Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 May 28

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 27 May	29 May >

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 delete. Sandstein 16:54, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nickan Ebrahimi

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

Notability PERSIA ♠ 20:21, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:17, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:17, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another non-notable Irianian composer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:52, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Opinion This deletion request is incorrect. Just Notability! Lexy iris (talk) 23:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Johnpacklambert, sadly those singers whose the article gets deleted on fawiki, they find enwiki Mardetanha (talk) 09:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:54, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Atour

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

Notability PERSIA ♠ 20:18, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable record producer and businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:20, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:18, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:18, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Shahin Najafi#Formation of Antikarisma. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 15:27, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Antikarisma

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

Notability PERSIA ♠ 20:17, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. PERSIA ♠ 20:17, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the subject fails both WP:GNG and WP:BAND. The sources provided in the article don't cover the subject in depth, one of the links is dead, 2 - cover their Sweden festival gig (trivial mentions). No other sources found. Less Unless (talk) 21:01, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Shahin Najafi, the founder of the band, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The one-word nomination is disappointing, and whilst not mandatory, no evidence of WP:BEFORE being met has been provided. Per WP:CSB I would not heavily weight the lack of English-language sources. Neither side's arguments prevail and as such the outcome is no consensus. Stifle (talk) 10:14, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tanbe10

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

Notability PERSIA ♠ 20:15, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. PERSIA ♠ 20:15, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Herostratus' persuasive argument some four years ago. Ifnord (talk) 20:54, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:20, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was pinged, above, so I dunno if that's cheating. But anyway... it meets the WP:7VIRTUES so there's a strong presumption to keep.

AfD is probably not really a super good place for articles as well put together as this. If OP feels compelled to destroy rather than create articles, there are probably many better candidates -- millions, probably. (In fact, I just went thru ten random articles, and two of them I'd delete for sure before I deleted this one, and four more on the borderline. So...) Herostratus (talk) 22:02, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources are valid and they are all fake, Reliable sources
instagram
mihanblog
tanbe10.net
facebook
No hints?!!!!
No hints?!!!
No hints
wordpress
facenama!! social network
blog Service!!
blog Service
blog !!
blog Service
Page non trouvée

--PERSIA ♠ 05:50, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. You may be on to something here. Maybe. If the sources are bad, that's different from being un-notable tho. There's nothing inherently wrong with Wordpress or any other platform. Blogs aren't usually fact-checked, so you're thrown back entirely on the writer's reputation and analysis of the text. You have to drill down a bit more -- cross check different sources to see if they're reporting the same facts without using a common source, and so forth. It's fairly involved.

One of the problems with figuring out notability for Iranian entities is that, after all, Iran is a fascist dictatorship. And I mean Tanbe10 is apparently part of a scene that the government doesn't like very much. And the government does have a penchant for shooting people it doesn't like very much. So naturally mainstream Iranian media is going to shy away from writing about them -- who wants to get charged with "spreading corruption on Earth" or whatever and then shot? This doesn't mean that a lot of people don't know about Tanbe10, listen to them, or are influenced by them. Maybe so, maybe not. Let's look deeper.

If it's "maybe they are", I'd shy away against deleting all this work until we can can find out more. There's no hurry to destroy material, here. Unless it's misleading. Is it?

Also, I note that you're nominating several other articles about Iranian musicians right now. Is there an overarching rubric under which you're doing this? Or is it just cleanup? Do have an opinion about Tanbe10 and/or the underground gangsta rap scene in Iran?

The refs need to be looked at in detail. There's work to be done here. I'll shoulder my share presently. Herostratus (talk) 18:29, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The point here is that fame and Notability are important OR Finding credit through Wikipedia!!--Persia ♠ 08:15, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I disagree with this AFD. More details needed for deletion. @Persia: you are nominating a lot of AFDs.. in this short period of time, it is not possible to nominate carefully. Lexy iris (talk) 23:14, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I also checked all the sources, there is no single reliable source, I wonder if such group really exist in the real world Mardetanha (talk) 09:06, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they're on YouTube. Herostratus (talk) 14:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. One point is that, as a fact on the ground, I believe that cultural entities are treated within their geopolitical context. (If not, they should be, in my opinion but also the opinion of many others I think, lest we become overly English-language-centric.) A cultural entity that is a big deal in a culture group -- I'm thinking a discrete country or language, particularly. (For instance... Estonia has a population similar to that of Richmond, Virginia (metro area). However, "the second-highest bestselling book in Estonia in 1993" has a bit more cachet, for our purposes, than "the second-highest bestselling book in Richmond, Virginia in 1993". The latter is info about a random third-rate niche market in a big country, the former about that market of entire famous country with its own language; you're saying its a major book for the entire Estonian language. The same principle would apply to Iran/Farsi. Reasonable people can disagree with this tho, but that would bend the Wikipedia a bit toward West-centrism and valorization of big countries, for better or worse.

Nowadays, people don't buy physical records, so traditional sales as you'd see in Billboard are less useful and we need to look at more modern media.

I see that Tanbe10 has 16,000 followers on Instagram. Is that a lot? I have no idea, but it sounds like a lot. Some of these would presumably be up for buying your songs and going to your shows. And of course a lot of other people who aren't Instagram followers would also. Is that a notable-size fan base? Their top YouTube videos (if I'm doing this right) have views of 30,000, 30,000, and 24,000. Is that a lot? 39,000 followers on Facebook, if I'm reading it right. They don't seem to be on Twitter (or anyway I don't know how to find them).

Let's see... picking a couple bands band which I happened to have written the articles for... the Horse Lords have, and deserve, an article. they have 2,300 Instagram followers. Their top YouTube song has 34,000 views, but then it seems to drop off (the next has 19,000, and the next less than 3,000 -- again, if I'm doing this right). However, they have some long-form videos (which Tanbe10 doesn't have, I gather) -- 34,000 for a 20-minute session video, and 19,000 for a full album, but it drops off quickly after that. 5,800 Facebook followers and 2,500 on Twitter, I think.

The Horse Lords are in mainly because of a long New York Times article. Let's look at a more normal band, The Dexateens (I also wrote this one), who are in based on normal critera -- having several albums and numerous articles about them. They have 1,800 Instagram followers, and their top YouTube song views are 28,000 and 26,000. 6,500 followers on Facebook, 1,900 on Twitter.

Both of these bands rate having articles, without question, because they are American and therefore they have lots of English-language articles about them, and immediate access to 330,000,000 potential fans and 463,000,000 total in the Anglosphere. Iran has 83,000,000 population for Tanbe10 to draw a core fan base from.

I'd have to say that Tanbe10 is easily more popular than these two bands. Popularity = notability. (I get that our definition of notability = sufficient available written articles; but in the real world, notability is based on how many people know about them, talk about them, go to their shows, look at their videos, n'est-ca pas? The real world matters some, or should.

It is true that we need sufficient proper refs (I haven't checked them). However, if an entity actually is notable in the real world, we should definitely lean toward wanting the article, so rather than trying to find notability by going by refs, we'd be looking for refs to support their real-world notability and hoping to find them, so we'd want to bend to being as loose as possible in vetting refs, I think.

Anyway... it looks like the real argument here comes down to "Delete: not from an English-speaking country". I don't think that's a good criteria. Herostratus (talk) 14:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:27, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 10:52, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reveal (rapper)

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

Notability PERSIA ♠ 20:13, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. PERSIA ♠ 20:13, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:20, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:21, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:21, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article was deleted in 2006. I am shocked anything was deleted in 2006. Back then the arguments "he is a member of a notable band" actually lead to keeping an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:59, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He's been described as one of the UK’s most prominent Iranian rappers. He and his work has been covered in the book Soundtrack of the Revolution: The Politics of Music in Iran (Published by Stanford University Press), Inside Iran's 'revolutionary' rap (Aljazeera), Academic book Smashed Hits 2.0 Music Under Pressure has explored one of his songs. This meets general notability criteria as well as WP:SINGER.Drako (talk) 14:52, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the multiple reliable book sources identified above that show a pass of WP:BASIC so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:05, 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 06:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:54, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FOMO Tour

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

There is no relevant and reliable coverage per WP:NTOUR, which requires that the actual tour be discussed in reliable sources. A listing of tour dates or a mention that it it actually exists does not suffice. Drmies (talk) 20:06, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because [insert reason here]:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:22, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all The bands article PrettyMuch mentions these tours and they don't have enough significant coverage for standalone articles. Moreover - there were 0 views from the 2017. The last month there were 5 only. Less Unless (talk) 21:19, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Yaseen Ege

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

declined prod, but WP:NOTNEWS. Run of the mill coverage of a conviction and declined appeal dont move this outside of the realm of a sad story but still ultimately a rehashing of news articles all centered around the time period of the event and not something that demonstrated any lasting significance. nableezy - 19:54, 28 May 2020 (UTC) 19:54, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion - tragic indeed, but not seeing any Notability/lasting impact. KJP1 (talk) 09:28, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. nableezy - 19:54, 28 May 2020 (UTC) 19:54, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:10, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:10, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 15:28, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Rina Shnerb

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

WP:NOTNEWS, one in a long series of violent incidents on several sides (though our coverage is conspicuously slanted in terms of coverage of those incidents), no indication of lasting significance nableezy - 19:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC) 19:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. nableezy - 19:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC) 19:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. nableezy - 19:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC) 19:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. nableezy - 19:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC) 19:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. nableezy - 19:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC) 19:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:DIVERSE and WP:PERSISTENCE multiple international source still report about the incident and its consequences [1] ,[2] ,[3],[4] --Shrike (talk) 14:43, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as with most crimes, there is coverage of the crime, arrest, and penalties. That is not persistent coverage. nableezy - 15:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it is.There was a recent article 2 weeks ago about the murder year after the crime so yes it was persistent.

Comment It was the proposer who said[5] that murders in I/P conflicts that receive wide coverage should be kept.I fail to see any difference except the nationality of the victim --Shrike (talk) 16:49, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I feel all of these articles should be deleted, in case you couldnt read the subtext of my vote there. Kinda silly of you to make that comment given your own vote in that AFD. nableezy - 17:24, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My vote not because it was not notable but because it is one sided WP:POVPUSH piece per WP:TNT. So why do you voted keep there and then voting delete here? --Shrike (talk) 17:35, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, because crap articles like this are routinely kept. If articles about violence directed against Israelis should be kept, then too should articles on violence against Palestinians. Get it this time? I think all of them should be deleted. I dont think we need an article for anything besides some of the more well known attacks and fatalities, or the ones that had some sort of scandal or notoriety to it. That would include for example the Sbarro suicide bombing. It would include Faris Odeh, Khalil al-Mughrabi and Muhammad al-Durrah and al-Kheidr. It would not include the what are more regular occurrences that have the typical news stories about the attack, the arrest, and conviction and resulting sentence. And yes, at that article you called faithfully reflecting the sources and the hello video tape to be essentially propaganda. And said you didnt think it notable. I think all these articles should go. Get it? nableezy - 18:01, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So you going to propose Mohammad Habali article to AFD? --Shrike (talk) 13:29, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, when we see that these news stories get deleted on both sides. nableezy - 15:56, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Shrike, this is a matter of grammar. Nableezy wrote:-

There is an established precedent that violent acts in the long-running Arab-Israeli conflict merit articles if there is sufficient coverage in international news, at least for violence committed by Palestinians.

That if is conditional on sufficient coverage, wide reportage, which, at least here, is not yet attested. There is no contradiction in his position.Nishidani (talk) 17:33, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nypost AFP BBC and AP in my view are sufficient international coverage did you missed the links that I posted? --Shrike (talk) 17:35, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sadly, this is WP:ROUTINE. The initial burst of coverage was the same as that of any news event, and less than a year later, coverage of the murder has ceased. Human-interest stories like "her parents had a baby" are not enduring notability. A selective merge to whatever the list article is could be appropriate? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see who it WP:ROUTINE. it is not "announcements, sports, speculative coverage, and tabloid journalism" --Shrike (talk) 08:19, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep “persistent coverage” is widely subjective. IMO keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zarcademan123456 (talk • contribs)
Delete or create a list and merge these incidents into one page.

A few days ago, just one of an unending cycle of official murders, an autistic Palestinian, Iyad Hallak (32), was walking to his special needs school in central Jerusalem. He was confronted by two heavily armed soldiers and panicked. Shots were fired, he fled and when he was run down, cowering near his school, one of them pumped two bullets into him. It was the nth example of a George Floyd incident in the occupied territories, and I see 20 RS reports of the incident and the analogy. But one does not abuse wiki rules to memorialize these things, which are, for Palestinians, a weekly occurrence. The same applies here.

This is part of an ongoing series of stubs, which will remain stubs for lack of evidence of persistence of reportage, whose aim is to overturn WP:NOTMEMORIAL to get over a sense that Israel is uniquely prey to terrorism. Two others, Murder of Dvir Sorek, Murder of Ori Ansbacher like this have a handful of sources contemporary with the incident (within a day or two). They all massively fail persistence and egregiously violate policy. For those who leap at every Israeli death to make a stub, hoping it will again wriggle past the rules by disattention, the only option is to create a list, and include them all there, since in each case, you really will only have(a) murder (b)assailant (c)death/conviction of assailant.,with all sources essentially copying the same initial reports. Nishidani (talk) 09:24, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani, If you think Iyad Hallak deserve an article go ahead and create one also see WP:OTHER.Btw Here is only recent article about Dvir Sorek [6] --Shrike (talk) 09:34, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't grasped what I wrote. I, like several others here, observe policy, and do not exploit Wikipedia to write up Palestinian deaths in order to create a propaganda image of a consistent record of victims of the occupation's violence. In the past I have created lists for that. Such incidents cannot stand on their own. It is notable that whoever writes up these articles carefully avoids citing articles about the larger context of murders like that of Rina Shnerb. They don't put in all of the information about the massive expropriations, enclosures of village lands, impoverishment, in order for illegal settlements and their folks to enjoy Jews-alone recreation parks, as Amira Hass provided in detail for the Shnerb case. By carefully omitting context, you create an image of in this case Palestinians popping out of nowhere and, as is their nature, killing Israeli Jews. There is no 'history' behind this weird behavior, just animal instincts and hatred of Jews. Go and read Amira Hass, The Tragic Hike That Has Nothing to Do With the Landscape and Land Haaretz 26 August 2019, and add all of the details to this article, if you think it should be kept. Otherwise, this trimmed down version remains a POV loaded memorial push, one more piece of wiki evidence of how those occupied savages torment and murder nice people. Nishidani (talk) 09:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but one sided propaganda opinion pieces shouldn't be added to neutral WP articles --Shrike (talk) 09:57, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is not propaganda. It gives very precise verifiable details of the context in which the murder of the girl occurred. Supported the inclusion of this type of stub smacks of propaganda for a cause, and since key details, in sources, of the context of the murder are suppressed, the manufacture of these bits and pieces has no intention to observe Wikipedia's principles of neutrality.Nishidani (talk) 13:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per shrike Idan (talk) 15:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's something to be 'proud' of, apropos.Nishidani (talk) 17:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:09, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:09, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:09, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:09, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pr WP:NOTNEWS. (Btw: If we look at Wikipedia, there are at least 10 times as many articles about Israeli civilians killed, as there are articles about Palestinian civilians killed. The reality is opposite: at least 10 Palestinian civilians are killed for each civilian Israelis killed. Palestinian lives definitely don't matter :-( ), Huldra (talk) 22:43, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Shrike, this doesn't seem like a notnews event if it's still being reported on. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:15, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:PERSISTENT, and RS coverage is what it is, for better or worse -- take your issue up with the news media, not Wikipedia if you are annoyed that supposedly "Palestinian lives matter less than Israeli ones" (also, is this a deletion argument? Palestinian lives allegedly don't matter, so you'd rather Israeli lives not matter either? What the actual f*? No, of course I don't think you think that Huldra, but that is exactly how it reads) --Calthinus (talk) 04:10, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to misunderstand the issues with systemic bias and how an encyclopedia distorting the ratios here is effectively propaganda. But ok. nableezy - 04:45, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We base our coverage on RS. Take your issue up with them. Not us.--Calthinus (talk) 05:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I edit here, not there. And I could quite easily run up articles on hundreds of Palestinian deaths in the occupied territories at the hands of settlers or soldiers. And I could say hey look there are a bunch of news articles about it. But I would be committing the same WP:NOTNEWS violation that you are so invested in keeping. So I dont, I just nominate crap articles for deletion when I see them. nableezy - 14:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Calthinus. Editors with a 'Palestinian' interest have long decided not to 'harvest' numerous events of Palestinians being shot dead without provocation to make articles, this on policy grounds, and because writing quick stubs is boring and unencyclopedic. Therefore, observing the alacrity with which editors jump at Israeli casualties to make memorials they oppose the practice, is a unilateral abuse. The difference has nothing to do with saying Israeli lives don't matter. If 'we' were as ideologically motivated as some editors here we could churn out a dozen articles on Palestinian victims for every Israeli victim stub. One just doesn't play that game. What is remarkable about the 'pro-Israeli' editors who put this stuff up all of the time, is their failure to add anything other than the bare facts, ignoring key details the few sources used do supply, details that make for a far more complex picture. Their apparent aim is to record a murder, the skeletal outline, nothing more and then 'reactions' of outrage. It's POV manipulation: everyone knows that.Nishidani (talk) 07:54, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And I personally am always disgruntled that the incompetence of editors means that when this memorial stuff is approved, people like myself are forced to waste valuable time pulling up all of the silenced details in sources which the pushy editors avoided adding, as I did at Death of Yehuda Shoham, in order to ensure that a balanced and neutral reconstruction emerges. The practice of writing such stubs is a sign of an oxymoronic vigorous laziness: getting a few data down in a jiffy for a POV slant, hoping it gets approved, and then leaving the burden of writing to fix the partisan skewing, to others.Nishidani (talk) 08:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This may all be true. But nothing addresses the matter that our coverage is based on RS. Side keep has policy in its favor, and it appears the three of you aren't even disputing that point anymore, but instead are arguing that there is disproportionate coverage of Israeli victims relative to Palestinian ones. That may even be true. But we are not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.--Calthinus (talk) 16:30, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What's writing a great wrong to do with it? I certainly am on record as stating over over a decade that editing to right a great wrong is pointless, since one party won, the other is humiliated out of history. and there's no point thinking things will change. What wiki is about is the encyclopedic compilation of the known factual record of events that have encyclopedic significance, and my guide is all articles is - see what books, reviews and serious articles say to ascertain continuity and importance.

Several times in the past, I and others have waited a month and more before making, or contributing to an article on a Palestinian death. One wait, and this is what rule-compliance asks of us in this kind of reportage. I,e,

Beitunia killings occurred 15 May 2014. Coverage was intense so

the article was started by another editor 16 June 2014, one month' later.

22 June 1024, I started to add some edits, a week thereafter, i.e. five weeks into the intense news cycle. The event has been mentioned in several RS books since then, and innumerable articles. I.e. it has permanent coverage down to 2019.

Contrast this type of stub.

The Murder of Rina Shnerb occurred on 23 August 2019

A stub was made the very next day, with 6 newspaper reports of that day. After 9 months we have a stub with 10 articles, the diff being (a)suspects were arrested (b) their homes demolished (c) they were brought to trial. I.e. routine. Someone is killed, suspects are arrested, homes demolished, and convictions obtained.

[ I think many who back this kind of stubbing think the deleters have a chip on their shoulder. No, as with highbar RS compliance, they have read WP:NOTNEWS,WP:NOTMEMORIAL WP:SUSTAINED, WP:NOTABILITY OF EVENTS) and come away with the impression these stubs are an abuse of the purpose of our coverage of contemporary events, effectively newspaper obits there for political point scoring. And, one doesn't mirror the abuse to 'get even'. It's called editorial integrity. Nishidani (talk) 18:33, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Six sources in one day actually speaks to the strength of RS coverage; editorial laziness is not an argument for deletion. Frankly the fact that we are talking about Palestinian victims here at all is putrid. What are Palestinian victims, an eraser to scrub away Israeli victims? The solution to insufficient coverage is not erasing other coverage, and this is not some disgusting contest. If you want more coverage of Palestinians who have suffered and be murdered, really, you should work on that, not erasing Israelis.--Calthinus (talk) 15:15, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on persistent coverage in reliable sources. Inclusion is based on what reliable sources have covered, not what editors believe they should have covered. Our concept of notability is a proxy for the inchoate notion of "what a reasonable person might turn to an encyclopedia to look up," and the more extensively something is covered, the more likely someone is to look for additional information about it. That's why we cover a much higher percentage of Jersey Shore cast members than EMTs, even though one group is virtually of no earthly good to almost anyone. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 19:49, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Shrike, Calthinus and H. Wolfowitz. Also, I do not find the OP's idea that suffering should be erased in the name of equality acceptable. François Robere (talk) 09:46, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

lol, please dont make things up, it isnt civil. nableezy - 14:53, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is being made up here? Francois has pointed out exactly what happened in the above conversation, once you strip away the accusations of propaganda and fluff. --Calthinus (talk) 15:15, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per reliable sources. Per continued coverage. Per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 14:18, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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. Stifle (talk) 10:13, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hatfield Group

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

Non notable organization that doesn’t possess WP:CORPDEPTH & fails invariably WP:CORP. A before shows that a member of the organization might be somewhat notable but notability isn’t inherited & per se this organization doesn’t satisfy the relevant notability criteria Celestina007 (talk) 19:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:44, 28 May 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, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-05 ✍️ create

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Still needs work. (non-admin closure) Captain Galaxy (talk) 21:07, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Andrew

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

This article does not show how the subject is notable beyond managing an educational institution. I could not find him in any major publications, such as the New York Times, that typically qualify someone such as him as being notable. This article is like the many others that are created and then deleted about a young executive that may have paid or had influence in the articles creation. I do not think it is appropriate to allow for such people to derive their own notability in public life through the existence of their own Wikipedia page which is sourced from a handful of small publications Thriley (talk) 19:08, 28 May 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 May 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:24, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 23:30, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 23:30, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 23:30, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete running a network of schools is not a sign of notability. If having 5,000 students was enough for notability, we would have to create articles on hundred superintendents, and probably also on my uncle who was Assistant Superintendent of Clark County (Las Vegas) Public Schools, a postions which was the top academic post, sort of like a vice chancelor in the British university system. My uncle has a middle school named after him, but I will be the first to argue that Theoron Lane Swainston does not meet notability criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:03, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Despite what the nominator states, an NYT search turns up coverage of the subject, and much more coverage of Democracy Prep; a GNews search turns up significant coverage of his activities. A problem here is that the search function is malformed and turns up virtually no results; a corrected search turns up, many, many results (and the name combination is so common that a great deal of screening is required. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 20:18, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is a hybrid covering both Seth Andrew and Democracy Prep. There seems to be significant coverage of these in books such as Trendsetting Charter Schools and Making Young Voters. Needs work not deletion per WP:IMPERFECT. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:32, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:51, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Juliette Han (talk) 12:32, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rapid Re-Housing

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

I believe this should be deleted as it seems to be WP:SOAP for the homeless services industry and an echo chamber of the industry view presentation by National Alliance to End Homelessness. Graywalls (talk) 19:21, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 19:21, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 19:21, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Rapid Re-housing is a major part of the US public policy debate around homelessness, and there are plenty of Google Scholar hits to attest to that importance (to name just one search method), specifically using "Rapid Re-housing" as a specific term to refer to this kind of program, and not just the general concept of re-housing people quickly. As a selection: a comparison of RRH to transitional housing interventions, a report from the Urban Institute evaluating performance in high-cost markets (which can be contrasted with the Contemporary Rural Social Work Journal for rural markets), and post-RRH outcomes from the journal Evaluation and Program Planning. If you feel the article is too one-sided then edit and add in information and sources you think are missing. But I don't think deletion is the appropriate outcome here. MarginalCost (talk) 19:58, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per MarginalCost. Article content issues are not a valid reason for deletion. The subject is very notable, and our encyclopedia is deficient for not having a better article on this subject. Daask (talk) 18:15, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Topic passes GNG. Once again, an article being in sub par shape is not reason for deletion.★Trekker (talk) 14:24, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to A Star Is Born (2018 soundtrack). (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:03, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Look What I Found

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

The article was created a long time ago, and it has not been improved at all since then. It contains barely any information besides some minor chart placements. It is not a significant song from the A Star is Born album, therefore further expansions are also unlikely. Sricsi (talk) 18:20, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:55, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:55, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable track. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 21:52, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the album. Fails WP:NSONGS. Cool Marc ✉ 00:05, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to A Star Is Born (2018 soundtrack): The song can be discussed in the soundtrack. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 02:20, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to A Star Is Born (2018 soundtrack) per the above discussion. Aoba47 (talk) 02:26, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to A Star Is Born (2018 soundtrack) WP:CHEAP Lightburst (talk) 00:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Reel Big Fish. Clear consensus that this not notable, redirecting per ATD. (non-admin closure) Devonian Wombat (talk) 13:27, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Regan

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable musician with only one independent source provided. User:Namiba 18:08, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 18:08, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 18:08, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, not notable outside his former band. Caro7200 (talk) 18:24, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a notable musician. Back in 2006 the inclusionists argued he was notable as "a member of a notable band". By this logic ever member of the Tabernalce Choir at Temple Square would be notable. This is a ludicrous standard of notability. For musicians they cannot be notable just because they are part of a notable group.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:20, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Reel Big Fish as not independently notable, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:42, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wardheernews Somalia

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

Seems like spam, and 2/3 sources are from the company's own website. Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(You Asked?) (What I have Done.)} 17:51, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(You Asked?) (What I have Done.)} 17:51, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article looks promotional or simply created because WP:ITEXISTS. Some coverage can be found but not sufficiently reliable sources.JohnmgKing (talk) 20:34, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:45, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:45, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The claim that it was "one of first Somali news websites" is a decent claim, but there is no source to back it up as of now.★Trekker (talk) 21:02, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. IP/SPA !votes are given little weight due to their likely lack of familiarity with Wikipedia standards for inclusion. Remaining opinions are uniformly for deletion. BD2412 T 23:57, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cinthya Carmona

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

Cannot find anything other than passing mentions for this actress, so fails WP:GNG. All of the sources in this article are not reliable. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 17:47, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 17:47, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — non notable actor falling short of WP:NACTOR. Celestina007 (talk) 19:30, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indication that this actress has ever had a significant role in a notable production.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:22, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:23, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:23, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:25, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:25, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I thought it was just a poorly-written article, but there's no independent coverage of her anywhere. Entirely promotional non-notable. Kingsif (talk) 22:23, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete! This actress needs more exposure and for that this page needs to exist. You all act like wikipedia is a reliable source too, but you know that it isn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Palacearcade4 (talk • contribs) 00:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The page creator even admits that this article is just WP:PROMOTION. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 05:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – clear WP:NACTOR fail. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:30, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NACTOR, GNG. Wikipedia is not the place to get exposure. userdude 20:20, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This article may be merged with the Greenhouse Academy and/or East Los High articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.168.137.198 (talk) 15:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I agree, I think that this article should be merged with the following topics above!Honeymaidgrahamcrackers (talk) 22:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Not enough significant coverage in reliable sources. A merge is inappropriate as the content is poorly-sourced BLP material that cannot reasonably be merged to any of the suggested targets, and the title is not a reasonable redirect to any of the suggested targets. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:43, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The author should redirect this page into drafts to work on any mistakes71.168.137.198 (talk) 13:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Claudia Poccia

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

Article does not show significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. The ref for the Award is not reliable at all ("About Us"=Web Page does not exist). CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businesswoman. At least we are catching articles on non-notable people before they fester.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:23, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems pretty run-of-the-mill to me (not to mention that the article is written with a bit of a promotional tone). Overall, doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG. Jmertel23 (talk) 20:52, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:23, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of academic libraries in Nigeria

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

This might be useful, but nothing is linked. Fuddle (talk) 17:27, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Fuddle (talk) 17:27, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Fuddle (talk) 17:27, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Fuddle (talk) 17:27, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIR and WP:LISTN as these libraries are not individually notable. Ajf773 (talk) 20:16, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, maybe refocus scope University libraries are regularly treated as notable in every corner of Europe and North America -- i.e. University libraries in the United States and Category:University_and_college_academic_libraries_in_the_United_States -- a list is a good place to identify which ones are notable, Sadads (talk) 15:32, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, no links is not a criteria for deleting a list, and also lack of notability of the individual institutions within the list is not a criteria for deletion either see Wikipedia:Stand-alone_lists, Sadads (talk) 17:30, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A lot of things aren't linked but could be: Abubakar Tafawa Balewa University, Ahmadu Bello University, Federal University Gashua, etc. XOR'easter (talk) 17:12, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Most of the listed universities are quite notable and should be linked besides some citations were provided to support the claims. Kaizenify (talk) 23:37, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - but improve as suggested above. --Bduke (talk) 03:11, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But trim the whole list to only include those names that have their own page per WP:LISTN. Lorstaking 07:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Really? So the only university libraries that exist in Nigeria are the ones that Wikipedia has covered? Thats a really extreme, extreme position -- especially when we know we have extreme systematic bias against African content -- @Lorstaking and Bduke: that is not a criteria for WP:LISTN -- it explicitely says "Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable" -- we should not be hiding knowledge because of our own inadequacies Sadads (talk) 17:43, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree about trimming the whole list to only include those names that have their own page.Bduke (talk) 08:20, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- A library is an integral part of any university and in most cases, it is operated as an autonomous entity. The list is a demonstration of an attempt to fill one of the knowledge gaps on Wikipedia and so should be embraced as a content to be included on this platform. However, the list did not show the real identity of each library rather it mentioned names of the universities where those libraries were established. Most of the University libraries has a unique name and some of them have a stand-alone article on English Wikipedia eg: Federal University of Agriculture Abeokuta (FUNAAB)'s University library is Nimbe Adedipe Library.So, in this light, the list should be reshaped to capture the name of each library and be kept.Olaniyan Olushola (talk) 09:12, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep needs some improvements but some of the universities mentioned are notable. Nika2020 (talk) 13:17, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sadads. Mahveotm (talk) 17:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the information will be very useful to researchers and the page is in conformity with Wikipedia Notability and general guidelines User:Omorodion1 (talk) 06.58, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:56, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kahin Pyaar Na Ho Jaaye (1963 film)

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

An article about a Bollywood film, sourced only to (non-WP:RS) IMDb since its creation in 2016. A WP:BEFORE search turned up nothing; not even a plot summary. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Narky Blert (talk) 17:22, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. IMDB Source not relevant. CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:56, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Firebrick, California

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

This was actually the Ione Fire Brick Co.; aerials show now an extensive abandoned industrial concern (located on Brickyard Rd.), and older views show factory buildings. According to this local news story the brickyard operated from 1906 to 1958. Presumably the rail spot was called Firebrick but I haven't been able to confirm that; in any case, it wasn't a town per se. Mangoe (talk) 17:16, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:35, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:35, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Source suggests it may be relevant to the history of Ione, California, but no indication it was ever a notable community. Topo marks factory but none show any sign of even a factory town. Reywas92^Talk 20:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Cornellier (talk) 12:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. "Unincorporated community" label is unsourced. –dlthewave ☎ 02:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Democratic Socialists of America#2018 elections. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 15:29, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Democratic Socialists of America candidates election

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

The Democratic Socialists of America is a non-profit organization, not a political party. It does not have candidates of its own. As such, this amounts to a list of endorsements of candidates by a particular organization. All of these candidates were endorsed by other organizations, often many others. I do not think Wikipedia should include lists of endorsements by the plethora of organizations which do so in any given election around the world. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Democratic Socialists of America candidates, 2018 election for the previous nomination. (Added after the first two responses as an addendum) Therefore, Wikipedia is not the home for a list of endorsed candidates by non-profit organizations. User:Namiba 17:12, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 17:12, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 17:12, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 17:12, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No policy argument was presented for deletion As it was covered by the media it meet WP:GNG--Shrike (talk) 19:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This wasn't even an actual "election" — all it actually is, is a list of all the candidates that were endorsed by this organization in elections along with the status marker of whether they won or lost the elections they were actually running in. But the ones who did win are notable for holding office, not because of who did or didn't endorse them, and the ones who didn't win aren't notable at all, so this is really a list of people on a piece of biographical trivia that has nothing whatsovever to do with their notability or lack thereof. That's not a recipe for a list we need to keep, especially at a deliberately misleading title. Bearcat (talk) 21:00, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note I've explained my reasoning more specifically per the comment of user:Shrike.--User:Namiba 21:08, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

'Merge to Democratic_Socialists_of_America#2018_elections or perhaps a reworked List of Democratic Socialists of America members who have held office in the United States. It gets to be too much of a directory to have a separate article listing the performances of endorsed or member candidates of an organization for each year. Reywas92^Talk 22:26, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename to either 2018 Democratic Socialists of America candidates election results or List of 2018 Democratic Socialists of America candidates election results. article is noteworthy due to the media coverage that the organization and its members who ran as candidates received during the election cycle. the idea that because the DSA isn't a political party is doesn't hold ground by my estimation. but it should also be noted that it seems to be more of list article (which still is noteworthy) then just a purely information one. Epluribusunumyall (talk) 22:58, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Reywas92. Are we going to have lists for every labor union that endorses candidates? Candidates endorse by pro-choice/pro-life organizations? This will cause Wikipedia to devolve into a campaign literature stash. --Mpen320 (talk) 04:23, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Democratic Socialists of America#2018 elections, with the exception of the tables, and what amounts to a paragraph of information on state and local elections, that section already covers everything that this article says, and those items can be easily merged. While this content could potentially be notable, as being a member of the DSA is liable to get one more coverage than just being endorsed by a generic union, there is just not enough content to justify a split. Devonian Wombat (talk) 08:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 15:30, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Albanese Candy

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

trivial article, trivial references, DGG ( talk ) 17:09, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:37, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:37, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:38, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant coverage includes [7] (already in the article, more than trivial), [8], [9], [10], [11]/[12], [13], [14]. I know these have a local WP:AUD but as the world's second largest maker of gummy bears and the largest non-chocolate candy maker in Canada (plenty large in the US and elsewhere too), I think this is a notable company. Reywas92^Talk 22:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:SIGCOV WP:NEXIST Lightburst (talk) 03:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Basilicas in the Catholic Church. For now, and pending agreement among editors about how to organize this material. But there is consensus that there are currently too many articles about the same topic. Sandstein 16:59, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Minor basilica

I am also nominating the following related pages because all the material in it is contained in Basilicas in the Catholic Church. It is therefore redundant.:

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

Replicates material in the article Basilicas in the Catholic Church Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:00, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator per agreement below with @Elizium23: that he also would withdraw his RFC. We can then begin another discussion on structure, scope, and number of articles needed to treat all these topics. Better than doing it piecemeal. Unless it's too late to withdraw now? Laurel Lodged (talk) 06:50, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Interesting to see that the information about minor basilicas is added to the article Basilicas in the Catholic Church by the filer himself. This is not the place to request a merge. The Banner talk 17:06, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply as nominator, I did not create the page Basilicas in the Catholic Church. I found it in the RFC on Talk:Basilica. It already had a section on Minor basilicas. I expanded the material by taking the best bits out of the nominated article. Nothing sinister to report here. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:16, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Was it not a better idea to change Basilicas in the Catholic Church into a disambiguation page instead of copying the information from Minor basilica and Major basilica? In fact Basilicas in the Catholic Church is the article replicating information. The Banner talk 17:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And yes, you copied the text fromMinor basilica and Major basilica without comforming to the licenses by failing proper attribution: Attribution—You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work.) And that is usually called copyright violation. The Banner talk 18:06, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Basilica according to active RFC on Talk:Basilica. Elizium23 (talk) 17:07, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is still no reason to shoehorn these two quite different concepts into the same article! GPinkerton (talk) 00:58, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Basilicas in the Catholic Church by section for both. It seems to me that merging the architecture and ecclesiastical articles is a bad idea, but in any case resolving that shouldn't be part of this discussion. Mangoe (talk) 17:23, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Query I genuinely don't know what this suggestion means. Does it involve the deletion of articles? If so, which ones? Does it involve the merger of articles? If so, which ones? Does it involve blanking with re-directs? If so, which ones? By the way, nothing in the proposal involves the main Basilica article: that of course should stay and refer to the 3 forms of basilica. Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:52, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a problem with that, though. In the current state of Basilica it does not refer to the 3 forms, because it was split apart. That's why there is a current, active RFC suggesting that we reunite the 3 senses in the main article again, but until that happens, I am kind of opposed to tinkering with the ancillary articles like this.

I think perhaps that what needs to happen is if Laurel withdraws this AFD, I withdraw my RFC, and we begin another discussion on structure, scope, and number of articles needed to treat all these topics. If we do it piecemeal then it will only be done poorly. Elizium23 (talk) 07:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to this proposal. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:31, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And do not forget to revert your copyvio at Basilicas in the Catholic Church. The Banner talk 10:26, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Basilicas in the Catholic Church per Mangoe. Logical place for the info, and keeps the redirects which are useful. oknazevad (talk) 18:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:41, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:41, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Basilicas in the Catholic Church for both Major basilica and Minor basilica as Mangoe and Lightburst suggest. There is enough for just one article on this subject. GPinkerton (talk) 01:00, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment I'm having some trouble following what is going on here, but if the proposal is to merge everything back into a single article, I object to that. The ecclesiastical sense and the architectural sense are so different that they should have separate articles. Mangoe (talk) 02:30, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm also having a hard time following what's going on here, but I support merging Minor basilica and Major basilica into a single article that covers Catholic basilicas, but is separate from the general Basilica article and from the List of Catholic basilicas. Ergo Sum 14:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment we certainly do not need bother the major and minor articles and Basilicas in the Catholic Church, unless one can provide an overview and the other detail. My preference would be to merge Major basilica into Basilicas in the Catholic Church and summarise Minor basilica there, making it a main article to that section. There are so many churches with the minor title, that it is worth also keeping the list article. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:56, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge No need for this to be split into three articles. Reywas92^Talk 16:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:32, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 2015 Moscow bus stop attack

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

WP:NOTNEWS Therapyisgood (talk) 16:55, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I'm struggling to find any news on this, TBH. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:02, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:43, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:43, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:43, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is WP:NOTNEWS. Ajf773 (talk) 20:09, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not news, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A random attack that involved 0 deaths and lack of WP:LASTING impact. The article has certainly remained stub until now and used a questionable source.[15] I wonder how it managed to be here for this long. Capankajsmilyo (talk) 01:48, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's quite sad but this sort of thing is usual. No deaths, and no significant coverage. Koridas (...Puerto Rico for statehood!) 02:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note - Why can't we all live in peace? Koridas (...Puerto Rico for statehood!) 02:15, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 22:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bhakta Dhruvakumar

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

An article about a Bollywood film, unsourced except to (non-WP:RS) IMDb since its creation in 2016. A WP:BEFORE search turned up a plot summary, and that was it; nothing RS at all. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Narky Blert (talk) 16:50, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:46, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:46, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:33, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 07:28, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable, unsourced film. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:21, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete IMDB is clearly not enough for indicating notability. Siddsg (talk) 13:14, 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 Speedy delete per the request of the author. Hut 8.5 17:02, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Castle nectar

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

There are other articles about Operation Castle, but this one is still a draft at best. Fuddle (talk) 16:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Fuddle (talk) 16:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftity Nowhere near ready for mainspace. Mccapra (talk) 17:13, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I argue Draftify as well. It looks like it could potentially bacome a pretty decent article, but until then, no. Ghinga7 (talk) 22:11, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 23:31, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I made this article because castle nectar didn’t even have a Wikipedia article and the page isn’t that big because their isn’t that much information about the bomb but i can’t improve it because my edits keep getting deleted deanhansen2

Redirect to Operation Castle, rather than delete, but no objection to draftifying. What we have a stub; we should encourage the creator, probably a new editor (he has very few edits), to add more to make this into a proper article. Most of the other nuclear bomb tests if this series have an article, so that there is no reason why this should not. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:22, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let’s delete it I made a better one anyway so just get rid of this junk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deanhansen2 (talk • contribs) 20:59, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:33, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of shopping malls in Zambia

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

Unnecessary list. ~SS49~ {talk} 16:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 16:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete no notability and no references present. ~ Amkgp ✉ 17:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:11, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:12, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We don't appear to have any articles that could be listed. We have categories for shopping malls by country, Category:Shopping malls by country, but nothing like Category:Shopping malls in Zimbabwe which has a corresponding List of shopping malls in Zimbabwe. (Perhaps no the best example, since its a list of one, but the closest one, in alphabetical order.) Vexations (talk) 17:11, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTDIR --Cornellier (talk) 12:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:33, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aao Pyaar Karen (1964 film)

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

An article about a Bollywood film, sourced only to (non-WP:RS) IMDb since its creation in 2016. A WP:BEFORE search turned up nothing RS, and didn't even yield a plot summary. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 16:22, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by nom. The Hindi and Newari equivalent articles add no useful information. Narky Blert (talk) 16:31, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:50, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:50, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The article makes the songs more notable than the film itself! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:18, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:55, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sassan Dieter Khatib Shahidi

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

non notable resume of a non notable entrepreneur. no coverage in english or fa, likely paid for PR. Praxidicae (talk) 16:07, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No basis at all for keeping this. Mccapra (talk) 17:20, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:13, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:13, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm a bit surprised at the "no coverage in English or farsi" claim, as there clearly is coverage in English, and since he is active in Dubai I would except the second search to be in Arab (which I'm incapable of). Coverage includes this full article in The National (Abu Dhabi)[16] from 2015 (the same newspaper also features him as an expert in other articles like here, with a short note about him; the same happens e.g. in the Arabian Gazette[17]). Enterprise Asia wrote a long profile of him when they awarded him the "Most Promising" award in 2016[18]. In 2019 The Recycler gave a long summary of a 2 hour interview he gave to Game Changers[19] AsiaOne features him as a "leader"[20]. Tahawultech also interviewed him.[21] Arabian Business interviewed him as an expert[22]. Oh, and he's married to Nicole Rodrigues. It would be good if someone could look for sources in Arabic. Yo delete this because there is "no coverage in English" seems rather bizarre. Fram (talk) 07:34, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since when is being married to someone a reason for keeping? I did look in Arabic and found nothing but considering he's Iranian, I also looked for sources in farsi/persian and it was the same, further the sources you included are almost all name drops or interviews and are not independent coverage. this is a non notable award. Praxidicae (talk) 11:47, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that being married to someone is a keep reason, but it would ake a good redirect target at the very least. How is e.g. this not independent coverage? It is an interview, yes, but a lot of it is about him, not just an interview about the company. In fact, I think all sources I gave are independent coverage, not sources affiliated with him. How is the Asia One page about him not independent, or a name drop or interview? It is a full profile of him in a reliable source. Fram (talk) 07:00, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:01, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have looked in Arabic and found nothing, which is odd as he has a very distinctive name. Mccapra (talk) 11:44, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep is a notable entrepreneur hence being nominated in different awards of entrepreneurs in U.A.E. Sidedeans —Preceding undated comment added 09:15, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In Arabic there's only 2 websites mentioned his name among other names. Also about "Business Leader of the Year 2014 in Meed Awards", really! first of all this award non notable one, also the linkٍ said "Among the recipients were" as there's a lot of recipients! and sources (most of them not mentioned info. that used for): (13/12/4) taking about the award, (11) main page of website, (10) not mentioned Sassan, (9) twitter, (8) only mentioned his name once on long article, (7) main page of website, (6/5/2/3) I don't know if this website reliable, (1) not work for me. So from what I read, he is non-notable person, and maybe he can mentioned with few details about his company/award on his wife article --Alaa :)..! 13:58, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete non-notable person.--Faisal ^talk 16:07, 13 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:31, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

American store headquarters

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

A random list of corporations, copied directly from one source. Fuddle (talk) 16:07, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Fuddle (talk) 16:07, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree.Bicycle salesman (talk) 20:56, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NOTDIR "Simple listings without context information. Examples include...offices, store locations..." ----Pontificalibus 05:48, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another Real Jaryed cruft article: [23] as well as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Top 10 most populated places in each State. Ajf773 (talk) 10:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NOTDIR. I also agree with Ajf773's frustration with these listcruft articles. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:11, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete basically a failing of not directory. Also too inherently presentist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:43, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Almost entirely unreferenced directory. Pichpich (talk) 22:11, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Claims to be an exhaustive list of American store headquarters, but to create such a list would really be a monumental task, and would also violate notability, since most "American stores" are not notable. Even if it is amended to a list of store corporations, "store" is quite a broad term such that this kind of list isn't actually useful. Cameron Brow (talk) 00:36, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete Materialscientist (talk) 12:49, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ariel Mortman

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

Not notable. Moved from draft by the author. Fuddle (talk) 16:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing here to suggest notability. Mccapra (talk) 17:22, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:NACTOR. Even if the abysmal references could be replaced with genuine ones, it would not pass. Ifnord (talk) 17:27, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:NACTOR the person needs to have significant roles in multiple notable films, tv shows, etc. She only seems to have had a significant role in Greenhouse Academy. Also doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG as all the coverage I have found is only passing mention in articles where Greenhouse Academy is the main subject. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 17:31, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 17:32, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:53, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:53, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I checked: only one or two passing mentions at Variety and Deadline, nothing at THR or Entertainment Weekly. That is generally a good metric that the subject doesn't pass WP:NACTOR or WP:BASIC. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:03, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete! This page will give others a chance to look at this actress and learn about her a bit more. She is very underrated and needs more exposure. Sure, she wasn't interviewed by any big media sites but that's because she doesn't have more exposure. By the way, you all act like Wikipedia is a reliable source when it clearly isn't. Palacearcade4 (talk) 00:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NACTOR, GNG. Wikipedia is not the place to get exposure. userdude 20:20, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Juliette Han (talk) 12:45, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ludwig Hofmaier

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

WP:NOTABILITY. Hofmaier has little to no notability outside of his native Germany. He accomplished several feats in the 1960s, which while impressive, are an example of WP:1E, as he has been a completely non-notable antiques dealer since the early 1970s; while his feats have made him a minor celebrity in Germany, I cannot find any signs of him being notable at any point, rather it be the 1960s or the 2020s, outside of there; every last citation on the page is in German. I suggest we delete his English Wikipedia page and keep his Deutsch one, since that is the only language/area of the world he has any claim to notability in. HawthOffHead (talk) 00:40, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HawthOffHead, "we" don't get to decide on keeping his German wiki article. As for notability, if he's notable in Germany by our standards, he's notable on the English wiki. Drmies (talk) 00:43, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Drmies, fair enough. My point still stands that he is a D-List celebrity who is only notable for WP:1E and who fails to pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines; since his only """notable""" role as an actor was in a short film without a page of its own by a director without a page of his own, and the extent of his business career is limited to running three non-notable pubs and being an antiques dealer, I judge his notability off of WP:ATHLETE, which he fails to pass. HawthOffHead (talk) 00:48, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:31, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:32, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:33, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - his notability at de:Wiki is based mostly on his current celebrity as a television personality, which the translation doesn't reflect (presumably because the names of German TV shows don't count for much in the Anglophone world).Ingratis (talk) 01:58, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. Additionally, many of his appearances as a television personality seem to be brief appearances as a guest in one or two episodes. He appears to be a regular guest on one show only, an antiques-themed show presumably tying into his main current job as an antique shop owner. He's about as notable as Alex Debogorski from Ice Road Truckers or James Lurie from Life After People: his show is popular, at least in his native country, but as an individual person, I would not consider him notable enough to have his own page. HawthOffHead (talk) 2:50, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
  - I've added him to [[Category:German television personalities]], which already contained 107 other articles. As long as the sourcing is up to standard I see no problem here. Ingratis (talk) 14:24, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:1E has been invoked, but his hand-walking feats were clearly not a single event as multiple such feats are mentioned in the article. I really dislike the invoking of WP:1E to cover things that clearly weren't a single event. To state "He accomplished several feats in the 1960s, which while impressive, are an example of WP:1E" is pure contradiction in terms, it cannot have been a single event if it happened several times! Moreover, any reference in any language, so long as it is a reliable reference, can be used to substantiate notability - it does not matter at all that the references are in German! Being notable in Germany is being notable within the meaning of WP:N!

I invite the nominator to consider that every article, so long as it was one written in good faith, should be treated with a certain minimal degree of respect as the work of someone trying to contribute to the project. This means at the very least properly familiarising themselves with what is and isn't a WP:DELREASON, what WP:1E does and does not cover, what is and is not a reliable source, how to perform WP:BEFORE, and what will and will not pass WP:ANYBIO. I am not confident that they have done this based on this nomination. FOARP (talk) 13:45, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:47, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:03, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am deeply opposed to any argument that states since the sources are only in one language, it cannot be notable in another language. That is ethnocentrism at its worst. Ifnord (talk) 21:00, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sourcing of the English article is poor; but the German equivalent includes several excellent and lengthy WP:RS sources specifically about him, including the major news publications Der Spiegel (2016) and Süddeutsche Zeitung (2018).

I've had two articles entirely based, and one almost entirely based, on non-English sources featured in WP:DYK; that last one got 12,000 views. The idea that English sources are required to support an article flies in the face of WP:NONENG. Narky Blert (talk) 09:01, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The argument that a subject's notability is mostly limited to a single country is awful enough, but the statement that achieving "several feats" makes the article a BLP1E is utterly incoherent. Hopelessly unreasonable. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 20:33, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LaTiesha Fazakas

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

Not notable. Draft:Fazakas Gallery by the same user was declined. Fuddle (talk) 15:55, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. Fuddle (talk) 15:55, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Fuddle (talk) 15:55, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't satisfy GNG guidelines. However, a note, having a draft declined is not a "good rationale" for deletion. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 16:04, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tried to improve and verify some of the article claims with additional sources, but could not find much in WP:SIGCOV. Mentions are all pretty much exclusively in the context of her being the director or her gallery and the particular show being covered. Might be notable later on, but not now as adequate sourcing does not exist to establish GNG.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet GNG at this time. Trillfendi (talk) 21:30, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Super Nintendo Entertainment System. As a compromise between delete and merge, both of which are advocated here. Editors can figure out whether or what to merge from the history. Sandstein 17:37, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Super Famicom Box

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}}.

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

This article, which is for a very obscure Japanese video game console model, does not meet the notability criteria. Its two sources are unreliable, and there was nothing I could find via reliable, third-party sources that could make it establish notability. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 15:38, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:19, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:19, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:19, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of sources, or maybe merge with Super Nintendo Entertainment System. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edittac (talk • contribs) 16:59, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm noticing an absurd amount of impersonating sockpuppets trying to defend this article, all of which have been reverted and globalled. Hopefully this will end soon, because it's honestly getting ridiculous. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 20:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Super Nintendo Entertainment System. It seems notable enough for a mention or section in the regular SNES article, but probably not enough in it's current state for a separate article. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:47, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:37, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of first ladies in Africa

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

Would be better as separate lists for each country. Fuddle (talk) 15:38, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Fuddle (talk) 15:38, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Fuddle (talk) 15:38, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft. There is probably some merit in having a list of spouses of heads of state (we should avoid the term First Ladies because this is gender specific) as some of them indeed have articles of their own. However in its current state it is still a work in progress and should not be considered for creation until it has significantly near completion and has better sources than Wikipedia as a source. Ajf773 (talk) 02:58, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree that the articles should be country specific instead. Capitals00 (talk) 07:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Africa is not a country.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:46, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:38, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pathway Bible Fellowship

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

PROD'd in March by Mccapra, unPROD'd by Sleekg (should note the PROD also turned out to be invalid on a history review since it was PROD'd in 2014).

Basically, this is a local church that attracts local church coverage in its local area. There is no coverage that meets WP:N: "significant attention by the world at large". ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All the sources are the San Jose Mercury News, except for the reference to PRISM, which doesn't even mention the topic at all. No indication of notability. Mccapra (talk) 16:16, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG per the 6 references in the article.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 00:02, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Epiphyllumlover, WP:N, of which GNG is a subsection, specifically requires that subjects have garnered attention from the world at large, not simply from their local area. Unless there are sources from outside San Jose, it does not meet the notability guideline. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:21, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't have a view on this article but WP:N as far as I can see does not rule out local sources from contributing to WP:GNG and discussions on the talk page have decide against such a restriction. The exception is WP:AUD which only applies to companies and organisations but is there an exception for churches? WP:NCHURCH says that a church organisation can pass WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:GNG, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:30, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Notability requires that topics have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large (from the nutshell header for WP:N, bold by me). Local sources alone, by definition, cannot satisfy this requirement, as they do not have the broad audience or coverage required to indicate global attention. It does not rule out local sources from supporting a claim of notability, but without bolstering from sources that do indicate global attention, it carries very little weight. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:10, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and another point - all the sources in the article are from the San Jose Mercury News, and per GNG Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. So those five SJMN articles should actually be read as one source for the purpose of assessing notability. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:13, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

San Jose News publishes on the internet, which means the world has access to it. Thanks to news aggregator sites and the internet, all the local news sources are global now except for the likes of The Budget which is still typeset by hand. Possibly the Wikipedia rule you are citing was from back over a decade ago when many newspapers were still largely offline--especially those in smaller communities.Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:02, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What an absurd argument to make. That a publication is available on the internet does not mean that its target audience or its scope of coverage is suddenly globally significant. By your argument, the little newsletter that covers my small neighborhood in my small suburban town is a globally significant source equivalent to the New York Times so long as it is published on the internet. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has lots of topics that are niche and probably interesting only for people in a certain locale. That hasn't broken its global reach yet... it is hard to see what harm this article does.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:32, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The governing policy for whether or not to keep articles is found at WP:Notability, not WP:Does it do harm?. If we judged articles based on "well, what harm does it do?" we would be overrun with directory entries of every little local entity. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nomination and Mccapra. The article relies entirely on sourcing from a single, local news source, aside from the one article in Prism that does not even mention the subject of the article. Searching for reliable sources outside of the San Jose Mercury News turns up nothing. Rorshacma (talk) 15:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:38, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mustafa Bey Barmada

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

COI copy of Draft:Mustafa Bey Barmada which has been declined. SK2242 (talk) 15:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 15:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 15:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 15:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the mainspace copy. Java Hurricane 15:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Copying and pasting your own work into mainspace literally within minutes of having submitted it for AFC review in the first place is not the path to getting an article created. The article is not in a good enough state of quality to overlook that problem, however: as written, it is supported entirely by glancing namechecks of the subject's existence, not to content that's substantively about him for the purposes of helping to establish his notability. There are potentially valid notability claims here, but the article still has to be written and referenced better than this before it's actually allowed to go live — but the creator has the opportunity to keep working on the draft to make it better, so deleting this doesn't wreck their work. And the apparent WP:COI (creator's username directly indicates a family connection of some kind) is precisely the reason why we have to insist on proper process here, because it inherently calls the article's credibility into question if the sourcing isn't airtight. Obviously, no prejudice against future approval of the draft if it gets improved properly. Bearcat (talk) 21:06, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I declined the draft both because it was poorly sourced and because it was duplicated. The duplication of a draft is, at least in my thinking as a reviewer, an indication of sloppy editing by the submitter, and does not warrant a lot of research on the part of the reviewer when it is obvious that the submitter has been sloppy. Not offering an opinion on the article at this time. While a reviewer can clean up a draft that obviously belongs in article space, I won't do much cleanup when the submitter hasn't done their cleanup. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as never reviewed and having notability concerns. Did anyone notice that the dates say 1953-1883? That indicates sloppiness. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:06, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. – Joe (talk) 12:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's Shanghai

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

Fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG, specifically WP:SIGCOV. The two references that had been in the article were both dead links. Only active reference is the link to the company's own website. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 15:09, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:44, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:44, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

1赵光霞; 宋心蕊, eds. (2013-05-21). "《城市漫步》上海版英文月刊（that's Shanghai）". People's Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2020-05-25. Retrieved 2020-05-25.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: editors list (link)
Kogan, Judy (2002-05-23). "Mark Kitto's 'That's Shanghai' gives readers a dynamic and exciting view of Asia's fastest growing city". Shanghai Star. Archived from the original on 2004-02-21. Retrieved 2020-05-25.
Farrer, James (2019). International Migrants in China's Global City: The New Shanghailanders. London: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-815-38263-8. Retrieved 2020-05-25.
Ambler, Tim; Witzel, Morgen; Xi, Chao (2017). "Doing Business in China" (4 ed.). London: Routledge. p. 187–188. ISBN 978-1-138-94482-4. Retrieved 2020-05-25.
Qingfen, Ding (2006-06-19). "Expat info". China Daily. Archived from the original on 2020-05-25. Retrieved 2020-05-25.
Macartney, Jane (2007-05-23). "China saves face with compensation offer for seized magazines". The Times. Archived from the original on 2020-05-25. Retrieved 2020-05-25.
"New Straits Times (Malaysia): - Amazing Shanghai". New Straits Times. 2003-01-26. Archived from the original on 2020-05-25. Retrieved 2020-05-25.
McGregor, Richard (2005-05-04). "The perils of publishing in a legal limbo". Financial Times. Archived from the original on 2020-05-25. Retrieved 2020-05-25.

Sources with quotes

1赵光霞; 宋心蕊, eds. (2013-05-21). "《城市漫步》上海版英文月刊（that's Shanghai）". People's Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2020-05-25. Retrieved 2020-05-25.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: editors list (link)
The article notes:
《城市漫步》上海版英文月刊（that’s Shanghai）是由国务院新闻办公室主管，五洲传播出版社主办并出版发行的期刊。她创刊于2004年，以上海这座国际大都市中的英语阅读群体为读者，内容涵盖艺术文化、流行时尚、旅游、餐饮、技术、商务等众多领域，同时包含了国内外社会名流的专访。其特色栏目如The Buzz， Life ＆ style, Eat & drink等以其客观的视角、深度的分析、丰富的资讯和独特的文化，为上海讲英语的外籍人士和当地爱好者提供了信息及娱乐，从而丰富了他们的生活，在城市资讯类外文期刊中形成了较好的品牌效应，处于行业领先地位。堪称外籍人士沪上生活的实用指南和最佳顾问。
From Google Translate:
"City Walk" Shanghai Edition English Monthly (that's Shanghai) is a periodical sponsored by the Press Office of the State Council and sponsored by Wuzhou Communication Press. Founded in 2004, she uses the English reading community in Shanghai, an international metropolis, as a reader. The content covers many fields such as arts and culture, fashion, tourism, catering, technology, business and so on. It also includes exclusive interviews with celebrities at home and abroad. Its characteristic columns such as The Buzz, Life & Style, Eat & Drink, etc. provide information and entertainment for English-speaking foreigners and local lovers in Shanghai with their objective perspective, in-depth analysis, rich information and unique culture As a result, they have enriched their lives, formed a better brand effect in the urban information foreign language journals, and are in a leading position in the industry. It can be called a practical guide and best consultant for foreigners living in Shanghai.
Kogan, Judy (2002-05-23). "Mark Kitto's 'That's Shanghai' gives readers a dynamic and exciting view of Asia's fastest growing city". Shanghai Star. Archived from the original on 2004-02-21. Retrieved 2020-05-25.
The article notes:
The 35-year-old Kitto was not intending a career in the publishing business when he settled in Shanghai four years ago. However, he quickly realized the need for a publication like "That's Shanghai". His enormous success has proven him right. Today the magazine, run by a team of 30 staffers, boasts a circulation of 35,000 with a readership composed of 60 per cent Chinese and 40 per cent foreigners.
"That's Shanghai" enjoys a high level of public recognition, receiving positive feedback from readers as far away as Germany. In addition, Kitto's operation has gained praise from some of the highest departments in the Chinese Government. Officials see the publication as an asset in Shanghai's bid for World Expo 2010. Kitto said he was personally informed by a senior official that his publication was important in promoting Shanghai to the outside world, as well as developing the city's local media.
Farrer, James (2019). International Migrants in China's Global City: The New Shanghailanders. London: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-815-38263-8. Retrieved 2020-05-25.
The book notes:
Kathleen [Lau] soon became busy with other ventures, including cofounding Shanghai's first English-language magazine, That's Shanghai, with Mark Kitto, a story picked up in Chapter 4.
The book notes:
I observed with great interest when in 1999, recently arrived expatriates Mark Kitto, from the UK, and Kathleen Lau, from California, began publishing That's Shanghai, a monthly, English-language guide with listings of the city's restaurants, bars, and everything else.
... Kitto writes that the mayor of Shanghai took a collection of That's Shanghai issues to Paris in 2002 when he presented his successful bid for the 2010 World Expo (Kitto 2006; 2005 interview). The impact of That's Shanghai was extraordinary and not only for the expatriate market. The magazine introduced nightlife listings and restaurant reviews at a time when independent restaurants, bars, and clubs were beginning to spread throughout the city.
Imitators sprang up, and by the mid-2000s, there were at least five locally published listing magazines in English aimed at this market, including market leaders City Weekend, Shanghai Talk, and the Shanghai edition of Time Out. ... Awards from That's Shanghai, City Weekend, and other English magazines became the most important legitimating symbols for restaurants in Shanghai before the arrival of Michelin in 2017. More than anything, however, these magazines were the media through which the expatriate community shared stories and established a collective identity.
The book notes:
However, as Kitto discovered, grey-zone media practices tolerated for Chinese businesses were off-limits to foreigners. In 2004, the state-owned company that owned his publishing licenses took over the company, locking him out of his offices (Kitto 2006). The case of That's Shanghai made clear that foreigners could not challenge the state's authority over media organizations in China.
...
One of That's Shanghai's longest serving editors, Australian JFK Miller published a book outlining what he called ... For example, while some Shanghai expatriate magazines features sections devoted to LGBT interests, for many years That's Shanghai was prohibited from explicitly promoting LGBT venues.
Ambler, Tim; Witzel, Morgen; Xi, Chao (2017). "Doing Business in China" (4 ed.). London: Routledge. p. 187–188. ISBN 978-1-138-94482-4. Retrieved 2020-05-25.
The book notes:
That's Shanghai

Kitto's magazine, the equivalent of Time Out, tottered into existence by skirting the rules in 1998, but then was officially banned by the Shanghai News Bureau after just one issue. Nothing in China is quite as it seems. The Bureau had another magazine, the Pictorial, which was doing badly. They wanted to combine the two, under their ownership with Kitto's team doing the work.
...
To maintain the fiction, Kitt was no longer 'editor' but now 'Planning manager' and his team was similarly, on paper, re-assigned. His magazine's name, Ish, was proscribed but, as they needed to get away from the bad reputation of the Bureau's magazine, a new name, that's Shanghai, was put at the top of the front page, with Shanghai Pictorial at the bottom.
...
There would be no kanhao for them in Shanghai; but as that door shut, another opened. Kitto ran that's Shanghai and its sister papers in Beijing and Guangzhou for, in total, seven years. Commercially they were very successful but they had to keep dodging the bullets from branches of party and government, each of which had their own competitive interests. Their agendas were well hidden; Macchiavelli would have been proud of them.
Qingfen, Ding (2006-06-19). "Expat info". China Daily. Archived from the original on 2020-05-25. Retrieved 2020-05-25.
The article notes:
Demand for the that's publications is enormous, so that's Shanghai started selling copies of the magazines at Lawson convenience stores and CarreFour. The company will sell the magazine at newsstands in the future. That's Beijing will not be sold, however.
That's Shanghai's circulation is currently 50,000 and is audited by Hong Kong Audit Bureau of Circulations.
Macartney, Jane (2007-05-23). "China saves face with compensation offer for seized magazines". The Times. Archived from the original on 2020-05-25. Retrieved 2020-05-25.
The article notes:
A former Welsh Guardsman, metals trader and would-be magazine publisher who fell foul of China's stringent media controls may finally receive compensation for titles lost to a government publishing house.
The dispute dates back to the late 1990s when Mark Kitto, 40, joined a small English-language magazine in the southern city of Guangzhou. The success of that venture prompted him and his Chinese business partner to try their luck in the bigger, glitzier metropolis of Shanghai. He was taking a risk in a country where foreigners are not allowed to run publishing companies, but the titles -That's Beijing, That's Shanghai and That's Guangzhou -all thrived.
The first, That's Shanghai, made money from the third edition, with its mix of feature stories on life in China, listings and advertisements for restaurants, bars and clubs. By the time he lost the business in 2004, it was turning over about Pounds 2.5 million a year.
"New Straits Times (Malaysia): - Amazing Shanghai". New Straits Times. 2003-01-26. Archived from the original on 2020-05-25. Retrieved 2020-05-25.
The article notes:
First, pick up That's Shanghai - a free magazine that you can get in most hotels and westernised restaurants. Do this, you'll know more about the city than anybody who lives there.
It lists about everything that's going on. There's a restaurant guide - 10 pages worth with descriptions, opinions, prices etc. Compiled by an American called Mark Kitto, the magazine is a monthly and is read by every single expat living in Shanghai, and a fair number of locals as well.
...
If you get a copy of That's Shanghai, you'll see new stuff opening up every month. It's not because things are closing down and being replaced - it's because more and more stuff is coming.
McGregor, Richard (2005-05-04). "The perils of publishing in a legal limbo". Financial Times. Archived from the original on 2020-05-25. Retrieved 2020-05-25.
The article notes:
Mr Kitto's magazines, such as That's Shanghai, developed cachet with locals as well as attracting advertising from the booming property and restaurant industries.
But publishing the magazines was only one part of Mr Kitto's job. Much of his time was spent on politics - that is, trying to secure partnerships with the all-important holders of publishing numbers that would keep his magazines open.
The most difficult market was Shanghai, which operates tough media controls. Yet it was also the most profitable because of the city's wealth and international population. In one raid, local officials confiscated the magazine's computers. In another, they sat down at the magazine's offices, put their feet up on the desks and demanded that they be brought buckets of Kentucky Fried Chicken for lunch.
From June 1999, That's Shanghai survived by using a licence number from the Yangzhou government in return for running a page each month about the attractions of the nearby city. Mr Kitto kept control of the business by entering into an "exclusive consultancy arrangement" with Yangzhou, as well as with an advertising agency that was owned by the magazine's Chinese financial controller.

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

Cunard (talk) 04:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Shanghai Star noted, "That's Shanghai enjoys a high level of public recognition, receiving positive feedback from readers as far away as Germany."
A 2019 Routledge book called That's Shanghai "Shanghai's first English-language magazine". It also noted, "The impact of That's Shanghai was extraordinary and not only for the expatriate market. The magazine introduced nightlife listings and restaurant reviews at a time when independent restaurants, bars, and clubs were beginning to spread throughout the city." It further noted, "Awards from That's Shanghai, City Weekend, and other English magazines became the most important legitimating symbols for restaurants in Shanghai before the arrival of Michelin in 2017."
New Strait Times called That's Shanghai "a free magazine that you can get in most hotels and westernised restaurants".
Financial Times noted that That's Shanghai "developed cachet with locals as well as attracting advertising from the booming property and restaurant industries".
Cunard (talk) 04:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:48, 28 May 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) 00:03, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Related discussions: 2018-07 Winston Sterzel ✓ keep, 2017-05 Winston Sterzel no consensus

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:10, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Shyama Charan Gupta. (non-admin closure) Juliette Han (talk) 12:50, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shyam Group

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

No indication that this conglomerate is notable. M4DU7 (talk) 06:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 06:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 06:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to its parent article Shyama Charan Gupta. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 09:57, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:11, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:01, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Milwaukee Brewers first-round draft picks. (non-admin closure) BEAMALEXANDER!, talk 13:29, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clint Coulter

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

Former minor league player who never made it to the majors. Sources are routine in coverage. Fails relevant notability guidelines. Fiuheat (talk) 13:51, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. DannyS712 (talk) 15:51, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. DannyS712 (talk) 15:51, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Milwaukee Brewers first-round draft picks. First round picks are likely search topics and he is mentioned in that article. Spanneraol (talk) 16:39, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough sources to pass WP:GNG.-- Yankees10 23:52, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources are just routine coverage, nothing that shows notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:03, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are probably enough sources specifically about Coulter in the article already, but additional articles specifically about him are also available, for example here,here, here and maybe here although not sure this is a reliable source. Rlendog (talk) 14:39, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:11, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Milwaukee Brewers first-round draft picks He fails to meet WP:NBASEBALL with his highest level being just 13 games in AAA. The coverage I'm seeing is routine sports reporting and typical of any player who played on 7 different minor league teams (in 8 years)--local sports coverage, transactional reporting, and coverage from the Brewers. I don't believe it's sufficient to meet WP:GNG. He's no longer in any major league team's farm organization. I see nothing that shows he merits his own article, but a redirect to where he is already mentioned seems reasonable. Papaursa (talk) 19:55, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we have WP:SIGCOV Lightburst (talk) 01:59, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:42, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Milwaukee Brewers first-round draft picks Not every first round draft pick deserves a page even though they receive significant coverage, because every first rounder does. What matters is the coverage after the draft is over (ie: during their career), and in this case he hasn't received enough to merit his own page. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:35, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above, none of the coverage is sufficient to show notability above and beyond a normal minor league player, which are not automatically notable. SportingFlyer T·C 06:27, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:15, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unidan

AfDs for this article:

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

Relevance of subject was temporary and based around social media notability. Past discussions on deletion focused on relevance to the website which has evolved well past this one particular user. Other past discussion focused around the subject's coming books and speaking engagements which never came to fruition. The subject themselves seems to have kept a low profile in the past years proving that notability was temporary. There is nothing in this article worthy of preservation. Sir Richard Head (talk) 14:18, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. DannyS712 (talk) 15:50, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:55, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I think GNG is met. The Daily Dot, Fox News, and Vice articles look like significant coverage. It's over enough time that I don't think it's WP:BLP1E. (The best delete argument OTOH, seems to be that it is verging on BLP1E and that the coverage is verging on marginal, with the combination kicking him below the threshold of notability.) The article should be significantly cut down if kept. Comment that he appears to have left Binghamton, and I didn't find record of a degree. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:46, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this person is a doctoral candidate. You have to have some really comelling reason to show a doctoral candidate as notable and that is lacking here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:45, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Was a doctoral candidate, in 2014 when the article was written. (Being a past doctoral candidate is not any more of a claim of notability than being a present one, of course.) —David Eppstein (talk) 00:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Once notable, always notable. WP:NOTTEMPORARY. There is no such thing as "temporary notability". Taking such an idea to its logical extension, we would be deleting articles on Ramses II or Sweyn Forkbeard. They haven't been up to much lately, have they? Or when was the last time you heard about the Balloon Boy hoax? Yet we keep the article because it was once notable and, so, is always notable. Currently, on average over 100 people view the Unidan article every day, so clearly it continues to be useful to a number of people. Frankly, the fact that the only activity the account that proposed this deletion has had is nominating the page for deletion, yet it clearly has a knowledge of past discussions, leads me to believe that this may be Ben Eisenkop himself attempting to have this page deleted because of the unflattering information that it contains about his conduct. Creating alternate accounts for shady purposes is the entire point of his scandal, after all. AlphabeticThing9 (talk) 03:34, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm just a guy that stumbled on the article and asked myself "Why does this article exist?" and used the opportunity to learn more about wikipedia, but thanks for the humorous thought. Sir Richard Head (talk) 15:55, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:38, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOTTEMPORARY Java Hurricane 15:46, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, while there could be a WP:BLP1E problem here, this guy received coverage for multiple events over a period of over a year, so he clearly sails by that. He passes WP:GNG, since quite a few reliable secondary sources have given him significant coverage. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirected as a pure content fork of Karana (dance). In cases like this where the conclusion is indisputable, there's no need for a deletion debate just for the sake of it. ‑ Iridescent 07:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One Hundred and Eight Shiva Thandavam

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

The article looks very much like a promotional effort, fails WP:GNG, no reliable sources found MRRaja001 (talk) 14:25, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. MRRaja001 (talk) 14:25, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. MRRaja001 (talk) 14:25, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There is a clear absence of consensus after much extended time for discussion, although the trend appears to be towards keeping. In any case, there is no reasonable possibility that a consensus to delete will form with respect to this topic. BD2412 T 00:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Freeman Osonuga

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

non-notable doctor. Fails the guidelines on MEDIC, GNG, and any other one you want to follow. Claim to fame is that an obscure competition selected him to fly to space in 2015, there is no evidence that he actually went to space, nor is there any RS that shows that this competition is notable enough to confer notability on its winners. Page has been recreated multiple times, deleted each time. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 13:01, 13 May 2020 (UTC)—Harmanprtjhj (talk • contribs) 06:43, 28 May 2020‎ (UTC) Nomination struck as nominator has been indentified as a sockpuppet. Juliette Han (talk) 14:04, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree, why do people make an article on any doctor they see? There's just no point. JTZegers (talk) 13:42, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable medical doctor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:58, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:25, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:25, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:25, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject lacks in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources. Being a non-notable medical doctor who might be traveling to space isn't a valid ground for keep. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 18:40, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject of the article clearly meet WP:BASIC. He had been significantly discussed in multiple independent reliable sources, enough to meet our inclusion criteria. Ptinphusmia (talk) 19:56, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: The subject clearly meet WP:GNG, WP:BASIC and #1 of WP:ANYBIO as recipient of Sierra Leone Presidential Meritorious Service Award of honor. Contrary to the claim by the nominator that the subject " Fails the guidelines on MEDIC", WP:MEDIC is not a notability guideline but a disclaimer that "Wikipedia does not give medical advice. This looks like an abusive nomination in violation of WP:BEFORE. The subject of the article has been significantly covered by multiple independent reliable secondary sources. The Wired UK, The Guardian, Bussinessday, Vanguard Newspaper, Quartz Africa, ATQ News to mention a few. The subject is also the founder of Nigeria’s first and biggest independent real estate network marketing firm and has been named a One Young World Ambassador. The "space travel" is a tiny part of his biography and almost insignificant to the subject's notability. Kaizenify (talk) 13:50, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject meets WP:BASIC Mahveotm (talk) 17:21, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Clear keep per all the comments above, Sadads (talk) 22:06, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Per Versace1608, MistyGraceWhite & Johnpacklambert. Subject of article doesn’t satisfy GNG notability criteria for inclusion at best this is bare notability & nothing more.Celestina007 (talk) 04:33, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 22:56, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article meets WP:BASIC even if he doesn't meet the criteria for doctor. He is a recipient of a national award from the President of Sierra Leone as well as a recipient of 2014 TIME magazine award. Isn't that enough? He has been discussed to a significant extent in multiple independent enough to meet our inclusion criteria. SuperSwift (talk) 15:15, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete,Does not meet WP:GNG. Alex-h (talk) 08:49, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am seeing significant coverage by Qz.com, Nigerian Bulletin, Bellanajja and more. I note that there must be coverage in French sources too,[24] but since I don't speak French I can't find many of them but the subject easily meets WP:GNG. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 13:47, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

:@User:Harmanprtjhj This forum post is not something you want to being up in an AFD discussion. It shows that you have not read the GNG policy or have not understood it. Forum posts are not reliable sources. The rest of your sources are equally bad. The french source just says that he will not go to space, and Bella says that he might. NOTNEWS. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 13:53, 25 May 2020 (UTC)—Harmanprtjhj (talk • contribs) 06:43, 28 May 2020‎ (UTC) Comment struck from indefinitely banned sockpuppet. Juliette Han (talk) 14:04, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I provided the entire version of the report originally published by Daily Trust which is a WP:RS and is pretty popular.[25] The above link for Nigerian Bulletin is just an entire version of that report. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 15:21, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sourcing is clearly improved. The first reference, for example, quotes him as the founder of the organization, rather than being detailed coverage about it. The 3rd reference, for the Meritorious Service award, is a link to a templated interview of him, rather than independent reporting. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:47, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per User:Kaizenify the article surely meet the requirements. An@ss_koko^{(speak up)} 08:44, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete frankly, half the sourcing doesn't actually say what the article wants it to say. ——Serial^# 11:48, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - fishy nom by sock. As far as my research has gotten my this one is within WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 18:08, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, just struck and removed unreplied comments made by the sock. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 06:43, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:09, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Kaizenify. - Flori4nKT A L K 15:02, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Harmanprtjhj, when striking comments of others, please sign your action and provide reasoning if needed. Thank you! Juliette Han (talk) 13:31, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:24, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nissanka Senadhipathi

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}}.

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG - most of the coverage is non-independent, and the article reads as a paid advertisement. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 14:09, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 14:09, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 14:09, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article is not paid as an advertisement, User:The Squirrel Conspiracy do not fabricate false comments based on assumptions and without proper evidences. Also if most of the facts aren't non-independent, other editors are welcome to makes the errors legitimately adhering to Wikipedia policies. This article should not deleted from Wikipedia. Every single facts about this living person has been taken from reliable sources. Last warning! Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinushan w77 (talk • contribs) 16:52, 4 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) 00:03, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-05 ✍️ create

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:40, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The creator of the article has been indefinitely banned with talk page access revoked, and so can no longer participate in this discussion. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 20:03, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Do not nominate this article for soft deletion. Nissanka senadhipathi is a very famous entrepreneur and a retired military personality. All facts about this person in this article is fully accurate and creator has taken from reliable sources. Many people search about this person according to google statistics. I suggest to publish this article. Thanks Chamani lakma (talk) 15:45, 6 June 2020 (UTC) — Chamani lakma (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Struck as a CU-confirmed sockpuppet of Dinushan 277 creffett (talk) 21:04, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I nominate not delete this article. I don't see this article as a paid advertisement at the moment. The person Nissanka Senadhipathi is a very renowned person at the moment. Thanks John Wickz (talk) 17:15, 6 June 2020 (UTC) — John Wickz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Struck as a CU-confirmed sockpuppet of Dinushan 277 creffett (talk) 21:04, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I would like to introduce the concept of the Streisand effect to the sockpuppets. The more you try and disrupt a process, the more people look at more closely. The first keep !vote was blocked, the others all have SPAs. Ifnord (talk) 18:43, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the references do not support the requirements of WP:GNG.Dan arndt (talk) 00:39, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: He is the Chairman of a small unnotable company, It also doesn't support the General notability guideline, and it reads like an advertisement. It's not suitable for Wikipedia at this time. EditQwerty (talk) 08:41, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:49, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Permanent Black

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

~~run of the mill publishing house MistyGraceWhite (talk) 09:13, 30 April 2020 (UTC)~~ Nomination struck as nominator has been indeffed as a sockpuppet. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:07, 28 May 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Keep as creator, a very well-known, niche academic publishing house in India that encourages and nurtures neglected voices in Indian academia, in subjects such as history, ecology, politics; tackles subjects that big academic publishers wouldn't touch. Might not be a household name, but prominent in its space. BahrdozsBulafka (talk) 09:18, 30 April 2020 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: BahrdozsBulafka (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:03, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:04, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:04, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable publishing house no WP:INDEPTH coverage and fails WP:GNG. - FitIndia ^{Talk Commons} 15:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 19:06, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the article does not establish the prominence of the organisation in question beyond the creator's own assertions. Little/no coverage in reliable sources → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 22:15, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lil-unique1, Sulfurboy, Fitindia I would disagree with your points about its prominence. It's a little independent press that does its work quietly, so naturally there wouldn't be a tonne of news sources. It publishes world-famous academics, historians, economists. But, again, for its size, there still are sources: here's Scroll, Outlook, India Today, and then p.99 of the book Pop Culture India, where it lists PB among major Indian publishers in English (i haven't put this in yet). So, in cases like these some knowledge of local academic and literary atmosphere is required to judge its true notability. The press hasn't had a scandal so it wouldn't be plastered in newspapers, but I can assure you it is notable in the academic/literary world of a country of 1.3 billion. I hope you will not just adhere to the letter of the law, and again cite WP:GNG, but the spirit of it. After all, what is true notability? Wikipedia has enough of ~~Justin Biebers and Lady Gagas~~, but not enough of little organizations/people that are doing notable work in lesser-known fields. I would request you all to rethink your vote. Regards BahrdozsBulafka (talk) 06:28, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not sure why you tagged me and said you disagree with me, I only relisted this discussion. I will say though, if you want a shot at this being kept, you probably need to stick to the notability guidelines and show how this passes those. Going on tangents about the Biebs or the Gaga likely won't get you far. BOL Sulfurboy (talk) 07:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry Sulfurboy, I did a blind blanket ping there..! Okay, I don't know how many other sources are required...if an indie publisher being covered by a country's national platforms, magazines isn't deemed noteworthy, no other links will be able to satisfy such stringent criteria...and there's no way it can be reported in prestige US media like New York Times or Washington Post, but still I found a concessionary Guardian UK link. I've put it in...(have also struck my tangential comment, with apologies to Bieber and Gaga!) BahrdozsBulafka (talk) 12:09, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets GNG. Discussed in multiple, independent reliable sources, some examples: Scroll.In Ramachandra Guha: "Permanent Black has published some four hundred books, by the finest Indian scholars and the finest foreign scholars on India.", Columbia University Press "We have been fortunate enough to publish in the United States books from the great Indian publisher Permanent Black", Guardian UK: "Permanent Black now publishes around a dozen books a year, and has a backlist of more than 400 titles" (NB WP:SIGCOV: Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material (emphasis added)). Existed for 20 years, highly notable author list, also significant for its origins in the rupture with OUP India. AfD is not clean up; no evidence of BEFORE.--Goldsztajn (talk) 15:39, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~:@User:Goldsztajn Columbia University Press source is a blog. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 15:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)~~ Comment struck from indefinitely banned sockpuppet.--Goldsztajn (talk) 20:24, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's Columbia University Press (a highly reputable academic publisher) indicating the nature of its relationship to the subject of the article. It establishes notability and would be no different than providing a catalogue of joint publications, but this is a faster and more accessible way to establish that. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 16:08, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:12, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable publishing house with no significant coverage that justifies notability. All the sources either give a very brief description or are interviews with the founder. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH. GSS ^💬 10:39, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The notability criteria goes well beyond what is cited above as being "multiple, independent reliable sources" which is usually quoted when it is being narrowly and incorrectly interpreted as meaning that the publisher(s) should not have commercial links with the topic company. That interpretation fails to account for the requirement for references to contain Independent Content as per WP:ORGIND. The criteria also requires each reference to contain significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and independent content. For me, this from Scroll.In meets the criteria but I am unable to locate any other references that also meet the criteria. Thie reference from the Columbia University Press fails as a reliable source since blogs are considered unreliable. This from Guardian UK is entirely based on an interview with all the information on the company provided by a founder and fails WP:ORGIND. If another reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability is found I'm happy to reconsider my !vote but right now, the topic fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:33, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist discussion based on request on my talk page, since nominator has been indeffed as a sock.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:07, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment more sources:

Indian Sociological Society Lifetime Achievement Awards criteria: The scholar must have at least ten publications from reputed journals like Contributions to Indian Sociology, Sociological Bulletin, Economic and Political Weekly, The Eastern Anthropologist and books from reputed publishers like Oxford University Press, Sage Publications, Orient Longman/Blackswan, Permanent Black...^[1]
Referred to as "notable" in The Business Standard (India's equivalent of The Financial Times)^[2]
Documentation for academics by Dutch universities research grouping (SENSE) classifies refereed book publishers in three categories, top-notch (only 10, all university presses) followed by what it calls "semi-top notch" and then "others", permanent black in "semi-top notch"^[3]
The evolution of Permanent Black illustrates how and why new publishers operate. The owner and staff associated with the firm originally had provided leadership for Oxford University Press, and then decided to use their expertise in creating another conduit for notable authors in history and the social sciences. Within a few years, Permanent Black has an international reputation and regularly publishes work by the best scholars in India and throughout the world. Many of the titles are joint publications with Western firms, usually with Permanent Black performing the editorial and production effort and then selling sheets or plates to their partners."^[4]
Publishing firm Eland Books refers to them as: 'Permanent Black', a versatile, innovative publishing house set up in India in the year 2000 but already with an impressive backlist of 200 books and established as India's most prestigious academic imprint.^[5]
Accounts for around 20% of academic book reviews in The Hindu's Literary Review or a little under 2% of all (fiction and non-fiction) book reviews.^[6]

References

^ "Lifetime Achievement Awards". insoso.org.
^ Roy, Nilanjana S. (29 July 2003). "The behemoth without Goliath". Business Standard India.
^ "SENSE RANKING OF ACADEMIC PUBLISHERS" (PDF).
^ Chilana, Rajwant Singh (2008). Challenges for South Asian Resources and Information Services: Essays in Honour of Dr. Ravindra N. Sharma. Concept Publishing Company. p. 424. ISBN 978-81-8069-527-8.
^ "Independent & Specialist Publishers". Eland Books.
^ Parel, Vaibhav Iype. "Delhi Workshop Presentation 7, Contemporary Indian Literature Project". Open University. The Ferguson Centre for African and Asian Studies.

--Goldsztajn (talk) 20:24, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WP:SNOW keep. BD2412 T 04:37, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Diane Harper

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

Harper is a "low-profile" individual. This article seems to focus mainly on the idea that she is a vaccine skeptic, but she is not actively publishing in that area, nor is she actively giving media appearances on that topic. Spacecaaats (talk) 13:58, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spacecaaats (talk) 13:58, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 14:13, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per meeting WP:PROF. Check how highly cited she is in her Google Scholar Profile. TJMSmith (talk) 14:16, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 14:17, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 14:17, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NPROF C1 for plenty of highly cited papers. The most highly cited ones have a large number of coauthors, but there are also some well-cited papers with a smaller number of coauthors. The interviews and other press coverage certainly help support notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:34, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pretty clear WP:NPROF C1 pass based on google scholar which shows ~26 papers with over 100 cites, ~9 with over 500 and ~5 with over 1000. I recognize there may be many coauthors on several but that's an undeniably high number of citations. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:06, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Java Hurricane 15:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:31, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as others have said. Kj cheetham (talk) 18:14, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:PROF#C1.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:38, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would say that the number of citations listed at Google Scholar shows the she easily meets WP:NPROF#C1. Papaursa (talk) 00:08, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:30, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kit Carson, California

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

This is an object case of how some of the standards that have been used to justify inclusion are problematic. If you go to this spot in GMaps, you'll find the Kit Carson Lodge, which has been there for a long time and which along with the main building encompasses a lot of cabins, and possibly has absorbed the scout camp that is shown just to the east in older topo maps. If you look at the area on those maps, it is labelled "Kit Carson" in the gothic font used for features and buildings, not the roman font used for towns; the array of cabins is shown so it's not surprising the GNIS compilers got confused. Yes, apparently it does have its own post office, but it's not a town, or a settlement. As to whether it's notable for what it actually is: well, there is a good deal of routine coverage expected of any resort-ish tourist spot that has been around a long time. I'm not finding more than that, not enough to write a decent encyclopedia article that I've found. Mangoe (talk) 13:52, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 15:13, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 15:13, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable community. Here's a couple old blurbs and ads on the lodge. That could be covered with the neighboring campgrounds at Silver Lake (Amador County). Excellent example of a post office that is not necessarily an automatically notable community: GNIS item says the PO only operated in the summer for five years, useful for campers! Reywas92^Talk 20:31, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Check your math there: it was fifteen years, not five. And it still has its own zip code. Mangoe (talk) 00:27, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gahhhh I somehow mentally transposed the digits in those dates, thx. I see that the listed 95644 is a PO Box-only zip code, whereas it’s in the 95666 ZCTA for Pioneer, California. Reywas92^Talk 09:16, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I live in an outer suburban area which has its own zip code but not its own post office (it shares the building of the next town south). My Father's house is in the same situation. And it is still common for the post office in rural places to be simply a window in a store (take a look at Essex, Montana). It always must be kept in mind that the job of the post office is to deliver mail to people, not to establish geography. Mangoe (talk) 14:24, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly just a lodge/resort with the expected level of routine coverage. "Unincorporated community" label is unsupported by sources. –dlthewave ☎ 02:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, not a community --Cornellier (talk) 12:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:29, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Wilkinson (ambiguity expert)

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

Promotional article about non notable academic. No reliable sources. Andyjsmith (talk) 13:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:10, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG and ANYBIO among other things. Java Hurricane 15:49, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 16:56, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 16:56, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 16:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ronaldo Shani

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Has made 0 appearances as of Soccerway, and 1 appearance as of Transfermarkt - a 2018 cup game against Thyella Kamariou, a lower league Greek team. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 13:22, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 13:22, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:57, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails NFOOTY and GNG. No Great Shaker (talk) 21:04, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:47, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:47, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above arguments. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 06:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There is significant coverage in several sources including NYT, Globes, and Reuters. The question is whether those sources can be considered secondary. They're not exactly interviews, but in many parts they quote Sebag in the context of a broader article. As such, I don't believe it has been conclusively determined whether the subject meets WP:GNG. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:19, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Sebag

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BEFORE and WP:BIO. No standalone, secondary sources are available. scope_creep^Talk 15:23, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. DannyS712 (talk) 15:48, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:53, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable financier.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:12, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject is undoubtedly notable and meets Wp:GNG. In just the past year, subject has been covered by Bloomberg, Wall Street Journal, and the New York Times. There are at least a dozen other notable mentions, patent filings, and citations associated with the subject which meet Wikipedia guidelines. Subject is the founder and CEO of two listed public companies and was profiled by the New York Times for his art collection and WSJ/Bloomberg for his being one of the key participants in the global precious metal industry. If the entry needs to be improved, I suggest that be done. Finally, I query the impetus by the nominating member to delete the article one year after he actively edited the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by TypoFact (talk • contribs) 15:52, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to administrator The above person is a WP:SPA. scope_creep^Talk 16:32, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lets examine the references, thirteen in total. WP:THREE at least should show that the first three references should prove notability:

Ref 1. The reference is primary, More than 80% of which is about Bitfarms. Primary references can't be used to prove notability.

Ref 2. This is a profile, which most of it, discusses his company. It is mostly primary.

Ref 3. Is a press release and can't be used to establish notability.

Ref 4. Is a company listing profile for the company shares. It is primary and not about Sebag.

Ref 5. 90% of the articles talks about his company. Primary again.

Ref 6. Single comment by Sebag. It is primary. Primary references can't be used to prove notability.

Ref 7. It is a blog. Per WP:NOT. Can't be used to establish.

Ref 8. Monies raised. Fails WP:NCORP. Is it not a business article.

I'm not going to do any more. The first three references don't prove anything, apart from company news, which can't prove notability. All the are primary, profiles, or mostly about company news. There is not a single WP:SECONDARY source that can be used to establish notability per WP:BIO and WP:V. scope_creep^Talk 16:42, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Administrator The above person has just sought to revert improvements I have made to the article which meet WP:BIO, WP:GNG and WP:THREE. After responding with a Keep vote, I thought it would be best to add these sources myself. By seeking to undue my additions, Scope Creep is preventing the article from being improved as well as the claims of notability. I am not sure what’s going on here but it seems Scope Creep is not reading the same articles I am nor is he impartially analyzing their contents. I am an occasional wikipedia editor from Ontario, Canada and am also a junior resource investor. In the precious metals industry Roy Sebag is one of the most notable players, certainly for his age. In my edits, which scope creep sought to revert, I added another New York Times article about a company Mr. Sebag founded, a CNBC video interview (CNBC invites guests for their views on the world and markets not for self promotion), and a Bloomberg piece entirely focused on Mr. Sebag’s activity in the cryptocurrency space. 5 notable sources were added to improve the article and thence removed by Scope Creep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TypoFact (talk • contribs) 15:22, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 12:57, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a failure of WP:GNG. Java Hurricane 15:50, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fluff article for a non-notable subject. Sulfurboy (talk) 09:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it meets WP:GNG, WP:THREE and commentators must look to the previous articles for deletion nomination and see the Keep arguments — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipedia1995 (talk • contribs) 21:02, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin The previous editor is another WP:SPA. Not a single WP:SECONDARY reference has been added to the article, that can be used to verify WP:V, nevermind WP:BIO. This reference added by the SPA is an affiliate, interview style, primary ref and can't be used to establish notability. scope_creep^Talk 22:03, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I was notified about this discussion on my talk page, having earlier voted keep in the last no consensus AfD nomination. My earlier keep vote was that there's enough coverage to pass WP:GNG, between the multiple companies that have gotten coverage, his investment activities and his patents (which seems to have disappeared - but I'm not going to spend time looking for it.) I did some more cleanup and added some more recent coverage. The broad coverage that's there discusses his roles in different companies. The sources I like include Bloomberg (not a primary source) [[26]], The New York Times [[27]], The New York Post [[28]], CNBC [[29]], the US version of Israeli business paper Globes [[30]] and Reuters [[31]]. I think he just passes notability. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:24, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:50, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Takahiro Yoshikawa

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

Non-notable musician. ~SS49~ {talk} 12:23, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 12:23, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 12:23, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Clearly notable, I found significant coverage in several independent reliable sources including 1) A NHK (Japanese National Broadcasting Company) broadcast and 2) notable newspaper articles in Italy and Japan. The article hits enough requierements to remain online following the guidelines. Fthobe (talk) 17:43, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Guys, I understand that classical music by Japanese artists is not everyone's cup of tea, but that doesn£t mean that this artist does not have a significant influence. This article hits multiple of these criterias.Fthobe (talk) 17:43, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Corriere della Sera meets reliable sources, but other than that, not enough coverage to meet WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:11, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Hey @Ohnoitsjamie:, he was covered in Japanese national television (NHK), how much better can it get for a classical Japanese musician? In addition Classical Radio Boston reviewed his disk as disk of the week. It would be great if you take a look at it again and reconsider. WP:GNG says in general that a topic which is discussed in-depth by multiple reliable WP:INDEPENDENT sources is worthy of an encyclopedia article
Weak delete: Article is poorly sourced and there may be WP:GNG issues. Just because NHK did one TV spot on him doesn't mean he's notable enough for an entire article when there is almost no coverage on him -- the Classical Radio Boston news source may suffice but it isn't enough. His Japanese Wikipedia article has almost no sources/information. I looked at his Oricon profile and while he has released some albums, none of them have charted. lullabying (talk) 23:08, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Hey @Ohnoitsjamie: & @Lullabying:, sorry for busting balls so much but I really have a question that drives me nuts: this is my first new new article so I checked the guidelines for WP:GNG (multiple independent trustworthy sources is given by Corriere, ARG, NHK, Classical WCRB) and I checked the treshold for musicians (national coverage, records, multiple mentions). I understand that he's not Mick Jagger, but he ticks all boxes requiered. Can you help me to understand better what to do to improve the article. Because if notability rules are applied strictly, this one is in and deserves to stay. How can the combination of biggest broadcaster in a country (multiple times), biggest newspaper in another country (multiple times) not be enough, at that point, what is enough? I sometimes believe the rules are used very arbitrary.Fthobe (talk) 07:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Fthobe: I recommend reading WP:MUSICBIO. Having about 3 newspaper articles doesn't seem to show notability, and again, just because NHK did one TV spot on him doesn't really mean anything when there is almost no coverage on him. None of his albums charted and he has not made any significant contributions to music. lullabying (talk) 09:32, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Hey @Lullabying:, I think there should be a consideration about different standards for different kind of music. In this case we are talking about a Solo Pianist who's playing as a regular at the worlds leading opera house (La Scala is according to National Geographic the leading opera house in the world)^[1], still, as most pianists, he will probably never chart in his life. We have plenty of examples of that, most notably would be the bio article of Ian Parker (Canadian pianist), that is referenced very poorly but still his picture is on the article page Pianist and he has a bio article all on it's own. I am not disagreeing with you about requiring a treshold, I am just saying that maybe being a little bit more open towards the qualification foreign sources (he has been in all top 3 newspapers in Italy multiple times and had multiple TV broadcasts in Japan, I added some ref) and maybe consider that not everybody will achieve the degree of commercial success that you would apply to pop musicians, but still be relevant enough in his category to be documented (something expressively desired in WP:MUSICBIO. Additionally, I am up to 5 rotation in NHK radio last year. It's not easy to get everything straight when it£s written in Kanji, but the more I look the more I find. Knock yourself out: https://www.nhk.or.jp/classic-blog/100/301185.html . I think the current interpretation of the rules massively disfavours classical live artists.Fthobe (talk) 10:50, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Fthobe: You need more sources that talk about his contributions to classical music, such as concerts or any significant programs he has participated in. Prestigious awards will most likely guarantee that his article can be kept. But as I've stated (now for the third time), there are not enough sources that establish notability for this particular artist. Once again, I ask you to review WP:MUSICBIO and see if you can find sources/contributions that satisfy one or more of what is listed. lullabying (talk) 10:59, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Lullabying: WP:MUSICBIO states that an artist may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria (I am listing only the ones met) 4. "Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country" Should I just reference all articles for any concerts that seem good sources? Criterium 1) "has been subject of multiple, non trivial published works of reliable sources", I think treshold is met here: Corriere della Repubblica (largest newspaper in Italy), Repubblica (3rd largest newspaper), American Record Guide, NHK Television, so I'd say we have that. Because there are plenty in Italian "11. Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio" Ok, we have that as well (again, as written above and added also as reference multiple times in 2019. "12. Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment". Feature length concert in 2019 on NKH. I don£t know what more you want.
        @Fthobe: What source supports the statement that his music was "in rotation"? If the concert tour was his own solo tour and not as a touring artist, then that would count. I see that you've updated the article with more sources but it doesn't seem like there is a lot of media coverage about him in general. lullabying (talk) 19:37, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        @Lullabying: Hey, soooo, I am struggling to document it because it seems like that NHK does not conserve past radio programs and I find myself with only the google cache. I attached you a screenshot below. While there's rotation (by the way also a record of Deutsche Grammophon, I really struggle to find a reliable source for it. Either my Japanese is not sufficient (probable) or google caches it for ages (not probable). By the way, the work in rotation seems to be same one as the one on the record with Meloni (see article) Fthobe (talk) 19:43, 29 May 2020 (UTC) UPDATE I can confirm that 1) he was played multiple times last year (by the matching dates of the google result) 2) NHK stores the radio program only for 37 days (past 30 days and one week ahead). If you make a specific google search you can find more than enough references of the NHK program on other pages. Will you give yourself a Jolt and let me have this one? Just for the motivation curve as a new editor, I promise not to ping anymore :)[reply]

File:Takahiro yoshikawa program on NHK.png

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:52, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:52, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ National Geographic https://www.nationalgeographic.com/travel/top-10/opera-houses/. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

Weak keep. The fact that most of his recordings appear on a label "dedicated" to his output is a significant minus, but I confirmed the Deutsche Grammophon release. That's pretty much the apex in classical music releases. I find significant coverage at 51news.it (in the article, added since nomination) and Corriere della Sera. The repubblica.it by Mosca and www.giornaledellamusica.it (also added since nomination) do nothing to help establish notability, they are passing mentions. The Lavoro article at repubblica.it and the nishinomiya-style.jp (largely an interview, but there is independent information there as well) add more coverage, certainly more than passing mentions but not very deep. All in all I think WP:GNG is barely met. One more release on DG and WP:NMUSIC would certainly be met. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Added a review in the italian speaking swiss public radio and and a review of his performance as pianist in a ballet performance at la scala.Fthobe (talk) 22:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there are now enough references added to the article that show coverage in multiple reliable sources such as Italian newspapers, 51news, NHK, Swiss Public Radio and others so that WP:BASIC is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Caernarfon#Culture. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:08, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Caernarfon Food Festival

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

No evidence of any notability for this food festival . Sources are very weak and do not add-up to any significant notability. One is a "JustGiving" page which notes they raised £240 and others are directory listings and press releases. Nothing gets close to WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:23, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:23, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:23, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:45, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Caernarfon § Culture, which contains a sentence about this. Source searches are only providing local coverage; existing essentially as an organization of sorts, this does not meet WP:AUD, at least per Google News and Books searches. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:49, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additional text and references added to improve the article. Vouliagmeni

I’ve added the festival logo (nb：the subsuming of the article into Caernarfon is a valid suggestion but there is a dedicated food festival template so it works better as a separate article and also conforms with the other food festival articles）. 22:47 (EET) 20 May 2020

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:33, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - Flori4nKT A L K 12:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to AllianceBernstein. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:08, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shepard D. Osherow

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

WP:NOTABILITY. He was discriminated against by a country club, he was once quoted for what his investment firm was doing, and he had an expensive bit of lodging on the market. The other sources I'm finding are largely database mentions of the positions he's had. While he is obviously a successful man on some fronts, earning money is what a financier does; I don't see the notability that calls for him having an article. Nat Gertler (talk) 02:30, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:38, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:38, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:58, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:19, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - Flori4nKT A L K 12:13, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to AllianceBernstein which he founded. All coverage of Osherow stems from his affiliation with that company. Should probably consider redirecting many of the other founders to that page as well. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:52, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I would be fine with that. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:00, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect Frontline Foundation to Raymond Castellani. No consensus about Raymond Castellani. Sandstein 07:17, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Frontline Foundation

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

fails WP:NORG and WP:NONPROFIT. run of the mill local non-profit Graywalls (talk) 12:11, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 12:11, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 12:11, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 19:17, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Raymond Castellani; independently fails WP:NONPROFIT but its founder seems to merit an article. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment @Eddie891:, Actually it would seem that the target article you suggests needs to be AfD'd ALSO, because it's written based on his own SELF PUBLISHED book; and Frontline Foundation's own materials. Graywalls (talk) 16:52, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 13:52, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:19, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:07, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Stuartyeates:, the redirect target though, appears to be non-notable s well. So I've nominated both as deletion worthy. Do you find the re-direct target meet WP:GNG? Graywalls (talk) 14:55, 14 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 delete. Speedied under G5. creffett (talk) 22:27, 30 May 2020 (UTC) creffett (talk) 22:27, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sharanya Turadi Sundaraj

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

Non-notable actor. ~SS49~ {talk} 11:52, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 11:52, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 11:52, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 11:52, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am not seeing any Significant coverage. A reliable source, but it hardly would help GNG. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 12:55, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 12:58, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as either the product of socking or WP:PAID against the terms of use. ——Serial^# 14:58, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Article creator created two other articles which were recreations of articles originally posted by an indef-blocked promotional/UPE editor. I've reported them at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sivagopalakrishnan--depending on the result, this could be subject to a G5 speedy. --Finngall ^talk 15:30, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Juliette Han (talk) 14:44, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harcharan Singh Manget

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

Non-notable air force officer. ~SS49~ {talk} 11:28, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 11:28, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 11:28, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:SOLDIER. Mztourist (talk) 12:25, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As an air commodore, a one-star rank entirely equal to a brigadier general in non-Commonwealth air forces, clearly does meet WP:SOLDIER #2. Just like Commonwealth brigadiers and commodores do (in any case, unlike their army and navy equivalents, an air commodore actually is an air officer, and is therefore covered by WP:SOLDIER without any further explanation of rank equivalencies required). The continuing need to explain this to editors who do not do their research properly is getting tiresome. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is tiresome to have to keep repeating that WP:SOLDIER is not an automatic Keep as it states "In general, an individual is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources. It is presumed that individuals will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify if they: ..." just meeting one of the 6 criteria doesn't mean they're notable if they don't have WP:SIGCOV in multiple WP:RS Mztourist (talk) 03:42, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And yet we pretty much invariably do keep officers of this rank! As you should know by now. Ergo, I would say that nominating them is just wasting AfD time. Claiming he is a "Non-notable air force officer" as the nominator did is no more than an opinion. Claiming that he fails WP:SOLDIER as you did is simply not true; usually editors claim this about air commodores, commodores and brigadiers as they have no understanding that Commonwealth one-star officers, even though they do not have the title of general or admiral, are entirely equal to one-star officers in countries where the terminology is different, hence my comment. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:19, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And yet the notability guidelines are clear that even if they have the rank that doesn't necessarily make them notable as there must be SIGCOV in multiple RS which he doesn't have. In fact there isn't even an RS that he reached the rank of Air Commodore. Mztourist (talk) 15:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The source of his rank at retirement (ie Air Commodore) and winning the MVC is already sourced in the article, no doubt it's PRIMARY, but as this is a fact rather than analysis, PRIMARY is perfectly reasonable.--Goldsztajn (talk) 06:15, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I note the rank confirmation, but the point remains that he lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS. Mztourist (talk) 06:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Two page biogrpahy in this 1995 study of Indian military honours' winners.^[1] The tail assembly of his damaged Su-7 is on display at the Indian Air Force Museum,^[2] photo here.^[3]

References

^ Chakravorty, B. (1995). Stories of Heroism: PVC & MVC Winners. Allied Publishers. p. 237-8. ISBN 978-81-7023-516-3.
^ "Air Force Museum". indianairforce.nic.in. Government of India.
^ "Sukhoi Su-7BM Fitter A India - Air Force". JetPhotos.

--Goldsztajn (talk) 11:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly SIGCOV in multiple RS is it? Mztourist (talk) 11:17, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It does not seem unreasonable to accept notability here given that the person meets NSOLDIER under specific criteria, that their actions are memorialised in the national military museum of their service branch and that they have an entry in what is an encyclopedia of military honours' winners. SIGCOV is always going to be a case by case basis given the qualifier contained therein: ...it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:37, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lastly, would highlight this from SOLDIER: If, for instance, there is enough information in reliable sources to include details about a person's birth, personal life, education and military career, then they most likely warrant a stand-alone article.--Goldsztajn (talk) 11:52, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Three references doesn't amount to SIGCOV in multiple RS, there are far too many pages for such non-notable local "hero"s Mztourist (talk) 06:42, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In what possible world can an air commodore in a national air force be categorised as just a "local hero"? -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:20, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In Wikipedia where we have WP:GNG... Mztourist (talk) 13:42, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to meet WP:ANYBIO#1, is one short of WP:NSOLDIER#1, and clearly meets WP:NSOLDIER#2 per the third bluelink of that point. Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:40, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Borderline WP:SOLDIER qualified. - Hatchens (talk) 16:10, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets SOLDIER - rank and winning the MVC indicate noteworthy contribution to 1971 Indo-Pak war. --Goldsztajn (talk) 06:10, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:38, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sarawagi Group

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

No indication that this conglomerate is notable. M4DU7 (talk) 06:14, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 06:14, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 06:14, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - OMG, how this served for so much years. It has no substance of notability. Fails WP:NORG - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 09:59, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 10:53, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NCORP, no sources to indicate any amount of depth of coverage. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:50, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insufficient coverage in news sources to indicate depth of coverage. Arunram (talk) 08:21, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. Expanded with definition. (non-admin closure) 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:32, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Schwarz function

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

Does not even mention the definition. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 10:09, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 10:09, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I created this article based on the very interesting 1974 Carus Monograph by Davis, as cited. However, before adding more material about the definition and significance of the function, I went searching for context and other sources, and frankly didn't find much, so it seems that other mathematicians didn't flock on board the concept, at least not under that name. Thus I began to have my own doubts about notability, but I didn't propose the article for deletion myself, in hope that some mathematical editor with a more comprehensive knowledge of the field would come along and do something constructive with it. However since the forces of destruction seem to have arrived first, I won't oppose them. Eleuther (talk) 10:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A quick WP:BEFORE search shows that this is pretty clearly a notable concept – there are multiple books written about the topic, papers referencing them, etc. However, with one sentence merely saying whom it was named for and a ref for that, it's hard to see what use it has as-is. Probably a case of WP:HEY. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 12:47, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added the definition given in Shapiro's book, so it's a reasonable stub now, and there appear to be plenty of opportunities for expansion. XOR'easter (talk) 16:54, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Two reliably published book sources entirely devoted to this topic is more than adequate. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:38, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, thanks to XOR'easter for doing the legwork and per my earlier comments. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:41, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1964 (emulator)

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

An old emulation project that (according to its GitHub page) has been abandoned sixteen years ago. All sources but "Emulator Zone" presently used in the article are primary (a relevant tag was added nine years ago), so I did a WP:BEFORE:

The Emulator Zone source only has a passing mention of the project among many others in the same category and links to an equally brief overview site with a download link.
In terms of reliable sources, I was only able to find a passing mention in this 2009 list of emulators by German magazine GameStar, with the same list cross-posted to sister site GamePro in 2012.
There is another passing mention in this list by Lifehacker that only spans one sentence. Although the reliability of Lifehacker has not been assessed, it is part of the same network as some other reliable sources like Kotaku, so I'm including it here for documentation.
The Internet Archive has no results and Google Scholar's only hit is this. Although I cannot access the full text, the abstract suggests that it primarily includes Wikipedia-sourced content.

Overall, I am seeing a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources and therefore a lack of notability. The article fails both WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT, warranting deletion. IceWelder [✉] 09:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. IceWelder [✉] 09:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. IceWelder [✉] 09:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I haven't investigated this topic, but my compliments to the nominator for nicely laying out their source searches and arguments for deletion. If other nominators took the same care in their nominations, AfD would be a happier place. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 18:47, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've looked for sources as well and this doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. Woodroar (talk) 19:36, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The nominator's excellent analysis of the sources, and my lack of finding anything else upon searches, indicates that this defunct emulation project does not pass the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 15:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:51, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Boomphones

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

Not notable company. All the sources are reviews of their headphones that turn into a boombox. Maybe the headphones are notable, but if so they should have their own article and this one should be deleted. As notability isn't inherited. Adamant1 (talk) 10:48, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:02, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:02, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I see sources from Gizmodo and Digital Trends that are independent of the company. Interstellarity (talk) 13:02, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Both are product reviews. Which I said are out there. The question is does that mean the company should have an article if it's not notable, but their products are, instead of just the product having an article. I'd say no. Especially if one of your examples is the Gizmodo article. Which doesn't even discuss the company at all. Let alone is the review in-depth. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:24, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 06:08, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability. I too can see sources in other publications but none provide any in-depth information *about* *the* *company* which is the topic of this article. This topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:58, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:26, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Appolena

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

I can find no sources whatsoever that suggest that this town exists, and the limited article text strongly suggests that it does not pass Wikipedia notability requirements. This user has created a vast number of permastubs by working through a list of likely apocryphal ancient place names. LegesRomanorum (talk) 22:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article and all other articles of the same form, with prejudice against recreation. This is the most clear-cut case of non-notability I've seen in my time at Wikipedia. First of all, it's literally just a name on a map. I can't access the second reference (dead link), but I was able to find the directory and gazetteer to map 62 of the Barrington Atlas. It's literally just a name that may or may not have at one point been the name of a town that, if it existed, we know exactly nothing about. There is no way on earth that this passes either the GNG or GEOLAND, and these useless permastubs provide absolutely no useful function, only serving to clutter the encyclopedia. These articles never should have been created in the first place. CJK09 (talk) 04:37, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the advice! This user has created vast numbers of similar stub articles by grinding through the Atlas and turning each place name into an article - if you ever find yourself with too much free time, I'd appreciate some help working through them. LegesRomanorum (talk) 05:29, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. I've been dealing with something similar for GNIS mass-generated stubs in California. Numerous counties have hundreds of them, most of the rest have several dozen, and we can't just mass-PROD because some of them are actually notable, and they're all mixed in together. We're about 4 counties in so far... 54 to go... CJK09 (talk) 06:11, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's no comparison between GNIS and the Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World. The former is a primary source that includes individual present-day farms and houses, but the latter is a secondary source for ancient populated places that pass WP:GEOLAND. I'm getting a bit tired of the assumption that seems to be rife on Wikipedia that just because a database exists that includes unnotable US place names everything else in the rest of the world must be unreliable. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:26, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, at least for now. A populated village from antiquity doesn't need a lot of sources just to show that it existed, or approximately where. The Barrington Atlas is enough for that. As for notability, that can probably be presumed from the fact that it was populated. Since it appears in epigraphy, the name might be encountered not just by atlas users, but scholars studying people or events from the region; and having an article, even a stub, that tells them where the place was—even approximately—and how much we do or don't know about it—is useful. See the ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome. P Aculeius (talk) 14:10, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- It is useful to have a stub or (at least) redirect, the result of merging. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:08, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A couple other AfDs I've voted in I've voted !keep because there were references in other works such as scholarly articles. This is based off a single directory listing in an atlas. I cannot find any other references to it online. Other articles were easy to find sources for. I have no doubt the atlas gets this near WP:V, but we can't have a standalone on it right now. That being said, this needs to be listified somewhere. I don't know where that place is, so I'm a delete - if anyone suggests a good spot for it, I fully support that. SportingFlyer T·C 08:07, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appearing in an atlas is not sufficient to establish notability per WP:NGEO, and populated places aren't presumed notable simply because they exist. This goes double for a place whose existence is merely inferred. –dlthewave ☎ 00:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World is a reliable academic source, although presented as maps rather than prose, and I can't for the life of me see how deleting this could possibly make for a better encyclopedia than keeping it. Notability guidelines are subservient to basic common-sense principals such as that. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:19, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We have exactly one source - a directory listing/a dot on a map - and literally no other sources, which I am concerned about because the other ones which we've kept have had sources. We can include things in the encyclopaedia without having to dedicate a perma-stub to them. This is better off listified somewhere. SportingFlyer T·C 01:18, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of any policy that requires that articles be deleted unless they have multiple source citations. The Barrington Atlas itself cites Tabula Imperii Byzantini for epigraphic sources, with the additional note "T. Drew-Bear". Tabula Imperii Byzantini is a reliable scholarly source and has a web site which seems at first glance to provide open access to at least some of its holdings; and T. Drew-Bear is the author of some indices of its maps, for which map 62 contains Appolena, with the aforementioned citations—one to himself/herself, but I can't figure out what that citation means, since eleven publications from 1976 to 1999 are listed, all with dates, in the bibliography, but the citation doesn't say which, if any of these, is meant—and the index for volume 7 of TIB is shorter and doesn't include Appolena. So we have a scholarly citation, but I'm unable to locate the source information being cited over the internet. Does that mean the article on the town fails for lack of citations? No, of course not. Sources don't have to be available over the internet. They simply have to exist and be capable of verification—whether or not anyone involved with Wikipedia actually views them.

This stub was nominated for deletion for three reasons that I can identify: 1, that the place is not notable; 2, that it's likely apocryphal; 3, that the editor who created it made many others that are similarly non-notable and likely did not exist. None of these reasons hold up under close scrutiny, however. Notability is established because this is a town or village from antiquity, the location and nature of which are of interest to historians and archaeologists today; its inclusion in the Barrington Atlas as well as within the TIB project framework are more than adequate to establish that. We know that the place either definitely existed at or near the place identified in these sources, or is accepted as probably having been there by modern scholarship; we do not have to prove that this supposition is correct in order for the article to exist: many perfectly acceptable articles exist about people, places, and things that are merely thought to exist or have existed, or claimed to exist or have existed by some scholars, historians, philosophers, theologians, myths, legends, folktales, etc. The mere possibility that a name might refer to someone or something or some place other than the one currently identified doesn't justify deleting an article. We don't delete the articles about Bigfoot, Atlantis, or West Virginia merely because they're potentially apocryphal. And the first two being the case, it really doesn't matter how many other articles the same editor created.

I further note that pretty much all of the others that were similarly nominated for deletion have already been closed as "keep" or deProdded. Yes, it might be a good idea to combine some of these stubs into a single article. But that requires at least one editor to choose which among these many town and village stubs should be included, and perhaps how many articles there ought to be for settlements in different regions. The fact that nobody has stepped up and done so yet—or may do so in the immediate future—is not grounds for deletion. There is no time limit for articles to be improved, and there is no consensus on the best way to treat these many towns and villages yet. Even if some of them are combined, the current titles will still exist as redirects to the combined articles, which we would expect to contain the same source citations and basic descriptions that the stubs have now. So the contents of articles such as this one would not be deleted from the encyclopedia by "listifying" them—it would merely be moved to a different location. Taking all of this into consideration, I can see no circumstances under which this article meets the criteria for deletion. P Aculeius (talk) 14:03, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A search [32] here gave no results. I advocated for keeping other articles, but considering: 1) this article contains only one citation, which itself is only a directory listing, which you have noted that the citation by the author references a citation by the same author, which cannot be found; 2) no other information is available on the internet, and no other sources have been presented that might contain information about this place; 3) other articles which were kept, at least the ones I participated in, were easily verifiable elsewhere; 4) just because other articles have been kept does not mean this one should also be kept/deleted; and 5) if you cannot write anything that's not a perma-stub, an alternative, such as a redirect to a list, should be considered. In this case, there is no actual evidence this is a notable place apart from a dot on a map, and while WP:GEOLAND does give a presumption, I don't think the presumption is met here, since there's really nothing we can say about this place apart from "this was a place name on a map that may or may not be logged in the TIL." That being said, as I've noted above, I have no problem of including this in a list somewhere. SportingFlyer T·C 18:20, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe your analysis of the underlying policies is faulty. One citation to a reliable source, such as the Barrington Atlas or TIB is sufficient to demonstrate verifiability. I'm not sure what your point about a "directory listing" is. As far as I know, there's no such exception to the criteria for determining whether a place is verifiable. You may be thinking of the notability criterion, "Wikipedia is not a directory." That's not really applicable here; an ancient town or village that can be named and located within a particular area and is so listed in scholarly sources is notable, even if nothing else can be said about it. But here we don't even know what else can be said; only that I wasn't able to learn more about the information in TIB by looking through its website. Nothing about our verifiability criteria says that we have to have seen the archaeological evidence, or have access to it over the internet, before we're entitled to accept that it exists based on a citation in other sources. I mentioned that the other articles were all kept, because their simultaneous creation by the same editor and based on the same sources was urged as a reason to delete this one. But since the creation of the articles as a group seems to be fine, that's not a valid reason for deleting this one. There's no policy that says that articles should be deleted if they seem unlikely to progress beyond stubs in the foreseeable future. It may well be that this article could be combined with others, but the possibility that it could be is not grounds for deletion. I believe that your description of the town as "a place name on a map that may or may not be logged in the TIL" is misleading. It is not "a place name on a map". It is a known settlement from antiquity that is documented by both TIL and the Barrington Atlas. The fact that we don't know all of the information about it doesn't mean that we can suppose that there might not be any basis for its inclusion. It's highly improbable that TIL would publish an index by one of its major contributors citing it, if it were not documented by the project; and even less likely that it would then be accepted as fact by the Barrington Atlas if it did not consider the material in TIL reliable. As Wikipedians, we are not entitled to assume that the conclusions of scholarly sources are erroneous unless they can produce their proofs to us. P Aculeius (talk) 22:36, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cities have one of the lowest barriers to notability, but I don't buy the fact that just because this was a point on a map and nothing else can be said about it makes it notable enough for its own article when the other places which were nominated were kept and easily verifiable elsewhere. The "directory listing" discussing the place was literally just an index with the place name. I am not saying the atlas is necessarily wrong, but I would expect there to be sources on Google Scholar like there were for the other articles, I would expect there would be listings in books, maybe in one of the readily online searchable Ramsey books on the topic - nothing. Is it really a "known settlement from antiquity?" The fact a place name appeared on a map does not by itself mean that we can have a standalone article for it. It's fine to listify some content, this is one of those instances. SportingFlyer T·C 00:15, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Will never be more than a stub, doesn't merit an Wikipedia article. --Cornellier (talk) 14:51, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And what is wrong with a stub on a topic that passes WP:GEOLAND? How is having nothing better? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. That's what a stub is for. I'm not aware of "WP:DELETEALLSTUBS". The main argument for deleting the article is that "it's just a dot on a map", but clearly that's not true. We just don't have access to the information used by TIB and the Barrington Atlas—that doesn't mean that the information doesn't exist, or that we'll never know any more than the location of the town. But I think we're entitled to assume that they didn't include it "because it's a dot on a map". The place is clearly notable as an inhabited town from antiquity of interest to modern historians; and its inclusion in these sources makes it verifiable, whether or not we can see the details. So until Wikipedia policy requires the deletion of stubs because they're short—and not because the subjects are non-notable or unverifiable—articles like this should not be deleted. P Aculeius (talk) 00:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is we don't actually know if it passes WP:GEOLAND. We literally only have a dot on a map and its corresponding directory listing. There's nothing wrong with the source, but there are no other sources out there which have been presented that let us say anything other than "According to a single source, this was a city located in Phrygia, whose existence was inferred." It's perfectly reasonable to believe that's not enough of a demonstration of notability. SportingFlyer T·C 05:40, 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! 06:54, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hardly seems notable. While there isn't a "WP:DELETEALLSTUBS", there is a WP:NOTDIRECTORY and keeping this would make it exactly that. Same goes for the other articles about Roman inhabited towns that lack proper sourcing. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:51, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Presumably Barrington got its information from somewhere and there must be more to find. The policies WP:ATD, WP:NOTPAPER and WP:PRESERVE indicate that we should keep this for further development rather than deleting it. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:24, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Likely it was a translation of Apollonia and the person who created the article did it without known. If you look at the list of Roman towns in Apollonia it, Appolena, and Apellonia are used interchangeably as names for cities throughout. Which is all the more reason to delete this article IMO. As it's likely a duplicate of a differently named Roman city that it is just an odd spelling of. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it's a common name is not a reason to delete. If it's an alternate spelling of a place that we cover on another page then we should merge them, not delete anything. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:22, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Normally I'd agree. Except two things here make me think that's a no go. 1. We don't usually merge referenced information and in this case I'd say it applies 2. There's no encyclopedic content about it to merge anyway 3. There's zero way to know where we should merge it to and it's probably impossible to figure out since the information in the article is so sparse and general. It could really apply to a bunch of articles cited in Apollonia. So, should we just pick a random merge target and keep our fingers crossed it's the correct one or something? --Adamant1 (talk) 10:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The atlas gives a location for this place (38.959452N, 31.147865E) and also gives an alternate placename (Tezkalesi). This information seems quite adequate for further investigation. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are two reliable sources that call if Appolena, not Apollonia. This isn't some rogue editor with careless spelling, so we can take that argument right off the table. "It's unencyclopedic" is not a valid deletion argument—many encyclopedias have short articles that say little more than "X was a Roman town in Y". Why should Wikipedia be any more demanding? "Not a directory" is about "indiscriminate information". "X was a Roman town in Y" is not "indiscriminate" in the way that "the Phlink warehouse stocked the following valve configurations" or "these are the businesses at the corner of 4th Street and Vine" are indiscriminate. "We don't merge referenced information" isn't a policy. Most merged articles contain sources from each of the articles being merged. "I don't know where it should be merged" is not an argument for deletion—it's an argument for keeping it as a stub. However, it's also wrong—there's no reason why this article couldn't be merged with other stubs on Roman-era settlements in Phrygia. Is that the best solution? I don't know, but it's not important to answer that question, when the question at hand is whether to delete or keep the contents of the article; the potential for merger simply proves that there are valid alternatives to deletion. P Aculeius (talk) 14:29, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is why I think including this topic in a list is the best solution, without prejudice of recreation if we find other sources on it. It's verifiable enough to include somewhere in the encyclopaedia, but it's not notable enough for a standalone article at this point, since we really only have one source, a map. (I'm also concerned that it's a map because mapmakers prevent copying by occasionally including fictional features.) SportingFlyer T·C 16:46, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No map produced as an academic document, as this one is, contains such deliberate falsehoods. This source is just as reliable as anything written in prose published by the Princeton University Press. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that this discussion is now over 25K and we won't be deleting any of it ever. This is a counter-productive way of reducing clutter. See WP:LAME, WP:LIGHTBULB, &c. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions aren't edit wars. Anyway, the point in AfDs are to reduce mainspace/article clutter. Discussions can and should be as long as they need to be to resolve things and everything said so far was to that end. Maybe if the discussion was off topic id agree with you, but sometimes AfDs require debate. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:37, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep My reading of the references[33] differs a bit from that of P Aculeius. 'Tezkalesi' does appear in the index for TIB: 7 Based on page 402 and his own unpublished information Drew-Bear gives 'Appolena' for the name. We should be concerned with the place, not the name. It's appropriate content for some article, we just don't know enough right now to say where that content should be so i think WP:PRESERVE applies. fiveby(zero) 02:36, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If your argument is that Appolena and Tezkalesi are the same place, which looking at the references may be a fair one - I would support a move and redirect to Tezkalesi, which currently does not have an article and would pass WP:GEOLAND considering there's actual available text on the place. SportingFlyer T·C 03:18, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reasonably certain Drew-Bear has associated 'Appolena' with Byzantium 'Tezkalesi'. This blurb referring to the demos of the Appolenoi suggests other authors thought Çoğu. Another possible reference is Drew-Bear, Thomas; Naour, Christian (1990). "Divinités De Phrygie". ANWAR II. 18 (3): 1929–1931. fiveby(zero) 06:10, 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 Commercial Crew Program. Sandstein 17:43, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

USCV-4

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

Fails WP:CRYSTAL and probably has a dose of WP:Original research. The source mentioned does not mention the mission, and I can find no other sources. The article could be recreated when more sources about the mission can be found. Lettler^hello 03:51, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Lettler^hello 03:51, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources mentioned do mention USCV 1-6 and mention the destination providers and purpose of the missions. Sources do mention mission. Nothing there is an unverifiable claim. Will add more to citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LoganBlade (talk • contribs) 05:04, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If this article is crystal ball and unacceptable then this one must be outrageous https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_Crew_Program#ISS_crew_rotation_flights — Preceding unsigned comment added by LoganBlade (talk • contribs) 05:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The new sources have been looked through. I searched the first, third and fourth sources and found no mention of USCV-4 or any other missions. I found only one mention of USCV-4 online, which was in a forum with no clear source. https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32006.940

In response to your second comment, USCV-1, USCV-2, and USCV-3 have good coverage in reliable news sources. USCV-4 does not. Lettler^hello 14:13, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_Crew_Program#ISS_crew_rotation_flights — Preceding unsigned comment added by LoganBlade (talk • contribs) 22:17, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 05:42, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, It's an upcoming mission. - Hatchens (talk) 14:44, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now – USCV-2, USCV-3, and USCV-4 are mostly constructed on uncited conjecture and assumptions, which are simply not acceptable per guidelines against "crystal balling". A lot of confusion about the crew manifest has been caused by these articles in particular; it'd be in our best interests to leave these articles as redirects to Commercial Crew Program for now until a more significant amount of sources and information are available for us to use to verify certain claims. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 04:53, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect for now per above --Cornellier (talk) 12:26, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect ~~(all)~~(see below) for now as per nom and PhilipTerryGraham's rationale. All we really know is that the first operational NASA Crew flight is SpaceX's crew-1. Once NASA clarifies (or we get a good source) redirects may be a good idea. OkayKenji ^{(talk page)} 17:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@OkayKenji: I will say, at the very least, for the USCV-2 article on the Boeing Starliner-1 mission, we have reliable sources to say that it'll be flying Calypso with Cassada and Williams aboard, so I retract my suggestion to redirect that particular article, but I stick by the opinion that the other two articles should be redirected. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 04:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cmt Posted a link this dissuasion over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spaceflight. OkayKenji ^{(talk page)} 17:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC) [reply]
Retarget per PTG. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 06:12, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Royal Moroccan Air Force. Stifle (talk) 10:31, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of active Moroccan military aircraft

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

Redundant inventory table. List of Morrocan military aircraft is already covered in Royal Moroccan Gendarmerie, Royal Moroccan Navy and Royal Moroccan Air Force. No reason to keep duplication as it was difficult to maintain the page, and this page is already subject to vandalism Ckfasdf (talk) 01:27, 20 May 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 May 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:42, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:08, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:08, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:09, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:09, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:09, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lists of currently active military equipment by country shows this information is listed for nations in various ways. Not sure if any discussion was had on a universal standard that should be used. Vandalism or being hard to maintain are not valid reasons for deletion though. Dream Focus 11:14, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dream Focus: Actually, the main reason is redundancy or unnecessary duplication. That list initally mentioned table of aircraft inventory of Royal Moroccan Gendarmerie, Royal Moroccan Navy and Royal Moroccan Air Force). However the same table also can be found on those pages. Some of Lists of currently active military equipment by country also have some problem. Ckfasdf (talk) 13:11, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator’s observation that this is covered by three separate pages would actually seem to be an argument for keeping this list, to present the information in one place instead of being divided by armed forces branch. Seems like a clear benefit to readers interested in the technology, not the organizational structure. postdlf (talk) 18:04, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Royal Moroccan Air Force. The main article looks small enough to include this list there. Azuredivay

(talk) 02:24, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Azuredivay: that list also used to have list of aircraft that belong to Royal Moroccan Gendarmerie and Royal Moroccan Navy, and that list is already in Royal Moroccan Air Force. So it'll better if we just delete this page. Ckfasdf (talk) 05:45, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seems likely that the article can be created in the future once there is enough content. This is why I assume that merging is a better option. Azuredivay (talk) 04:54, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Royal Moroccan Air Force and Royal Moroccan Gendarmerie --Cornellier (talk) 12:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:55, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Housing at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:07, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Massachusetts Institute of Technology undergraduate dormitories

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

Wikipedia is not a directory. User:Namiba 13:01, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 13:01, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 13:01, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 13:01, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article is weird but it isn’t a directory. Mccapra (talk) 15:44, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't see how "Wikipedia is not a directory" is relevant in this particular case. Just like one can write about museums and restaurants without being a travel guide, one can (in principle) write about a university without being a directory. The page at least attempts to discuss history and controversies (e.g., there is secondary-source coverage for the closing and repurposing of Senior House). It seems more a candidate for cleanup than for deletion. There's also a possibility of selectively merging to Housing at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. XOR'easter (talk) 16:23, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dormatories are not deemed notable to be included in a list, let alone a list that is a huge number of articles masquerading as a list to avoid normal notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:38, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A list of dormitories might typically not be notable, but the undergraduate dorm system at MIT has rather distinctive attributes and has received independent press coverage: ^[1]^[2]. In addition there's some mention of MIT undergraduate dorm norms and cultures in articles focusing on Senior House: ^[3]^[4]. I also agree that this page isn't a directory, although it does have a lot of room for improvement.
Apologies in advance if I misunderstood anything, as I'm fairly new to editing Wikipedia. BXu99 (talk) 06:56, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per BXu99, with the option of selectively merging as I mentioned above. XOR'easter (talk) 17:32, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Housing at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Lorstaking (talk) 05:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it's not a list --Cornellier (talk) 12:58, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Support merging with the equally odd Housing at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, together they could be a real article. Looking at the Housing article, its arguable that that that article should in fact be merged into this one not the other way around. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 21:14, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 06:42, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Malene Sørensen

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

Doesn't pass neither WP:GNG nor WP:NFOOTY; she hasn't appeared for a senior national team, and the Danish women's top division isn't fully professional. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 07:31, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 07:31, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 07:31, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 07:31, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 07:31, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 07:31, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find anything other than brief mentions of her. Dougal18 (talk) 10:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:16, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:04, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

American–Israeli Cooperative Enterprise

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

Fails WP:GNG – no significant coverage in independent sources.

This grandly named organization appears to be a personal tax and public relations vehicle for Mitchell Bard – the tax filings for 2018 (and 2017) show revenues of $196 thousand dollars (p.1), of which $164 thousand went straight to pay Mitchell Bard (p.7) and $23 thousand went to "occupancy" (p.10, which presumably is for the usage of his home-office), and the Vice President/Secretary is Mitchell Bard's son, Arthur (last page). The "Board of Directors" are paid zero (common for a real charity, but odd when all the revenues are going to one person), the "Advisory Board" look to be wealthy people who donated to Bard, and the "Honorary Committee" look like a list of political types that Bard knew from his time at AIPAC.

Re WP:GNG, there is no detailed information on this organization from third party sources, and our article is replete with WP:ABOUTSELF references. It was created in 2011[34] with three ABOUTSELF references, presumably with the intention that it would be built out with better refs over time. But a decade later, and despite the hard work of Shalom11111 to improve the article over the years, we have been unable to find "significant coverage" to justify this article being forked from Mitchell Bard. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:26, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:40, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:40, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:40, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per discussion below. Bishonen | tålk 20:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Veracity of statements by Donald Trump

AfDs for this article:

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

I know this has been nominated a couple times, but it really does violate policy. This fits in with WP:ATTACK. Every word in this article is negative about Donald Trump. This is the only article exclusively about someones lies, if we had an article about every lie of a politician we would have a lot more than 6 million articles on the English Wikipedia. Whats next were gonna create an article about every gaffe by Joe Biden? Also, a good majority of the content is not neutral at all. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 06:32, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - The article very clearly meets the guidelines for notability. If you have concerns about the article's quality, then you should discuss it on the talk page. --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 06:51, 28 May 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 May 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:54, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:NPOV problems aren't a reason for deletion unless in extreme cases. This isn't one. Java Hurricane 07:17, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is notable and well-sourced. Anyone is welcome to create a similar article for Biden or anyone else if they can show that it is notable. If you have WP:NPOV concerns then you should raise the specific issues on the talk page and try to build consensus. JohnmgKing (talk) 07:00, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - Someone said, "Every word in this article is negative about Donald Trump." EVERY list of bad things someone did is negative about the subject. As to, "This is the only article exclusively about someones lies," that's because no other president has been a compulsive liar. Even Nixon never told ridiculous lies like, "I invented the expression 'prime the pump' last week." Verdana♥Bold 08:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per the above. X1\ (talk) 08:51, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, ref. this blog post by Larry Sanger.[35] I found the page in question when trying to find objective facts about Obamagate, which is redirected here, and found that I instead got what at least on the surface looks more like a generic smear page. I couldn't even find any information about what Obamagate supposedly is. Moreover, it is pretty obvious that several of the "reliable" sources have an ongoing conflict with Trump (whether that was their own choice or not) and therefore cannot be expected to be balanced in this particular context. The article is currently too far off NPOV policy and, at least on the surface, too close to an attack page for this article to be kept, at least in its current shape and form. Please remember that politics is a controversial topic in which there are always many dissenting voices. You can't simply define half of the political spectrum as "unreliable" and the other half as "reliable". However tempting that may be, such an evaluation is outside the scope of Wikipedia. When there are conflicting views, please describe all relevant views. Narssarssuaq (talk) 09:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Narssarssuaq: - WP:NPOV does not mean neutral articles, see WP:FALSEBALANCE (it means neutral editing to reflect the sources). Also, You can't simply define half of the political spectrum as "unreliable" and the other half as "reliable". - you're way off base. According to WP:RSP, right-leaning sources like Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, The Hill are reliable. starship .paint (talk) 09:25, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks, I did not know where to find the RSP list. Narssarssuaq (talk) 09:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - RE I couldn't even find any information about what Obamagate supposedly is: That's because Trump himself hasn't explained what he is talking about. Not even a hint. Just that whatever it is, it was the worst political crime in the history of the world and people should be in jail for it. If he can't describe it, we can't describe it. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:18, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - I found this Wikipedia article: Trump Tower wiretapping allegations, which probably reflects what Trump refers to as "Obamagate". The article is written in a more encyclopedic style - which, by the way, does not mean that it's been stripped of criticism or allegations against Trump. Narssarssuaq (talk) 19:17, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - subject easily passes WP:GNG, and it reflects the sources. Academics have stated that Trump's falsehoods are unprecedented in American politics.^[5] Naturally, the reliable sources react negatively to that, and so do we, because WP:NPOV maintains that we dutifully reflect reliable sources. starship .paint (talk) 09:30, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Yale Daily News Staff (2009). The Insider's Guide to the Colleges, 2010. St. Martin's Griffin. pp. 377–380. ISBN 978-0-312-57029-3.
^ Jacobs, Peter (12 November 2014). "Here's Why MIT Is The Most Intense College In America". Business Insider.
^ "A Weird MIT Dorm Dies, and a Crisis Blooms at Colleges". Wired. 10 September 2017.
^ Herper, Matthew (28 June 2017). "Grappling With Its Identity, MIT Shuts A Dorm For Misfits". Forbes.
^
- McGranahan, Carole (May 2017). "An anthropology of lying: Trump and the political sociality of moral outrage". American Ethnologist. 44 (2): 243–248. doi:10.1111/amet.12475. It has long been a truism that politicians lie, but with the entry of Donald Trump into the U.S. political domain, the frequency, degree, and impact of lying in politics are now unprecedented [...] Donald Trump is different. By all metrics and counting schemes, his lies are off the charts. We simply have not seen such an accomplished and effective liar before in U.S. politics.
- Stolberg, Sheryl Gay (August 7, 2017). "Many Politicians Lie. But Trump Has Elevated the Art of Fabrication". The New York Times. Retrieved March 11, 2019. President Trump, historians and consultants in both political parties agree, appears to have taken what the writer Hannah Arendt once called 'the conflict between truth and politics' to an entirely new level.
- Kessler, Glenn (December 30, 2018). "A year of unprecedented deception: Trump averaged 15 false claims a day in 2018". The Washington Post. Retrieved February 20, 2019. 'When before have we seen a president so indifferent to the distinction between truth and falsehood, or so eager to blur that distinction?' presidential historian Michael R. Beschloss said of Trump in 2018.
- Barabak, Mark Z. (February 6, 2017). "There's a long history of presidential untruths. Here's why Donald Trump is 'in a class by himself'". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved March 11, 2019. White House scholars and other students of government agree there has never been a president like Donald Trump, whose volume of falsehoods, misstatements and serial exaggerations – on matters large and wincingly small – place him 'in a class by himself', as Texas A&M's George Edwards put it.
- Dale, Daniel (December 22, 2017). "Donald Trump has spent a year lying shamelessly. It hasn't worked". Toronto Star. Retrieved March 4, 2019. 'We've had presidents that have lied or misled the country, but we've never had a serial liar before. And that's what we're dealing with here,' said Douglas Brinkley, the prominent Rice University presidential historian.
- Skjeseth, Heidi Taksdal (2017). "All the president's lies: Media coverage of lies in the US and France" (PDF). Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. Trump is not the first president to be at odds with the press, but the amount of lies he delivers and his aggressive attacks on and constant undermining of the legitimacy of the media, is unprecedented.
- Stern, Donnel (May 9, 2019). "Constructivism in the Age of Trump: Truth, Lies, and Knowing the Difference". Psychoanalytic Dialogues. 29 (2): 189–196. doi:10.1080/10481885.2019.1587996. Donald Trump lies so often that some have wondered whether he has poisoned the well [...] We expect politicians to stretch the truth. But Trump is a whole different animal. He lies as a policy.

Speedy keep Larry Sanger whining that we cover Trump's very real scandals but not Obama's manufactured ones is not a basis for deleting the former. Reywas92^Talk 23:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. So Why 09:32, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. So Why 09:32, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article is notable due to the coverage his lying has gained in the media and public throughout his presidency. Epluribusunumyall (talk) 09:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep for the same reasons as before. This nomination offers no new policy-based reason for deletion. This is a notable topic, not because politicians lie, but because this politician has transcended the previous norms in such a way that the very approach of blatantly lying about basically everything has received significant coverage in reliable sources. Many politicians will lie about their achievements or their plans or their motives but before Trump, none have constantly tried to claim that people should believe him over their own eyes (e.g. with the size of his inauguration crowd). Iamreallygoodatcheckers probably missed the part of WP:ATTACK which explicitly says When material is spunout of a biography of a public figure by consensus because that section of the article has a length that is out of proportion to the rest of the article, it is not necessarily an attack page, even if the content in question reflects negatively upon its subject. Regards So Why 09:46, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some context seems needed here. On a whim, I once started a list of honest politicians, thinking of paragons like Cincinnatus. This was deleted after some debate (AfD 1; AfD 2). So, there's no appetite for honesty and I'm now pondering whether we should have a list of dishonest presidents instead but, having browsed some sources, it's starting to look like that would be all of them – even George Washington ("I cannot tell a lie") and Jimmy Carter ("I'll never lie to you"). See this history of White House fabulists for details. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Andrew Davidson: - in response to your comment, I recommend this book excerpt: [36] "All presidents lie. In fact, virtually all humans lie. This observation may lead some to a cynical conclusion of moral equivalence: all politicians lie, so they are all corrupt and deserving of contempt. But it is an abdication of moral and civic responsibility to refuse to distinguish justified, trivial, serious, and egregious lies. The most important lies of Donald Trump differ significantly from previous presidential lies". They "are egregious false statements that are demonstrably contrary to well-known facts. If there are no agreed upon facts, then it becomes impossible for people to make judgments about their government. Political power rather than rational discourse then becomes the arbiter." starship .paint (talk) 11:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - That reminds me of another promising source book – When Presidents Lie. Wikipedia should take a long view on such topics, with a historical perspective, because "Those who fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it." Andrew🐉(talk) 11:18, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep SoWhy and others make compelling arguments. No need for me to repeat them. Edwardx (talk) 11:21, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all the other "keeps" -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 11:32, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliable sources report level of non-truthfulness being unprecedented. —RCraig09 (talk) 14:31, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- These are not reliable sources, they are partisan position pushers. Many of th debates are framed falsely in the light of this issue to advance a point of view that has to do with reasonable goals and not accuracy. This is an abuse of Wikipedia to create an attack article like this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:41, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above. - Flori4nKT A L K 14:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep SoWhy says it well. No policy-based argument for deletion has been advanced. XOR'easter (talk) 17:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete The very title of this article and even more so its comments are total violation of NPOV guidelines. I have never seen a more POV pushing article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:37, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We need to stop letting the false notions on Kellerism control Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a news paper and it should not use the biased, unbalanced, take sides methods used by newspapers. This article clearly does and is clearly meant to and is a violation of the NPOV rules.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't violate WP:NOTNEWS given that the sources cover the overall truthfulness (or lack thereof) of Trump, in a way that hasn't been done before, given the extent of this president's inaccurate statements. It's not documenting each lie in a way that mirrors the 24 hour news cycle. It's an assessment of the presidency as a whole. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:11, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Moreover, I confess myself a bit baffled by the claim that the title violates NPOV. It's not "Donald Trump's pathological aversion to the truth" or, contrariwise, "Donald Trump's sterling record of truthfulness". It's ... "Veracity of statements by Donald Trump". Practically yawn-inducing. XOR'easter (talk) 18:56, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with John Pack Lambert. Although a balanced page on allegations of falsehoods would be interesting, this article on falsehoods in themselves comes across as more accusatory than balanced. The best option is to add balance to the article. If it is implausible that it can be fixed, deletion is the best option, but maybe there is hope? Note that according to WP:DEMOCRACY and WP:AGF we should strive towards consensus in the editing. If some editors object to what they perceive as political bias, please try to take this into account somehow. Narssarssuaq (talk) 19:04, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with XOR'Easter that it's baffling to think a title this boring and unspecific is too biased against Trump. The title doesn't accuse Trump of being a liar, it simply states that this article covers various instances of Trump making statements whose accuracy was covered significantly in reliable secondary sources. An alternative title like "allegations of falsehoods" would make it sound far too subjective or 50/50 (see WP:NOTNEUTRAL). It would be erroneous to use Wikipedia's voice to make it sound as if it's just a matter of opinion whether or not, for example, the National Hurricane Center's forecast for Hurricane Dorian was that it would hit Alabama. Two things can be true at once: 1) this is not an attack page and 2) we should not present things as being subject to opinion if they are not. Vanilla Wizard 💙 20:09, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An WP:ATTACK page is a page written specifically to denounce a subject. This article may be a magnet for POV issues, but you cannot deny that the reliable sources have covered Trump's lies and other inaccuracies at length. He's in the middle of a dust up with Twitter over them fact-checking his tweets as we speak. POV issues should be dealt with on the article's talk page. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:09, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep It is supportable by WP:RS. Per Wikipedia:CENSOR.Casprings (talk) 18:12, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is the expanded article for the already huge Donald Trump article's "False statements" section (that could potentially also be renamed). There seems to be a misconception about WP:ATTACK by the nominator. The topic is also very notable, or it wouldn't be mentioned in the main article either. —Paleo Neonate – 19:51, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep SoWhy succinctly explained how this article does not violate WP:ATTACK. Vanilla Wizard 💙 20:09, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely notable enough to be worthy of its own article. The OP asked why there isn't an equivalent for other politicians - certainly, if it's notable, there should be an equivalent article for them too. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 20:55, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: On a related note, it is possible that the page has become a wp:list instead of a discussion of the veracity of the subject's statements. The page does read like a lengthy review of examples as opposed to a review of his general truthiness. Perhaps a refactoring may be in order. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 20:58, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone WP:SNOW close this? A third AfD with the pretty much the exact same rationale is disruptive. Galobtter (pingó mió) 21:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fact-checking service or trivia website.--Darwinek (talk) 21:57, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- In principle you are right. In practice, however, it is used as a trivia website. Narssarssuaq (talk) 22:13, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and this is an encyclopedia article. Perhaps not a terribly well-organized one, but a legitimate one nevertheless. XOR'easter (talk) 22:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could you point out an article in any other encyclopedia that shows similarities to the current article? Narssarssuaq (talk) 22:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Narssarssuaq: - can you point out anyone that reliable sources say tells falsehoods on the level of Donald Trump? Or can you find the previous person who told an unprecedented number of falsehoods in American politics? I brought seven sources above showing what academics wrote about this subject. What can you bring to the table? starship .paint (talk) 01:18, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't answer my question. Anyhow, Trump was voted in because many people carefully judged that he was the more truthful candidate. So apparently you don't agree with some people on this. Many of these people will possibly hold that truth may not only be about one's level of accuracy when it comes to factoids, but also about one's understanding the broader picture. You thus need to define truth, and, by extension, understanding. You may start here: Epistemology. Good luck. Narssarssuaq (talk) 10:58, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Narssarssuaq: - some people carefully judged that Trump was the more truthful candidate, and these people are at odds with the reliable sources presented. You claim that Trump understands the broader picture, no, instead he has [37] "often lied about facts in ways that distorted reality to his political advantage", then he "expected others to accept his version of reality and dismissed disagreements as partisan attacks on him or 'fake news'". In fact the same source concludes that his consistent lying has undermined enlightenment epistemology because people are now disagreeing on what the facts are. starship .paint (talk) 11:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That paper seems relevant. By the way, you misrepresented what I just wrote. I did not claim that Trump understands the broader picture, but that some people think he does. Are you able to spot the difference between these two? Narssarssuaq (talk) 12:39, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Narssarssuaq: - yes, I can spot the difference, but why does it matter for this page what voters think? This page is about Trump, here you are talking about voters. starship .paint (talk) 14:07, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Narssarssuaq: Please don't bring philosophical obfuscation into this. WP:RS exists for a reason. userdude 17:30, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep This is easily notable and not an attack. If repeating your words back to you is considered an attack, then I think the issue is with what you are saying. Also, I find it odd that users are saying that how the media's reporting of the seemingly unlimited number of lies from the president is somehow Wikipedia's narrative. WP:IDONTLIKEIT doesn't work in deletion discussions, and this isn't the place to address POV issues. Nihlus 22:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not only does every word violate in this article violate NPOV, the entire idea of the article violates NPOV. That can't be resolved in the talk page. I can't say that this doesn't pass GNG (it does), but it doesn't have a place on Wikipedia. I could probably find a million local, sub-national, national, international sources on every world leader (Bush, Reagan, Obama, G. Washington, Boris Johnson, etc.) talking about their dishonesty. I don't think it's possible for an article of this nature to ever be neutral, every source that is talking about his lies is biased. Keeping an article like this opens up a can of worms, Wikipedia is not supposed to be biased like this. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:23, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Iamreallygoodatcheckers: - you have fundamentally misunderstood WP:NPOV, it does not mean neutral articles, it just means that editors must neutrally reflect the POV of the sources proportionately, and that POV may very well be not neutral. Put another way, WP:NPOV calls for no Wikipedia-editorial bias, not no source bias. Also - the sources are clear. Politicians tell untruths, but Trump tells more. He is exceptional. starship .paint (talk) 05:27, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. In addition to all the other keep and speedy keep votes I have some unique contributions. There is an article on Bushisms. That's not an attack page. Many politicans have a "Public image of" page on Wikipedia. Not all of those are positive (as not everyone has a positive public image). Plus, this has been nominated twice and not deleted. Nothing has changed in that time. Going through this process is not going to be constructive.--Mpen320 (talk) 04:43, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Interesting use of statistics. The article does not attack Mr Trump - it merely documents the veracity or otherwise of a certain proportion of statements recorded as coming from him, attributed to him, or issued in his name. - Jandalhandler (talk) 10:02, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. An objective encyclopedia is much more useful than a neutral encyclopedia (Sorry Larry Sanger) and trying to provide a neutral point of view to all situations is honourable but otherwise wrong see Criticism of Holocaust denial. Since this is the third nomination this page should be protected. - || RuleTheWiki || (talk) 10:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. After all we have reached the End of history, and everyone agrees on what's good and what's wrong. Narssarssuaq (talk) 12:50, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article is perfectly fine, all it does is describe and document some of Donald Trump’s more controversial statements. As long as it stays neutral, it is a useful article that should not be deleted. Ma nam is geoffrey (talk) (talk) 16:18, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:FALSEBALANCE. userdude 17:23, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. userdude 17:26, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about closing this as speedy keep, but felt an opinion forming so decided to vote instead. Speedy keep This topic is widely covered on RS and, speaking as a non-American, represents one of the aspects of Trump's presidency that is most internationally notable. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:03, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep and ban User:Iamreallygoodatcheckers from articles relating to US politics. This was a snow keep only a few months ago and a snow keep earlier last year. Iamreallygoodatcheckers should never have nominated it, and by doing so, is showing clear bias. Looking at other edits, they have also been controversially removing content from the article. Nfitz (talk) 19:26, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as relevant through extremely wide coverage and notability. - DVdm (talk) 20:26, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Brandon Sanderson. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:32, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hard and soft magic systems (2nd nomination)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Magic system

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

This seems to be a concept invented by some bloggers that never caught on beyond their blogs. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete too much the product of one man's ideas to be considered a broadly applicable set of ideas as this article implies.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:58, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Does this argument also work for the Chekhov's gun article? Chekhov's gun is a product of one person's ideas, and any product of one person's ideas cannot be broadly applied (?), and anything which cannot be broadly applied should not be a Wikipedia article (?), right? -NorsemanII (talk) 02:52, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Chekhov's gun is a broadly understood and accepted concept taught in established institutions of higher learning that originates from one of the great writers of modern literature. The same cannot be said of this pet theory of a contemporary genre writer of limited recognition.
Keep We already discussed this earlier this year – see WP:BEFORE and WP:DELAFD, "users should allow a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating the same page for deletion again ... It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome." The topic is notable and so should be covered per WP:PRESERVE. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:03, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Brandon Sanderson - Unlike the broader topic of Magic system, which was the primary article discussed in the prior AFD, this term/concept is based entirely on a single individual's idea. The sources currently in the article are all invalid for establishing notability (three are from non-reliable sources, three are just written by the person who coined the term). In the prior AFD, Andrew found one source that mentioned the concept, but even that was limited to summarizing Sanderson's paper on the subject, and is the only seemingly reliable source I have found discussing the concept in detail. However, while I don't think the sources support an independent article, the author that coined the concept is notable and has his own article, so it would make sense to discuss the concept there, though obviously the merge would need to be limited to just the definition and origin of the term, and not the copious, unsourced examples. Rorshacma (talk) 15:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Brandon Sanderson per Rorshacma's rationale. Rupert Loup (talk) 12:40, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I disagree with the consensus that it should be merged. The merger will reduce the length of the article of information vital to understanding the concept behind "hard and soft" magic systems, simply because they're not sourced properly. If this article in its complete form can be fused in the main one without cutting out the content, I would support the merger. I do not support it, however, on the basis that the ideas presented here are important for understanding different types of literary development on the subject of fantasy writing. girleymen (talk) 22:35, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Information that isn't sourced properly is not supposed to be kept in articles regardless of whether or not a merger occurs. Rorshacma (talk) 02:36, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 09:27, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It has been sourced properly, it's all essentially the same one source. Someone else has added more links but the main content of this article has a source backing it. There are instances in Wikipedia articles were something is not sourced properly and still on the page and this site has been known to host links from unreliable sources that is the crux of criticism against it in the academic field. Removing this information weakens people's understanding of this concept, and a very helpful tool at that, on the ground that it only has one primary source? How many sources does it need to have to be notable? There are figures in history whose pages are less than a paragraph long that are still on this site. Should they be deleted too? girleymen (talk) Girleymen (talk) 05:36, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a valid argument for keeping, but to answer your question, yes, information in any article that is not properly sourced should not be kept. Rorshacma (talk) 15:28, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Brandon Sanderson. The article is not notable in its own right, but is applicable and has enough references to be included in Sanderson's article. The examples, although unsourced, could be condensed and kept if given proper explanations. My recommendation is two examples per type of magic. BlacknoseDace (talk) 11:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Brandon Sanderson. The topic itself is not notable, but it does deserve some coverage on the page of the person who invented the concept. Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment about notability: I would like to highlight that the terms are becoming increasingly used and have indeed caught on. You can see them on Reddit pages and YouTube channels that discuss fiction writing since as far as last year. Searching the terms "hard magic" or "soft magic" on r/magicbuilding, r/fantasy, or YouTube will point you to examples. Cosmonought (talk) 13:39, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- To alter a quote from Hitman 2, if Wikipedia looked to YouTube and Reddit as the sources that defined notability this website would have collapsed a long time ago. Devonian Wombat (talk) 13:50, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you for your kind explanation. In any case I am happy to throw in my two cents to note that these terms are searched and discussed a lot. Cosmonought (talk) 14:10, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think that Reddit and Youtube aren't reliable sources, but they are a very good way to determine if things are becoming notable or popular. I would still recommend a merge due to the lack of reliable sources. BlacknoseDace (talk) 14:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to magic system, while it is an interesting topic and has some reliable coverage I don't see there being enough right now to have its own spin-off article. It could very likely (based on YouTube and Reddit searches) one day become more popular and earn its own article but not right now.★Trekker (talk) 21:33, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I just added six references from six different authors citing this topic including a book on designing magic systems for games. I came to Wikipedia looking for more information on this topic as it had come up in a discussion, and I would be mildly annoyed to have to sift through Sanderson's page or the page on magic systems to find this. This also should not fall into the same categories as Sanderson does (or vice versa), as that would also create an annoying barrier to finding the information I'm looking for. The article itself leaves a lot of room for improvement, but that's not what AfD is for. -NorsemanII (talk) 02:52, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Those added sources are not from reliable sources, though. They're writing blogs, peoples' personal websites, etc. These are not considered reliable sources, per WP:SPS. Establishing notability isn't just finding how many times that a certain term or concept has been used on the internet, its finding information from actual reliable sources. The only one of the added sources that could be considered a reliable source is the one book that I already mentioned above. Rorshacma (talk) 15:28, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - Flori4nKT A L K 12:14, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I do not see any evidence that this topic is covered by reliable sources. At present, except for the book source, all of the cited pages appear to be blogs. This is simply not enough to pass WP:GNG. BenKuykendall (talk) 18:19, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I just added two more references, one from a literary magazine and the other from a peer reviewed academic journal. Please people, just do a couple quick Google searches to see if a topic is notable before you try to claim it isn't and should be deleted. I've now added eight references to this article with a small amount of spare time. I genuinely don't understand how people can find the motivation to go find an article they're not interested in and write up a comment in favor of deleting it, without having the motivation to type a couple of keywords into Google. It boggles my mind. -NorsemanII (talk) 03:42, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@NorsemanII: those new sources look much more better than the six added last week. The Mythlore article is certainly reliable and decently in-depth. I don't know about the other source though; do we know that The Curious Reader is reliable? After reading them I am leaning towards saying topic is notable.BenKuykendall (talk) 04:48, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is one author's own idea about how writers can think about "magic systems" while writing a novel. It is simply helpful advice for writers and not a generally accepted, wide-spread concept or practice.
Keep It's similar to Chekhov's gun or Three Laws of Robotics. All of them are just some author's ideas. But that author is someone very very influential in all these cases. Also it's not just Sanderson's suggestions for better writing. Regardless of who first suggested this categorization, soft vs. hard magic system is a valid and useful way to categorize speculative fictions. navidk (talk) 21:53, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Neither the concept nor it's creator are a widely recognized and / or accepted as your two examples. It is not the same thing. In fact, it is nothing more that writing advice that said writer of limited recognition and importance uses in his writing classes.

Delete- Although this is an interesting subject and by no means the worst article of its type I have seen here, ultimately it is still too much of a how-to guide based on cobbling together bits and pieces from sources that are predominantly blogs. Reyk _YO! 14:12, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP yet again Six said KEEP months ago when this went to AFD, one said merge, and no one but the nominator said delete. Anyway, as I said last time: Whenever video games or other games are reviewed, they usually review the magic system as a key part of those games. Reliable sources give significant coverage to this concept such as https://www.cbr.com/shonen-action-rules-fullmetal-alchemist-my-hero-academia/ and https://www.thegamer.com/harry-potter-rpg-never-happen-because-magic-system-sucks/ Dream Focus 21:02, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly notable per WP:SIGCOV In January 2020 this subject's merits were debated and the editors overwhelming decided to Keep. Lightburst (talk) 22:00, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:03, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Verona Barnes

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Two Broadway credits, but one was for a month and a half run, and the other seems to have been a minor role in The Great White Hope. No media coverage that I could find. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Since at least one of the credits on broadway was for a minor role we do not have the required multiple significant roles in notalbe productions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:14, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:14, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:14, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 17:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 00:38, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Krishna Shankar

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

Fails WP:GNGACTOR. Period! Hatchens (talk) 05:43, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 05:43, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 05:43, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable actor. Java Hurricane 07:17, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:37, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passes criteria 1 of WP:NACTOR with prominent significant roles in multiple notable nationally released feature films such as Marubhoomiyile Aana, Thobama, Allu Ramendran, Mariyam Vannu Vilakkoothi and Mohan Kumar Fans as confirmed by reliable sources some of which are already in the article. Hopefully this nomination and similar are not due to US centric bias as I can't imagine a US actor with this number of prominent roles being nominated, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:17, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He plays the lead role in Kochaal and the second male lead in Allu Ramendran.^[1]^[2] TamilMirchi (talk) 20:24, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 09:27, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:29, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Important upcoming actor. One of the leads in Allu Ramendran and Marubhoomiyile Aana. Notable roles in other movies as well, as detailed above. Jupitus Smart 17:54, 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 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. Stifle (talk) 10:52, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Diggnation episodes

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

Unsourced fan cruft article with no apparent notability Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mhhossein ^talk 05:24, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nom summed it up; show ended nine years ago, and this is just a list of out-of-date headlines. Nate • (chatter) 21:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:03, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete under criterion G11. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ira Zlotowitz

AfDs for this article:

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

This article is not really a biography but a company profile. The company may be notable but I doubt it. The article subject seems adept at generating PR and low-level coverage but there’s nothing substantial in RIS to demonstrate notability. An article on the same topic was deleted in 2009. Mccapra (talk) 04:55, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 04:55, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 04:55, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 04:55, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 04:55, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as CSD G11. This is quite promotional. Java Hurricane 07:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes. I agree with G11. Speedy delete. Tagged. Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:01, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dagon, California

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

If "nothing remains of Dagon today," it would seem that the reason was that there wasn't ever anything there. The name doesn't appear on the topo quad until 1959, and while there are a couple of buildings there even on old maps, they are all accounted for by the ranch which is still there. Searching is almost impossible due to people in California have interests in things Mesopotamian, but I found no indications of a community here. Mangoe (talk) 04:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:33, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:33, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~: the sources are enough for WP:GEOLAND to apply. Even Google Maps acknowledges that a settlement existed here. Java Hurricane 07:24, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is essentially a source, which is GNIS, which is known to be unreliable. GMaps says there's a place there because it's copying this article! Mangoe (talk) 07:28, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So ignore the USGS? Java Hurricane 07:32, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your words, not mine. [lease read Wikipedia:Reliability of GNIS data so you can understand the problems with using GNIS as an authority on the nature of the places it lists. Mangoe (talk) 13:22, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops... a learning experience for me. Changing my vote to Delete. Thanks! Java Hurricane 15:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JavaHurricane: In my experience GNIS is very reliable. That essay you were sent to was written a month ago by just a few editors, and is not an essay that is widely cited by editors, nor is it policy or even a guideline. My advice is do your own research and find sources to support notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:25, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Aside from the two reliable sources cited in the article, this 1900 publication lists Dagon, and this source identifies Dagon. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:19, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The first simply identifies it as a spot on the railroad where material could in principle be shipped from. The second doesn't "identify" Dagon at all; it gives it as sort-of an address for a mining operation, but as you can see if you click all the way through to a map, the spot given is some ways south of the location on railroad that GNIS gives. In other words, "Dagon" here is just a locale, not a settlement. We're back to the familiar problem: the maps and aerials show no settlement, the references to it as a placename establish it as no more than a locale, and GNIS's "populated place" designation covers too many different kinds of human activity to allow it to be automatically rendered as "community".

The merits of the essay are in its arguments, not by some sort of certification— the same issue that plagues GNIS. When you're essentially saying, "don't bother reading it," you're saying, "don't think." You cannot write an accurate encyclopedia that way, and an inaccurate encyclopedia, especially one that is being copied mindlessly, is a propagator of misinformation. Your bald claim that GNIS is reliable relies on an authority which you do not have, but it seems to me that enough fact-checking has been done to show that the way that GNIS categorizes places presents problems for it use. If you want to argue against the points made in the essay, do so; but just saying "it's just an essay" is a cop-out. Mangoe (talk) 15:02, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, GNIS is not a reliable source for the existence of these supposed communities, and there is no other evidence that it was one. Devonian Wombat (talk) 08:14, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this GNIS stub that should never have been created. --Cornellier (talk) 13:24, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:GEOLAND as it is not legally recognized and has not received significant coverage. Unclear where the "former settlement" and "nothing remains" details originated from;they appear to be OR. –dlthewave ☎ 02:48, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Sulfurboy (talk) 09:27, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

University of Kentucky cheerleading squad

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

Violates all 3 core policies of neutrality (WP:NPOV), verifiability (WP:V) and original research (WP:OR) PenulisHantu (talk) 15:50, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: But can the article be improved? There are other cheerleading squad articles, so there seems to be an argument for notability.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:54, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I edited the article, and cut quite a bit of non-neutral material. It still needs reliable sources, but at least it's not about the "winningest cheerleading squad in the world" anymore. — Toughpigs (talk) 23:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on this story about the team's coach being fired for hazing allegations that came out a few days ago, this nom is flawed. This is a very dominant college cheerleading squad with multiple championships in the sport and is a very obvious WP:SOFIXIT/WP:PROMO reduction case. Deleting this article would be like deleting the article for UNC and Duke basketball or Notre Dame football. Nate • (chatter) 21:08, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:43, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:43, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:43, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 04:24, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep highly successful cheer team. The team has 24 national championships. Looking at the article in the NYTimes and CNN, for example, while they only directly cover the coaches being fired, the reason that merits a story is because the team has had so much success. If consensus to keep does not emerge, a merge/redirect to Kentucky_Wildcats#Cheerleading should be considered. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:34, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The hazing scandal coverage indicates notability. It would be good to have sources to back up the rest of the claims in the article, but that can happen in normal editing and doesn't need a deletion discussion. — Toughpigs (talk) 14:38, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:35, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel Agbeko Gamor

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

~~Non notable PR guy, lots of coatrack and trivial mentions, nothing in-depth anywhere. Fails GNG MistyGraceWhite (talk) 18:05, 20 May 2020 (UTC)~~ Nominator's comment struck; indefinitely blocked sockpuppet.--Goldsztajn (talk) 20:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:12, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:22, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable person involved in PR.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:04, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This person is notable and passes the basic Wikipedia notability test, the wording of the article doesn't show and PR content.Owula kpakpo (talk) 13:59, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator was blocked as a sockpuppet, however I am leaving the nomination open because it has some merit. MER-C 17:10, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable, per WP:GNG. Good sourcing.BabbaQ (talk) 18:40, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 04:24, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. I don't see coverage that suggests this person is notable- They lack in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:13, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG per significant coverage in Modern Ghana and BBC. Lorstaking 03:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:08, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject seems notable enough as per the viewpoints of Lorstaking. Abishe (talk) 14:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the BBC article here isn't necessarily a valid source to substantiate notability as it is closer to an interview of a man on the street than coverage of Gamor because he's notable. Sure, it give him 366 words of coverage, but around 210 of those are covering things he said. The subject is treated as just one example of many of the "young and talented[...] returning to Ghana", not as somebody that stands out from the crowd. The Modern Ghana article doesn't seem to be independent coverage, more of an ad for Gamor's podcast. The author writes "it is my prayer that you are gingered enough to want to check out my friend’s podcast". Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:31, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:V and WP:RSs Lightburst (talk) 02:00, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aralla

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

Notability - there is absolutely no way that a town about which nothing is known, whose existence can only be inferred and whose name is never mentioned by any authors meets WP notability requirements. I can find no sources whatsoever that attest to this town existing. LegesRomanorum (talk) 22:14, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:17, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:17, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:17, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my rationale at this deletion discussion about a functionally identical article. CJK09 (talk) 04:40, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per current discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome. As a formerly-populated place from antiquity, it's presumptively notable, even if the only source we have cited is the Barrington Atlas. But if it says the place is inferred from epigraphic evidence, then presumably the epigraphy in question is also a valid source to cite, whether or not we can identify it using the internet. As a stub article, it has sufficient justification to exist simply because readers might run across the name—whether on Wikipedia or any other source—and expect to know where it was, or at least verify what it was. A simple summary like the article has now is enough for that, although as the discussion shows, it might be folded into a larger article containing similarly undetailed geographic stubs from the same region. P Aculeius (talk) 14:26, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I agree rationale of last contribution. It is useful to have at least a stub on such places; or at worst a redirect, due to merging. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 04:24, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Appolena. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:39, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:26, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 10:48, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Artiknos

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

I can find no sources whatsoever that suggest that this town exists, and the limited article text strongly suggests that it does not pass Wikipedia notability requirements. LegesRomanorum (talk) 22:28, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my rationale at this deletion discussion about a functionally identical article. CJK09 (talk) 04:41, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome. A formerly populated place from antiquity is presumptively notable, and the Barrington Atlas is sufficient support for that—plus whatever epigraphic "and other evidence" the atlas relies upon is presumably available, even if it can't be easily located over the internet. Being able to locate this place and distinguish it from similarly-named or located places is sufficient reason for it to have either a stub of its own, or a redirect to a page grouping similarly small items on ancient settlements in this area. P Aculeius (talk) 14:16, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I agree rationale of last contribution. It is useful to have at least a stub on such places; or at worst a redirect, due to merging. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:58, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 04:23, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Appolena. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:40, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This will never be more than a stub, doesn't merit an Wikipedia article. --Cornellier (talk) 14:52, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And what is wrong with a stub on a topic that passes WP:GEOLAND? How is having nothing better? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 09:26, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The "delete" opinions do not address the sources that have now been found. Sandstein 07:26, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lesmes Monteiro

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

Three lines and no in-depth coverage. I don't think this article meets WP:GNG, WP:BIO or any other notability criteria. SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 23:52, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 23:52, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:10, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:10, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I did a quick google search and there appears to be several sources mentioning him. The state of the article right now, I would say delete, but there does appear to be coverage in other sources. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:40, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, "mentions", but there's not coverage in-depth about him. Or, at least, I couldn't find it. Seems like someone trying to promote him. In the Pt.WP this same editor created this article.
Delete a non-notable rapper.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:46, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 20:28, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep as long as more proper sourcing can be found, and the article built up.TH1980 (talk) 04:45, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 04:23, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The article's a stub as it is but passes WP:BLP and seems expandable based on a couple searches, as there are Portuguese-language articles on him. SportingFlyer T·C 06:14, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just enough coverage seems to exist to satisfy WP:GNG, e.g. [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], all of which focus on Monteiro and his political activities (it's possible that not all of these are reliable sources, but I think the bulk are, and others exist). – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:17, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep RSing (Voice of America, Deutscher Weller) meets GNG, notable as leader of Movimento de Cidadãos Conscientes e Inconformados.--Goldsztajn (talk) 21:38, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to All Elite Wrestling#Championships. Sandstein 07:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of current champions in All Elite Wrestling

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

Completely useless WP:SPLIT from main article. Main article is only 36k, far from need. No additional information added. Only reason given for creation is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 00:41, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 00:41, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect back to to All Elite Wrestling#Championships as it was since late May 2019. Once time passes and more champions are crowned there will be a case for splitting the list but as it stands now it’s not necessary.--69.157.254.64 (talk) 02:32, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP First of all, why you don't sign with an wikipedia account? That's not very trustworthy! Second of all there is an article about List of current champions in Impact Wrestling. There are 4 championships, too! So your argument doesn't count! Every big wrestling promotion has an article about the current champions! Third of all, Galatz didn't follow the rules and deleted the article instead of nominating it for deletion! --TheGoldenRule (talk) 11:28, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, its about the article size of the article you are WP:SPLITing from. Compare the size of Impact Wrestling to All Elite Wrestling. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 19:44, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Because if we're going to have any of these articles, then there's zero reason why a nationally televised promotion shouldn't have one. Why keep Impact or ROH, but not AEW?

Of course, the other option is to get rid of them all. None of these lists are so large as to need a separate article, not even WWE, and having lists both in the main promotion article and a separate list is a maintenance headache of redundant efforts. oknazevad (talk) 16:11, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thats the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. There is plenty of details in the WWE one that is not in the main WWE page, which is massive already. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 19:44, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm saying most of those "details" are simply prose repetition of the info in the chart. If you strip them out as unnecessary redundancy, then there's no reason to have a separate article for any promotion. I increasingly think they're unneeded redundancies. But if we're going to have them, then we should have them for all nationally televised promotions, for consistency. oknazevad (talk) 16:17, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:57, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I don't want an edit war. Then at least keep the pictures of the current champions in the main article. That would be fine for me. I hope we can come to an agreement.--TheGoldenRule (talk) 16:17, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 04:18, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to All Elite Wrestling#Championships as all relevant content can be covered there. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is there an option to make the article better? No, then with the current information it can Redirect to All Elite Wrestling#Championships MPJ-DK (talk) 12:06, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Adventist Health. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 13:49, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adventist Health Howard Memorial Hospital

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

Non-notable local hospital. All that comes up for it in a Google search is local news coverage. There's nothing that would appeal to a broad audience or pass WP:NCORP.Adamant1 (talk) 04:04, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:35, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:35, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:35, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge > Adventist Health.Djflem (talk) 14:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't merge un-referenced information anyway, but what in this article isn't trivial and passes NCORP enough to be worth merging? Not to mention, the Adventist Health article is hardly notable itself. Adding more shoddily referenced materiel isn't the way to improve it IMO. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let's call it a partial merge: original name, date of establishment, merger to Adventist Health, which would improve the list on that page, since improving articles/lists and Wikipedia is the objective and gives editors who wish to do so a help: Basic info: https://www.northbaybusinessjournal.com/home/4674993-181/willits-new-hospital-opens and https://www.howardfoundation.org/history.Djflem (talk) 21:37, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with that. The date of establishment could be copied over less time then it takes to write these messages though and I don't really think a merge is necessary for it. The only point IMO would be to preserve the edit history, but I don't think we need to in this case. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect this and all the others like it to Adventist Health. No independently-sourced content, so nothing to merge. See close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adventist Health Hanford for precedent. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Adventist Health. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 13:48, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adventist Health Clear Lake

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

Non-notable hospital that fails WP:NCORP. All that comes up in a search about it is a few passing mentions in local news papers. Adamant1 (talk) 04:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:35, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:35, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:35, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge > Adventist Health Djflem (talk) 14:34, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What would be merged? None of it is sourced and I'm pretty sure most or all of the article is outdated. For example, I highly doubt they still have 362 employees when the information was added in 2009. We shouldn't merge un-sourced and clearly outdated information. it's all trivial and irrelevant anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Original name, date of establishment, merger to Adventist Health, which would update and improve the "merge to" page (by cleaning up the reference you seem to be talking about) and are verifiable from primary source:https://www.adventisthealth.org/blog/2018/may/adventist-health-clear-lake-celebrates-50th-year/ Djflem (talk) 21:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect this and all the others like it to Adventist Health. No sourced content, so nothing to merge. See close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adventist Health Hanford for precedent. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:41, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 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 Materialscientist (talk) 12:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BaluSingh Rajpurohit

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG, lion's share of sources are self-published. Considered CSD G11 but decided this would be the better option since I can't look for Hindi language sources. Not opposed to CSD G11 if anyone else seconds the idea. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 03:31, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 03:31, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 03:31, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable as per WP:BIO and fails WP:NPOLITICIAN. Nearly all are self-published. Also this is a case of WP:COI ~ Amkgp ✉ 05:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. -Hatchens (talk) 05:53, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, promotional page and GNG fail. Might be a G11 candidate but I'd let this AfD run its course rather. Java Hurricane 06:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable activist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:10, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, not to mention a likely autobiography with a clearly promotional tone. Jmertel23 (talk) 13:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Resembling WP:PUFF. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 19:46, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:45, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Adegboyega

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

Not notable, only 2 sources are unreliable blogs. dibbydib ^boop or _snoop 03:27, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. dibbydib ^boop or _snoop 03:27, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. dibbydib ^boop or _snoop 03:27, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we do not build articles on non-reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I ran a Google search and did not find any reliable source discussing him. Let me also point out that the article's content cannot be verified. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 13:56, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Some kind of merge might be the long term solution, but there is a clear consensus to keep at this time. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:38, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abujh Mon

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

Poorly referenced, un-notable WP:NFILM and WP:GNG fail. dibbydib ^boop or _snoop 02:50, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. dibbydib ^boop or _snoop 02:50, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. dibbydib ^boop or _snoop 02:50, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - despite the present poor state of the article, even a superficial preliminary google search suggests that this is a notable Bangladeshi film. (There are more hits under the spelling variations Obujh Mon and Abuj Mon). Most results are obvs going to be in Bengali. Time is against me but I'll have a go at adding some refs when I can.Ingratis (talk) 03:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Before they were globally locked for long term abuse, the creator flooded Wikipedia with articles on topics of dubious notability "on a shocking scale". We at WikiProject Bangladesh are still cleaning up the mess, a time-consuming process because every once in a while something they created is notable. [43] and [44] are other evidence of notability, stating that the film was screened in at least two festivals many years after initial release. And sources often include the name in lists of Razzak's most successful films. There is precious little verifiable information, however, in English or Bengali, with which to write a complete article. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:18, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Bangladeshi films of 1972, as an alternative to deletion, and considering WP:WHYN's advice: "If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list." Willing to reconsider if anyone can come up with substantially greater verifiable information than "Obujh Mon is a 1972 Bangladeshi film starring Shabana and Razzak". --Worldbruce (talk) 18:33, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment English translation is wrong in the article... it's Stubborn Heart...struggling to find suitable RS....possibly redirect to Chitra Sinha? --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 13:48, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, clearly a notable film in its period and easily sourced - some examples "Most commercially successful ones were Abujh Mon (1972) by Kazi Zahir"^[1], "... Kazi Zahir's Abujh Mon (The Stubborn Heart) about a golden-hearted Muslim doctor who cannot marry the Hindu girl he loves and later finds her married to his best friend."^[2], "Of the post-liberation productions, Abujh Mon directed by Kazi Zahir was decidedly the best. Based on a Muslim boy's love for a Hindu girl, the film showed the ultimate sacrifice the former had to make for the latter. Shabana and Razaak acquitted themselves well in the respective roles."^[3] "is among the seven Bangladesh films selected for exhibition under the Bangladesh Film Festival which will tour Bombay, Calcutta, Shillong, Bhubaneswar, Ranchi and other places. The other entries in the festival are Lalon Fakir, Abujh Mon, ..."^[4], "Of the other movies of the 1970s, the titles which must be mentioned are Abujh Man (Tender Mind),..."^[5] --Soman (talk) 11:24, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirected as a duplicate of Godzilla (2014 film)#Development. (non-admin closure) Passenger pigeon (talk) 04:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Godzilla 3D (2007)

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

Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG, not finding substantive coverage in reliable sources, mostly Wikia and blogs for this one. Hog Farm (talk) 01:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 01:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 01:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 01:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete for yikes dibbydib ^boop or _snoop 03:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Max FM (Nigeria) moved here as suggested. Sandstein 07:28, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Max FM

AfDs for this article:

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

No assertion of notability. While things might be different if this station had a broadcast frequency, it does not seem to have ever had one, meaning the only comment on the 2014 AfD was wrong. Raymie (t • c) 01:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 01:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 01:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note by nominator: I'd like to suggest that Max FM Lagos is moved to this article title, as there now are apparently two Max FM stations in Nigeria (at Lagos and Abuja) and the current article title is ill-fitting. Raymie (t • c) 01:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and reframe Max FM Lagos to target title: Per nominator. Barely found anything about the British station. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 02:17, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Sulfurboy (talk) 09:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Heikki L

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

Does not appear to meet GNG or NMUSIC - a BEFORE search came up empty, only finding trivial mentions like listing them in a music festival's performer lists (though it's possible that I missed some Finnish-language sources). Subject did have a song (or possibly someone's remix of their song) on Billboard's Hot Dance Airplay chart for several weeks, but my read of NMUSIC is that showing up on an airplay chart of 8 stations isn't sufficient to meet the NMUSIC criterion of "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart" (I'd expect Billboard 100 or similar for that). Also has a generally promotional tone. creffett (talk) 02:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC) creffett (talk) 02:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 02:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 02:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 02:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:16, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's had three singles on the official Finnish singles chart [45], [46], [47], which satisfies the "has had a single... on national music chart" criterion, I believe. This interview calls him one of the pioneers of Finnish dance music. I also found this other interview (both interviews are in Finnish). He's had a long career, and I would think that there has been more coverage of him, but those sources might not be online (anymore). And though it won't by itself make him notable as a solo artist, I'll mention that he's half of the duo Dallas Superstars, which has had multiple charted singles in Finland, including a number one hit, and two albums on the Finnish album chart. -kyykaarme (talk) 21:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:37, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per kyykaarme. Sources indicated above make the article good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 05:01, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as he does seem to pass WP:NMUSIC criteria 2 with hit releases on a national chart as confirmed in reliable sources so the article although minimal at present should remain and hopefully be improved, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the musician is quite famous in Finland and meets basic criteria for WP notability. --KressInsel (talk) 14:46, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:22, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

E.K. Hasan Musliyar

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

The subject has zero sources and has no claim to notability. Subject fails notability guidelines. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 01:22, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 01:22, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 01:22, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 01:22, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Another instance where an article creator won’t listen and keeps pushing something back into mainspace.Mccapra (talk) 02:20, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:52, 28 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Delete No notability established. As a point of housekeeping I am removing the vestigial afc markup from the article.
Delete - fails WP:GNG. Java Hurricane 06:35, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced and my searches found no evidence of source existence. Fails not only GNG but WP:V. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:20, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 15:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond Pistols

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG, provided sources are mere mentions and credits. Online I was able to find some hype pieces in blogs, but nothing that was independent, reliable, and significant. Arguably meets WP:COMPOSER through songwriting credits, but given how far we are from GNG I'm not inclined to consider that enough. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable songwriter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:34, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Rosguill for bringing this to the community's attention, however, based on the wikipedia guidelines, I want to make the case for this article being kept live.

Overall, this article seems to be flagged based on lack of notability. To start, I'll note that one can immediately see in the Wikipedia:Notability (music) page that Diamond Pistols may be considered notable due to having composer "credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition." There are reputable and reliable sources provided showing Diamond Pistols has composed not one but numerous notable compositions, all together acquiring millions of plays on streaming platforms, radio play, not to mention charting on industry standard and high profile charts like Billboard. For example, Diamond Pistols produced a song on Jackson Wang's album MIRRORS, which became the highest charting debut album ever from a Chinese artist ^[6]. Based on this alone, I strongly disagree with the assertion that the Diamond Pistols article should be deleted based on similarity with the Johnpacklambert ( talk ) article.

Secondly, while @Rosguill is correct that Diamond Pistols is lacking significant news coverage, I believe this is more a reflection of the music industry rather than a lack of notability. Music producers/composers are known to work behind the scenes, and thus they rarely receive news coverage mirroring the level of the artist who put out the song the producer composed. What I'm arguing is that Diamond Pistols' notability is reflected in the numerous composing credits shown on sources such as AllMusic and Ascap. Per the wikipedia guidelines on notability WP:GNG, I believe these sources adequately represent "significant coverage" of Diamond Pistols as they "address the topic [i.e., Diamond Pistols/Christian Dold] directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content." It's true these websites are not news, however these organizations are the music industry standard for crediting producers, are widely considered reliable, are completely independent from Diamond Pistols, and are comparable to IMDb for the film industry. Thus, I would not consider Diamond Pistols' inclusion on these websites to be mere trivial mentions, but rather represent the best possible avenue for producers receiving notability. I should note that these sources seem to be standard on other high-quality producer articles I've found on Wikipedia (see Andrew Goldstein (musician)).

Overall, I do believe Diamond Pistols has adequate notability to deserve a wikipedia article, and it seems unfair to exclude producers from Wikipedia solely on the basis of news coverage. Should news articles and books really be the only example of acceptable secondary sources? That rational seems a bit outdated in the digital age, and especially in the context of the music industry.

That said, I will acknowledge I am new to the community, and I would like to learn from you all on your interpretation of the situation. Cluehitch (talk) 18:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)Cluehitch[reply]

Cluehitch, have you seen WP:NMUSIC? Are any of the criteria there satisfied? Java Hurricane 12:39, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JavaHurricane yes, I did check out the WP:NMusic. There does seem to be evidence pointing to notability given he has writing credits on several notable compositions. Please see further explanation in my above analysis (first paragraph). Cluehitch (talk) 16:23, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 12:19, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:BEFORE shows few blog posts only when searched using his professional name. Subject fails WP:GNG.--KartikeyaS (talk) 12:53, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KartikeyaS343 Yes, there is not much news on him. Please see my explanation above on how notability for music producers isn't traditionally via news articles, but rather through crediting websites as cited on the article. Essentially, just because a music producer has few articles, does not mean he or she is not notable in general. Let me know what you think based on that. Cluehitch (talk) 16:26, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and if I am not mistaken, the SNGs normally don't overrule the GNG. Java Hurricane 16:32, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Juliette Han (talk) 11:59, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Publishing Resource Center

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

The local nature of this wouldn't not pass notability standards under WP:NONPROFIT. There are many brief coverage such as this Oregonian piece, but all in all, it's not convincing that it meets WP:CORPDEPTH. I thought about merge and redirect to Chloe Eudaly, however seeing that she was just a co-founder, I didn't feel that's quite proper. Graywalls (talk) 20:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 20:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 20:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

clarify With some additional searching, I see no indication that this organization could qualify as "Nationally well-known local organizations" either. With their activities being local, it wouldn't be able to pass WP:NONPROFIT's requirement that it meets WP:SIRS as well as being national or international in scale of activity. Graywalls (talk) 16:26, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. I'm finding multiple reliable sources covering IPRC and confirming a variety of the statistics we like to see for bios of such organizations, including membership counts, key personnel, collection size, major milestones such as relocations, etc. These are found in publications like Willamette Week, Portland Monthly, and The Oregonian, which is the largest newspaper in Oregon and the second largest in the Pacific Northwest by circulation. Good enough for me! I've even expanded the page up to 20 sources, Start-class at least. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 06:20, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:13, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 09:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unambiguous keep per improvements, including 10x expansion (from 2 to 20) in number of footnotes, since nomination. Nicely done. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 21:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. There is some good coverage of this organization in local papers, but WP:AUD is still a concern. I think coverage such as this from The Oregonian is enough to solidify notability, but it's still a borderline case. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 17:23, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AUD issue is also my take on this. The OPB pieces don't meet WP:ORGDEPTH because they're fairly brief coverage. The relocation due to rent increase is an article in the Portland section of Oregonlive. I searched prior discussions for "metro section" and this discussion suggest the Metro section doesn't carry the same weight as other sections. It's up in the air if "Portland" section should be treated as metro section. I don't think that this organization is nationally notable. Graywalls (talk) 20:19, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I took a look at IPRC's WorldCat entry, and I found a few books published/printed by them—including Little Advantages, How to Transition on Sixty-Three Cents a Day, and Zine librarian zine—which are held by libraries across the United States. That, in combination with the organization's own library holdings and the Oregonian coverage, is a plausible case for at least regional significance. I understand the position you're coming from though; as I said, I think notability is borderline. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 21:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's coverage in the Portland Mercury, The Oregonian, Portland Monthly, Willamette Week, Portland Business Journal, Oregon Public Broadcasting, etc. Of the aforementioned sources, multiple are statewide sources (The Oregonian and Oregon Public Broadcasting, arguably others as well) which passes concerns for WP:AUD. --Kbabej (talk) 18:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:33, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Premier World Capital

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

Non-notable company; page likely created for marketing purposes – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 01:02, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 01:02, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:04, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:04, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Fails WP:GNG and some of it sources are from the company's own website. Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(You Asked?) (What I have Done.)} 17:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP As reviewed previously by admin Espresso Addict, deletion should be declined as claims are present. Furthermore, all the statements in the article are supported by sources. Of the sources listed, 9 are from reputable sources such as Bloomberg, Financial Times, Reuters, The Economic Times and Markets Insider. 3lack5tar (talk) 08:26, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The sources should be used to show notability, but that's not what's happening here. Company information pages -- even from Bloomberg, Reuters, etc. -- do not establish notability. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 17:46, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not all the sources are company information pages. Nevertheless, I have also improved on the article by adding 7 new sources that contain reports on the company's activities to enhance notability. 3lack5tar (talk) 09:35, 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 08:10, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned previously, this article was reviewed previously by admin Espresso Addict and deletion should be declined as claims are present. Additionally, to enhance the article further, a total of 12 new sources that contain reports on the company's activities have been added to further enhance notability. 3lack5tar (talk) 16:53, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 12:23, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the references are mostly director listings and self-published sources which merely establishes the fact that this company exists but doesn't mention why it is notable for inclusion. Fails to meet WP:CORP. --KartikeyaS (talk) 12:47, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~KEEP~~strike duplicate !vote There are at least 15 independent news sources that contain reports on the company's activities (e.g. buying over corporate operations, securing refinance, winning awards for corporate lending performance, penalties for flouting certain regulatory standards etc.). 3lack5tar (talk) 18:26, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability as none contain "Independent Content" as per ORGIND, references are a mix of run-of-the-mill financial announcements and PR, topic fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:38, 13 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. – Joe (talk) 12:17, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of American copy editors

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

A list with just six people on, all of whom are also included in a similarly named category. Superfluous with no evidence of why this should have an individual page. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:57, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:57, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:57, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:57, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:LISTPURP and WP:NOTDUP. The category has 12 people included at present, so I don't know why the nominator is believing this list could only contain six when it can obviously be expanded. The list is also already annotated with a description for each entry, clearly a function the category cannot perform. postdlf (talk) 15:54, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Many of those twelve have their own notability issues, or copy editing is a tiny part of their career (for example Hugh Hefner. I think realistically there are no more than 3-4 notable subjects which doesn’t make a notable list. Could potentially be selectively merged into Copy editing or List of American print journalists Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:40, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your new arguments would still mean this AFD is at best premature. If an article belongs in the category, it belongs in this list. And so long as applicable articles exist, we are going to list them. If most of the category’s entries get deleted, then you might have an argument that there are too few to merit a list. But that hasn’t happened. postdlf (talk) 12:08, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete too much grouping people by a non-notable part of their career. This can if need be be a category, but lists of professions where the vast majority in the profession are not notable serve no purpose.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- You're actually reversing the category and list standards. Categories must be WP:DEFINING, lists do not have to be. Nor is there a requirement that "the vast majority in the profession [be] notable", only that there are enough notable entries to merit a list. postdlf (talk) 17:22, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~Actually, that’s not correct~~. If the subject is a BLP, it must be notable to be included on a list, as per WP:LISTPEOPLE. Non-notable BLPs must be removed. I will do some further work to assess the notability of the subjects and potentially nominate some of them for deletion as well. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:50, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Amending some of the above as I misread the comment. But my point about the notability of some of the subjects still stands. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:53, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, no it doesn't, one because it's irrelevant as no one is advocating that any copy editor who ever lived be included in this (just those who merit articles), and two the guideline you linked to doesn't actually say what you're claiming it says. It certainly is typical (and I think best practice) for lists of people by profession that only notable people are included, but there's no general requirement to remove non-notable people from lists. postdlf (talk) 21:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        I disagree. I’ve seen many examples where non-notable people are removed from such lists. But I will leave it to editors to assess how these guidelines apply in this scenario. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 08:37, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 09:24, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Qualifies for an article per WP:NOTDUP, relative to Category:American copy editors. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:00, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant to the category. Copyeditors are not an independently notable profession. Stifle (talk) 10:49, 12 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, after extended time for discussion. BD2412 T 23:36, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Goodwood Cricket Club

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

Not notable in the slightest, don't know how this survived that long. dibbydib ^boop or _snoop 23:17, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. dibbydib ^boop or _snoop 23:17, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment IF it really is one of the oldest cricket clubs in existence then I'd keep it, but with a clean-up and need for inline referencing. However much of the text refers to Duke of Richmond XIs, so it is not clear when a separate GCC was formed. A club playing just Sunday cricket would not normally be notable. Spike 'em (talk) 08:32, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to one of the sources in the article (Glorious Goodwood by James Peill) this club was resurrected in 1813, so it is certainly over 200 years old. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that if it is one of the oldest cricket clubs, then there should be more sources to demonstrate notability. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:56, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:52, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Preliminary searches indicate that this may have enough coverage to take it past GNG - there's some independent coverage in the Chichester Observer and some other things. Java Hurricane 06:47, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. If the club is over 300 years old, the article must have notability but the poor standard of writing, the inadequate and contradictory research, and the lack of references have left it in an appalling state. The article begins its history by declaring that the club in 1622 was the "cradle of cricket", but there are other articles on the site to confirm that cricket began much earlier and, in any event, it says the 1622 incident was in Boxgrove, not Goodwood. That piece of misinformation is a precursor of the mess that follows. I would remove everything done by User:Richard Geffen and User:Richard G, surely the same person, and return the article in draft form to its October 2016 version when it was a developing stub in need of both citations and a thorough copyedit: e.g., the identity of "the 4th Duke". Presumably this chap? No Great Shaker (talk) 20:46, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftification would be the worst possible result, because it would mean that nobody would be able to find the article and improve it. As this is at AfD we need to make a decision here and now, based on notability, not just kick the article six months down the road to when it would be deleted under WP:G13. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:08, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Historically notable cricket club, club hosted first-class cricket in 1814, playing under the name of its patron Lord F Beauclerk. StickyWicket (talk) 09:49, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:51, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Titas Brian Ahumuza

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

promotional article on fashion promotor. All of the references I checked is promotional ,not informative, or is a pretend interview wherethe person says as he pleases. Awards given for the purposes of allowing figures in an industry to claim they've received one are advertising, not information. I recognize the difficulty of separating advertising from genuine content in this subject field, but this is I think so far on the advertising side that it cannot beusefuly reritten. See adjacentAfD on one of his promotional projects. DGG ( talk ) 23:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:30, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:30, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:31, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:41, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I understand the concerns about promo, but being interviewed by The Independent [48], which is a significant Ugandan newspaper, is not trivial, nor is his work being covered by The Observer [49]. Apparently, Cîroc liquor thought him prominent enough to be a brand ambassador [50]. I've had some experience with African media, and when they do features on such "promising" types they can tend to be uncritical, but it should not be mistaken for pay-to-write coverage. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:07, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep even when interviews are not counted but there are other credible /secondary source references which have a coverage of him.Side deans (Side deans) —Preceding undated comment added 09:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indy beetle, interviews don't count towards notability as they aren't independent of the subject. Java Hurricane 06:49, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:51, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete GNG fail. No sources could be found. Java Hurricane 06:50, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? No sources [51]? -Indy beetle (talk) 06:56, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  Doesn't count towards GNG as it seems to be a "trivial mention". GNG requires non-trivial mentions in sources independent of the subject. Java Hurricane 07:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - [52] -Indy beetle (talk) 07:35, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Promotional + only 1 source. GNG needs multiple independent sources. Java Hurricane 07:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've explained the problems with identifying African media as promotional. The author is a regular writer and photographer for The Observer, one of the largest private newspapers in the country. -Indy beetle (talk) 09:07, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indy beetle, then no reports from the Outlook can be used as it is not independent of the subject. Java Hurricane 10:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very coverage, minor really. Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. Very poor sourcing typical of article look establish notability, where none exists. scope_creep^Talk 18:13, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:44, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:58, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abryanz Style and Fashion Awards (ASFAs)

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

This is an award presented and named after a fashion commentator, for the apparent purpose of promoting himself. All sources are promotional, either for the person receiving the award, or for the precentor. The guardian ref is their local ed, not the international paper. See adjacent AfD. DGG ( talk ) 23:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:32, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:32, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:32, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article doesn't seem to be written in promotional language. Secondly the article is not about the person, I think the entry of the person himself should be considered for deletion. Articles like Warner Bros still exist. User:KembabaziJ (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:59, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I do beleive notability here is only marginal and that this award could be folded into the article on the person, I disagree with the broad characterization of the sources. New Vision is the state media site of Uganda, and The Citizen is Tanzania's largest English daily. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:13, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:51, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 13:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The fashion award article p±asses notability. It should however not be confused for a Biography. The sources like The Citizen (Kenya), New Vision (Uganda) are good. Lj Drop (talk) 05:49, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:22, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Carolyn Ramo

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

This was paid editing gig that was a corollary to Artadia, which, in contrast to this article, is notable. I do not see a story here or sourcing that goes beyond the fact that she is the director of a notable organization. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:16, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:16, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:16, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:24, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:25, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't really seem to meet WP:N.Ibn Daud (talk) 01:23, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. My search didn't find anything to show that WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. VocalIndia (talk) 05:53, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no evidence that this passes WP:ANYBIO. Java Hurricane 06:52, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this spam. Guy (help!) 08:17, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an overly promotional article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:31, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. (non-admin closure) SD0001 (talk) 16:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

X word

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

This probably doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Maybe Wiktionary is more appropriate. Ibn Daud (talk) 00:18, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - I suspect this is an uncontroversial deletion. This is definitely not what Wikipedia is for. Interstellarity (talk) 00:27, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Wikipedia is WP:NOT for this. dibbydib ^boop or _snoop 00:32, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - It is definitely WP:NOT - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 02:41, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per everyone above. For the benefit of future editors who see this AfD after the page has been deleted, there is nothing in this article but a bulleted list of words starting with the letter X, with no definitions, pronunciations, or other dictionary-type content. But the list is not even in alphabetical order. I have no idea why this page was created. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:58, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, possibly per WP:G2. This page is gonna be deleted anyway, but for the record, strictly speaking, WP:NOT is not a rationale for speedy deletion. I would say this is caught by WP:G2, as this seems to be a list someone created to test the editing functions of Wikipedia. I'll assume good faith and say they probably intended to create this in their user pages, not in article namespace. --Dps04 (talk) 05:32, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:57, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: we aren't a dictionary. Java Hurricane 06:51, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per the above. - Flori4nKT A L K 12:22, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Pointy Keep~~. A quick search shows obvious passage of WP:LISTN. Tons and tons of sources discussing this as a group. But I don't know if that means this should be kept or that LISTN is broken. Probably LISTN is broken. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, the subject of this article is really "List of English words beginning with X", not "X word" in general, so a rename is also called for. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:28, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deacon Vorbis, this made me smile. However, I have to nitpick. The lead section of WP:N, of which you have cited a section, explicitly excludes content that is listed in WP:NOT, such as WP:NOT#DICT. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:08, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:04, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Snow delete per everyone. This article is just a plain waste of space. Ajf773 (talk) 20:20, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

keep it lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realphilswift (talk • contribs) 03:49, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ Alamgir Kabir (1979). Film in Bangladesh. Bangla Academy. p. 60.
^ National Centre for the Performing Arts (India) (1974). Quarterly Journal. National Centre for the Performing Arts. p. 50.
^ Cultural News from India. Indian Council for Cultural Relations. 1974. p. 46.
^ Bangladesh News. Press and Information Division, Bangladesh High Commission. 1973. p. 11.
^ Rajshahi University. Institute of Bangladesh Studies (2008). The Journal of the Institute of Bangladesh Studies. Institute of Bangladesh Studies, University of Rajshahi. p. 40.
^ https://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/pop/8543059/jackson-wang-mirrors-album-review-finds-his-voice-chart-success

[1] "Lifetime Achievement Awards". insoso.org.

[2] Roy, Nilanjana S. (29 July 2003). "The behemoth without Goliath". Business Standard India.

[3] "SENSE RANKING OF ACADEMIC PUBLISHERS" (PDF).

[4] Chilana, Rajwant Singh (2008). Challenges for South Asian Resources and Information Services: Essays in Honour of Dr. Ravindra N. Sharma. Concept Publishing Company. p. 424. ISBN 978-81-8069-527-8.

[5] "Independent & Specialist Publishers". Eland Books.

[6] Parel, Vaibhav Iype. "Delhi Workshop Presentation 7, Contemporary Indian Literature Project". Open University. The Ferguson Centre for African and Asian Studies.

[7] National Geographic https://www.nationalgeographic.com/travel/top-10/opera-houses/. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[8] Chakravorty, B. (1995). Stories of Heroism: PVC & MVC Winners. Allied Publishers. p. 237-8. ISBN 978-81-7023-516-3.

[9] "Air Force Museum". indianairforce.nic.in. Government of India.

[10] "Sukhoi Su-7BM Fitter A India - Air Force". JetPhotos.

[11] Yale Daily News Staff (2009). The Insider's Guide to the Colleges, 2010. St. Martin's Griffin. pp. 377–380. ISBN 978-0-312-57029-3.

[12] Jacobs, Peter (12 November 2014). "Here's Why MIT Is The Most Intense College In America". Business Insider.

[13] "A Weird MIT Dorm Dies, and a Crisis Blooms at Colleges". Wired. 10 September 2017.

[14] Herper, Matthew (28 June 2017). "Grappling With Its Identity, MIT Shuts A Dorm For Misfits". Forbes.

[unprecedenteduntruths-15] 
McGranahan, Carole (May 2017). "An anthropology of lying: Trump and the political sociality of moral outrage". American Ethnologist. 44 (2): 243–248. doi:10.1111/amet.12475. It has long been a truism that politicians lie, but with the entry of Donald Trump into the U.S. political domain, the frequency, degree, and impact of lying in politics are now unprecedented [...] Donald Trump is different. By all metrics and counting schemes, his lies are off the charts. We simply have not seen such an accomplished and effective liar before in U.S. politics.

Stolberg, Sheryl Gay (August 7, 2017). "Many Politicians Lie. But Trump Has Elevated the Art of Fabrication". The New York Times. Retrieved March 11, 2019. President Trump, historians and consultants in both political parties agree, appears to have taken what the writer Hannah Arendt once called 'the conflict between truth and politics' to an entirely new level.

Kessler, Glenn (December 30, 2018). "A year of unprecedented deception: Trump averaged 15 false claims a day in 2018". The Washington Post. Retrieved February 20, 2019. 'When before have we seen a president so indifferent to the distinction between truth and falsehood, or so eager to blur that distinction?' presidential historian Michael R. Beschloss said of Trump in 2018.

Barabak, Mark Z. (February 6, 2017). "There's a long history of presidential untruths. Here's why Donald Trump is 'in a class by himself'". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved March 11, 2019. White House scholars and other students of government agree there has never been a president like Donald Trump, whose volume of falsehoods, misstatements and serial exaggerations – on matters large and wincingly small – place him 'in a class by himself', as Texas A&M's George Edwards put it.

Dale, Daniel (December 22, 2017). "Donald Trump has spent a year lying shamelessly. It hasn't worked". Toronto Star. Retrieved March 4, 2019. 'We've had presidents that have lied or misled the country, but we've never had a serial liar before. And that's what we're dealing with here,' said Douglas Brinkley, the prominent Rice University presidential historian.

Skjeseth, Heidi Taksdal (2017). "All the president's lies: Media coverage of lies in the US and France" (PDF). Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. Trump is not the first president to be at odds with the press, but the amount of lies he delivers and his aggressive attacks on and constant undermining of the legitimacy of the media, is unprecedented.

Stern, Donnel (May 9, 2019). "Constructivism in the Age of Trump: Truth, Lies, and Knowing the Difference". Psychoanalytic Dialogues. 29 (2): 189–196. doi:10.1080/10481885.2019.1587996. Donald Trump lies so often that some have wondered whether he has poisoned the well [...] We expect politicians to stretch the truth. But Trump is a whole different animal. He lies as a policy.

[16] McGranahan, Carole (May 2017). "An anthropology of lying: Trump and the political sociality of moral outrage". American Ethnologist. 44 (2): 243–248. doi:10.1111/amet.12475. It has long been a truism that politicians lie, but with the entry of Donald Trump into the U.S. political domain, the frequency, degree, and impact of lying in politics are now unprecedented [...] Donald Trump is different. By all metrics and counting schemes, his lies are off the charts. We simply have not seen such an accomplished and effective liar before in U.S. politics.

[17] Stolberg, Sheryl Gay (August 7, 2017). "Many Politicians Lie. But Trump Has Elevated the Art of Fabrication". The New York Times. Retrieved March 11, 2019. President Trump, historians and consultants in both political parties agree, appears to have taken what the writer Hannah Arendt once called 'the conflict between truth and politics' to an entirely new level.

[18] Kessler, Glenn (December 30, 2018). "A year of unprecedented deception: Trump averaged 15 false claims a day in 2018". The Washington Post. Retrieved February 20, 2019. 'When before have we seen a president so indifferent to the distinction between truth and falsehood, or so eager to blur that distinction?' presidential historian Michael R. Beschloss said of Trump in 2018.

[19] Barabak, Mark Z. (February 6, 2017). "There's a long history of presidential untruths. Here's why Donald Trump is 'in a class by himself'". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved March 11, 2019. White House scholars and other students of government agree there has never been a president like Donald Trump, whose volume of falsehoods, misstatements and serial exaggerations – on matters large and wincingly small – place him 'in a class by himself', as Texas A&M's George Edwards put it.

[20] Dale, Daniel (December 22, 2017). "Donald Trump has spent a year lying shamelessly. It hasn't worked". Toronto Star. Retrieved March 4, 2019. 'We've had presidents that have lied or misled the country, but we've never had a serial liar before. And that's what we're dealing with here,' said Douglas Brinkley, the prominent Rice University presidential historian.

[21] Skjeseth, Heidi Taksdal (2017). "All the president's lies: Media coverage of lies in the US and France" (PDF). Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. Trump is not the first president to be at odds with the press, but the amount of lies he delivers and his aggressive attacks on and constant undermining of the legitimacy of the media, is unprecedented.

[22] Stern, Donnel (May 9, 2019). "Constructivism in the Age of Trump: Truth, Lies, and Knowing the Difference". Psychoanalytic Dialogues. 29 (2): 189–196. doi:10.1080/10481885.2019.1587996. Donald Trump lies so often that some have wondered whether he has poisoned the well [...] We expect politicians to stretch the truth. But Trump is a whole different animal. He lies as a policy.

[16] ttps://www.deccanchronicle.com/entertainment/mollywood/250119/on-happy-mode.html

[17] ttps://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/events/kochi/krishna-sankars-kochaal-kicks-off-in-kochi/articleshow/72833455.cms

[Kabir1979-18] Alamgir Kabir (1979). Film in Bangladesh. Bangla Academy. p. 60.

[(India)1974-19] National Centre for the Performing Arts (India) (1974). Quarterly Journal. National Centre for the Performing Arts. p. 50.

[20] Cultural News from India. Indian Council for Cultural Relations. 1974. p. 46.

[21] Bangladesh News. Press and Information Division, Bangladesh High Commission. 1973. p. 11.

[Studies2008-22] Rajshahi University. Institute of Bangladesh Studies (2008). The Journal of the Institute of Bangladesh Studies. Institute of Bangladesh Studies, University of Rajshahi. p. 40.

[23] ttps://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/pop/8543059/jackson-wang-mirrors-album-review-finds-his-voice-chart-success

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]