few passing mentions in the articles cited in the article, which are possibly not enough to pass Wikipedia's notability threshold. Pahiy (talk) 19:25, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 19:25, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 19:25, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as meets WP:GNG and WP:FILMMAKER: "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work." While notability is not inherited, an Emmy nom is not small stuff. He was also a panelist on a game show--that's of some note. His having produced The Eagle Has Landed, Escape to Athena, and That's Dancing adds notability too. I'm seeing enough coverage in Proquest and in Newspapers.com to make a decent article. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 00:22, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. He didn't win an Emmy and the 1990 reboot of To Tell the Truth lasted only nine months. It's not a good sign when the only media coverage is about the sale of his house. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:57, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- As I had previously stated with my vote, there is more coverage than that. There is coverage of his career in publciations like Variety. Not all articles on 1970s-1990s figures are available on the open internet. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 14:19, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - In my experience, pre '70s Variety articles are available online. So where is this coverage? Clarityfiend (talk) 23:15, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Proquest Entertainment Industry Magazine Archive. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 02:42, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable filmmaker and actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:34, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It may be a days or two before I have an hour to dig into archives and makeover the article. It would be prudent for potential voters to watch the page and wait to vote until I do so. Unless someone else beats me to the research, that is. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 02:48, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep is definately notable. Have added more stuff. Is more than Niven snr son. Was an exec at Paramount and Columbia, and been in quite a few films and produced them too, married to Barbara Niven.User:Davidstewartharvey

None of the sources currently in the article are of much worth. They're passing mentions, IMDb, announcements (e.g. house sale, wedding). Also, lots of movie execs aren't notable. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:36, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Really? None of them are of much worth? Were you able to view "Pictures: David Niven Jr. Turns Par Indie" that I added? I wouldn't call it a passing mention. "Lots of movie execs aren't notable" is a poor argument. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 00:40, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So your pointing out that he was "an exec at Paramount and Columbia" was what? As for the photos, so he hobnobs with famous people. You can't WP:INHERIT notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:06, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has a body of work in film, as a producer, which meets wp:filmmaker. Also nominated for emmy for film which he co-wrote and produced, which although not numerous times as it says in notability rules, but along with the body of work proves notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.159.239.150 (talk) 09:51, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He is given non-trivial referencing in quite a few books: 1. He is catalogued in the British Film Institute (and quite a few of his films have WP articles). The article is well referenced, with non-trivial coverage. He does not have a major SIGCOV piece (at least not one I could find via google), however, per WP:BASIC: If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. I can't see the value in deleting this BLP. Britishfinance (talk) 23:34, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:35, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Music in Dollhouse

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

I do not believe this list meets the WP:LISTN requirement. I do not believe there is enough coverage in independent, reliable sources for this to meet general notability standards either. Aoba47 (talk) 19:12, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 22:01, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is just a trivial list of songs, there's no need to have it on Wikipedia. Pahiy (talk) 22:05, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 22:05, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:46, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 01:35, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edmond Astruc

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

Lacks notability, has not received significant coverage in multiple published secondary reliable sources, see Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals, furthermore eventually COI CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:33, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:33, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Comment: There is a book about the subject (Garrigues, Jean-Claude (2016). Le siècle bleu de Marseille: Edmond Astruc, peintre-aviateur (1878-1977). L'Harmattan. ISBN 9782343074566. Retrieved 1 June 2020.) and the Musée Municipal Méditerranéen in Cassis had an exhibition in 2017: "Entre ciel et mer, la passion bleue d'Edmond Astruc"[11]. AllyD (talk) 07:06, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AllyD, thanks but this should has been implemented into the article by the creator...✌️in its current state it definitely lacks notability... CommanderWaterford (talk) 07:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article appears to be a Google-translation of the French WP article, which was largely written before the publication and exhibition. Here we're not really considering the present state of the article - which needs substantial attention - but whether notability can be established. The publication and exhibition are a start towards that, but I am dubious that they (or the acquisition of one of his works by the Marseille Chamber of Commerce: [12]) are sufficient for WP:NARTIST criterion 4. I'd like to verify that he was noted more than locally. AllyD (talk) 08:00, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 18:25, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:07, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fasting (2017)

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

Reviewed as part of NPP. This article on a health documentary is the product of a WikiEd class, many of whose contributions are problematic. Notability is not demonstrated in the article. The sources cited, besides the film's Amazon listing and IMDB page, are research articles about the general topic of fasting; they don't mention the film at all. I wasn't able to find any substantial articles about the film in reliable sources.There's this but it's just a reprinted press release. Doesn't seem to meet GNG or NFILM. There are also a ton of WP:MEDRS issues with the article. Spicy (talk) 18:21, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spicy (talk) 18:21, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Spicy (talk) 18:21, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I didn't find anything in sources that could really significantly contribute to GNG. I also saw the MEDRS issues mentioned above as well as the WP:SYNTH or essay-like approach from students, so I at least reduced the article to mostly a stub. While it's possible I missed something, I don't really see this going beyond WP:ITEXISTS territory. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:54, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I was unable to find any useful sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:28, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability for the work; not even sure it merits listing in an article on the subject. If this wa Wikied, it wa an ill-conceived choice of assignment. DGG ( talk ) 05:21, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:37, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dineout

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

Very promotional. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contributions) 18:13, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:47, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:47, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:48, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:48, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sources are routine coverage and product launch announcements that do not confer notability. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. GSS ^💬 18:38, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not even close to being notable. Reads like a paid advertisement. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:48, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete — P,TO 19104, Guy Macon, & GSS, why wasn’t this just G11 speedied? Celestina007 (talk) 01:07, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- It seems tonight's main course is spam. Reyk _YO! 07:17, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G11. What's wrong, doesn't anybody have the courage to go ahead and click on the big red button? In all seriousness, this should have been speedied without a second thought. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:33, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 21:44, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bonito Designs

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

Non notable organization failing to satisfy WP:ORG. A before search reveals no indication of notability in any capacity. Also, Possibly a promo page for the organization.Celestina007 (talk) 17:38, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:38, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:38, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:38, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:38, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:38, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Classic non-notable startup. scope_creep^Talk 18:04, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Cex (musician). Tone 21:44, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Role Playa

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

WP:BEFORE reveals no WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 17:30, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 17:30, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cex (musician): Barely found anything about the EP. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 03:50, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Cex (musician). Tone 21:44, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Get Your Badass On

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

WP:BEFORE reveals no WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 17:29, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 17:29, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cex (musician): Barely found anything about the EP. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 03:51, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Cex (musician). Tone 21:44, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shift-Minus Vol. 1

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

WP:BEFORE reveals no WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 17:28, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 17:28, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cex (musician): Barely found anything about the EP. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 03:51, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:03, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Munir Shah

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

non notable politican. Fails to meet WP:NPOL. While there is some coverage of a local election that went to a court ordered recount, these mainly deal with the case and people being injured during the cases rather than WP:significant coverage of Shah. Google searches not finding anything significant. noq (talk) 16:30, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. noq (talk) 16:30, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:48, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Politicians at the local level are not handed an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL just because they exist — at this level of significance, the notability claim he would have to show is genuinely substantial evidence that he's much more notable than the norm for that level of office — but winning a local council seat on a recount is not evidence of that. Bearcat (talk) 20:38, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a failed local level politician. There is news coverage of every election, but we have refused to make every candidate who looses notable, so this is not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:28, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NPOL & WP:SIGCOV. LefcentrerightDiscuss 22:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 21:45, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Parkhill, California

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

Appears on the topos in 1978, but as far as I can see it's a single house and maybe a couple of outbuildings. Searching comes up with a lot of false hits but nothing I can peg on this spot. Mangoe (talk) 16:27, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:56, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:56, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sign of a community here. –dlthewave ☎ 12:20, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 21:44, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rajendra Prasad Singh

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

A non-notable author, columnist, Linguist, lexicographer, Archaeologist, critic and historiographer with no significant coverage in reliable sources. GSS ^💬 15:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 15:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 15:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NAUTHOR and the article violates WP:OR. D4iNa4 (talk) 11:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:04, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saba Golbaz

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

non-notable artist, no coverage that would meet NARTIST or NACADEMIC/PROF in persian or english. Praxidicae (talk) 15:42, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:59, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:59, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. Doesn’t meet WP:PROF sng also. Celestina007 (talk) 16:57, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - After searching online, I could not find anything that substantiates this person's notability. There was no coverage at all, other than her own website, & social media. Fails criteria per GNG & NARTIST guidelines. Netherzone (talk) 19:31, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - with my search. Lexy iris (talk) 21:44, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 21:45, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Sooranadu Rajasekharan

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

The person seems not notable as per WP:POLITICIAN and WP:ANYBIO. There are no WP:RELIABLE sources and provided with dummy references. ~ Amkgp ✉ 18:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp ✉ 18:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp ✉ 18:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Johnpacklambert, AaqibAnjum, JavaHurricane, Hatchens, Drat8sub, and Eddie891: Request for help and review if interested. Thank you. ~ Amkgp ✉ 18:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amkgp, you pinged a bunch of editors and everyone that responded to your call voted delete. I'm thinking this probably requires context. Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Randomly selected people based on their active past participation at AfD related subjects, nothing else ~ Amkgp 💬 10:41, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Few RS mention him in passing as a Congress leader. Definite fail of WP:NPOLITICIAN - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 19:12, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an overly promotional article with very few sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:26, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, promotional and no significant coverage can be found. JohnmgKing (talk) 20:23, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPERSON. promotional, was perhaps a failed candidate in the 2004 Indian general election in Kerala, but just being a candidate is not enough to pass WP:NPOL. It seems only passing coverage of his role as a Congress leader exists. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:32, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL and nothing but glancing coverage. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:21, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Hatchens (talk) 13:29, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability. Drat8sub (talk) 01:36, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable under WP:NPOL, the article is completely unsourced once you realize that the footnotes are all boilerplate placeholders (even the "New York Times" citation is really just placeholder text rather than a real New York Times article), and the text reads like it was written by a PR agent. Bearcat (talk) 16:48, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - whilst the article definitely needs a clean-up, there is also notability indicators, see [13], [14], [15], "has a formidable opponent in Rajasekharan, a familiar figure in the area as a corporator and DCC chief.", controversy around his nomination, [16], KPCC general secretary is clearly a notable post, [17], [18], mentioned here, restructuring of KPCC covered by Press Trust of India, ~~2004 election controversy~~, [19]. Googling the name in Malayalam gave a significant number of hits as well. --Soman (talk) 11:48, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Although this is overwhelmingly for delete, time is needed for the sources offered by Soman to be assessed
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpinningSpark 00:37, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment; Madhyam also has an article on Sooranadu Rajasekharan breaking the lockdown, apparently a writer as well, controversy around his role in the KPCC leadership, S.R. comments on a recent issue, another article on same issue, and another one, another article on police case against S.R, S.R. charged with of accusing Law Minister A.K. Balan (why?), S.R. arrives in a location to investigate a violent incident against a UDF ally office, another lockdown violation article, S.R. issues criticism on inner-party issue, TV news report on S.R. breaking lockdown, yet another article on the lockdown violation... this time in the largest newspaper in the state, another article on S.R. lockdown violation, another coverage on S.R.'s lockdown violation, S.R. breaking lockdown presented as 'Breaking News', news report on S.R.'s book on Indian politics, Sooranadu Rajasekharan being interviewed in TV about his book (and checks his cell phone during the interview...), news report on lockdown violation, S.R. comments on a election, S.R. speaking during protest, S.R. interviewed on the Adoor election, S.R. speaker at a padyatra, being one of the panelist in debate on Mathtrubumi TV piece on state of the Congress in Kerala, news piece on a S.R.-related controversy, S.R. commenting on the Chakra as a national symbol, S.R. files a defamation claim against Lenin Rajendran, here a different transliteration of his name is used --Soman (talk) 11:52, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, summarizing;

- As a KPCC general secretary or vice president, i.e. key leader of one of the 2 major parties in a state with 30+ million inhabitants, Sooranadu Rajasekharan is frequently covered in news media, as commenting on different current issues
- He was been a candidate, but has been unsuccessful. In 2016 Kerala Assembly election he got 22.7% of the votes in Chathannoor (State Assembly constituency). In the 2004 Indian general election he was the runner-up in the Kollam (Lok Sabha constituency) with 34.6% of the votes.
- He's involved in a number of controversies, and there is third-party coverage on them
- He has a modest role as an author
- --Soman (talk) 12:05, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The link [20] doesn't seem to work well, but the article is available in google cache. "KERALA Devil’s Own Workshop PAUL ZACHARIA ... Now the highway hits Kollam constituency where the notable detail is that the Congress candidate, Sooranad Rajasekharan, almost split the party in Kerala recently. His arch-enemy, who did not get the Kollam seat, announced that Rajasekharan had paid Rs 10 lakh to Padmaja Venugopal, daughter of K. Karunakaran, for the seat. That led to much drama. Rajasekharan does appear to be a moneyed man. He has lots of posters everywhere and has a glad and contented smile on the face depicted therein." --Soman (talk) 12:11, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:29, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being a state-level leader in a political party, nor being a candidate for election is sufficient to pass WP:NPOL. The sources provided in this AFD include several YouTube videos, and several articles where the subject is quoted or is a one-two sentence story. --Enos733 (talk) 16:14, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 21:50, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy White (drummer)

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

No notability outside of band he was in. Seems written as a self-serving promotion of himself as there is nothing notable about what he has done. Claim to fame is writing a non notable song, working with another band (Mama's Gravy) that isn't notable enough to have their own page. The rest of the article just lists things he does with no rationale why him doing those things (producer/studio musician,etc) are more notable than anyone else. Donaldd23 (talk) 02:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 02:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:19, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no notability outside the one group he was a drummer for.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:30, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:27, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 06:03, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrate Mistakes

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

Album that didn't not chart and has had zero references in the article since 2009. I'm seeing nothing notable here. Adamant1 (talk) 07:05, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence that it charted or otherwise meets WP:NALBUM. (Note: If Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Number One Gun is closed as 'keep', this article should be redirected there). Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AllMusic and Jesus Freak Hideout are valid sources for reviews. Striking vote based on sources found by Walter Görlitz. I must have completely messed up my search query, because I found no reviews. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:55, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Review at AllMusic and Jesus Freak Hideout. I'm stopping with two reviews as that passes WP:GNG for albums. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I was wondering if Adamant1 could describe the steps done in WP:BEFORE with this item. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:19, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:06, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I found both the reviews you cited, but determined that the allmusic review wasn't in-depth enough. Since it only describes one song from the album, out of 11, just to say in an extremely trivial way that it is "dripping with passion." Only mentioning a single song in passing isn't really an "album review." I'm fine with the JesusFreak review, because it actually discusses the album in an in-depth way, but we all know one review doesn't cut it. Like Eddie891 I was unable to find other reviews besides those ones when I did a search for them. Hopefully he/she will change their vote back to delete since there is only one legitimate in-depth review. Unless another, actually usable one can be found. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:56, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I found a few reliable sources which talk about the album: [21], [22] and [23], as well as a review which partially mentions the album. It's also mentioned in the Retal release section of CMJ New Music magazines. The said sources, including the ones indicated above, make the article good enough to pass WP:NALBUM. My vote stands. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 22:48, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The third one is a personal blog. So it doesn't count for notability. The other ones seem fine though. Thanks for contributing them. Hopefully they will lead to the article having more then just a track listing. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:12, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 12:21, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dita Přikrylová

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

I do not think this shows notability . The references are all either by sources associated with her, or are mere promotional interviews. The various 30 under 30 categories are beat regarded as a promotional gimmick, highlighting a different set of non-yet-notable people each year. The various "leadership salons" participation are similarly promotional events,and rather low level at that. If the Cz WP considers her notable , they need to look at their standards. DGG ( talk ) 09:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 09:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The selected references aimed to give examples of Dita Přikrylová's work as the founder and CEO of Czechitas, which has educated 1000s of women in the Czech Republic as reported here ^[1]. She has also been awarded the European Citizen’s Prize in 2016 - An award given by the European Parliament for "exceptional achievements". Are more references needed? Csengul (talk) 20:46, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:00, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:01, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:01, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Assisting women in career change towards software engineering: experience from Czechitas NGO". ACM Digital Library. ACM.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:02, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Citations and scholarship have been added to show notability. In her post-graduate school career, she has lead and created large scale coding and educational projects in 3 countries to date: her native Czech Republic, Hungary and Switzerland. Dorevabelfiore (talk) 16:46, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Seems a decent amount of coverage. --Surv1v4l1st ^{▌Talk|Contribs▌} 01:29, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:19, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:14, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Naveen Sawhney

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

No claim for significance apart from the fact that he holds a position in a small company. A few passing mentions in company-related news releases, so not enough to pass our notability threshold. M4DU7 (talk) 16:31, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 16:31, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 16:31, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:58, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:16, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:13, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nina Aquila: Legal Eagle

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

Non-notable video game, failing WP:GNG - Google search comes up nothing but a Indie Games Plus entry, which is a "Trailer Tuesday" list of various games; obviously does not fulfill the "significant mention" criteria. No luck with the WP:VG/S search engine also, returns only 7 results, all pointing to one Russian site (ag.ru) that lists video games. Doesn't really help to begin with that the only "source" listed in the article is an itch.io "devlog" by the developer themselves. theinstantmatrix (talk) 16:44, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. theinstantmatrix (talk) 16:44, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom. Non notable game. Donaldd23 (talk) 18:37, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:12, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails GNG. Woodroar (talk) 20:59, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) - Flori4nK ^{t • c} 15:34, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kimberley Ashton

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

Fails WP:NBADMINTON Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:10, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:25, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:25, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jersey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:25, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:40, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:NCYCLING by winning a gold medal (6 of them) at an international multi-sport event (The Island Games). Dougal18 (talk) 14:07, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While Ashton doesn't appear to meet WP:NBADMINTON, the WP:NCYCLING criteria are not as restrictive and winning gold at the Island Games meets those criteria. Thanks Dougal18 for pointing that out. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passen WP:NCYC: “ Won Gold at an international multi-sport event (games)“. SportsOlympic (talk) 19:21, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:NCYC as per Dougal18's argument Samsmachado (talk) 20:17, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:NCYC as per Dougal18's argument --Florentyna (talk) 09:13, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Mike Gravel 2020 presidential campaign. (non-admin closure) - Flori4nK ^{t • c} 15:35, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Williams (activist)

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

Fails WP:NPOL. Normally campaign operatives are not notable. Bkissin (talk) 14:32, 15 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 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:55, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:59, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak redirect to Mike Gravel 2020 presidential campaign, which he generated a spat of coverage for in early 2019 (close fail of WP:NPERSON and a bit of a BLP1E). This is pretty borderline case, with a fair bit of coverage in various features. However, reading several of them, they are features about the campaign, and not really in-depth stuff about the kids. Seems like a nice kid who could very well become notable in the future. I'd vote the same for David Oks (his 'partner in crime' if you will). Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:06, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:31, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the article on the campaig.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:12, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Eddie891. This seems like a case of Too soon for a political operative/staffer/activist and otherwise fails to meet GNG.--Mpen320 (talk) 21:28, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There is consensus that while this organization exists and there is coverage of it, that coverage does not meet our notability guidelines for organizations (WP:NORG). There seems to be enough uncanvassed participation here to make a close. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:11, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dasman Diabetes Institute

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

The major contributor (UncleScrooze) to this article has been blocked in the past because of WP:SOCK investigation. And, similar kind of edits/force edits are being executed by certain Wiki IDs. Calling out for AfD discussion. Hatchens (talk) 03:38, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kuwait-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 03:38, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Searched this hospital on the web. A very few passing mentions in local media outlets. But, at the same time has a lot of press releases. Kindly consider this fact, wether it passes WP:NCORP in the first place. - Hatchens (talk) 05:49, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 09:38, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've removed one source which was headed as "Sponsored Report". Another ("Dasman Diabetes Institute receives 'Platinum Award'" (PDF). Arab Times. June 28, 2016. p. 7.) celebrates a vanity award from Business Initiative Directions. While I believe the institute may be notable, the article (and the image the institute projects) reeks of PR work by someone who can't tell the difference between puffery and real, solid academic work & achievement. Borderline WP:TNT? Cabayi (talk) 10:35, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Cabayi - WP:TNT is OK. But, to be considered as a well-known research Institute, it lacks credible citations at JSTOR, Google Scholar, Web of Science, SCOPUS, etc (in PubMed just 2 mentions). Even if someone starts from the scratch it will finally lead to WP:DRV. Shall we get some (or wait for) suggestions from others? - Hatchens (talk) 12:58, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:43, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Cabayi - This article looks like a candidate for WP:TNT. Not sure whether it warrants a deletion because the institute looks real. There are sources which the editor has failed to reference.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-7962297/Type-1-diabetes-tackled-injecting-insulin-producing-cells-eye.html

A quick search also turned up their Chief Scientific Officer, Dr. Fahd Al-Mullah. Came across several of his citations at JSTOR, Google Scholar, Books, etc. There’s some notability there.

https://www.pubfacts.com/author/Fahd+Al-Mulla

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5409-3829

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=dr+fahd+al+mulla&btnG=

http://www.genomicmedicinealliance.org/index.php/about/scientific-advisory-committee/52-fahd-al-mulla Microft13 (talk) 09:38, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That first source is rightly not in the article. From the closing comment in WP:DAILYMAIL - "Consensus has determined that the Daily Mail (including its online version, dailymail.co.uk) is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited". Narky Blert (talk) 05:00, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - At the time of posting this comment: Microft13 - Out of 5 Edit History/ Only 1 prominent comment on this AfD discussion, rest all minor edits. Refer this - https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/Microft13 & Mav1012 - Out of 8 Edit History / 4 edits perfomed at Dasman Diabetes Institute, rest all minor edits. Refer this - https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/Mav1012 - It seems to be both the IDs have been recently created to edit Dasman Diabetes Institute and influence this AfD discussion. A classic case of WP:MEAT. - Hatchens (talk) 02:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy pings: Call for AfD Discussion. @CactusJack, Tesseracter, Drat8sub, Toughpigs, Yoonadue, Aman.kumar.goel, Desmay, Vanamonde93, Azuredivay, Capankajsmilyo, Yogesh Khandke, Rsrikanth05, D4iNa4, M4DU7, Superastig, Zindagi713, Accesscrawl, Adondai, and Creffett:. - Hatchens (talk) 03:28, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hatchens: Hi, why exactly am I being pinged here? Vanamonde (Talk) 03:30, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Vanamonde, its a "call/ping" for deriving a consensus w.r.t this AfD Discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 03:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hatchens: AfDs usually attract enough participation without anyone being pinged; if you must ping people, though, it's best to focus on those who have some subject-matter expertise. Pinging users from a different area, as you have done, can easily violate WP:CANVAS, which you need to be aware of. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Vanamonde. Earlier, I participated in such ping calls. That made me to raise this ping. I apologize, I was not aware about WP:CANVAS. What would you suggest?. - Hatchens (talk) 03:51, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that pinging editors to participate in an AfD is unusual and perhaps even undesirable and it would be difficult to prove that the pings are to random editors, as such their views on the subject of deletion may be disregarded. I am however unsure about the “subject-matter expertise part”, considering that Wikipedia the project is being created by anonymous volunteers. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:01, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hatchens: if a discussion isn't getting enough attention, notifying relevant wikiprojects can be helpful, so long as you take care to phrase that notification neutrally. It can also be helpful to ping editors with a lot of experience on Wikipedia editing related subjects, particularly those who have worked on bringing articles through our peer review processes (GAN and FAC in particular). In the latter case, though, you have to make sure you're not accidentally selecting people who subscribe to a particular POV. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:52, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Vanamonde and Yogesh Khandke, I'm just under 2000 edits, a kinda noob. I need to learn a lot of things. But, thanks to both of you for showing the way - 1) Notify the relevant wikiprojects 2) Random editors' views on the subject of deletion may be disregarded. Crystal clear. - Hatchens (talk) 07:28, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hatchens, "2) Random editors' views on the subject of deletion may be disregarded" is not true. Views of editors who were canvassed may be disregarded. Views of editors that do not include arguments from the deletion policy may be disregarded. Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:39, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Usedtobecool, thank you for the input. Duly noted. - Hatchens (talk) 07:51, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Recusing myself: ping thing, have shared this AfD discussion on the Project Medicine talk page. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:26, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was notified of this AfD and I saw it, and initially decided to refrain from discussing. However, the subject doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Some of the sources are merely passing mentions of the hospital. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 14:20, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:53, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep TNT essential, however, I quickly found plenty of papers in reputable journals with this as their affiliation. Seems like quite a new institute, some of the papers were in high impact journals, (not sure why they were proud of the Hidawi!) I didn't have any difficulty finding papers with the affiliation so I am assuming its well known.

Here's a couple, but yeah just enter the name of the insitute into pubmed. Check the affiliation, most seem genuine, no real reason to believe its not notable. i.e. collabs on nature genetics, nature a recent Cell paper PMID:29625052 J Diabetes PMID:31472036 PainProf (talk) 01:02, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here comes one more newly minted ID PainProf (just 22 days old) to influence this AfD with couple of PubMed journal entries which hardly provides any concrete references (i.e., just passable mentions). Here is the actual link of PubMed articles which are mentioning this institute - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=Dasman%20diabetes%20institute. It is a coordinated effort save this page - I'm not at all surprised. -Hatchens (talk) 07:49, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hatchens please assume good faith, you could check my contribs I just saw this in the WP:medicine talk and was curious, I have no skin in the game re this particular institute. I did find they have a collab with Joslin Diabetes Centre too, see https://www.joslin.org/about/news-media/joslin-kuwaits-dasman-institute-forge-strategic-alliance, that's a HMS affiliate institute which gives me complete confidence that they are not a paper institute. Joslin is very well known with an excellent reputation in Diabetes research so I don't think they would do this if it wasn't . I'm not fully sure I understand your argument for deletion, the institute exists, they do have sources that don't seem to be press releases. Remember that institutes outside of the anglophone won't have as much coverage in the international press. Journalists tend to cover institutes in their own country and region more often. i.e. The ABC (AU) will cover more Australian science, etc. They do have coverage in the Arab times. For pubmed, I think not only the articles with the centre in the title are relevant as that would normally only be clinical populations etc but also the affiliations of the scientists - you have to expand the section on authors to show that, there are around 300 for that - by searching the name and checking a couple, which seems okay, not a huge number but it really seems they have only become more active recently based off the graph, I'm guessing some kind of expansion. There is a fairly common bias against non-anglo/euro institutes and I would be really careful to avoid perpetuating that. PainProf (talk) 12:54, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination and the above discussion.ScottHastie (talk) 08:57, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Per nom’s rationale. Celestina007 (talk) 10:56, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PainProf (talk) 12:54, 18 June 2020 (UTC) 12:40, 19 June 2020‎ (UTC) [reply]

Comment: Having taken my time, through a more careful review of the sources. I found it was referenced by the Kuwaiti government here:

The site has a page on the arabic wikipedia here: https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ar&u=https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%25D9%2585%25D8%25B1%25D9%2583%25D8%25B2_%25D8%25AF%25D8%25B3%25D9%2585%25D8%25A7%25D9%2586_%25D9%2584%25D8%25A3%25D8%25A8%25D8%25AD%25D8%25A7%25D8%25AB_%25D9%2588%25D8%25B9%25D9%2584%25D8%25A7%25D8%25AC_%25D8%25A3%25D9%2585%25D8%25B1%25D8%25A7%25D8%25B6_%25D8%25A7%25D9%2584%25D8%25B3%25D9%2583%25D8%25B1&prev=search

By the Kuwaiti government here: https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ar&u=https://media.gov.kw/Aldiyra/IinjazatKuwaitiaDetails.aspx%3FNID%3D12876&prev=search

By the global genomics alliance here: https://g2mc.org/our-team/ which is a large consortium for genomics https://www.genome.gov/health/Genomics-and-Medicine/accomplishments

As previously stated the Joslin Diabetes Institute, at Harvard https://www.joslin.org/about/news-media/joslin-kuwaits-dasman-institute-forge-strategic-alliance

Arab news https://www.arabnews.com/node/1647311/lifestyle

The National https://www.thenational.ae/world/gcc/coronavirus-kuwait-researchers-predict-mid-may-peak-1.1006488

Nature Middle East (A subsidiary of Nature Publishing group) https://www.natureasia.com/en/nmiddleeast/article/10.1038/nmiddleeast.2020.33

An invited opinion at Stat https://www.statnews.com/2019/05/09/tribalism-objectivity-low-carb-high-fat-diets/

Referenced by the WHO here (brief) https://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/88/2/10-020210/en/

Harvard TH Chan School of public health https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/gnet/43-2/

Plus a lot more local sources. Nominator clearly didn't look for sources before this AfD.

PainProf (talk) 03:34, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: In Google News, most of the prominent mentions are coming from press releases as pointed by the nom. And, in the main media segment, passing mentions are either coming from a doctor or a researcher who is affiliated to this institute, talking about certain diseases or treatments. No one is talking about this institute per se. Besides that, a sockpuppet is involved in moving this page from draft to main article namespace. So, enough pieces of evidence are available to support the prevailing consensus.Nathan811 (talk) 16:53, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If the references are all local than it fails WP:CORPDEPTH. While I didn't pick through all of the references, announcements of awards and contracts in local and industry publications smacks of their reprinting press releases coming from the institute. While there's nothing wrong with that it's not reliable journalistic coverage involving fact checking and editorial oversight. Blue Riband► 02:17, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If you are saying that the mentions are all of the researchers who work at the institute, then I think you've proven notability. The institute (as with all academic institutions) is not just a building, but a collection of researchers. If you are saying the researchers are producing notable discoveries, it stands to reason, the institution that groups them together and supports the research is also notable. The research is not possible without the institute. Their coverage can't be separated from the institution. As a general point, this kind of coverage would be most academic institutions, but it seems counter intuitive that most institutions wouldn't be notable.

Per the criteria, let's do a source analysis and see if it has any sources that allow notability.

Kuwaiti Government: Is independent, reliable, and significant Joslin Diabetes institute: Is independent, reliable and significant Arab news: Is international (Based in Saudi Arabia), independent, reliable and signficant. https://www.arabnews.com/node/1647311/lifestyle Oxford business group: Interview, not indepedent, signifcant, reliable: https://oxfordbusinessgroup.com/interview/facing-problem-obg-talks-dr-qais-saleh-al-duwairi-director-general-dasman-diabetes-institute-ddi

As a general point, I think opinions, that are per nom, " couldn't find any citations", "didn't read the sources" are disingenuous, they reflect a lack of attempt to find notability. The deletes arguments have failed to prove a lack of notability. This is clearly a major research institution (with over 300 publications in the past few years) in a nation not known for its research. Removing it would be unjustifiable. PainProf (talk) 04:52, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While a good researcher could find references, I don't see WP:SIGCOV about what is essentially a small, specialized and local hospital. I have argued, often unsuccessfully, that we have to have standards for hospitals. There's hand-waving about helping "patients" (how many?) "across Kuwait" (in the desert?), but no statistics or data that can be verified. As far as I can tell, this is an outpatient research facility. This is an nonredeemable mess. Please convince us otherwise with good evidence. Bearian (talk) 15:24, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An institution that churns out papers isn't indication of notability. Nor are press releases, written by or on the paid orders of it. What others write about them does count and WP:SIGCOV is not present. Ifnord (talk) 20:11, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 16:10, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TZGZ

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

Reviewed as a part of new article review/curation process. A combination of no indication of wp:notability and this is a transient programming block on a TV channel. The sources include some commentary on it on web sites but there is no wp:GNG type coverage probably because this is just a temporary self-name for a temporary grouping of programs on a TV channel. . Thanks to the editor for creating this, but I am just trying to do my job properly in taking this to AFD. North8000 (talk) 13:30, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 21:11, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NTV: The nominator implies that a "programming block on a TV channel" is "transient" and therefore not notable. There is a category of Television programming blocks in the United States, with articles for similar animation blocks like Adult Swim, Cartoon Quest, Toonami and the Disney Afternoon. NTV says that a TV program "is likely to be notable if it airs on a network of radio or television stations (either national or regional in scope), or on a cable television channel with a broad regional or national audience." The guideline doesn't exclude "programming blocks" from consideration; it mentions blocks but doesn't distinguish them as far as notability is concerned. The Deadline coverage is reliable and supports notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 21:10, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NTV is not a policy or a guideline. Also even it does not have anything in it regarding notability of programing blocks. A rationale that the provisions for TV shows should be applied to programming blocks because it did not exclude programming blocks makes no logical sense. North8000 (talk) 18:57, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:25, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 3/4 of the block is Futurama reruns and other web content; it cannot compare to what was cited above as originating its own programming, and by design because of a certain NBC show on at the same time, it is purposefully designed not to be competitive or attract pop culture attention that would distract ratings on a sister network. Stop crufting the encyclopedia with any time with a special name on television. Nate • (chatter) 02:17, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 14:28, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as wholly non-notable. --Lockley (talk) 05:07, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:MILL TV programming, Wikipedia is not a TV guide. Sandstein 17:39, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable programming block. I ran a web search and came up with several hits from industry web sites but all with the same verbiage - which means that they all copied the same press release. Blue Riband► 02:03, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Worldbruce (talk) 16:03, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Manjur Alam

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

Reviewed under new article review process. No wp:gng suitable coverage. Accordingly little or no content. Nothing under the SNG to bypass wp:gng. Article was previously deleted. North8000 (talk) 11:49, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:56, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:56, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- A Google search shows plenty of sources available. I can understand, given its state, why it was nominated but since then I have added more content and sources. He was the mayor of the second largest city of Bangladesh and largest Port city with a population of more than 3 million. He is notable per WP:GNG as there are significant coverage in reliable third party sources. He also meets the second point of WP:NPOL, "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage".Vinegarymass911 (talk) 09:04, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn / keep It's a whole new article and set of sources now, including info / explanation relevant to wp:notability. It was in its previous state for 2 1/2 months and now has major expansion within one day of AFD Happy editing! North8000 (talk) 13:08, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:09, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cats Dancing on Jupiter

AfDs for this article:

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

Despite getting a release after a long delay, this film does not seem to have any significant coverage by notable independent sources. It does not meet WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 11:44, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:57, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lacking notability. In particular, I tried looking up the film's title and director between 2014 and 2016 and didn't find anything that indicated significant coverage during that timeframe. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:24, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable film with no coverage. Donaldd23 (talk) 16:10, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per WP:NOTCLEANUP and WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recreation room

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

The article has existed for 16 years and has never contained a citation. It was flagged as requiring citations 13 years ago!!! and no-one has ever bothered to provide any. Considering the duration, it is reasonable to conclude that no-one will ever be interested in fixing the article to bring it into compliance with Wikipedia policy for the existence of an article (WP:VERIFY). It is being nominated for deletion because the request for citations has failed, having been ignored for such an egregious duration. In addition, the topic is adequately explained at WIKT:recreation_room. — O'Dea (talk) 11:15, 15 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 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:35, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 13:24, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 13:24, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 13:24, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a clearly notable subject. See WP:NEXIST and WP:NOTCLEANUP. Will see what I can do to add citations however the talk page discussion seems relevant here. As Andrew D has stated: refer to the essay WP:BLUE. Lightburst (talk) 13:29, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Obviously a notable topic, but the article as it is now doesn't have value. Some work needs to be done. Does anyone know what textbooks architects and home decorators use in colleges and trade schools to learn about designing a proper recreational room? Are there trade magazines that talk about these things? Dream Focus 13:36, 15 June 2020 (UTC) updated from question to keep because reliable sources have been found and added to the article. Dream Focus 18:34, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AfD is not cleanup, and this subject rather clearly meets GNG. See, for instance, Encouraging experiences of reading and recreation rooms (1899) Designing a Children's Recreation Room We Aren't Nearly So Tired: The Metamorphosis of a Students' Recreation Room Drafting and Design for Architecture & Construction, Material Culture in America: Understanding Everyday Life Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:38, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: "This article has been tagged with citation needed for x years!" is false drama. WP:IMPATIENT says that there is no citation-needed expiration date that makes a subject non-notable. Eddie891 clearly shows that the subject is covered in architecture and sociology texts. — Toughpigs (talk) 14:06, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AfD is not cleanup, and this subject rather clearly meets GNG. I suggest that this would be a good candidate for this week's article for improvement.

Get involved with the WP:TAFI (Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement) project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations

This would be a much more fitting way to resolve this outcome, rather than this misbegotten nomination to delete a clearly notable subject. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:20, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I nominated the article as 7&6=thirteen suggested Lightburst (talk) 15:08, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article may have been unsourced at the time of nomination, but a quick look shows there are plenty of reliable sources regarding rec rooms, several of which have already been added to the article by Lightburst. And, there are even more when you look for sources under some of the other regional names for this type of room like "rumpus room". Rorshacma (talk) 15:24, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Rorshacma. Article is amply sourced, and there are lots more where they came from. Q.E.D., no compliance with WP:Before. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:49, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We cant delete articles for notable topics because their articles are bad.★Trekker (talk) 16:45, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And not even pretended compliance with WP:Before. The existence of the very short Wiktionary article does not make this article an irrelevancy or provide a ground to delete it. Article should be improved, but ample sources exist! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 10:54, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:09, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BLK 55

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

This article is made by the subject related (autobiography). Its log before changing name this and this MRZQ (talk) 11:05, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:20, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable rapper.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:40, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Charitably it is too soon for an article on this rapper because so far he is in purely self-promotional mode. All that can be found are the typical streaming and social media sites where anyone can upload their own stuff. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:01, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:TOOSOON as there are no albums yet and there is a lack of reliable sources coverage. For example there is no entry for him at AllMusic, imv

Atlantic306 (talk)

I know this belongs in a different spot. But since you brought it up, I thought I would toss this out there. We really need to stop considering AllMusic as a reliable source. It may be a decent source for track names and times. But for anything else, there are far too many errors and omissions to be considered reliable. Additionally, the way AllMusic gets its data makes it less than reliable, solely because it only adds what people submit to it. Furthermore, once they put the data up, they allow user edits. It may not be as fluid as Wikipedia, but everything is editable.2601:983:827F:6B20:9D38:4027:AF81:D46E (talk) 12:18, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It was once a terrific source when it was print only with dedicated editorial staff with oversight. For 5 or 10 years it has evolved in it's quest to meet its stated mission of being an online database/resource for all music that is sold anywhere. Strange thing, though, they still maintain editorial oversight for select entries, so it's really hard to discern between the good and the bad sometimes. I advocate for the default being unreliable unless the specific exceptions can be cited. However, AfD discussions among other editors take the opposite view. And Their's are the official policy currently in effect. ShelbyMarion (talk) 15:49, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 2601:983:827F:6B20:9D38:4027:AF81:D46E (talk) 12:18, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RMI-8

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

Most information about this aeroplane is fake. There is insufficient WP:RS to WP:VERIFY the slightest WP:NOTABILITY.

My prod was removed on the basis that the fakery is not proven. However the WP:PROVEIT policy puts the burden of proof on the addition of content, not its removal. The case for fakery is strong, so I present it here in more detail.

Some kind of project study probably existed, see for example this list. But there is no verifiable evidence that it was ever built.

The two cited sources do not adequately establish the status of the design, never mind its notability. One, Hegedus & Ozsvath, is not a viable source anyway. It cites the other, Bonhard et. al., as its only source. It acknowledges it is publishing fake photos but does not realise that the drawings and much other data are drawn from equally unreliable Internet sources - fact cannot be untangled from fiction. The only RS we have is a passing mention in a book on the Hungarian Army. Internet searches have not shown up any more RS, but they have found discussions of fakery.

Discussions at Marton XV-01 on www2aircraft.net and Marton X/V (RMI-8) on Secret Projects reveal that:

Slava Trudu created the best-known fake image and posted it on Photobucket in 2009. He based it on a model which he had made from a resin kit* and posted on the WhatIf modellers forum here.
- The tail design probably originated with Fokker D.XXIII
- Some fuselage detail appears to come from the Saab 21
- The ground crew were clipped from an image on Photoshop, uploaded by Stava Trudu (but later blocked from public view), follow a link on ww2aircraft to [24] here.

These and other Internet snippets do suggest that the wing may have been under construction when the Allies bombed it out, and some numbers may or may not go back to the one known WP:RS. But beyond that one apparent mention in a book on the Hungarian Army by Bonhard et. al., there is nothing to WP:VERIFY the slightest notability.

* For information: short-run resin kits of obscure projected aircraft designs are very common these days, especially from East European kit suppliers. Many are highly speculative and/or inaccurate. They are too niche a product to establish any kind of notability. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:42, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Hegedus & Ozsvath have another image on page 171 that appears not to have come from Slava Trudu, and looks rather less like a photoshop job. We cannot judge the reliability of a source solely by what sources they cite. We don't necessarily know what assessment they made of the sources and what other sources they used but didn't list. That's why we use sources from reliable publishers with a reputation for fact checking. We rely on them to do the assessment. I'm not seeing any evidence that this paper was published in a peer reviewed journal, but it is on the website of the Hungarian Military Logistics Association. According to their homepage, they are associated with the Hungarian National Archives. Make of that what you will. SpinningSpark 12:10, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Had you translated the image caption "8-9. ábra: A Marton X/V harci repülőgép makettje fotómontázsokon" (Figures 8-9: Photomontages of a model Marton X/V fighter aircraft) you would have found the acknowledgement of fakery to which I refer in my rationale; note that the acknowledgement refers to both images, 8 and 9. At least some of the drawings of it in the paper are also recent concoctions by Internet funsters and those are not acknowledged. Who knows which text factiods might not accompany them or whether any drawings are genuine. You might suggest that this paper is less mixed-up over its verifiability than I do, but the WP:PROVEIT policy puts the burden of proof and clearing of doubt on those who wish to demonstrate verifiability and notability, not the other way round. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:44, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - With the only "proof" of its existence being an obviously photoshopped, I support deletion until a reliable source can be found that confirms its existence. - ZLEA _T\^C 14:15, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A translation of citation 1 of the article states in part "In the field of further development of the two-engine destroyer category, the Hungarian development engineers also followed the German trend when Marton Dezső - MartonVilmos' pair X / V twin-engine experimental combat aircraft was built". Later it states " The experimental aircraft was operated in Ferihegy, in the workshop of the RMI (Aviation Technical Institute),destroyed by an American air strike in April 1944." Unless I'm missing something it appears (according to this source) one was built, ran and destroyed. - Samf4u (talk) 14:32, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that the article contains images of models that have been photoshopped to look real, I wouldn't take the source too seriously. It appears to be based off of internet rumors, not surviving records. - ZLEA _T\^C 14:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rumours indeed. Stories vary from the wings part-built to the plane nearing completion to the thing flying. The faked images are almost always produced in support of the more exaggerated claims. And the claim of flight we have here is the most exaggerated of all. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:57, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:HOAX. I've added it to WP:HOAXLIST. b uidhe 08:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Buidhe: I don't think this should be on the hoax list. There is some (thin) evidence that this was a real project. Everything else is confusion caused by some over-excitable model makers. SpinningSpark 14:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  I'd agree with Spinningspark. This is not so much a Wikipedia hoax as exaggeration out of all proportion in typical Internet style. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - "For the purpose of this list, a hoax is defined as a clear and deliberate attempt to deceptively present false information as fact." It seems clear that that is happening (eg photoshapped images) even if the subject technically exists. b uidhe 20:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Exacly. It's not clearly deliberately deceptive. Neither our article nor the source presents any photographs as anything other than what they are. Our article marks the images as models and the source marks its (different) images as photomontages. SpinningSpark 21:17, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      
      @Buidhe: The list is not for all hoaxes, but specifically for "Wikipedia hoaxes" also referred to as "hoax articles". That is, hoaxes originally created on Wikipedia. Hoax articles often betray themselves by the style of editing, this is not true of articles about other hoaxes, such as Piltdown Man. There is no suggestion that this hoax was brewed up specifically on Wikipedia. See also this conversation on my user talk page a few days before I posted this AfD. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:32, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't think that there any evidence that this is an actual hoax, but it doesn't seem to have been a project that got very far. There are insufficient reliable refs to show WP:GNG or to write much about it. - Ahunt (talk) 13:03, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:08, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Refan

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

Lacks criteria given by WP:ORGCRIT, has not been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:28, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:28, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:59, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article cites some sources, but combined they do not constitute the level of in-depth, independent coverage needed to establish the topic as meeting WP:NCORP. A search for more coverage in English sources turns up next to no mentions, and a check for sources in Bulgarian and Russian turns up some product reviews/press releases and not alot else. SamHolt6 (talk) 15:55, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:43, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clutch (company)

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Sources are either passing mentions, press releases, or the company's own website. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 14:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 14:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article is heavily refbombed, so here is a source-by-source analysis:

Extended content

Company's own website
Not significant coverage, per WP:CORPDEPTH
Not significant coverage – single paragraph on company funding, and then a paragraph copied from the company's website
Not significant coverage, per WP:CORPDEPTH
Not significant coverage, per WP:CORPDEPTH
Company's own website
Press release
Press release
Press release
Company's own website
Press release
Not significant coverage, per WP:CORPDEPTH
Not a reliable source – company blog post
Probably a press release
Company's own website
Press release
Not significant coverage, doesn't seem like a reliable source
Press release
Not significant coverage, doesn't seem like a reliable source
Not an independent source
Company's own website
Company's own website
Press release
Company's own website
Not significant coverage – one sentence mention
Not significant coverage – one sentence mention
Not significant coverage – doesn't even mention the company
Company's own website
Company's own website
Company's own website
Company's own website
One of the better sources in the article; however, it is focused on a specific survey by Visual Objects and not the Clutch parent company

Nothing here establishes the company's notability. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 14:42, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:56, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this page seems not relevant and delectable –garbaonzo
Hi! This company is pretty much the main company in the world that provides B2B reviews which seems notable — TripAdvisor, Yelp and more have pages, as does sites like Epinions which seems much less notable. Also, they're a relatively influential business data publisher — would it be better if I provide more links to citations like number 32 which you highlight as a better one? I can go through and add those — I thought press releases counted as a third party source and they're more direct, but I can go back and add more references showing third party media coverage on their work.
It's my first time writing an article on a company, so let me know what I need so I can make this work! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmillers82 (talk • contribs) 13:26, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 10:18, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. - Hatchens (talk) 07:23, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : majority of the sources cited are the company's website. The few reliable sources are press releases. The content is promotional. CryforJustice (talk) 16:11, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : I added new sources to help establish notability (see 12, 13, and 14). If these help to establish notability, I can add more! Let me know what's best here — again I've never written a company page before and am trying to make this work so I'd appreciate feedback to improve the page. Mmillers82 (talk) 01:52, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
None of the sources you added provide significant coverage of the company—only single sentence mentions. This is not sufficient to meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for company's, which is one of the strictest notability guidelines. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:25, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I added citation 16 of significant coverage, and'll go back and add some more real soon! Thanks for the help Lord Bolingbroke Mmillers82 (talk) 15:06, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That new citation is entirely based on a company announcement on raising funds with quotations and information provided by the company. Fails the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:44, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched myself I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:44, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:26, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fedena

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

Largely unsourced and promotional article about a software that is maintained by the company's marketing team User:Fedenamarketing. Very little coverage in reliable secondary sources. No reason it can't be covered on the company article. M4DU7 (talk) 09:45, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 09:45, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 09:45, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 09:45, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article has too much primary sources and WP:UGC. Koridas ^talk? 04:52, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Definitely WP:PROMOTIONAL. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 01:36, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Captain Galaxy (talk) 13:41, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Bianchi

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

A contested CSD A7, previously deleted article which I fails GNG and WP:NPOL, whose only elected offices are city councillor and mayor of a regional city. Being a foreign born politician does not make them notable. JW 1961 Talk 09:45, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. JW 1961 Talk 09:45, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, I created this article because I think he meets WP:GNG, as the first naturalized Japanese served as a city council mayor in Japan. But he is not so famous in the English world, so searching his name in English may not hit.--そらみみ (talk) 10:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:00, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is exceptionally rare for a foreign born person to hold elected in Japan and one who has both done so and used their mandate to make significant changes in city government is certainly significant. The number of sources provided suggests that the subject clerks pass GNG too. Mccapra (talk) 12:36, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources 2, 4, 5, 13, and 17 (as of this revision) constitute significant coverage. Nardog (talk) 14:38, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:GNG due to the sources mentioned by User:nardog. Zoozaz1 (talk) 21:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Feel free to close early with no objections from me JW 1961 Talk 13:37, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Already deleted by User:Primefac per WP:G12 (non-admin closure) -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 21:41, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

University of nairobi dean of students

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

Borderline G11, doesn't qualify for A7 as it is part of educational institution. The office of the dean of students is not independently notable of University of Nairobi itself. Eostrix (talk) 09:18, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I CSDed it after the AFD nomination as it is G12 copyright violation of [25].--Eostrix (talk) 09:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Eostrix (talk) 09:18, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Eostrix (talk) 09:18, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Eostrix (talk) 09:18, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Emir Hamzic

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

Contested PROD, non-notable tennis player who fails WP:NTENNIS and WP:NCOLLATH. Also fails WP:GNG as all the sources in the article are either self-published or WP:ROUTINE coverage of non-notable events. Also feels like this article was created by someone with a WP:COI to promote his coaching career. Iffy★Chat -- 09:04, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:19, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:19, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable tennis player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:15, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete - Passes WP:Routine winning national award for men's tennis player of the year along with winning national championship, notable tennis player. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tennischeck (talk • contribs) 16:24, 15 June 2020 (UTC) — Tennischeck (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Emir Hamzic is an all American national champion with viral recognition for accomplishments via youtube. (Sports35 (talk) 17:17, 15 June 2020 (UTC))— Sports35 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Confirmed sockpuppet of Tennischeck[reply]

~~Don't delete~~ - Sources are not self-published, credible. Page was harassed in previous edits seems as if page is being attacked in effort to sabotage, AFD notice came right after. Too harsh of a nomination considering coaching career was addressed slightly as the article is not focused on this but his achievement of winning a national title as a men’s tennis player. (Tennischeck (talk) 17:45, 15 June 2020 (UTC))[reply]
Delete - non-notable by all tennis standards. Also agree with COI feel. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:10, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Do not delete - Disagree with COI. Just like Brad Gilbert former professional American tennis player, Emir Hamzic also played for junior college winning a national championship under the “National Junior College Athletic Association” where he became an All American. Notable Tennis player by Amateur sports person: college athletes, Passes WP: Routine through national awards and championships. (Sports35 (talk) 19:47, 15 June 2020 (UTC)) Confirmed sockpuppet of Tennischeck[reply]

Delete - per nom. I cannot see anything notable about this individual. Youtube is not a reliable sourceVViking_TalkEdits 19:53, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Don’t delete~~ - per nom, this individual is notable due to winning national championship, becoming an All American and receiving national award of 2017 NJCAA Division Tennis Player of the Year. (Tennischeck (talk) 20:02, 15 June 2020 (UTC))[reply]

*Stop deletion - I can recognize notability of Emir Hamzic and justify due to similar article “Brad Gilbert” who is also published in the encyclopedia for winning a junior college national championship achieving the status of All American. (Tennisloverforever (talk) 20:34, 15 June 2020 (UTC))— Tennisloverforever (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Confirmed sockpuppet of Tennischeck[reply]

I suspect a lot of gaming the system by the same sockpuppet user. If you are the same user, believe me it will be easily found out, your accounts will be blocked, and your votes will be removed. If that is the case i would self-remove them before that happens. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:21, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Fyunck(click): Way ahead of you on that. Iffy★Chat -- 21:25, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Non-notable tennis player, and fails WP:GNG. --Wolbo (talk) 08:50, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable, and sources would struggle to meet WP:RS. LizardJr8 (talk) 04:06, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coverage seems to be routine sports reporting and I see no accomplishments that meet WP:NTENNIS. Being part of the pair that won second doubles at the national junior college division 3 tournament isn't enough to show notability as it isn't even close to competing at the highest level of college tennis. Papaursa (talk) 20:02, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 21:47, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Stick

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

Unnotable business executive - fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:57, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:14, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:14, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing comes up on google books apart from a single mention. Nothing I can see on google scholar. OsFish (talk) 09:17, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:29, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Waving a dead chicken (over it)

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

Contested PROD. Sources in the article are web-based dictionary definitions, and a search for other sources returns the same, or passing mentions. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 07:19, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Searches bring up a decent number of "hacker slang dictionaries" and the like, but few are actually reliable and I couldn't find anything to support more than a dictionary definition. The 2014 deprod cited "291000 Google hits" which is both irrelevant and couldn't be reproduced using the exact phrase. –dlthewave ☎ 02:01, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The phrase is more of a joke than "jargon". The mentions of Kapparot and Diogenes are... not helpful, let's just say, and add to an overall air of middle-school prank. Nothing here belongs in an encyclopedia. --Lockley (talk) 21:15, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and nothing suggests this could be expanded into a more detailed encyclopedia article whose sources demonstrate notability or something more significant than a definition. ComplexRational (talk) 21:38, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:20, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Lipstick Jungle music

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

I do not believe this list meets the WP:LISTN requirement. I do not believe there is enough coverage in independent, reliable sources for this to meet general notability standards either. Aoba47 (talk) 04:54, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 04:54, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 04:55, 15 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 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:10, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It's just a trivial list of songs. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:47, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Two season series with little lasting pop culture impact doesn't need what's the equivalent of a 'check out tonight's song list on NBC.com' callout; this isn't standard with television articles. Nate • (chatter) 20:05, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing notable about a list of small lists of songs that can only be sourced by search results. Ajf773 (talk) 09:37, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:08, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Car Mein Music Baja

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

Non notable songs that fails WP:NSINGLE. Signature 13:22, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Signature 13:22, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:32, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:19, 15 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, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2019-05 ✍️ create

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 21:49, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chennaikku Oru Isai Vanakkam

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

Non notable songs that fails WP:NSINGLE. Signature 13:24, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Signature 13:24, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:32, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - None of the sources are reliable at all. This subject is not sufficiently notable enough for a Wikipedia article. 🌴Koridas🌴 (Negotiate) 22:52, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

**Source assessment table:**
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://web.archive.org/web/20121025063524/http://www.scienzagiovane.unibo.it/English/tsunami/5-tsunami-2004.html	Independent	Does not even mention the subject at all or verify the claim	Does not even mention the subject at all	✘ No
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/12/world/asia/12japan.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0	Independent	Does not even mention the subject at all or verify the claim	Does not even mention the subject at all	✘ No
https://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/chennai/2012/oct/13/a-musical-ode-to-resilient-chennai-414742.html	Independent	value not understood I'm not quite sure. Only three sentences mention it. The rest talks about the Tsunami.	Only three sentences mention it.	✘ No
https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/chennai/a-musical-tribute-to-chennai/article4016215.ece	Interviews the writers of the song	Primary	Entire article mentions the song	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:19, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per above. Barely found anything about the song. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 13:18, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, promotional, improperly sourced. --Lockley (talk) 20:30, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Gentleman (1993 film). (non-admin closure) b uidhe 01:48, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chikku Bukku Rayile

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

Non notable songs that fails WP:NSINGLE. Signature 13:25, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Signature 13:25, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:30, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gentleman (1993 film): It's not necessary for a song from a soundtrack to have its own article. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 03:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:18, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Whether or not to create a redirect is up to editors. Sandstein 17:45, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chithi Na Koi Sandesh

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

Non notable songs that fails WP:NSINGLE. Signature 13:26, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Signature 13:26, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:30, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dushman (1998 film): It's not necessary for a song from a soundtrack to have its own article. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 03:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Superastig, What are you talking about? We have Mrs Robinson, What Would Brian Boitano Do?, and a lot more songs from soundtracks. Koridas ^talk? 02:39, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Koridas, per WP:NSONG, Songs that do not rise to notability for an independent article should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song. Chithi Na Koi Sandesh is not a single. The song is part of the soundtrack of Dushman. Therefore, since the article is not notable enough, redirecting it to the film is the best option. So, don't bother arguing with me over this matter. I already have explained enough. So, I won't reply any further. My vote stands no matter what. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 03:06, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Superastig, But that's not even close to what you said. You said it's not necessary for a song from a soundtrack to have its own article, which I strongly disagree with. I was proving you wrong. I don't vote keep, I'm just disagreeing with your opinion. Koridas ^talk? 03:11, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Koridas, I don't mind if you agree or disagree with my views. When I said it's not necessary for a song from a soundtrack to have its own article, for me, that means that the song is not notable enough to have a stand-alone article. Unless there are enough independent sources about the song. Therefore, Songs that do not rise to notability for an independent article should redirect to another relevant article. So, no matter how many times you argue with me, it is really close to what I said. I really know what I'm saying here. I rest my case. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 04:06, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, if you're thinking of arguing with me any further, don't bother responding at all. This is not worth arguing since arguing with me over my views only makes matters worse. Everyone has his own views in every AfD. So, it's best to respect it than to waste time arguing over it. This discussion is over. I won't reply anymore. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 04:06, 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 03:18, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Absolutely every single source is a passing mention. Koridas ^talk? 02:39, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Khal Nayak. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 01:37, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Choli Ke Peechhe

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

Non notable songs that fails WP:NSINGLE. Signature 13:26, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Signature 13:26, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:30, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Khal Nayak: It's not necessary for a song from a soundtrack to have its own article. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 03:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:18, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Naam Shabana. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 01:47, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zubi Zubi

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

Non notable songs that fails WP:NSINGLE. Signature 13:30, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Signature 13:30, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:33, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Naam Shabana: It's not necessary for a song from a soundtrack to have its own article. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 02:00, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:17, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Bluffmaster!. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 01:46, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Say Na Say Na

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

Non notable songs that fails WP:NSINGLE. Signature 13:32, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Signature 13:32, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:33, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bluffmaster!: There are a few articles which talk about people dancing to this song. Other than that, I barely found anything about the song. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 02:11, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:17, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Laung Laachi. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 01:46, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Laung Laachi (song)

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

Non notable songs that fails WP:NSINGLE. Signature 13:36, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Signature 13:36, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:43, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Laung Laachi: It's best to talk about the song in the article, since it has a section for the soundtrack. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 02:00, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:16, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:23, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So What (Fantana song)

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

Non-notable single failing WP:NSONG. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 15:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 15:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 15:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NSONG. The sources used in the article are largely unreliable, and those that are marginally reliable are about the singer and not this particular song. The article says the song was a big hit with widespread airplay but offers no evidence, and the song can only be found in routine streaming services and promotional announcements. Also I do not recommend redirecting, because in my belief it makes more sense to redirect a song title to its relevant album rather than the musician's article, and in this case there is no album. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:50, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fantana (musician): The song has been mentioned in a number of articles, but was barely talked about. Easily fails WP:NSONG. My vote stands. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 03:36, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:16, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ to Fantana (musician) - per Superastig. Foxnpichu (talk) 15:35, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The singer's article has now been deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fantana (musician) so there is nowhere to redirect this song article to. It may now actually be eligible for speedy deletion per WP:A9, and even if not, the two "redirect" voters above concluded that the song is non-notable, so deletion is the way to go. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:25, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I change to Delete. Foxnpichu (talk) 23:47, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Changed vote, per WP:A9. I voted to redirect it w/o knowing that the artist's article was nominated for deletion. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 03:00, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:24, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Girls Hate On Girls (Fantana)

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

Non-notable single failing WP:NSONG. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 15:53, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 15:53, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 15:53, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NSONG. The article uses sources that are generally about the singer and not this song, and the song itself is only available on the routine streaming services where anybody can upload their own stuff. There is no evidence for the article's claim that this song was a big hit with national influence. Also I do not recommend redirecting, because in my belief it makes more sense to redirect a song title to its relevant album rather than the musician's article, and in this case there is no album. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:52, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fantana (musician): The song has been mentioned in a number of articles, but was barely talked about. Easily fails WP:NSONG. My vote stands. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 03:36, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:15, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The singer's article has now been deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fantana (musician) so there is nowhere to redirect this song article to. It may now actually be eligible for speedy deletion per WP:A9, and even if not, the "redirect" voter above concluded that the song is non-notable, so deletion is the way to go. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:24, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' as non-notable. --Lockley (talk) 11:48, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Changed vote, per WP:A9. I voted to redirect it w/o knowing that the artist's article was nominated for deletion. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 03:00, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No consensus about redirect; all are free to create it and then to contest it at RfD. Sandstein 17:46, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DoQmentaries

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

Documentary is not notable. The article is unsourced, and I tried to look for sources, but none of them were close to being reliable. Delete as a non-notable television show 🌴Koridas🌴 (Negotiate) 18:58, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. 🌴Koridas🌴 (Negotiate) 18:58, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. 🌴Koridas🌴 (Negotiate) 18:58, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to GMA News and Public Affairs: Per nominator. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 02:00, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete, don't redirect: no mention in target article. b uidhe 01:44, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There's an article which discusses one of the show's episodes. The show was also mentioned here as well. Therefore, my redirect stands. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 11:26, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:25, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gilda Pianelli

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

WP:BLP article with no sourcing. Recently brought back from PROD. Article reeks of self promotion, and I can find no coverage in any WP:RS. Mbdfar (talk) 02:59, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:10, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:10, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete removing IMDB as an unreliable source makes this an unsourced BLP. SportingFlyer T·C 00:33, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:15, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The filmography section of this article only contained three bluelinks. The wiki articles on “The Girl Code” and “The Last Minute” don’t give her any credits and neither do the IMDb articles on the same film. The third blue link for “Suicide Blonde” was a misdirect so I’ve redlinked it. There’s no wiki article. The IMDb article for this film lists her as Casting Director, not Producer as the wiki article says. Overall a clear notability fail. Mccapra (talk) 05:05, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete IMDb is not a reliable source. All biographies of living people need reliable sourcing. This article has no such reliable sourcing and thus must be deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to George Floyd protests in Tennessee. Sandstein 17:47, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nashville Autonomous Zone

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

This page has many faults and issues, but I think the most notable one is that this said "autonomous zone" doesn't even exist. All the existing reports say protestors are *camping out* near the capitol, not that there has actually been an autonomous zone created like the one in Seattle. The "Nashville Autonomous Zone" is more or less an idea, and not something that is occurring or even existent at this point. There are no verifiable sources that actually prove that there is even an occupation of Nashville or even any large number of protesters currently. Monstarules (talk) 02:41, 15 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 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:54, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This has more than enough media coverage to warrant an article. While smaller in size than the CHAZ, the NAZ activists declared an Autonomous Zone and have occupied it in defiance of State laws + Police. Juno (talk) 05:38, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to George Floyd protests in Tennessee per WP:NOPAGE. Despite some coverage, that does not mandate a separate article. Reywas92^Talk 04:14, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please provide additional sources. There is zero proof that an actual zone exists outside of Heavy.com attempting to name it as such, and it is outweighed by several other sources that you yourself have referenced in the article which state there has been an attempt, and not that an actual zone has been established. There is also no continuing news coverage of such a zone existing. Protestors merely defying police orders doesn't make this an autonomous zone, and you know it. Monstarules (talk) 09:53, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Among others: Tennessee Lookout:Sunday night, protestors were still camped on the plaza, on which they displayed a banner christening the space Ida B. Wells Plaza in honor of the Black journalist News Channel 5 Nashville:As of 8 a.m. Saturday, members of the group were still at the site peacefully protesting. WKRN:A few protesters remain outside the Capitol after taking over Legislative Plaza on Friday night. Some stayed the night Friday into Saturday at the ‘Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone’ despite warnings from Governor Bill Lee that it would not be tolerated. Tennessean:Activists and protesters gathered Friday night outside the Tennessee state Capitol to claim the space as an autonomous zone Nashville Scene:Protesters set up tents on the steps of the Tennessee State Capitol and declared it an autonomous zone WSMV:Protesters formed what they called "Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone" outside the Tennessee State Capitol. It was part of the "Free Capitol Hill" rally. Juno (talk) 16:10, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The media is reporting on these happenings as the “Nashville Autonomous Zone” and this topic clearly meets notability requirements. If you don’t like the name of the article, I suggest you go through the WP:RM process to try to change it to something else. However, be warned that the widespread use of “Nashville Autonomous Zone” by the media means that the title of this article is probably going to stay too. If you find the content of the article to be problematic, the best way to fix it is probably to improve it with well-sourced, verifiable material. Mysteryman blue 09:05, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please provide sources to these alleged "several other outlets", otherwise your argument for keeping the article is invalid. There is zero proof that an actual zone exists outside of Heavy.com attempting to name it as such, and it is outweighed by several other sources referenced in the article who say there had been an attempt, and not that an actual zone has been established. Monstarules (talk) 09:53, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quite frankly, whether or not the NAZ is actually autonomous does not impact whether or not this topic is notable. The Principality of Sealand is almost universally recognized to not be an independent nation, but it still has a Wikipedia article despite the fact that it is not a "real" country. If you think that this article should instead be called something you believe to be more accurate like George Floyd protests in Nashville, you're welcome to propose renaming the article. You can even provide evidence within the article that the NAZ is not truly autonomous. In either case, though, the NAZ (by that or any other name) would still hold notability as a group of protests, or even as an attempted autonomous zone. There are a variety of sources in the article, but you can also find some more at this NewsLookup result. Aside from a large number of less reliable sources, I count sources from Fox News, the Tennessean, and lots of local news outlets. Mysteryman blue 19:59, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merger or (weak) Keep. A lot of un-credible sources are covering NAZ, thus they should be ignored - the credible sources covering it seem to be mentioning the attempts to form NAZ and not covering as it as a truly formed autonomous area. I would recommend a redirect to Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone#National, where other attempts to form autonomous zones are mentioned, be created. A merger with the Tennessee State Capitol, George Floyd protests in Tennessee, or Ida B. Wells#Legacy and honors pages could also work. If the page is kept it probably should be re-named to something like "George Floyd protests in Nashville", "Nashville Autonomous Zone (proposed state)", or "Nashville Autonomous Zone (protest)" since it doesn't seem truly formed (unlike CHAZ). Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 22:49, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment@User:Mt.FijiBoiz, as an update, according to the Nashville Scene the NAZ soldiered on through Sunday and according to the Chattanooga Times Free Press they were there Through Monday, 9&10 News discussing new TN legislation, saying the NAZ was still up this Monday. There has been more coverage in RSs since this article was first published: AP news discusses new TN legislation in response to the NAZ, Nashville 4 News update from Monday, WKRN update published today. I will work to get all of these updates + new RSs into the article. Juno (talk) 20:00, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to George Floyd protests in Tennessee – The "NAZ" doesn't have the same notability as the CHAZ and doesn't have much coverage other than being a one-day copycat attempt. I see no sources that prove that the "NAZ" still exists. Same reason why Kharkiv People's Republic doesn't have its own article, while its counterparts in Donetsk and Luhansk do... Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 00:41, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment@User:Nice4What, as an update, according to the Nashville Scene the NAZ soldiered on through Sunday and according to the Chattanooga Times Free Press they were there Through Monday, 9&10 News discussing new TN legislation, saying the NAZ was still up this Monday. There has been more coverage in RSs since this article was first published: AP news discusses new TN legislation in response to the NAZ, Nashville 4 News update from Monday, WKRN update published today. I will work to get all of these updates + new RSs into the article. Juno (talk) 20:00, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The entire article could still be a subsection on the George Floyd protests in Tennessee article, which is already pretty short. WP:NOPAGE. I've gone ahead and merged some content. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 21:29, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merger is the way to go IMO. I've added some content to Ida B. Wells#Legacy and honors. Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 21:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have an article saying that the government has told protesters to pack up and leave. This article is dated June 17, 2020. Please read [26]. I think today marks the end of NAZ. 76.223.244.197 (talk) 15:33, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

rip NAZ. Long Live The NAZ. Today could very well be the end and I'll keep looking for sources and updating the article. Even if the Zone only lasted 6 days I believe that it got enough coverage to merit an article. Juno (talk) 04:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, changing stance to Merge Juno, all I'm reading and seeing in your sources is that protesters are claiming that a zone exists whilst no actual solid proof of a zone existing does. It was an attempt, and it ultimately failed. It was a weak occupational protest that was originally attended by a few thousand people but only a few protestors remained actually camping out in Nashville. A lot of the language in the NAZ article itself is also running based off of assumption and is unsourced. You're probably not going to like the outcome regardless whether this is kept, deleted or merged. I understand you think you are doing a great service here for public information, but this issue just doesn't really merit it's own page. Monstarules (talk) 17:43, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - appears to pass GNG. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 17:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with George Floyd protests in Tennessee RopeTricks (talk) 23:08, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Onnig Cavoukian

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:53, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:53, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:53, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:26, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:26, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, portraits by Cavoukian are held in collections of National Portrait Gallery, London - here (4 portaits), University of Toronto Faculty of Music - here (2 portraits), University of Calgary - here (4 portraits). Coolabahapple (talk) 08:30, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the collections above, the stamps, and the sources I just added to the article. Theredproject (talk) 12:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and not notable - BeamAlexander (talk) 11:41, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The first reference listed here (which I have detailed a bit further, and linked) is a 2-page feature in the largest newspaper in the country. Some of the other references also appear to be significant, easily meeting GNG. WP:BEFORE failure - did User:Sportsfan 1234 and User:BeamAlexander25 read that Toronto Star article? Nfitz (talk) 01:31, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll note that the article is not available through the Star's website. I can access it through their Search print archives link which takes me to proquest, courtesy of the Toronto Public Library. It is non-trivial coverage of the subject. GNG is met. Keep. Vexations (talk) 10:39, 14 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, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources added by other editors are great for verifiability and notability. Mysteryman blue 09:09, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) Koridas ^talk? 22:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Luxembourg (band)

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

Almost nothing in the article is sourced. The article fails WP:NBAND,as no significant coverage was found. David Shaw may be notable, but this band has absolutely nothing about it, according to my WP:BEFORE, the band is not notable. 🌴Koridas🌴 (Negotiate) 02:39, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:47, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:47, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Aside from the sourcing in the article being horrible and not independent, I could not find anything else. Since this band have a simple name, trying to search with the keywords "Luxembourg band" is pretty much a dead end. So I tried with their albums, but couldn't find anything beside the unreliable stuff (Last.fm etc) and stuff where only the words are mentioned. I couldn't find any RS. Non-notable band. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 20:16, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please note a bunch of references have now been added to the article. I point you in particular at the Independent on Sunday review by Simon Price, and the Drowned in Sound, which would in particular seem to meet WP:MUSIC criteria 1. Sure this band isn't famous famous, but I think if you sat down with the British newspaper archive search and a stack of back issues of the NME you'd be surprised what you might be able to find in addition. 81.107.168.129 (talk) 14:26, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Musicology. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 01:43, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of music and musicology journals

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

NotDirectory - seems like an umremarkable list of a very niche topic.   Kadzi   (talk) 21:12, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.   Kadzi   (talk) 21:12, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 21:23, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 21:23, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Musicology. Even if there are more journals it would fit there very well. Reywas92^Talk 22:11, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Reywas92. Mccapra (talk) 06:03, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Category:Music journals covers topic. I created it in error and I see that it is a duplication of effort. Was not sure how to add List of Music journals to the Category:Lists_of_academic_journals. Wynlib40(talk) 08:29, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:13, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If a category is ok then a list is too, per WP:CLN. The nomination's description of music as a niche topic is absurd. There are entire books about this, such as Sourcebook for Research in Music; Bibliographical Handbook of American Music; Introduction to Research in Music; Writing about Music; &c. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:20, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Musicology. This is not a question of whether this article can be a stand-alone list, it’s a question of whether it should. Given the short length of this article, and given how Musicology has plenty of room for it, a merge is clearly the right option here. Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:13, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The discussion cites sources to support GNG for both articles; and the promotional issues are a matter of, as pointed out, WP:DINC (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:38, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Virgil's Root Beer

AfDs for this article:

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

This article seems to be written like an advertisement, and is not very notable. I am also pairing this with Reed's, as these two articles both have the same problem with a neutral point of view (and read like an advertisement for their company). I-82-I (talk) 02:02, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:17, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:17, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Reed's. There is no third-party sourced material to merge otherwise that would have been my recommendation. There are sufficient sources to oppose outright deletion. BiologicalMe (talk) 15:51, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Change to keep both based on Cunard's more thorough search. BiologicalMe (talk) 12:41, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Virgil's Root Beet for sure. I would argue that even Reed's might is potentially deletable; the only coverage of it is in beverage industry-specific articles (questionably notable from my reading of WP:AUD), and the rest of the sources seem to be primary. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 20:29, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I based my assessment on available sources, not sources used. I did not think there were enough third-party sources to support a stand-alone article for Virgil's as individual product, but there are some.example The Reed's ginger ale campaign that named Canada Dry garnered modestly broad coverage.[27][28]. The failed merger with Jones Soda shows that coverage was not just a blip.[29][30][31] I probably should have proposed a technical closure on the basis of a inappropriate WP:BUNDLE since an individual product (featured over the parent company) and a publicly traded manufacturer whose eponymous product happens to be ginger beer is not "nearly identical to root beer", and the early editors differ. BiologicalMe (talk) 14:16, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Virgil's Root Beer per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

Asimov, Eric (2000-07-19). "SIPS; Root Beer With Authentic Roots". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2020-06-18. Retrieved 2020-06-18.
Latempa, Susan (2005-08-17). "Complex, nuanced: This is soda pop". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2020-06-18. Retrieved 2020-06-18.
Julian, Sheryl (1995-09-03). "Top of the Pops". The Boston Globe. Archived from the original on 2020-06-18. Retrieved 2020-06-18 – via Newspapers.com.
Chase, Katie Johnston (2006-09-20). "Soda floats on memories of childhood". The Boston Globe. Archived from the original on 2020-06-18. Retrieved 2020-06-18 – via Newspapers.com.
Hall, Stephen F. (2000) [1992]. From Kitchen to Market: Selling Your Gourmet Food Specialty (3 ed.). Chicago: Dearborn Trade Publishing (Kaplan, Inc.). p. 156. ISBN 1-57410-138-2. Retrieved 2020-06-18.
Meadow, James B. (1998-04-19). "Root Brewed New Gourmet Versions Bubbling Up Everywhere". Rocky Mountain News. Archived from the original on 2020-06-18. Retrieved 2020-06-18.
Weinraub, Judith; Wax, Alan J. (1996-10-08). "Cheers!: The Drinks of the Day (Or Perhaps the Decade?) Are Root Beer And Tequila". News & Record. Archived from the original on 2020-06-18. Retrieved 2020-06-18.
Cohen, Julie (2016-05-30). "Float this idea: Root beer means summer". Houston Chronicle. Archived from the original on 2020-06-18. Retrieved 2020-06-18.
Koeppel, Fredric (1998-02-18). "Top Root Beers Mix Homegrown, Exotic". The Commercial Appeal. Archived from the original on 2020-06-18. Retrieved 2020-06-18.
Parrish, Marlene (2008-08-14). "Vast variety of root beers raises question: 'How now, brown cow?'". Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Archived from the original on 2020-06-18. Retrieved 2020-06-18.
Thompson, Susan H. (1994-08-04). "Stand by Your Pan". The Tampa Tribune. Archived from the original on 2020-06-18. Retrieved 2020-06-18.
Wax, Alan J. (1996-10-08). "Root Beer Isn't All Kid Stuff, Test Finds". News & Record. Archived from the original on 2020-06-18. Retrieved 2020-06-18.
"English Soda Follows Trend". Knoxville News Sentinel. 1994-07-31. Archived from the original on 2020-06-18. Retrieved 2020-06-18.
Stambor, Zak (2008-10-29). "Brewing up sass and fizz". Chicago Tribune. Archived from the original on 2020-06-18. Retrieved 2020-06-18.
Menzie, Karol V. (1993-12-26). "For drivers: designated drinks. Have your brew and making it too". The Baltimore Sun. Archived from the original on 2020-06-18. Retrieved 2020-06-18 – via Newspapers.com.
Lamielle, Pierre A. (2012-08-08). "Drool: Virgil's Root Beer". Calgary Herald. Archived from the original on 2020-06-18. Retrieved 2020-06-18.
Darling, Cary (2015-10-07). "Craft sodas are coming for your cola". Fort Worth Star-Telegram. Archived from the original on 2020-06-18. Retrieved 2020-06-18.
Bonwich, Joe (2003-06-25). "Drinks from the Fountain of Your Youth. Let's root, root, root for root beer". St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Archived from the original on 2020-06-18. Retrieved 2020-06-18 – via Newspapers.com.
Dailey, Pat (1995-01-12). Haddix, Carol Mighton (ed.). "English Root Beer Triumphs in the Colonies". Chicago Tribune. Archived from the original on 2020-06-18. Retrieved 2020-06-18.

Sources with quotes

Asimov, Eric (2000-07-19). "SIPS; Root Beer With Authentic Roots". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2020-06-18. Retrieved 2020-06-18.
The article notes:
But Virgil's is different. This high-end root beer (if the notion is not too absurd) is pure and clean, with a clarity of flavor that leaves you wanting more, rather than wondering what possessed you to drink the whole bottle.
Originally brewed in England, Virgil's now comes from the Beverage Corporation in Los Angeles. It is one of the few sodas these days to use cane sugar, which imports a clean, crisp sweetness, rather than corn syrup, which I find strong and unpleasant, with a metallic aftertaste.
And unlike so many other root beers, Virgil's has components that are all of the earth, as was true when the term root beer was coined. The ingredients include vanilla, licorice, cinnamon, clove, wintergreen, nutmeg and molasses, and all are clearly discernible in the blend.
The major sticking point is the price: $2.29 for a 12-ounce bottle, twice the price of most other boutique sodas. ...
Latempa, Susan (2005-08-17). "Complex, nuanced: This is soda pop". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2020-06-18. Retrieved 2020-06-18.
The article notes:
Virgil’s Root Beer, Virgil’s Bavarian Nutmeg Root Beer. Originally made in Germany and the UK by a New England enthusiast, Virgil’s was purchased by Angeleno Chris Reed (Reed’s Ginger Brew) and seems to be everywhere lately. Virgil’s root beer is delicious -- very rooty, with a texture that’s more silky than creamy, and flavors on the spice-and-licorice end of the root beer flavor spectrum. Bavarian Nutmeg Root Beer is rich and spicy, “the vintage port of root beers,” one taster said, and, yes, you can taste the nutmeg. Both made with cane sugar. (Available at Aero Market, Beverages & More, Bristol Farms, Cost Plus World Market stores, Galco’s, Sainsbury Deli, Whole Foods. Root beer only available at Mani’s Bakery in Los Angeles, [323] 938-8800; Mel & Rose Liquor & Deli; Trader Joe’s markets.)
Virgil’s Cream Soda. This has a good real-vanilla flavor, but it’s light. It doesn’t knock out your taste buds, but opens up slowly and has a soft, pleasant finish. It would make a wonderful float. (At Aero Market, Beverages & More, Bristol Farms, Cost Plus World Market stores, Galco’s, Mel & Rose Liquor & Deli, Sainsbury Deli, Whole Foods.)
Julian, Sheryl (1995-09-03). "Top of the Pops". The Boston Globe. Archived from the original on 2020-06-18. Retrieved 2020-06-18 – via Newspapers.com.
The article notes:
With the current popularity of micro-brewed beer, it's little wonder that Virgil's Root Beer, also micro-brewed, is catching on among the too-young-to-drink set. Virgil's is brewed in the north of England from Lake District water. Made from real roots — sassafras, licorice, and ginger — Virgil's wins industry awards and deserves them. This old-time drink, popularized during Colonial times, tastes strong and zippy, not diluted like most modern root beers. Imported by Crowley Beverage Corp., of Wayland, Virgil's comes in 15-ounce bottles with closable spring tops (about $3.50) or in packs of four 12-ounce bottles (about $6). Taste it, and you'll understand why Shakespeare called this "small beer."
Chase, Katie Johnston (2006-09-20). "Soda floats on memories of childhood". The Boston Globe. Archived from the original on 2020-06-18. Retrieved 2020-06-18 – via Newspapers.com.
The article notes:
Virgil's
($3.99 for four bottles)
This all-natural, microbrewed concoction bills itself as the Dom Perignon of the root-beer world, but our judges begged to differ. It was deemed "too strong" with a "faint alcohol taste"; one suggested it might be better "warmed up and sipped by a fire." The word "unpleasant" was used not once but three times, as was the word "syrupy." "Yuck" turned up only once, but that's more than enough, don't you think?
Hall, Stephen F. (2000) [1992]. From Kitchen to Market: Selling Your Gourmet Food Specialty (3 ed.). Chicago: Dearborn Trade Publishing (Kaplan, Inc.). p. 156. ISBN 1-57410-138-2. Retrieved 2020-06-18.
The book notes:
Virgil's Root Beer—1994 Outstanding Beverage (English-style root beer). The firm was purchased in 1999 by Original Beverage Company, which specializes in brewed ginger ale. Original Beverage principal Chris Reed was a friend of Virgil's Root Beer founder Ed Crowley. Reed purchased Crawley's company after Crawley passed away. Virgil's Root Beer is still on the market, but its new owner's focus is on brewed ginger ale. The company reports that it is the number one ginger ale in Trader Joe's upscale grocery chain.
Meadow, James B. (1998-04-19). "Root Brewed New Gourmet Versions Bubbling Up Everywhere". Rocky Mountain News. Archived from the original on 2020-06-18. Retrieved 2020-06-18.
The article notes:
If you want a four-pack of Virgil's Root Beer, be prepared to plunk down a cool $6.79 (before taxes). But then, maybe that's not so extravagant for a soft drink that gets its anise from Spain, licorice from France, vanilla from Madagascar, cinnamon from Ceylon, clove and nutmeg from Indonesia, cassia oil and wintergreen from China, sweet birch and molasses from the United States, pimento berry oil from Jamaica and balsam oil from Peru. What's more, the prestigious Hammacher Schlemmer catalog offers it.
...
Certainly, Virgil's doesn't lack for marketing chutzpah. Its Web site boasts that Virgil's is to root beer as "Dom Perignon is to champagne."
...
Virgil's: Smell and taste are faintly redolent of molasses, which it contains. Taste is pleasant but too busy. Head has little staying power.
Weinraub, Judith; Wax, Alan J. (1996-10-08). "Cheers!: The Drinks of the Day (Or Perhaps the Decade?) Are Root Beer And Tequila". News & Record. Archived from the original on 2020-06-18. Retrieved 2020-06-18.
The article notes:
Virgil's, one of the newest entrants, has quadrupled its annual sales to 135,000 cases in the two years since its introduction and its winning of the Outstanding Beverage Award at the 1994 International Fancy Food Show. Made with 11 exotic flavoring agents and no preservatives, it originally was imported from England by Weyland, Mass.-based Crowley Beverage Corp. Now it is produced in a Cincinnati brewery. Crowley has promoted the brand as a gourmet product and sponsored a recipe competition at the Culinary Institute of America. Recipes from the institute's students included a cheesecake, a rice dish and the winner, a prawn tempura batter and dipping sauce.
Cohen, Julie (2016-05-30). "Float this idea: Root beer means summer". Houston Chronicle. Archived from the original on 2020-06-18. Retrieved 2020-06-18.
The article notes:
The rest of the lot fell into the middle - though they weren't offensive, they weren't completely noteworthy. If you're looking for a completely all-natural one to try, Virgil's did shine through in that respect. The flavors weren't super strong, but every flavor that could be detected (anise, wintergreen, clove) was from a real ingredient and not an artificial flavor.
Koeppel, Fredric (1998-02-18). "Top Root Beers Mix Homegrown, Exotic". The Commercial Appeal. Archived from the original on 2020-06-18. Retrieved 2020-06-18.
The article notes:
Not many root beers fill these idealistic demands. Here are the ones I tasted, in order of preference.
Virgil's Special Edition Bavarian Nutmeg Root Beer (Imported from Bavaria by Crowley Beverage Corp., Wayland, Mass.; 500 milliliter glass bottle). Very rich, dark brown color; pure, deep, scintillating spice, vanilla, anise, very rooty, creamy and lively, dense sweetness but not cloying, a complex blend of the medicine cabinet and the kitchen spice box. Exceptional.
...
-- Virgil's Root Beer (Imported from England by Crowley Beverage Corp., 12-ounce glass bottle). Very dark amber; baking spice, fresh pine, clove and anise, mild but true flavors, creamy. Excellent.
Parrish, Marlene (2008-08-14). "Vast variety of root beers raises question: 'How now, brown cow?'". Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Archived from the original on 2020-06-18. Retrieved 2020-06-18.
The article notes:
Virgil's Root Beer is rich and creamy, and stands up to either ice cubes or ice cream. It is stocked at Whole Foods Market and the East-End Co-op.
Thompson, Susan H. (1994-08-04). "Stand by Your Pan". The Tampa Tribune. Archived from the original on 2020-06-18. Retrieved 2020-06-18.
The article notes:
Called Virgil's Root Beer, the beverage is made in small batches in an appropriately small brewery in Chester, England.
Sassafras, anise, licorice, cane sugar and spring water from England's Lake District are used to make Virgil's. It is also brewed naturally rather than carbonated under pressure with carbon dioxide gas as most other soft drinks are today.
The president of the company that imports Virgil's to the United States says it is comparable to root beers made in American Colonial Days when many taverns and families brewed their own.
Virgil's Root Beer is being distributed in Tampa by Moudy Distributing. Look for it in restaurants, bars, gourmet shops and delis.
Wax, Alan J. (1996-10-08). "Root Beer Isn't All Kid Stuff, Test Finds". News & Record. Archived from the original on 2020-06-18. Retrieved 2020-06-18.
The article notes:
Virgil's Root Beer: Tawny color. Layers of flavors, wintergreen, anise. Sweet but not cloying. Preservative-free.
"English Soda Follows Trend". Knoxville News Sentinel. 1994-07-31. Archived from the original on 2020-06-18. Retrieved 2020-06-18.
The article notes:
The microbrewing revolution in the beer industry is extending to the soft+drink industry with the introduction of Virgil's Root Beer, hand-brewed in Chester, England.
The premium product - retailing from $2.20 to $3.99 a bottle - has been on the market less than six months but has found distributors in 35 states, says.Marc Berliner of Consolidated Beverage Corp., the importer of Virgil's.
The makers of Virgil's use natural ingredients - anise, sassafras,!licorice, and pure cane sugar - as well as spring water from England's Lake District. Its spring-top stopper bottles are the same type bottle used during the Victorian period.
Stambor, Zak (2008-10-29). "Brewing up sass and fizz". Chicago Tribune. Archived from the original on 2020-06-18. Retrieved 2020-06-18.
The article notes:
"America is the only place that drinks root beer," said Chris Reed, president of Reed's Inc., the producer of Virgil's Microbrewed Root Beer. "When we have samples of Virgil's at international food shows, non-Americans think we're joking."
Nonetheless, Americans -- or at least many Americans -- love root beer. The last decade has seen the introduction of a number of premium root beers such as Virgil's, which is made with cane sugar, anise from Spain and Madagascar vanilla. The sodas allow people who grew up drinking root beer to trade up to artisanal takes on their beloved beverage.
Menzie, Karol V. (1993-12-26). "For drivers: designated drinks. Have your brew and making it too". The Baltimore Sun. Archived from the original on 2020-06-18. Retrieved 2020-06-18 – via Newspapers.com.
The article notes:
Fans of "real" root beer can rejoice: Virgil's Home Brew Rootbeer is being imported from England in a 15-ounce corked bottle. The root beer is made with spring water, sassafras, licorice, anise, molasses and cane sugar. The bottles can be recycled; customers who collect 24 bottles can get concentrate and brew their own root beer.
Virgil's is available at the Mount Washington Cafe & Deli, at Sutton Place Gourmet, and at Eddie's of Roland Park. Retail price is under $3 per bottle.
Lamielle, Pierre A. (2012-08-08). "Drool: Virgil's Root Beer". Calgary Herald. Archived from the original on 2020-06-18. Retrieved 2020-06-18.
The article notes:
When they see the five-litre keg of root beer, children might lose their minds. They won’t care that Virgil’s is the only micro-brewed root beer or that it has a smooth and creamy depth of flavour. They will stare at you blankly when you tell them that Virgil’s is made with Madagascar vanilla, Ceylon cinnamon and Spanish anise. And it’s probably best not to mention that, because it’s not overly carbonated, this root beer mixes well with bourbon. It’s best to just pick up a keg and bring a world of harmony to your next barbecue.
Darling, Cary (2015-10-07). "Craft sodas are coming for your cola". Fort Worth Star-Telegram. Archived from the original on 2020-06-18. Retrieved 2020-06-18.
The article notes:
Some brands, like Virgil’s and Dry, have a national profile and Big Soda — much like Big Beer did with craft beers and ciders — has taken notice.
Bonwich, Joe (2003-06-25). "Drinks from the Fountain of Your Youth. Let's root, root, root for root beer". St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Archived from the original on 2020-06-18. Retrieved 2020-06-18 – via Newspapers.com.
The article notes:
Virgil's
Medium foam head that fades quickly. Complex herbal scent and flavor — nutmeg, licorice, wintergreen. Also contains something called "pimento berry oil." Unusual, slightly medicinal finish. So many flavors that it tastes a little different with each swig.
...
Virgil's Special Edition
Yup, six bucks for a bottle of root beer, albeit about half again as big as a regular bottle and with a porcelain stopper similar to that of Grolsch beer. Another medium foam head that fades quickly. A swirl of aromas — honey, molasses, roasted spices. The flavor is well-blended and smooth. But six bucks? Only if you're absolutely passionate about root beer.
Dailey, Pat (1995-01-12). Haddix, Carol Mighton (ed.). "English Root Beer Triumphs in the Colonies". Chicago Tribune. Archived from the original on 2020-06-18. Retrieved 2020-06-18.
The article notes:
With the judges clamoring for more, Virgil's root beer, a dark, creamy-rich brew, was named "outstanding beverage" at last year's Specialty Food Show in New York. A tasting at the Tribune test kitchen was resoundingly positive as well, bringing visions of black cows to mind.
Virgil's is made in Chester, England, for a Massachusetts company. It's flavored with an intriguing blend of old-fashioned herbs and a goodly dose of vanilla.
Virgil's is packaged in old-fashioned swing-top bottles. Jill Fraser Crowley, president of Virgil's Root Beer, reports that the second-usage on the bottles is extraordinarily high. The resealable bottles are ideal for home brewing beer or root beer.

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Virgil's Root Beer to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

Cunard (talk) 10:06, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reed's per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

Braun, Michael R.; Latham, Scott F. (2014). Mastering Strategy: Workshops for Business Success. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO. pp. 70–72. ISBN 978-1-4408-2953-6. Retrieved 2020-06-18.
Surdin, Ashley (2007-04-04). "Filling a natural niche". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2020-06-18. Retrieved 2020-06-18.
Gentile, Gary (2006-01-03). "Soda Maker Goes Public on Its Founder's Terms". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2020-06-18. Retrieved 2020-06-18.
Clifford, Stephanie (2008-02-01). "His Way. In which Chris Reed, the founder of a soda company, undertakes an initial public offering -- his way. What can go wrong does. What should go right doesn't. Five painful years pass. As the man himself says, "You have to work hard to create that much trouble."". Inc. Archived from the original on 2020-06-18. Retrieved 2020-06-18.
Chaudhuri, Saabira (2008-06-28). "An All Natural Icon Reaches Beyond Whole Foods. As Reed's ginger brew makes a play for the big leagues, the natural question arises: Can the brand's success be attributed to the marketing or is it all about the taste?". Fast Company. Archived from the original on 2020-06-18. Retrieved 2020-06-18.
Soule, Alexander (2019-09-14). "New wellness shots jumpstart Reed's renewal in Norwalk". Connecticut Post. Archived from the original on 2020-06-18. Retrieved 2020-06-18.

Sources with quotes

Braun, Michael R.; Latham, Scott F. (2014). Mastering Strategy: Workshops for Business Success. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO. pp. 70–72. ISBN 978-1-4408-2953-6. Retrieved 2020-06-18.
The book notes:
That said, let's stick with beverages and examine the value chain activities of a company with $30 million in annual sales, Reed's Inc. ...

Strategy in Action: Reed's World of Ginger

Anyone like ginger beer? If so, you may be familiar with Reed's, the company known for its ginger-flavored products, including its award-winning, nonalcoholic ginger brews, ginger teas, candies and chews, and even ice cream. Started in 1989 by Chris Reed, the company today sells its products in natural and organic grocery stores, such as Whole Foods Market, gourmet cafes, online (Amazon.com), and even drugstores. As a point of reference, a four-pack of 12-ounce Reed's Ginger Brew retails for about $7.
In relation to Coca-Cola and Pepsi, Reed's is a teeny-tiny company. So how does Reed's successfully go up against these Goliaths? By doing a value chain analysis of Reed's, you will gain important insights into the company's operations and how it delivers unique and targeted value to its customers.
...
Beginning in 1987, when Chris Reed began tinkering with brewing processes for sodas, Reed's has been a small but nimble competitor whose core activity is product innovation. For Reed's to stay ahead of its pack, its culture of product innovation needs to permeate its firm infrastructure. A critical component is its human resource management of hiring, training, and retaining employees who can come up with the next generation of ginger-based products. These include herbologists, foodies, and even health "nuts" who embrace and promote the health benefits of Reed's products. Two specific aspects of Reed's technology development help the company create unique, premium products. First is its deep knowledge of, experience in, and expertise in manipulating (i.e., innovating) ginger into a variety of consumable products. Second is the brewing process the company has perfected over decades. ...
Surdin, Ashley (2007-04-04). "Filling a natural niche". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2020-06-18. Retrieved 2020-06-18.
The article notes:
Reed is founder and chief executive of Reed’s Inc., which produces a line of natural sodas. And he’s a fan -- some might say a fanatic -- of the pungent herb.
...
Reed’s Inc. competes against much larger companies by catering to health-conscious shoppers. The 18-year-old company calls its drinks “quality of life” beverages that are free of artificial flavorings, colorings and processed ingredients.
...
Now, the company has 32 employees and produces 25 million drinks a year. Its products are sold in 7,000 stores in the U.S. and Canada, including Trader Joe’s, Whole Foods and Ralphs.
...
In January, Reed’s settled a $2.6-million lawsuit filed by Consac Industries Inc., which accused Reed’s of negligence in manufacturing Prism Green Tea Soda for Consac. Reed’s, which contended that Consac supplied a defective formula, paid $300,000 to settle the suit.
Gentile, Gary (2006-01-03). "Soda Maker Goes Public on Its Founder's Terms". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2020-06-18. Retrieved 2020-06-18.
The article notes:
Tags placed over the necks of soda bottles are offering customers the chance to buy shares for $4 each directly from the company in an initial public offering that Reed hopes will raise as much as $8 million.
...
But some analysts say Reed’s sales of just $9 million in 2004 make it too small to be considered a smart play for investors. The stock would be traded over the counter -- not by the New York Stock Exchange or another large exchange -- and could be overlooked by investors and financial analysts.
...
Kathy Smith, a principal at Renaissance Capital in Greenwich, Conn., said potential investors should scrutinize Reed’s stock prospectus and financial statements.
“It’s an interesting come-on,” she said of the direct-to-consumers IPO. “But investors have to look at the real stuff that is going to matter and make sure it’s the right thing for them.”
Clifford, Stephanie (2008-02-01). "His Way. In which Chris Reed, the founder of a soda company, undertakes an initial public offering -- his way. What can go wrong does. What should go right doesn't. Five painful years pass. As the man himself says, "You have to work hard to create that much trouble."". Inc. Archived from the original on 2020-06-18. Retrieved 2020-06-18.
The article notes:
Even before he wrote this letter, Chris Reed had never had much of a taste for authority or for other people's restrictions. Sure, it was aggressive to promise that he would be on the OTC board within nine months. But he was an iconoclast, an outlaw in this business world of rules and paperwork. He had been ever since he started his little natural-soda company, Reed's, from his kitchen, in Venice Beach, California, in 1987. Back then he was a burnt-out chemical engineer who had taken a sales job at 1-800-Dentist while trying to conjure up a company. He liked the taste of ginger, and while studying herbs, as one tends to do in Venice Beach, he learned that ginger soothed stomachaches and motion sickness. He began brewing a spicy ginger beer and tinkered with the concoction for a couple of years. Once the brew satisfied him, he bought 90 pounds of ginger, cut it up by hand, and threw it in the back seat of his Volkswagen Bug. He drove to a local brewery to borrow a vat and used a canoe paddle to mix the ginger with water, roots, and spices. He poured that into some bottles, slapped on some labels, and drove the Bug to health-food stores, delis, and a Philly cheesesteak joint to sell test batches. Then he stuffed some bottles into his backpack and wandered to the Natural Foods Expo West 1990, where a couple of big distributors liked his product and signed him up. He was in Whole Foods by the end of the year.
He had no idea that that 1999 letter would kick off an extended entanglement with the very people he was trying to avoid: the lawyers, the bankers, the regulators, the state officials, the people who believed in rule books and orderly procedures. By the time he wrote the letter, Reed's had revenue of $4.2 million, and Reed wanted to buy an L.A. warehouse and turn it into a brewery. He decided to raise the money through a special, non-IPO offering for small businesses called a Small Corporate Offering Registration, or SCOR, which lets companies sell up to $1 million worth of stock to the public without having to go through Securities and Exchange Commission reviews. ... Nine months into the 12-month offering, Reed had raised only $50,000 and was about to shut it down.
Chaudhuri, Saabira (2008-06-28). "An All Natural Icon Reaches Beyond Whole Foods. As Reed's ginger brew makes a play for the big leagues, the natural question arises: Can the brand's success be attributed to the marketing or is it all about the taste?". Fast Company. Archived from the original on 2020-06-18. Retrieved 2020-06-18.
The article notes:
With the aid of a loan from his father, Reed launched his first batch of ginger brew for less than $5,000 in the summer of 1989. He sliced 90 pounds of fresh ginger by hand, brewed the product at a small brewery with no bottling operation, bottled it on his own, slapped on labels with a stick of glue, and loaded 36 cases into the back of his VW bug for distribution at four local stores.
...
Reed’s is also the only soft drinks business in the world to package its brew in a five-liter keg — a selling point for both the thrifty and the environmentally conscious. The company packages its spiced apple brew and top varieties of its ginger brew in champagne-like bottles to compete with brands like Martinelli’s, an attempt it says proved highly successful in California supermarkets. In addition, the company offers a one-liter swing-lid bottle, fashioned after that offered by European beer maker Grolsch. “We’re creatives. We do unique packaging that other people don’t,” says Reed.
...
Marketing expert Seth Godin, however, thinks Reed’s success boils down to the fundamental fact that its product is good. “It’s so easy to think that marketing and the product are two different things, but they’re not. Their product is different, it’s spicy. People talk about the drink for what it is — and not because they’ve changed their bottle.”
...
While entering the mainstream is an understandable ambition for any niche company, Gary Hemphill, managing director at the Beverage Marketing Corporation issues a caveat. “These companies can’t get caught up competing directly against the giant companies. They certainly can’t compete against them on price.” His advice is that companies like Reed’s should “play up their uniqueness in their marketing. That’s their value in the marketplace.”
Soule, Alexander (2019-09-14). "New wellness shots jumpstart Reed's renewal in Norwalk". Connecticut Post. Archived from the original on 2020-06-18. Retrieved 2020-06-18.
The article notes:
With new ginger wellness shot bottles hitting shelves next month, the “craft” soda company Reed’s has a new, concentrated burst of innovation as it enters its second full year based in Connecticut, after moving its headquarters to Norwalk from Los Angeles.
...
Under Chris Reed, who created the company in 1989, Reed’s gained an early cult following in taking on Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Cadbury Schweppes and Canada Dry, first with its ginger beer and then with its purchase a decade later of Virgil’s and its line of root beer.
But in attempting to capitalize still further on that early name recognition, Reed attempted to branch his company into other lines of soft drinks, including those bottled for sale under other company’s labels, struggling with production issues and denting profits over time.
With losses growing, Reed’s directors named as board chairman John Bello,who gained industry fame building up the South Beach Beverage Co. and selling SoBe to PepsiCo. Bello chose Stalowir as CEO to lead a turnaround of Reed’s.

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

Cunard (talk) 10:06, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Strong keep for both articles since they undoubtedly pass notability per Cunard's comment above. Maybe doesn't meet NPOV and needs a cleanup, but certainly doesn't warrant a deletion because of it. - Harsh 14:56, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 21:49, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Otmar Ebenhoech

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

Obvious G11 declined by DGG with the reasoning "would require afd", so here we are. Sources in the article are...youtube, the guy's homepage, and one single article on evworld.com. WP:BEFORE search produced nothing substantial either. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:13, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:13, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not obvious, because it might acually be notable and important. It needs a search by the community, not just 2 editors. DGG ( talk ) 04:27, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess that's where we disagree - personally, I think anything so badly sourced that makes such outsize claims (and created by an SPA to boot) is a fairly clear G11. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:54, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insufficient sourcing to demonstrate notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:05, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:09, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. The evworld article is returning a 404 error by the way (not that it would matter anyways because it still wouldn't meet notability). - Harsh 14:06, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - Harsh 19:46, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 21:49, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peshawar Nights

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

No independent, thorough coverage found in WP:BEFORE. Searching in English only found Wikishia and similar sites, as well as translations of the book itself, but no third-party commentary in WP:RS. Farsi and Urdu searches produced similar results. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 17:53, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 17:53, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 17:53, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 17:53, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Looks like a redundant content fork since most, if not all the content was copied from Sultan al-Wa'izin Shirazi.
Alivardi (talk) 18:27, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (as nom): Faizhaider has made several edits to the article over the past few hours, saying that they are expanding it; however, with all due respect, I feel that most of the content added is WP:REFBOMBing, given that all of the new "sources" appear to be translations of the book itself published by an SPS service, and come nowhere close to contributing to WP:GNG. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 22:00, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The book, originally in Persian, apart from English, has also been translated into several other languages like, Urdu, Arabic, French and Azeri.

Also, the book has been cited or mentioned by later books like,

Islam. PediaPress.
The Light. Bilal Muslim Mission of Tanzania. 1990.
Azodanloo, Heidar Ghajar (1992). Discourses of Mobilization in Post-revolutionary Iran. University of Minnesota.
Howarth, Toby (2005-10-04). The Twelver Shi'a as a Muslim Minority in India: Pulpit of Tears. McGraw Hill Professional. ISBN 978-0-203-01260-4.
Charbonneau, Mateen J. (2018-09-04). The Suffering of the Ahl ul Bayt and their Followers (Shia) throughout History. Lulu.com. ISBN 978-1-312-45203-9.

--Fz^tc_s 08:58, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't think notability would be problem. But lot of pre internet technology print sources from vernaculars are still not online and many not in searchable format and unlikely to get updated soon.

IMHO better option would be to have an article on shia-sunni dialogues and merge the content in separate section there. Once get more content it can be brought back to article with ease. Bookku (talk) 17:44, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:05, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Faizhaider's listing. Mar4d (talk) 10:49, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per @Faizhaider. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ytpks896 (talk • contribs) 20:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] "Assisting women in career change towards software engineering: experience from Czechitas NGO". ACM Digital Library. ACM.

[1]