- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Marcus Wiebusch. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:18, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- ...But Alive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG due to there being no reliable sources. Fails WP:BAND (there's only one notable person in this band). P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 20:13, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 20:13, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 20:13, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- Redirect to Marcus Wiebusch. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 07:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:01, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Redirect to Marcus Wiebusch. Fails WP:BAND and there is not enough coverage by reliable sources to meet WP:GNG.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 11:40, 17 July 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:26, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
- Fortis Sports Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article does not meet WP:GNG. The two references contain only brief mentions. WP:BEFORE turned up only brief references // Timothy :: talk 22:48, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 22:48, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 22:48, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:49, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
BCL was supposed to start but it was canceled due to Corona. As a result, no more news was published about the club. Saiful Islam Jitu :: talk
- Delete - Haven't even played a single match. No sources available in either English or Bangla. --Zayeem (talk) 19:14, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:29, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 08:32, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - clear GNG failure Spiderone 12:14, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete, per above, fails WP:GNG, Alex-h (talk) 10:57, 20 July 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:27, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
- Aisling McLaughlin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
NN fringe actor, fails the GNG and WP:NACTOR. Only coverage out there are namedrops for her (or someone of her name, anyway) being the sister of a murder victim in Dublin. Article has been notability tagged for over a decade, and created by SPA, whose Wikipedia activity was to create articles for three actors in a NN (and ephemeral) Northern Ireland TV series. Ravenswing 22:44, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 22:44, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 22:44, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 14:56, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete her acting lacks enough coverage to lead to a pass of GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:44, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:GNG. Appears to be a fairly run-of-the mill (local?) theatre actress. KidAd (💬💬) 08:09, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete I failed to find anything substantial from RS's to pass GNG JW 1961 Talk 21:09, 22 July 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:27, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
- Uttara FC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article does not meet WP:GNG. The two references contain only brief mentions. WP:BEFORE turned up only brief references and scores. // Timothy :: talk 22:42, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 22:42, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 22:42, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:44, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - per nom, no significant coverage in either English or Bangla. --Zayeem (talk) 19:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:29, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 08:32, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment I really don't understand the point of this AfD, the article should of been sent straight to draft space. Firstly the club is brand new, signed up to the second tier of the Bangladeshi football pyramid, I think it's completely unfair to ask for notability when teams require time to establish that. That's partly why we have draft space, to help build articles of this kind. This is stigma deletion. Govvy (talk) 10:37, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - clear GNG failure Spiderone 20:38, 23 July 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. Neither improvement nor an alternative opinion to deletion has been offered for the period of this discussion. BD2412 T 02:47, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- Tony Naumovski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
NN actor, fails both the GNG and WP:NACTOR. No independent sources, no evidence the subject meets the GNG. Notability tagged for over a decade. Toss in COI issues and you have a real party. Ravenswing 22:22, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 22:22, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 22:22, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:00, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:SNOW, WP:GNG, WP:RS, WP:MILL, and WP:NACTOR. I don't know how any experience editor here could think this was a notable actor. This page is unsourced except for his own web page. There are many actors who have been in off-Broadway plays, including several of my non-notable friends and clients. Bearian (talk) 17:03, 22 July 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:28, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
- Operations Reckless and Persecution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Operations Reckless and Persecution both have articles. This one is redundant, and contributes nothing. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:04, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:06, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Comment As these were inter-related operations which occurred simultaneously (Persecution was undertaken to support Reckless), there's probably merit in having this article for essentially disambiguation purposes. I agree that there's no grounds to develop it into a 'proper' article though. Nick-D (talk) 02:14, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete "A and B" type article titles have very little value as disambiguation. If you already have to say "and"... (t · c) buidhe 08:14, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete: G'day, I can see some disambig purposes, but given both Operation Reckless and Operation Persecution exist as redirects to the individual battle articles, there probably isn't a need for this. If it does remain, I'd suggest converting it into a proper dab page, rather than leaving it as an article and potentially leading to more duplication. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:05, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Since both operations already have pages, having one that mentions both is a bit cloying, so this one could be turned into a dab page.TH1980 (talk) 23:39, 19 July 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:50, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
- Atola, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I found nothing on this except one reference in a list of post offices. GHits were very low in comparison to other dubious town names in the county. The coordinates point to a spot on the former rail line, but their source is anyone's guess; maps and aerials show nothing there.Mangoe (talk) 21:47, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:54, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:54, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete No sign of anything at this location, presumably another rail landmark. –dlthewave ☎ 12:29, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Train stations were often the site of a fourth-class post office serving the surrounding countryside. As we've discussed many times, existence of a post office is not an indicator of notability. I don't see anything else that supports the idea that this was a notable location. Glendoremus (talk) 17:00, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete, nothing to prove notability. Alex-h (talk) 11:46, 20 July 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. Tone 17:08, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- Washington DC City Pages (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not meet the WP:GNG. Raymie (t • c) 04:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 04:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 04:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 21:03, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:MILL and WP:RS. This page is about a local yellow pages. It has zero sources. Bearian (talk) 17:05, 22 July 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 speedy keep. No reason given for deletion. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 21:37, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Maggie Baird (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Reason Mediati74 (talk) 20:27, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 July 16. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 20:43, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Procedural keep No reason for deletion presented; please give one. Nate • (chatter) 21:10, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep - no reason given for nomination, subject clearly passes GNG. I notice that the nominator is a new editor and has nominated two other pages for deletion without adding a rationale. Per WP:BITE, I've left a comment on their talk page to help them understand how AFDs work. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 09:56, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep - Although more refs can be cited, but her work lists are enough to prove her Notablity criteria. Shubhi89 (talk) 13:39, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep - Subject is an award-winning indie filmmaker, among several other somewhat notable life/career highlights. HeyitsBen talk 15:59, 17 July 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. Tone 17:08, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- Love Story Majhi Aani Tichi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Cannot find any proof that this film was ever made. Have checked IMDb for the lead actors and director and cannot find it listed under their credits. Perhaps they changed the film name before it was released. Rogermx (talk) 20:42, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 20:42, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 20:42, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Nothing notable about this film found online. Donaldd23 (talk) 21:58, 20 July 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 speedy keep. No reason given for deletion. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 21:36, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Justina Valentine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Reason Mediati74 (talk) 20:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 July 16. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 20:25, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Procedural keep No reason for deletion presented; please give one. shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 03:23, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. No reason to delete - see my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maggie Baird. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 10:04, 17 July 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. Tone 17:08, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- Vladimir Thelisma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable actor and director. WP:BEFORE shows few Google hits and zero reliable sources. No evidence of independent comment or analysis. All external links currently in the article are broken. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 20:23, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 20:23, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 20:23, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Haiti-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 20:23, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, WP:NACTOR, and WP:MILL. Roles are entirely of the Redshirt variety. Bearian (talk) 17:09, 22 July 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 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:14, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
- Argusville, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article says almost every last thing I can find out about Argusville, and one thing that nobody but WP and GNIS says: that it is a "populated place". Every source I can find identifies it as a post office 3 miles north of Bieber. The one other thing I found is that this source identifies it with Hillside, California, except that Hillside, by the directions given by Durham, would be almost six miles south of Bieber. Of course, this presupposes that Durham is talking about the present-day Lookout. At any rate, I see nothing indicating that Argusville was a town. Mangoe (talk) 20:14, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:18, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:18, 16 July 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 keep. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:51, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
- Generation M: Misogyny in Media & Culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable, independent release with no known verifiable reviews. Seems entirely written by the filmmaker or an associate. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:58, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:58, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:58, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- I have cited a couple of reviews in the article. I am not sure whether we have enough for notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
- Weak keep as it does now have some references to scholarly reviews, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:49, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:56, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kj cheetham (talk) 20:09, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep: The scholarly reviews demonstrate notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 21:12, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep: Passes WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 21:25, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep: passes WP:NFO#1 with two reviews, and there's another review in Library Journal that can be added ([1] for those with ProQuest access). — Bilorv (talk) 16:29, 23 July 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. Tone 17:08, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- East of the Tar Pits (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable, independent release with no known verifiable reviews. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:56, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:56, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:56, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eternal Shadow Talk 03:47, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kj cheetham (talk) 20:08, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete: I found no significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 00:30, 18 July 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 keep. Tone 17:08, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- Wallenberg Set (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Kept at 2007 AfD, but standards were extremely different them. This is a 'skateboarding spot' where the occasional contest or photoshoot has taken place. It has no significant coverage, in-depth of the spot itsle and no long-term significance. Boleyn (talk) 18:47, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep I respectfully disagree. "Wallenberg is one of the oldest, most iconic gaps with a long trick history." - [1] The article needs some work, I will crack into it. Although relatively underreported on, the Wallenberg Set is most certainly notable. --Wil540 art (talk) 01:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
References
- ^ "WE CHARTED SOME OF SKATEBOARDING'S MOST ICONIC SPOTS". Jenkem Magazine. 27 July 2017.
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:43, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:43, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:43, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kj cheetham (talk) 20:07, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. I see enough independent third-party sources to suggest this place has a "legendary" reputation. Plus the article is in halfway-decent shape. --Lockley (talk) 20:52, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 17:10, 22 July 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 redirect to Pilbara. Due to the sourcing issues, redirect seems the best outcome at this moment, so that it is easier to restore it if better sources appear. Tone 17:07, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- Iron Valley mine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not appear notable, probably won't meet wp:n but not sure. The creeper2007Talk! Be well, stay safe 01:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 04:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 04:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep - while the Iron Valley mine may be "small' in comparison to other iron ore mines in the Pilbara, at 7 million tonnes per annum it's equivalent to e.g. over one seventh of total Canadian iron ore production.Bahudhara (talk) 05:15, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep/merge The worst case would be merger to Pilbara per WP:ATD-M and so deletion is not appropriate. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:13, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- delete This is really a corporation article, and I find nothing on this mine that isn't routinely reported of every mine in the world, so I do not see the notability. It also seems to me to fail WP:GEOLAND though I doubt the latter is really the applicable standard. Mangoe (talk) 17:36, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep - Bahudhara is right. Just because the article is a stub does not mean it is appropriate for deletion. Deus et lex (talk) 08:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Strong Keep active and non active mines, regardless of size are notable - and relevant to the Mining project, to the Western Australian project, and to the Pilbara project - it has adequate referencing JarrahTree 14:56, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry, but not every mine is notable; if we are not a gazetteer, then we are not a gazetteer nor a directory of mines. I don't think you appreciate how common these things are, and how pitiful little information is known about them. 95% of them would fail WP:GNG, and while there is something to be said for notability guidelines which simplify checking, they are not loopholes for inclusion of minor items dear to a particular project. Mangoe (talk) 16:30, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
- "if we are not a gazetteer, then we are not a gazetteer ...", sorry, don't understand this, WP:5P1 - "Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers.", WP:NGEO - "Per Wikipedia's Five pillars, the encyclopedia also functions as a gazetteer; ...". Coolabahapple (talk) 15:00, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry, but not every mine is notable; if we are not a gazetteer, then we are not a gazetteer nor a directory of mines. I don't think you appreciate how common these things are, and how pitiful little information is known about them. 95% of them would fail WP:GNG, and while there is something to be said for notability guidelines which simplify checking, they are not loopholes for inclusion of minor items dear to a particular project. Mangoe (talk) 16:30, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete There is absolutely no basis in guidelines or precedent that all mines are automatically notable, what utter BS. Lacks significant independent coverage, sources are databases or the mine owners. Reywas92Talk 17:27, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kj cheetham (talk) 20:06, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Weak delete. The Minday.org citation looks decent. However, the other information I can find is either published by firms utilizing the mine or trivial mentions in detailed lists of mining yields. I don't think GEOLAND applies here, as it is a man-made feature. Minor oil wells and small dams don't get free passes I don't think. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Hog Farm Bacon 22:14, 16 July 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:18, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
- Meridith Gould (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable pageant titleholder { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 19:59, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:01, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:01, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:01, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Dakota-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:01, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- 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, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- Logs:
2018-11 ✗ G6
- Delete. failed to meet WP:GNG--Richie Campbell (talk) 03:56, 25 July 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 speedy keep. Not a copyvio. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 21:40, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Tones and I (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Reason Mediati74 (talk) 19:34, 16 July 2020 (UTC) The article is a copyright violation. Mediati74 (talk) 19:34, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 July 16. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 19:50, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Mediati74, copyright violation isn't usually a reason to completely delete a page from Wikipedia. Please could you provide some evidence for your allegation, and also explain in more detail, with reference to Wikipedia's notability guidelines for musicians, why you think this demonstrates that the page should be deleted? ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 20:04, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Speedy keep The nom needs to elaborate and point out what is a copyvio, but the subject is an obvious charting singer, no doubt. Nate • (chatter) 21:09, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Speedy keep Per speedy keep criteria #1 and #3. Is a charting singer, clearly establishing notability, and Earwigs suggests the only reason for copyvio is some quoting from the interview. No valid rationale for deletion is advanced. Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 01:22, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep "Violation possible" according to Earwig's Copyvio Detector, here relates to two quotes from a Triple J article. The source is properly acknowledged in this article by use of a suitable reference template. There is no copyvio here.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 03:17, 17 July 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 21:03, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- Cycling age categories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails to assert importance. Content is unsourced. OXYLYPSE (talk) 10:51, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:01, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Article is not sourced at all. Ashishkafle (talk) 12:10, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment – @Ashishkafle: Note that per WP:NEXIST, "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article". North America1000 08:43, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Of note is that some sources were added to the article (by another user) on 3 July 2020 (UTC). In the user's edit summary, part of it stated "meets notability per WP:LISTN" (diff).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:44, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per non --Devokewater (talk) 08:56, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
*Delete per nom. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:15, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Note: Reasons given for RfD no longer apply. Article is now referenced, and per admin above, meets notability. — WILDSTARtalk 22:31, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Initially deleted but after some comments were raised, I decided to relist instead so that the newest edits to the article can be evaluated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 19:45, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep per the recent improvements. I've struck-through my previous reply. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:49, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete as unimportant details that don't merit a standalone article. The title is really misleading; it's only the categories for two specific organizations. If desired, the first half could be merged into British Cycling, while you'd have to wait until someone created British Schools Cycling Association to find a home for the second half. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:51, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:TNT - only edits to try to improve the article have been labeled as minor, and I agree. Bearian (talk) 17:12, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep per my note above, and because the article now has references, and asserts importance; satisfying the two reasons provided why the AfD was initiated. — WILDSTARtalk 14:57, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:TNT. Perhaps the topic is valid but certainly an appropriate article titled "Cycling age categories" covers information much more globally relevant than two UK organisations. I don't believe the content on British Cycling is useful to that article. — Bilorv (talk) 16:45, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. MaskedSinger (talk) 15:27, 24 July 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 redirect to Anita Ratnam. Tone 17:03, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- Narthaki.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No indication of notability. The references in the article are passing mentions or footnotes in books. A Google search did not yield anything else. M4DU7 (talk) 19:22, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 19:22, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 19:22, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 19:22, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep (Creator) Qualifies per wp:GNG, it is India's first and largest, and award winning portal dedicated to Indian classical dance. (See inline citations in the article). It being in footnotes means that it is cited as a reliable source. The article has been expanded after it was nominated at afd. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:41, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - at first glance, this might seem like it has significant coverage but most of the mentions are passing ones at best Spiderone 09:44, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
The dance portal is maintained by one of India's most noted classical dancers. Its notability can be ascertained in this news article - . I think this article should be retained in Wikipedia--Vrsrini (talk) 13:35, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Redirect to Anita Ratnam: The site is mentioned in a number of articles, but was barely discussed. It's best to discuss it in the target article. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 16:00, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- Redirect as suggested. I would not oppose a selective merge. Bearian (talk) 17:13, 22 July 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 redirect to Mokokchung#Education. While some sources have been added to the article during this discussion, nobody has demonstrated that they satisfy the requirement of substantive coverage to meet GNG. Draftifying this was suggested, but I can't see where anyone has expressed interest in working on this; if they want to do so, the history will remain available. I would strongly caution against recreating this without substantially improving the sourcing. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:36, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
- Queen Mary Higher Secondary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:NSCHOOL; lack of coverage in reliable secondary sources; lack of coverage in general. Spiderone 14:33, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:33, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:33, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:33, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
- Redirect to Mokokchung#Education. Redirect conforms best to WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, and since the school does exits, there is nothing to lose by redirecting readers to its locale. I don't believe a merge is warranted. iCBSE.com looks a bit self published, and there isn't really all that much info on the page to justify including it in the education section of a location. --PuzzledvegetableIs it teatime already? 15:43, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
- I'd be ok with Draftify per Steven (Editor). Either way, I don't think the article in its current state should remain live, but a variety of non keep options seem reasonable. The added sources don't really improve much. A single paragraph about the school, and a couple of articles about a student that mention in passing the school the student attends doesn't really make for encyclopedic sourcing. --PuzzledvegetableIs it teatime already? 13:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep, this article can surely be improved. There are some coverage on media and it is generally more difficult to source an article from a remoter part of the world, and the fact that it is a notable school in Nagaland. --AnonymousmeUser talk:Anonymousme 17:25, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
- Where is this media coverage then? Spiderone 19:28, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 01:45, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - if there is no consensus to delete, I am happy with redirect as above Spiderone 12:39, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - The argument for deletion or a redirect is weak as there are enough sources cited. --AnonymousmeUser talk:Anonymousme 06:56, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- Weak Keep per Anonymousme have added sources is one of the leading schools in the most remote parts of India.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:27, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- The sources are hardly enough to meet WP:GNG and are passing mentions at best. What makes refs 1 and 6 reliable sources as well? Spiderone 07:53, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- Draftify if the editor is willing to do more work on this, otherwise Redirect/Delete. I already draftified three new school articles by the editor of a similar format — pretty much look like directory listings which is not what Wikipedia is. Steven (Editor) (talk) 02:08, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Draftify is a fair solution. They should not be in the mainspace until they pass GNG. Spiderone 09:27, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 19:12, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Draftify With the caveat that it has to go through a review to determine it's notability before being recreated. I think that's the fair thing to do. Otherwise, Delete.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Tone 17:03, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- Poolwo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No coverage whatsoever apart from a couple of news articles about the website launch. M4DU7 (talk) 19:12, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 19:12, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 19:12, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 19:12, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 19:12, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete: The references in the article are routine listings and coverage of the January 2014 start-up. Searches find more such coverage from that time but no in-depth assessment and nothing concerning its fate. Fails WP:NCORP, WP:NWEB. AllyD (talk) 15:21, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:MILL. Even at its height, it was barely in the top half-million websites per Alexa. Bearian (talk) 17:15, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete: Barely found anything about the site aside from its launch. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 16:03, 24 July 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. Tone 17:04, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- The Authentics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable musical group not satisfying WP:BAND. A before search doesn’t show any evidence of notability Celestina007 (talk) 18:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 18:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 18:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 18:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 18:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete There is a possible argument for keep based on the fact all members are indeed from notable bands. The problem is the sourcing. Just amatuer blogs covering the local music scene (including a gig at a local high school!). My hunch is the lack of coverage is that this is just a casual group of ex-1970's band members who all live in the same town, have been jamming together for years, play some gigs under a band name and decide to self-release a 6 song ep comprising covers of songs they did in their various former bands. It strikes me that this is more of a fun hobby for ex-rock stars than a full-fledged band worthy of encyclopedic importance. If there was a way to redirect to multiple other articles (Sweeney Todd, Prism,Chillwack, etc) that may be appropriate. ShelbyMarion (talk) 11:10, 17 July 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:18, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
- Acquisition (software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Abandoned file sharing client software never got much attention from reputable media as required by GNG and therefore fails the notability requirement and must be deleted. Ysangkok (talk) 17:17, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 17:17, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it was previously discussed at AfD and the result was no consensus. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Previous discussions:
2009-06 no consensus
- Related discussions:
2007-09 List of applications developed by David Watanabe delete
,2006-09 David Watanabe ✗ DELETE
- Delete: per Nom. The sources just do not advance notability for a stand alone article. -- Otr500 (talk) 03:10, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 18:45, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kj cheetham (talk) 18:46, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete I fail to see anything notable about this piece of software. In relation to the sourcing or really as a piece of software either. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:20, 24 July 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:19, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
- Micah Tawlks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:MUSICBIO. non-notable. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creepTalk 16:50, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:52, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:52, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
- Delete does not meet the notability for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:54, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:21, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 July 16. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 18:44, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Thanks for the thoughts, everyone. I oppose the articles for deletion and would argue that this page should be kept, as Tawlks meets the guidelines for notability as outlined in WP:MUSICBIO and WP:COMPOSER. Specifically, point one: "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself." The references of this article contain many non-trivial sources, such as Paste Magazine, Nashville Scene, and Lightning 100.
Point two, he has released "two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels" as producer. Regarding WP:COMPOSER, Tawlks has "credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition." Naturally, a producer doesn't seem as notable as an artist, but given his roster of collaborations, I would argue that he does meet the notability guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshalxwarren (talk • contribs) 13:20, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
- Lots of references are passing mentions. Looking at them:
- Ref 1 is a passing mention
all the while moving in the same circles as Micah Tawlks
- Ref 2 is a passing mention
This time around producers Kevin Dailey (of Civil Twilight) and Micah Tawlks join him
- Ref 3 is a passing mention
brainchild of producer Micah Tawlks
- Ref 4 show in the first track.
- Ref 5
Micah Tawlks Engineer
- Ref 6
Cold Answer: written by Matthew Perryman Jones & Caitlin Rose/Produced by Micah Tawlks
- The rest the references as a producer. Consensus on Wikipedia is that procedures are really not notable. There is a reference on Mother Jones: [2] stated
Micah Tawlks, a producer who works with the likes of Matthew Perryman Jones, and Isaaca Byrd, a bassist and backup vocalist for a range of artists, cranked out the bulk of the EP in three weeks
USA Today has another passing mention,“‘Giving Up’ was produced by Micah Tawlks and myself
On Instagram [3] he has 1600 followers, so no social presence. On Soundcloud [4] he has 42 follower. So he is no musician, he is a producer and he is non-notable. scope_creepTalk 19:21, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete all sources seem to be passing or otherwise trivial mentions, and the person isn't automatically notable just because of who they work with. So, I see nothing here that would make them notable enough for an article. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:23, 24 July 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 merge to APICS. Given that the subjects themselves have merged, it appears obvious (and uncontested) that the articles should be merged also. Sandstein 21:05, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- Supply-Chain Council (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doesn't meet WP:CORP or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 10:10, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:12, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
- Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
- Autry, Chad W.; Goldsby, Thomas J.; Bell, John E.; Hill, Arthur V. (2013). Managing the Global Supply Chain (Collection). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: FT Press. ISBN 978-0-13-309134-2. Retrieved 2020-06-28.
- Poluha, Rolf G. (2007). "The Supply Chain Operations Reference Model (SCOR Model) of the Supply-Chain Council". Application of the SCOR Model in Supply Chain Management. New York: Cambria Press. pp. 49–87. ISBN 978-1-934043-23-3. Retrieved 2020-06-28.
- Ayers, James B. (2000). Handbook of Supply Chain Management. Boca Raton: St. Lucie Press. ISBN 978-1-4200-2570-5. Retrieved 2020-06-28.
- Marshall, Ross E. (Fall 2007). "Supply chain management: analyzing industry and air force metrics". Air Force Journal of Logistics. 31 (3). Air Force Logistics Management Agency. Archived from the original on 2020-06-28. Retrieved 2020-06-28 – via Gale.
- Rendón, Héctor (2000-02-17). "Se reúnen empresarios y exponen experiencias - Fueron más de 110 empresas las que se reunieron ayer en la presentación de la asociación Supply-Chain Council" [Entrepreneurs meet and share experiences - More than 110 companies gathered yesterday at the presentation of the Supply-Chain Council association]. Reforma (in Spanish). Archived from the original on 2020-06-28. Retrieved 2020-06-28.
Sources with quotes- Autry, Chad W.; Goldsby, Thomas J.; Bell, John E.; Hill, Arthur V. (2013). Managing the Global Supply Chain (Collection). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: FT Press. ISBN 978-0-13-309134-2. Retrieved 2020-06-28.
The book notes: "The Encyclopedia of Operations Management: A Field Manual and Glossary of Operations Management Terms and Concepts".
The encyclopedia has an entry for Supply Chain Council:
Supply Chain Council – A non-profit professional society dedicated to the meeting the needs of supply chain management professionals; most famous for its development and use of the SCOR Model.
The Supply Chain Council was founded in 1996 by the consulting firm Pittiglio Rabin Todd & McGrath (PRTM) and AMR Research and initially included 69 voluntary member companies.
The Supply Chain Council now has about 1,000 corporate members worldwide and has established international chapters in North America, Europe, Greater China, Japan, Australia/New Zealand, South East Asia, Brazil and South Africa. Development of additional chapters in India and South America are underway. The Supply Chain Council's membership consists primarily of practitioners representing a broad cross-section of industries, including manufacturers, services, distributors, and retailers.
- Poluha, Rolf G. (2007). "The Supply Chain Operations Reference Model (SCOR Model) of the Supply-Chain Council". Application of the SCOR Model in Supply Chain Management. New York: Cambria Press. pp. 49–87. ISBN 978-1-934043-23-3. Retrieved 2020-06-28.
The article notes:
The book notes:The Supply-Chain Council (SCC) was founded with the aim of creating an "ideal" model of the Supply Chain. ... The increasing diffusion area of the SCOR model acceptance in the USA since the late 1990s, seen alongside the rapidly climbing number of SCC members, is an indication that a de facto standard for Supply Chain analysis is developing. With the reinforced efforts of the SCC to create a user basis in Europe via the foundation of a European Chapter, the SCOR model will, on these indications, continue to be diffused throughout Europe.
The SCOR model was developed and promoted by the SCC as a pan-industry standard for Supply Chain monitoring. The SCC was founded in 1996 by the Business Consultancy agency Pittiglio, Rabin, Todd & McGrath (PRTM) and Advanced Manufacturing Research (AMR), and originally included 69 voluntary member firms. Of equal importance for the SCOR model's diffusion are the respective inputs of manufacturers and implementers of system technologies, researchers and scientists, and governmental organizations. All of these groups participate in the SCC's activities and in the development and enhancement of the model. By the beginning of 2006, the SCC had more than 1,000 members worldwide and had branches in North America, Europe, Japan, Australia/New Zealand, Southeast Asia and South Africa.
...
Member firms pay a small yearly subscription in support of SCC's functions. All who use the SCOR model are asked to make reference to the SCC in documents or representations applying to the model, in addition to all cases of its application. Additionally, members are urged to regularly visit the SCC's internet page and make themselves familiar with the latest information available in order to ensure that they are using the latest version of SCOR. The SCOR model represents, in a transposed sense, the SCC's consensus with respect to the management of the Supply Chain.
- Ayers, James B. (2000). Handbook of Supply Chain Management. Boca Raton: St. Lucie Press. ISBN 978-1-4200-2570-5. Retrieved 2020-06-28.
The book notes on page 161:
Chapter 23 is titled "Supply-Chain Council".In Chapter 23 we profile the work of the Supply-Chain Council (SCC). The SCC is a non-profit organization formed by industry to promote supply chain integration. Since much of its work is directed toward the integration of information along the supply chain, we describe it at this point in the book.
- Marshall, Ross E. (Fall 2007). "Supply chain management: analyzing industry and air force metrics". Air Force Journal of Logistics. 31 (3). Air Force Logistics Management Agency. Archived from the original on 2020-06-28. Retrieved 2020-06-28 – via Gale.
The article notes:
Within the private sector, the foremost industry authority on SCM is the Supply Chain Council (SCC). The SCC is comprised of nearly a thousand companies specializing in SCM and logistics functions. They perform SCM studies and research, present conferences and workshops, provide training, accomplish case studies, and publish articles on SCM issues and best practices. The SCC is the author and developer of the Supply Chain Operations Reference (SCOR) Model, a proven methodology and the only cross-industry supply chain standard being accepted, which facilitates the blending of business objectives, strategy, process, and technology.
...
As previously mentioned, the SCC is recognized as an authority on SCM. It consists of nearly a thousand companies worldwide, many of which use the Council's services of training, research, and SCM implementation processes. The SCC is the author of the SCOR Model. The SCC created the SCOR Model as a way for companies to communicate their supply chain process. It establishes a framework for examining the supply chain, categorizing processes, and assigning metrics.
...
The Air Force has obviously benefited from the work done in the private sector. The current effort underway to shape the SCM process using the SBPM is a result of the SCC's influence. The Air Force fully intends to proceed with the SCOR Model as it maps out the supply chain processes and further defines its metrics. The Air Force should proceed with the use of SCOR through the SBPM process, but should try to accelerate process completion, since history has shown that long, drawn out systems and process solutions rarely succeed. Continued participation in the SCC is also recommended. The SCC offers numerous benefits to the Air Force by providing information on industry best practices, access to leading experts in SCM, and consulting authorities. A study of the companies on the Forbes Magazine's Fortune 1000 list reflected a significant difference in the profitability of companies that are members of the SCC versus those that are not. The bottom line results were nearly two and a half times higher for SCC members than nonmembers.
- Rendón, Héctor (2000-02-17). "Se reúnen empresarios y exponen experiencias - Fueron más de 110 empresas las que se reunieron ayer en la presentación de la asociación Supply-Chain Council" [Entrepreneurs meet and share experiences - More than 110 companies gathered yesterday at the presentation of the Supply-Chain Council association]. Reforma (in Spanish). Archived from the original on 2020-06-28. Retrieved 2020-06-28.
The article notes:
From Google Translate:Más de 110 empresas se reunieron ayer durante la presentación del Supply-Chain Council (SCC), que tiene como objetivo unir a las compañías y compartir sus experiencias sobre prácticas de negocios, procesos y costos de producción, operación, almacenamiento y logística.
...
En esa fecha, arrancaron también las negociaciones con Supply-Chain Council en Estados Unidos para la formación, con sede en la ciudad de México, del Consejo Latinoamericano de esa organización, y juntando a empresas como DuPont, Novartis, GE-Plastics, Anderson Consulting, Kello1/2s, ITESM, entre otras.
...
Cabe señalar que la Supply-Chain Council es una asociación no lucrativa creada en 1997, por representantes de diversas compañías interesadas en mejorar sus operaciones.
A nivel mundial está conformado por 493 organizaciones y empresas entre las que se encuentran compañías de manufactura del Fortune 500, así como firmas de consultoría, proveedores de soluciones e instituciones educativas.
More than 110 companies met yesterday during the presentation of the Supply-Chain Council (SCC), which aims to unite companies and share their experiences on business practices, processes and costs of production, operation, storage and logistics.
....
On that date, negotiations also began with the Supply-Chain Council in the United States for the formation, based in Mexico City, of the Latin American Council of that organization, and bringing together companies such as DuPont, Novartis, GE-Plastics, Anderson Consulting , Kello1 / 2s, ITESM, among others.
...
It should be noted that the Supply-Chain Council is a non-profit association created in 1997, by representatives of various companies interested in improving their operations.
Globally it is made up of 493 organizations and companies including Fortune 500 manufacturing companies, as well as consulting firms, solution providers and educational institutions.
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:29, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:29, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
- Comment, another afd where the nominator does not appear to have considered a "merge", in this case to its own subsection within the history section of APICS, although with the sources identified by Cunard, it meets WP:GNG so is a mute point. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:52, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:58, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kj cheetham (talk) 18:42, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Merge as suggested. Actually, the article its says, "merge with APICS." Bearian (talk) 17:17, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
- Merge with APICS as already suggested. I don't personally think it's notable enough on it's own for a separate article, but it's worth mentioning in the APICS article at least. Even when account for the new sources provided by Cunard. The majority of which seem like trivial mentions and the in-depth coverage that would be needed for this to be notable. The sources can help add notability to it in the merge target though. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:27, 24 July 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. Appears to be a TNT case but editors encouraged to try again using the sources below Spartaz Humbug! 07:48, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
- Mormon Transhumanist Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable WP:ORG. All citations seem to be to a WP:Walled garden of transhumanism sources. jps (talk) 20:29, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- I am fairly convinced by Tronvillain's work that it is possible to write an article on this subject that does not suffer from the problems from which the current version suffers. jps (talk) 17:40, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 20:29, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 20:29, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: can you please explain what you mean by "walled garden"? I see several academic journals and books published by university presses among the references. Also YouTube, yes, but that doesn't invalidate the good sources not argue for deletion. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:59, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- The sources that are to books published by university presses do not really mention this organization. As for academic journals, I don't see them. So many of the sources are to transhumanist websites and pocket journals that if you stripped all that away, you'd have nothing. jps (talk) 21:06, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- Cosmos and History looks very dubious, and it just cites the MTA website to show that religious transhumanists exist. The book sources provide only passing mentions and don't say anything about the organization of the organization. It's possible that there's more substantial documentation elsewhere, but I'm doubtful at the moment. XOR'easter (talk) 22:32, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- The sources that are to books published by university presses do not really mention this organization. As for academic journals, I don't see them. So many of the sources are to transhumanist websites and pocket journals that if you stripped all that away, you'd have nothing. jps (talk) 21:06, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
CommentKeep:I'm not entirely sure this has the significant coverage by reliable sources that would meet WP:ORG.I do see Interpreter, but that seems a little shaky as a reliable source—might need RSN if it was pressed.[1] Then there's a mention in The Transhumanism Handbook[2], which might be fine for an article but doesn't really contitute extensive coverage. And there's Theology and Science, [3] but that was by the former MTA president so can hardly be considered independent. There are a couple of pages in Theologically Engaged Anthropology[4], which might be something, as might a piece in Logic.[5] Then there's a piece in Ethnos.[6] I'll have to take another look tommorow. --tronvillain (talk) 22:58, 8 July 2020 (UTC); edited 14:02, 9 July 2020 (UTC)- Looking further, there's also "The Immortality Upgrade" in The New Yorker[7], a bit in an American Ethnologist interview (Bialecki again, so that doesn't count as an additional source for notability)[8], a piece on The Next Web[9], a piece in The Carolinian[10], and an entry in Trancendence (which while about transhumanism, doesn't seem to actually be part of the walled garden beyond describing it).[11] Then there's "The Intersection of Tech and Church" on OZY.[12] Also, a piece on World Religion News[13] and an offhand mention on Religion News Service.[14] Looking at the whole pile, I think it probably constitutes sufficient coverage—it's coverage of nonsense, but organizations can be about nonsense. The article definitely needs some work though. --tronvillain (talk) 14:02, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Great work, Tronvillain. I'm inclined to say on the basis of some of this (especially that New Yorker article), we might be able to write a piece on them. jps (talk) 17:40, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete due to lack of non-trivial independent sources about the group. Guy (help!) 23:19, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
References
- ^ Smith, Gregory L. (2018). Peterson, Daniel (ed.). "What is Mormon Transhumanism? And is it Mormon?". Interpreter. 29: 161–189. ISSN 2372-1227.
- ^ Lee, Newton (3 July 2019). The Transhumanism Handbook. Springer. p. 831. ISBN 978-3-030-16920-6.
- ^ Cannon, Lincoln (17 April 2015). "What is Mormon Transhumanism?". Theology and Science. 13 (2). Taylor & Francis: 202–218. doi:10.1080/14746700.2015.1023992.
- ^ Lemons, J. Derrick (23 August 2018). Theologically Engaged Anthropology: Social Anthropology and Theology in Conversation. OUP Oxford. pp. 171–172. ISBN 978-0-19-251874-3.
- ^ Knesse, Tamara; Peters, Benjamin (3 August 2019). Fingal, Jim; Harsock, Ben; Weigel, Moira; Tarnoff, Ben (eds.). "Mormon Mommies will Never Die". Logic. No. 8. Logic Foundation. pp. 171–181. ISSN 2573-4504.
- ^ Bialecki, John (3 June 2020). "Kolob Runs on Domo: Mormon Secrets and Transhumanist Code". Ethnos. Taylor & Francis. doi:10.1080/00141844.2020.1770311.
- ^ Chan, Dawn (20 April 2016). "The Immortality Upgrade". The New Yorker. Condé Nast.
- ^ Dougan, Bryan (9 April 2018). "Jon Bialecki, Winner of the Sharon Stephens Prize for his book A Diagram for Fire: Miracles and Variation in an American Charismatic Movement". American Ethnologist.
The focus on the Mormon Transhumanist Association is a result of its prominence in transhumanist and religion transhumanist circles; due to doctrinal fit and organizational genius is the Mormon Transhumanist Association is the oldest, the largest, and the most influential of religious transhumanist movements.
- ^ Maack, Már Másson (27 June 2019). "Why Mormonism is the best religion for cyborgs". The Next Web. Nikkei, Inc.
- ^ Avent, Quashon (3 April 2019). "Technology and Theology: The strange and wonderful world of Mormon Transhumanism". The Carolinian.
- ^ Sirius, R.U.; Cornell, Jay (1 January 2015). Transcendence: The Disinformation Encyclopedia of Transhumanism and the Singularity. Red Wheel/Weiser. p. 177. ISBN 978-1-60925-959-4.
- ^ Sathian, Sanjena (7 January 2016). "The Intersection of Tech and Church". OZY.
- ^ Lesley, Alison (13 September 2019). "Transhumanism: Path to be Godlike or Ignore God's Plan?". World Religion News.
- ^ McFarlan Miller, Emily (5 September 2018). "Should we live to be 500? Christians and secularists come together over transhumanism". Religion News Service.
- Delete much of the coverage is not on the organization per se, but reaction to a paper by one of the people connected with the organization. The coverage does not focus on the organization as such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:46, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:34, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. The sources cited here, particularly the New Yorker article, are sufficient evidence of notability. Tim Smith (talk) 02:30, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kj cheetham (talk) 18:40, 16 July 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. Tone 17:04, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- Mp3splt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No reliable sources WP:DEL#7 and not notable enough to warrant an article WP:DEL#8. Nightvour (talk) 15:25, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:44, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:44, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --Devokewater (talk) 13:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 18:38, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kj cheetham (talk) 18:38, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per nom MaskedSinger (talk) 15:26, 24 July 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 move to draft, as this appears to be widely supported, and an appropriate resolution for a subject expected to gain substantial coverage in the future. BD2412 T 02:54, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- Drag Race Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:GNG. Little information is know about the commission of the franchise. We don't even know the confirmed title - some of the international franchises have titled differently, no broadcast or network details or even details of judges, or dates. This is far too soon. ≫ (Lil-Unique1) -{ Talk }- 18:12, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ≫ (Lil-Unique1) -{ Talk }- 18:12, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:15, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
- Delete WP:TOOSOONDavidstewartharvey (talk) 18:19, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
- Keep/Draftify this is one of many spin-offs from the immensely popular original and its ever-expanding brandings. This is only a question of when it hits the tipping point to meet GNG, which is arguably quite soon. So we’re just quibbling that it’s a week or month too soon, and nothing will really change, a bit more added, and the whole thing moved back to article space. I say leave it as an acceptable well-written, well-sourced stub, and it will grow like every other article. Gleeanon409 (talk) 18:59, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
- Draftify: Its time will come, but it isn't a high quality article yet. TimeEngineer (talk) 04:54, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- I would support to draftify the article - it has been created speculatively. I do believe the series will go ahead but until it has a broadcaster, confirmed panel and date its far too soon. ≫ (Lil-Unique1) -{ Talk }- 22:31, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Delete or draftify?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:29, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- Draftify has potential, but not suitable for mainspace currently. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:31, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete as WP:NOTJUSTYET Hekerui (talk) 16:28, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Final relist - Delete or draftify?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kj cheetham (talk) 18:37, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Draftify. While I agree this is WP:TOOSOON, the subject will likely be notable when the series debuts, and I see no reason why the useful prose should be removed when drafity is an option which is encouraged in situations like this as an alternative to deletion. I would disagree with the WP:CRYSTAL rationale cited by the nominator, as the series has been reported in news sources and was anything but unverifiable speculation. The TOOSOON rationale cited by the two opposes, while true, does not preclude the option of draftification --Dps04 (talk) 14:22, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
- Draftity: no dispute about it not belonging in the mainspace per WP:CRYSTAL/whatever but the series is likely to take place and the page can be usefully moved to draftspace for collaboration and improvements as more information is available. — Bilorv (talk) 16:47, 23 July 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 redirect to STI College. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:21, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
- STI San Pedro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Education providers would usually meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG, but I could find no evidence that this one does. Boleyn (talk) 17:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- Redirect to STI College: Per WP:INHERIT, not all school branches are notable. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 16:18, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:16, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kj cheetham (talk) 18:33, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Redirect to STI College. This doesn't seem notable enough on it's own for an article. There's reason it can't be redirected though for people that are looking for the term in Wikipedia. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:32, 24 July 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. Spartaz Humbug! 07:50, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
- Going Coastal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I don't see how this meets WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Sourcing in the article either isn't independent, isn't significant coverage, is unreliable, or the link doesn't work. With that said, I searched google books, finding this Journal of Commerce that mentions it in passing, a mention in The New Yorker (looks like a routine listing of their event as far as I can tell). On google there are various charity listings and Wikipedia mirrors, none of which establish notability, and this, which barely counts as a book review-- I don't think it even mentions the book. I then checked my universities databases, and found exactly one passing mention. Newspapers.com is a little more promising, with some passing mentions (mainly this AP article), but that's again not enough to establish notability. The article further has a very promotional tone. It's possible (though unlikely) there could be enough coverage based upon how many different sites use the title 'going coastal', and the article has been around since 2005, but I just don't see a pass of NORG or GNG. Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 01:13, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 04:29, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 04:29, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:02, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:03, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kj cheetham (talk) 18:31, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete I think the nominator did a good analysis of why this fails WP:GNG based on the sourcing. Everything seems to be trivial passing mentions. So, it's reasonable to delete the article. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:34, 24 July 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- WebSpellChecker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I renamed this from "WebSpellChecker Software" before making the nomination, although it's a bit difficult to tell if the subject of the article is more about the spell checking software or the company itself.
In either case, there doesn't seem to be much in terms of notability. Searches don't come up with anything besides basic existence, or that such-and-such platform has a plugin for this, etc. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:59, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:59, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:59, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:59, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:59, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete I found nothing to establish a pass of WP:GNG. passing mention here, no results on Newspapers.com, very few results and no sigcov comes up in a search.Eddie891 Talk Work 01:26, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Surely useful, but not notable. TheodoreIndiana (talk) 14:11, 23 July 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 keep. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:39, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
- Liam Brennan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A half-hearted promotional attempt WP:PROMO. Calling for an AfD discussion. Hatchens (talk) 15:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 15:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 15:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Unclear nomination; are you claiming he is not notable? He was President of the Royal College of Anaesthetists a leading UK medical organization; all his precedessors since 1988, and his successor, have articles. No particular sign of WP:PROMO. Johnbod (talk) 17:17, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep satisfies WP:NACADEMIC C6, which supersedes GNG:
The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.
BTW, Philafrenzy is a long-term contributor who specializes in biographies of academics, not a promo editor. Spicy (talk) 17:29, 16 July 2020 (UTC) - Keep subject passes WP:NACADEMIC Lightburst (talk) 17:41, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep A humdrum biographical blurb, not actually promotionally toned. Passes WP:PROF#C6. If he had been editor-in-chief of the British Journal of Anaesthesia, he'd also pass WP:PROF#C8, but I think he's just been an editorial board member. XOR'easter (talk) 19:08, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep Former president of a medical royal college is a major and notable role (he was in charge of the training of every anaesthetist in the UK). He is also the current deputy medical director of Cambridge University Hospitals NHS foundation trust a major non academic job. Well known in the anaesthesia field for his contribution to paediatric anaesthesia with a profile in the BMJ as well PainProf (talk) 03:58, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment. That's the first time I've seen a peer reviewed interview: [5]. Outside of this source there is very little in the article to suggest notability... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:12, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment No they don't peer review interviews, those are performed by the BMJ editorial staff. PainProf (talk) 22:33, 17 July 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 redirect to Bitcoin. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- CoinCorner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Notability per GNG not established for yet another Bitcoin exchange. Was at AfD previously, result was delete, those arguments still apply. Ysangkok (talk) 15:43, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 15:43, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 15:43, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 15:43, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Redirect There's not enough for an article, but it does have sources showing that it's real and has generated some interest. Let's redirect this to Bitcoin. Eliteplus (talk) 18:14, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Ladislav Mecir:, I imagine you disagree with this? --Ysangkok (talk) 15:40, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Redirect Current sources refer to Bitcoin and mention passing mentions of the exchange. It's promo at best and I support the redirect to Bitcoin — Infogapp1 (talk) 12:13, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- Redirect as suggested and per WP:CHEAP. Bearian (talk) 17:19, 22 July 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- Tomato Torrent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Notability not established for BitTorrent client, abandoned many years ago, never got GNG coverage, unlikely to get coverage in future since project was abandoned. See also arguments of previous AfD. Ysangkok (talk) 15:37, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 15:37, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 17:38, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:39, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Weak delete. Not seeing reviews for this to pass NSOFT, and frankly, this article is totally uninformative - it contains just basic directory info (version, OS, etc.). A mention in a list should be good enough for such content. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:08, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete: Barely found anything about the torrent. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 10:00, 20 July 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:21, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
- Blog Torrent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Notability not established for niche software, deprecated over a decade ago, never covered in reputable media, unlikely to get coverage in future since product is dead. Ysangkok (talk) 15:33, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 15:33, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:38, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 17:38, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - my search revealed places to download Blog Torrent, but no evidence of notability. I have seen nothing to establish notability. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 19:04, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Redirect to Downhill Battle: Barely found anything about the torrent. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 16:03, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete due to this not passing WP:GNG. I might have opted for redirect per the previous vote, but I'm not really a fan of redirecting badly sourced material to an article that's even more badly sourced. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:37, 24 July 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. Spartaz Humbug! 07:49, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
- Splashgear (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I tried, first tagging this for cleanup. Then, as I looked more closely, I found I could not spot how it passed WP:CORP. The referencing is poor. Interviews with the principal, passing mentions, a dead link. Islamic compliant swimwear is an excellent topic, but this is a poor attempt by an apparently undisclosed paid (or at least COI) editor to use AFC to conceal an advert behind a welter of references. Fiddle Faddle 15:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 15:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 15:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- 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, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- Logs:
2020-03 move to → Draft:Splashgear
,2017-09 ✗ deleted
,2015-02 ✗ G12
,2015-02 ✗ deleted
,2015-02 ✗ deleted
- Delete Per the reasonable analysis of the sources by the nominator. Although sources do exist on this, they seem to be trivial passing mentions and the article was created/edited by a COI user. So, I see nothing about it to justify an article. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:41, 24 July 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 redirect to Cryptocurrency bubble. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- 2018 cryptocurrency crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Notability not established for this arbitrarily defined event. The article may as well have been called "2017 cryptocurrency spike", prices fluctuate and media will always frame it in the most dramatic way possible. That does not mean that this event was anything but a news story. Ysangkok (talk) 15:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 15:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Redirect to Cryptocurrency bubble. Basically all of the same content is already there.Citing (talk) 15:58, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Redirect to Cryptocurrency bubble. --Devokewater @ 16:04, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep & improve The crash was notable in its own right, I think. It is certainly adequately sourced. Both this article and Cryptocurrency bubble are a little meagre and need fleshing out, but the 2018 crash was a significant event and received massive coverage. Boynamedsue (talk) 10:27, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Redirect to Cryptocurrency bubble. The specific reasons for that crash are no more than the bubble itself. I think it might prove difficult to really improve the article beyond what can be summarised there. I'd be happy if someone could prove me wrong, though, as this particular crash was rather notable. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:27, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Redirect as suggested, per WP:CHEAP, and as a plausible search term. I would not oppose a selective merger. Bearian (talk) 17:20, 22 July 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:23, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
- Bunnel, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Another railroad spot sourced only to Durham and not shown on any topo I have access to. To help confuse matters, there was a Bunnel Ranch which wasn't near here. With the help of this passage from Myrick's book I got a bit better idea of where it might have been, but the emphasis has to be on "might": there is absolutely nothing along this this stretch of the "Bizz" Johnson Trail (which replaced the railroad) except a pair of bridges, a tunnel, an unnamed camp area, and the Devils Corral trailhead, and then you get to Goumaz, where there is another camp area and nothing else. It's possible the first camp area is where Bummel was, but there's nothing at all there except a smallish cleared area hardly big enough for a house. Anyway, besides locating it on the railroad, Myrick says that a sawmill was established there, but a sawmill is not a town and I can remember as a kid going up into the woods a bit south of where we lived and coming upon a sawmill where we got some lumber or sawdust, with no settlement around it at all. Myrick's passage is also instructive in illustrating how dense named points on the railroad are: there is one every few miles, and one should not assume that there was a station building (or even any buildings at all) at each one, much less a town. Myrick's description is sort-of verified by this passage, except that it says that the mill was eight miles away, which on the scale of things is quite a hike. The only other mention of the spot is in this USDA report on possible water projects. And while it does talk about the spot in a way that makes it clear they are talking about the same place, a precise location isn't given, and nothing about the spot is described. And that's all I found, so I don't think this is a notable rail spot. Mangoe (talk) 15:15, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:20, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:20, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete The sources verify that this is a place where logs were dropped off and lumber was picked up but that's about it. It's hard to tell whether the mill was at this spot or somewhere else (were there two different mill locations?) but in any case there's no evidence of a settlement here. –dlthewave ☎ 19:34, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - This isn't a populated place and I see no evidence it fulfils the WP:GEOLAND criteria.Patiodweller (talk) 18:33, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Getting something named on a railroad doesn't ensure notability. As we've seen, much of the named locations are entirely non-notable railroad facilities: stations, sidings, spurs, etc. This one is no exception. Non-notable. Glendoremus (talk) 23:18, 22 July 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 keep. Spartaz Humbug! 07:51, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
- Coal Bowl (basketball tournament) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Can't PROD this since it was de-prodded 11 years ago. There is some coverage, but even the coverage on the CBC web site was written locally, and the rest is all routine youth sports coverage. Fails WP:GNG. (Came across this doing CAT:NN cleanup - simple advertisement here, if you have a minute, check to see if there's an article which has been tagged as not passing the GNG for over a decade and see if you can rescue it or nominate it for deletion and help clean up the encyclopaedia.) SportingFlyer T·C 23:27, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 23:27, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 23:27, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 July 6. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 23:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Unfortunately it does not meet the notable coverage guidelines. --James Richards (talk) 12:38, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment. Finding a fair amount of coverage. E.g., "(1) Coal bowl experience not just about the basketball", 2008; (2) "New Waterford Coal Bowl Classic officials bring wealth of experience to the court, 2020; (3) "New Waterford residents remember Coal Bowl over the years", 2020, (4) The Coal Bowl: youth basketball in Nova Scotia, 2001. See full results from Newspapers.com here, (5) "Unified at Coal Bowl in New Waterford", 2020, (6) Host Breton Education Centre Bears win Coal Bowl, 2016; (7) Hoop dreams and coal seams, 1999. Cbl62 (talk) 15:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. Passes WP:GNG (see above) and WP:NHSPHSATH. This is a national high school basketball tournament in Canada that has been around for 50 years, and the coverage is national in scope, including the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Cbl62 (talk) 16:04, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- Of the coverage you listed, one's a WordPress site, the other is NewsBreak which does not appear to be a reliable source (it's for a city in Ohio but aggregated the story from Nova Scotia). With one exception - the CBC broadcast - the remaining articles are just routine articles about a youth sports tournament, almost all of which are local. SportingFlyer T·C 23:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- Respectfully disagree. I offered a variety of sources to show the breadth of coverage. For example, you ignored this feature coverage from the other side of the country in Saskatchewan. And the depth of coverage in this piece (originally from Shunpiking magazine) is impressive. I'm not generally an advocate of high school sports articles, but this tournament has both a breadth of geographic coverage, a depth of coverage, and long duration of coverage over roughly 50 years that I think is sufficient to demonstrate its notability. Cbl62 (talk) 00:33, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ab/Charlottetown_Rural_at_the_Coal_Bowl.jpg/100px-Charlottetown_Rural_at_the_Coal_Bowl.jpg)
- A few more examples of the geographic breadth of coverage: (8) another national television piece from the CBC; (9) this from Yahoo Sports/CBC in 2017; (10) this from Yahoo News/CBC in 2018; (11) this and (12) this from SaltWire Network (newspaper consortium in Eastern Canada); (13) this from Church News in Utah; (14) this full-page article from British Columbia; (15) this from B.C. in 1988; and (16) this from Alberta. Cbl62 (talk) 02:09, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Meets GNG per Cbl92 sources. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 22:36, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:33, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep this is the rare instance where I think the new sources provided in the AfD warrant keeping the article. With the caveat that they should be added to article and used to expand it. Otherwise, I suggest the original nominator just renominates it in 6 months, because I'm not a big fan of people providing sources in AfDs and then them never being used to improve the article. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:46, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Adamant1: I spent the time to find the sources. How about you take the time to add them to the article? Cbl62 (talk) 23:01, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- I don't really edit articles that much these days because I got sick of being reverted all the time, but I might if no one else does. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:05, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks. Cbl62 (talk) 01:29, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
- I don't really edit articles that much these days because I got sick of being reverted all the time, but I might if no one else does. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:05, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Adamant1: I spent the time to find the sources. How about you take the time to add them to the article? Cbl62 (talk) 23:01, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep per the sources provided. — Toughpigs (talk) 20:55, 24 July 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:44, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- Ref Wayne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I cannot begin to fathom how or why this was accepted at AFC, taking a look at the first source leads me to believe dailytimes.pk should be blacklisted for republishing brand/press release material as legitimate journalism (and if it's not, it really leads me to doubt their credibility as journalists given the utter disaster that is that article) and the rest are similarly unreliable. Praxidicae (talk) 14:27, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:29, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:29, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:29, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination: WP: NOTLINKEDIN. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 14:50, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Wikipedia is not supposed to be linkedIn. It seems a perpetual struggle to make sure it is not made such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:34, 16 July 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. Spartaz Humbug! 07:52, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
- Shmoo Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
It is borderline, hence the 11 years it's been waiting in CAT:NN. A successful organisation that works in different countries and has some coverage. Most of the coverage is in primary sources/advertising. It has the involvement of notable members but I can't find evidence of it meeting the level of significance and coverage we need for WP:GNG or WP:CORP. Boleyn (talk) 17:32, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:42, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete non notable Devokewater (talk) 20:39, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment A general websearch turned up nothing that suggested notability to me. However a Google book search throw up plenty of references in RIS sustained over man6 years. None of it seems particularly in-depth but there may be a case for a GNG pass. Mccapra (talk) 02:46, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:25, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete I'm leaving toward delete because the coverage seems to be adverts, trivial, or things that otherwise don't pass WP:NORG. There doesn't seem to be the reliable in-depth secondary sources needed to pass it. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:50, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete: Not finding anything substantial myself. Ravenswing 07:44, 25 July 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 speedy delete. G5. – bradv🍁 14:47, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Svarup Solanki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Subject of article is a non notable hacker who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources sources hence doesn’t satisfy GNG. A 'before' search mostly shows user generated sources/ primary sources. No evidence of notability could be observed. Celestina007 (talk) 14:23, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:23, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:23, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:23, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:23, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:23, 16 July 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. Tone 17:04, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- Valeria Borza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable table tennis player, tagged for 5+ years. Someone who died very young, but doesn't appear to meet WP:NSPORT. All the coverage on the EN and RO entry are about her death. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 14:21, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:22, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:22, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:22, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - from what I can tell, she did not play in the Olympics or other notable international competitions. This is tough, because the Romanian version of the article has 7 sources - but every single one relates to her death and not why she was notable in life. Obituaries are generally not seen as establishing notability, so while it may be close: delete. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 19:10, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete per nom. Like the writer of the page, not much else to add. MaskedSinger (talk) 15:22, 24 July 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:22, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
- The5th Watches (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable organization falling short of WP:ORG as they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. A before search only shows press releases, sponsored posts & perharps 1 reliable source (which doesn’t show in-depth coverage). Celestina007 (talk) 13:56, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:56, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:56, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:56, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:56, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Per WP:FORBESCON the Forbes article is unreliable. manofmany.com looks unreliable for notability (and no discussions at RSN). Money Ink probably unreliable per RSN. That leaves us with news.com.au. GNG not met. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:02, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
I feel like it is a noteworthy article it is a big player in the watch industry in the same category as mvmt and Daniel Wellington New link's added — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.130.219 (talk) 07:10, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete due to the sketchiness of the sourcing. Two of the references are Forbes articles. Which aren't reliable. It looks like there's a couple of references to blogs, and one that's a product hype commentary. So, there's nothing really here that passes NCORP. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:00, 24 July 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:05, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
- Randy Alcorn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails to pass WP:GNG. A promotional attempt WP:PROMO - "Content made for Advertising, marketing, or public relations purposes". Calling for an AfD Discussion. Hatchens (talk) 13:55, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: The creator of this article is JoAnn Hayes has also created articles Rachel Goenka and Andrew Busey which are the Wikipedia pages of non-notable entities. I have raised similar concern at Andrew Busey's AfD discussion page - Three big articles with lifetime edit history clocking just 41? Something is not right. -Hatchens (talk) 14:05, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 13:55, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 13:55, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:56, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:56, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete The origins of this article reek of inapropriate use of Wikipedia. We need to stand up against such use of Wikipedia for promotional purposes.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:46, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --Devokewater @ 16:06, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per nom as well Balle010 (talk) 16:59, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:GNG, while also being a clear WP:PROMO piece. KidAd (💬💬) 19:22, 21 July 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. Tone 13:12, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
- David Stainer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Stainer fails WP:GNG with a lack of significant coverage. Dougal18 (talk) 11:43, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:47, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:47, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:48, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete a non-notable gameshow contestant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:37, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete for similar reasons to those stated above by other users LegesRomanorum (talk) 19:46, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kj cheetham (talk) 13:42, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --Devokewater @ 16:09, 16 July 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. Tone 17:06, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- Elizabeth Chevalier (model) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Despite appearing on the cover as an advert to flog magazines, whcih I suppose must might show some sort of notability, the references here are a mixture of passing mentions, interviews supposedly with the person and nothing that shows to me that she is notable. Fiddle Faddle 13:28, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:30, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:30, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep - WP ent: notability requires a model have significant amount of followers .
- Keep - follower amount and multiple front covers . Not many models are playboy front cover girls either . Also Wikipedia has a women problem , not enough women — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doubledownon10 (talk • contribs) 08:12, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep - Wp ent states that significant social media following counts . 1.2m followers plus multiple cover girl features . FHM magazine also featured her online . 2600:1011:B16B:5305:41CB:4449:1ED:FDB1 (talk) 01:39, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete a non-notable model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- delete paid for spam with utterly weak and garbage sourcing. Praxidicae (talk) 13:46, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- *keep Keep WP notability guidelines state an entertainer with significant following count as notable plus she’s a cover girl for playboy . That is a credible publication — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1011:b005:e179:ad47:eb86:ff51:2b57 (talk) 16:47, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- based on what reliable source? Because all I see supporting that are 2 user generated and one unreliable source. Praxidicae (talk) 16:57, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- this is not unreliable it’s a magazine
- based on what reliable source? Because all I see supporting that are 2 user generated and one unreliable source. Praxidicae (talk) 16:57, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- https://theinscribermag.com/glamour-girl-ici-paris-q-and-a-with-playboy-cover-girl-and-glamour-model-elizabeth-chevalier/Article [dead link] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1011:B005:E179:AD47:EB86:FF51:2B57 (talk) 17:06, 16 July 2020 (UTC) — 2600:1011:B005:E179:AD47:EB86:FF51:2B57 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- It is truly adorable you think a 404 from a shitty blog is a reliable source. Praxidicae (talk) 23:58, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Keep- FHM magazine feature her — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1011:B005:E179:844:58C5:5EE7:B99 (talk) 02:14, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- N.B. I have struck this !vote as the user has already !voted ‘keep’ in this discussion- see Special:contributions/2600:1011:b005:e179::/64. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:45, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep - model passes Wp:notability for entertainers . 1.2m followers , on entourage show — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.136.132.136 (talk) 02:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete non notable --Devokewater @ 16:11, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of notability. All the career activities in the article are regular modelling work, nothing notable to merit an encyclopedic biography. MurielMary (talk) 04:36, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep- model on magazine covers and made TV appearances. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MisterSofteeTruck (talk • contribs) 05:03, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Hundreds of thousands of models have appeared on magazine covers and made TV appearances. They cannot all have biographies on WP, there has to be some notability criteria applied. Why should Chevalier be considered more notable than any other model? MurielMary (talk) 05:26, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment We seem to be getting a sudden influx of WP:SPA, often IP only which makes me suspect sockpuppetry,come here to 'vote' as if this were a ballot. This is not a ballot. The closer of the discussion will look at policy matters together with the substance of the arguments raised and reach a conclusion. If that agrees with a minority or a majoroty of the comments entered it will be down the the strength, not the quantity, of their policy based arguments. Fiddle Faddle 07:01, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, it seems that the 3rd and 4th support comments are from the same IP? MurielMary (talk) 07:50, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- And the IP 209.136.132.136 has two total edits - one in 2018, and this 'vote.' I was going to strike the vote but at this point the outcome seems obvious as Delete. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 19:03, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, it seems that the 3rd and 4th support comments are from the same IP? MurielMary (talk) 07:50, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Based on what appears to be extensive socking, I've semi-protected the page for the remainder of the AfD. GeneralNotability (talk) 19:54, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete No evidence of notability here, modeling, acting, or general. Trillfendi (talk) 20:42, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 04:42, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment. The creator has disclosed she is WP:PAID to write another article ([6]) so this is almost certainly a WP:VANITY piece too... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:30, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - Entirely fails to meet WP:NMODEL, WP:NACTOR, WP:ANYBIO, or WP:GNG. Wikipedia is not for promotion. --Jack Frost (talk) 11:31, 23 July 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. Spartaz Humbug! 07:56, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
- Falak Shabir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails GNG as well fails to meet relevant notability guidelines WP:NMUSIC. Google search yields coverage related to his relationship with Sarah Khan Saqib (talk) 13:27, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:29, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:29, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete none of his albums seem to be notable for anything, the sources in the article are not up to par, and everything about him is about his relationship. So, I see know reason to keep this. Since nothing about him appears to pass WP:NMUSIC. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:03, 24 July 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. Tone 13:12, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
- Happiness (Finnish band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
NN band, fails the GNG and WP:BAND. The article's been notability tagged, and substantively unimproved, for over a decade. Prod removed by an editor who added two sources, one which is explicitly a press release, and the other a brief name drop in a blog post of ephemeral bands, where the entry for this one consists of three sentences, the third one evocatively being "Happiness has sadly disappeared after making their one record like a fart in the Sahara." (Neither source comes within a country mile of satisfying the GNG, to put it more mildly than the blogger did.) Ravenswing 13:04, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:07, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:07, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. The Finns have such a way with words, don't they? ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 13:45, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per nom/per above. While the sentence about their "disappearance" is funny, the band itself is not notable. And since this is another of those bands with very common names, it is difficult to search for results in Google. I don't speak Finnish so I don't know if there are reliable sources in that language. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 13:57, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment I didn't add the sources to try to prove notability, I added one to cite information that was already in the article and the other one to update what the band is doing now (nothing). There are other sources out there, such as this album review in a notable Finnish music journal, this interview in another notable music journal, this album review in the biggest newspaper in Finland (paywall), this interview on a major TV network website, and there's also this appearance on a major TV channel in Finland (video only viewable in Finland, but it's a short interview in a music program). -kyykaarme (talk) 14:10, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment unfortunately, the interviews have to be excluded per WP:BAND:
publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves
~dom Kaos~ (talk) 15:11, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment unfortunately, the interviews have to be excluded per WP:BAND:
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Tone 13:12, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
- Igang Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note that google maps has multiple different "Igang Elementary Schools" in the Philippines. None of them are notable as far as I can tell, including the one in Catanduanes. Eostrix (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 12:51, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:52, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:52, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:52, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete: Elementary schools are typically non-notable; per WP:ORGSIG (no inherent notability). Article also contains original research on instructors and courses, which is not allowed per WP:NOR. HiwilmsTalk 13:30, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete per norm. Eostrix Please note I am not the original editor. The original editor is User:Justinphoenixb. The page was transferred under my account as a part of WP:DRAFTIFY script process. It was already moved to Draft:Igang Elementary School ~ Amkgp 💬 13:56, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Somehow the WP:R2 delete got missed by an admin's notices or it was immediately reverted that was possibly overlooked by the reviewer Hiwilms and Eostrix. Anyways, let it run under AfD ~ Amkgp 💬 13:59, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Eostrix, I am not the original editor. See proof here ~ Amkgp 💬 14:05, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Amkgp: I apologize for the false notification (Twinkle did it isn't an excuse, appears to work purely for a redirect hijack after draftily). I notified Justinphoenixb. The article itself (as opposed to the redirect R2) isn't eligible for speedy, as schools are explicitly excluded from WP:A7. I do not think this article should be draftified as it isn't notable (no matter how much improved it could be), the vast majority of elementary schools simply aren't notable. --Eostrix (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 15:12, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Eostrix A primary (elementary) school can be notable provided it is as per what is stated at WP:NSCHOOL ~ Amkgp 💬 15:18, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Amkgp: I apologize for the false notification (Twinkle did it isn't an excuse, appears to work purely for a redirect hijack after draftily). I notified Justinphoenixb. The article itself (as opposed to the redirect R2) isn't eligible for speedy, as schools are explicitly excluded from WP:A7. I do not think this article should be draftified as it isn't notable (no matter how much improved it could be), the vast majority of elementary schools simply aren't notable. --Eostrix (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 15:12, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete: Per WP:INHERIT, not all elementary schools are notable. Barely found any source about it. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 08:41, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:MILL and WP:NOTWEBHOST. Virtually every one of the forty thousand barangays in the Philippines has own little red schoolhouse. Bearian (talk) 17:24, 22 July 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. Spartaz Humbug! 07:57, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
- Storybooth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Potentially non notable web content provider. Sources seem a bit unreliable but I cannot decide which is why I have put it here for discussion. Has won a couple of awards but the sources are vague regarding that. Thank you. Kadzi (talk) 12:47, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- 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, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- Logs:
2018-12 ✍️ create
- Delete Due to the questionable sourcing and because I don't think the awards are purely enough on their own to warrant an article. YouTube channels are a dime a dozen. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:06, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- You sure? Because storybooth is very famous and I think they deserve their own article. SophieHadifz (talk) 13:54, 11 December 2023 (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 no consensus. I'm not seeing obvious evidence of mass canvassing here to discount opinions from experienced and long standing editors. Spartaz Humbug! 08:03, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
- Tolulope Arotile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I see no change from the prior AFD other than her death. Still isn't notable. Praxidicae (talk) 12:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:38, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:38, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:38, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
KEEP broke a 55 year old record of the Nigerian Airforce to become THE FIRST NIGERIAN FEMALE COMBAT HELICOPTER PILOT, also first Nigerian to ever fly the AgustaWestland AW109 fighter-jet in Nigeria,acquired 460 hours of flight in helicopter which was an outstanding performance for a combat pilot,fought in numerous battles against insurgency in the North-Central region of Nigeria including Operation GAMA AIKI (use google) her most recent, clearly passes WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO and as well as #2 WP:SOLDIER--Brain7days (talk) 12:56, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- How is any of this different from the discussion at the May AFD? Praxidicae (talk) 13:04, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- I suppose that's a rhetorical question because i am not here to take questions from you, defend your stand by pointing out which of the above highlighted notability it fails. I didn't create,neither was i aware of the May AFD and for me to have re-created an article on the same subject is a logical reason to keep it. Thanks--Brain7days (talk) 13:21, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Perhaps you should take a moment to read it and enlighten yourself as to the reason for my nomination. Praxidicae (talk) 13:27, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- I suppose that's a rhetorical question because i am not here to take questions from you, defend your stand by pointing out which of the above highlighted notability it fails. I didn't create,neither was i aware of the May AFD and for me to have re-created an article on the same subject is a logical reason to keep it. Thanks--Brain7days (talk) 13:21, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- How is any of this different from the discussion at the May AFD? Praxidicae (talk) 13:04, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Being the first X in country Y does not establish notability. Deleted before for good reasons and nothing has changed apart from her dying. Mztourist (talk) 13:36, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Her death has actually changed the article, if you are insinuating that an apple did not change except that it fell from the tree, then you mean it's still on the tree and could still be plucked, moreso might i quote form WP: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 i don't see where it states the first X in country Y does not establish notability--Brain7days (talk) 13:59, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Your responding to every Delete comment does nothing to further your argument, nor does the implication of racism.Mztourist (talk) 06:15, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Her death has actually changed the article, if you are insinuating that an apple did not change except that it fell from the tree, then you mean it's still on the tree and could still be plucked, moreso might i quote form WP: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 i don't see where it states the first X in country Y does not establish notability--Brain7days (talk) 13:59, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per Johnpacklambert's rationale in the previous discussion; and salt, as her untimely death means, unfortunately, that she is unlikely to achieve any of the eight listed criteria at WP:MILPEOPLE. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 14:04, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- His comment doesn't apply in anyway being married to a black woman obviously doesn't guarantee notability and wikipedia is 19 years old what do you expect a decrease in x,y articles? that's laughable--Brain7days (talk) 14:15, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- In my opinion, his comment is valid. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 14:19, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- His comment doesn't apply in anyway being married to a black woman obviously doesn't guarantee notability and wikipedia is 19 years old what do you expect a decrease in x,y articles? that's laughable--Brain7days (talk) 14:15, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete I think some did not understand my comment about hypotheticals. The point is being the first x to do y does not transform a person to notability, unless of course we have enough coverage of this first x to do y to constitute passing GNG because of this coverage. Unlike some other editors I have never argued that just because the coverage is "this person is the first x to do y" does not mean it does not count. However we have to look at how substantive it is. To bring up one issue, if we have an article on a political candidate that merely says the subject is the "first x to run for y office" but it does not provide sustantive coveage to the person's campaign, and is so short it is not actually substantial covage it is not a sign of notability. On another deletion discussion we are dealing with an 11 year old article that is either a total hoax, or just built on a person's personal website that makes downright false claims. There are so many "first x to do y" claims we need to make sure we follow reliable sources in the matter. One last note, people who lacked notability at the time of their death can and do become notable long after they died. If Wikipedia had existed in the 1940s and someone had tried to create an article on Anne Frank at the time of her death it would have been deleted. Even trying to think of what that would have looked like creates too many counter-factual issues to think through well. The fact that Wikipedia started in 2001 and it is not really to 2004 it starts coming to be sizeable, and then it takes a few years more to start realizing fully that just letting everyone create any article they want has negative consequesnce makes things complex. We used to tolerate articles on every person who ever held a title like Miss Nevada or Miss Nevada USA, although we really only ever got people creating articles on holders of even those titles for a few years, we used to treat any major party nominee for congress in the US as notable, and there are some other examples. In the matter of articles on places and characters in fiction the history of what is considered notable is an even bigger mess, although the number of articles on actors and actresses sourced only to non-reliable sources, many of these articles having stood over 10 years, does show that we have a really big problem with having even a small semblance of anything like following notability guidelines. I know this goes way beyond the article at hand.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:30, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete not notable enough since last AfD ~ Amkgp 💬 14:46, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Praxidicae I had nominated earlier WP:G4 but someone overturned it. See here ~ Amkgp 💬 14:49, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Comment Discussions such as these gives me headache, some articles are about the values it brings to the readers, Nigeria as a nation has missed and omitted alot of event in her history book, i guess you really don't understand that. a reasonable editor will still re-create an article on the subject in the near future and you may not be there to delete it. Y'all do yor thing i'm outta here--Brain7days (talk) 14:46, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Per the previous comment, reiterating my recommendation to salt. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 15:15, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete — Fails WP:SOLDIER. Furthermore I trust Praxidicae’s judgement & general knowledge on Wikipedia as Wikipedia is her forte, so if she says that nothing has changed since the last AFD(I can’t view deleted pages thus I can’t really remember) then it probably hasn’t changed & and as such this article qualifies for a CSD G4. I’m not sure why the correctly placed CSD G4 by Amkgp was 'declined' by the Nigerian editor. A quick glance of the article shows at most they possess bare notability & as Johnpacklambert correctly put it, people could become more notable even in death. @Brain7days I’d suggest you read WP:GNG meticulously before proceeding to create anymore articles & even at that, you still may need to pass the article through the WP:AFC process. Cheers dear colleague. Celestina007 (talk) 15:27, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- The fact that the article was last deleted only 2 months ago suggests that it is unlikely anything has changed. I would actually urge all editors to stop doing direct creation of articles and always run articles through the articles for creation process.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Johnpacklambert, Exactly! If an article was deleted in May & recreated in July then one’s initiative should by default tell them that nothing would have significantly changed since then. Furthermore if WP made it mandatory for all articles to pass through the AFC process a lot of all these stress would be reduced by at least half. Celestina007 (talk) 15:40, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- I think the creator is not trying to understand what all the editors are trying to explain here for their opinion instead trying to divert to other things ~ Amkgp 💬 15:42, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Celestina007 beacause the Nigerian editor understand the value of the article and it signifance to the Nigerian people. And don't get me started on why you trust paraxidicae's judgement, we both know the story. Moreso, I AM NOT A COLLEAGUE OF YOURS as far as wikipedia is concern.--Brain7days (talk) 15:45, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Ouchhhhh! Celestina007 (talk) 15:48, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Brain7days enlighten me. What is the story here? Praxidicae (talk) 15:57, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Celestina007 beacause the Nigerian editor understand the value of the article and it signifance to the Nigerian people. And don't get me started on why you trust paraxidicae's judgement, we both know the story. Moreso, I AM NOT A COLLEAGUE OF YOURS as far as wikipedia is concern.--Brain7days (talk) 15:45, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- I think the creator is not trying to understand what all the editors are trying to explain here for their opinion instead trying to divert to other things ~ Amkgp 💬 15:42, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Johnpacklambert, Exactly! If an article was deleted in May & recreated in July then one’s initiative should by default tell them that nothing would have significantly changed since then. Furthermore if WP made it mandatory for all articles to pass through the AFC process a lot of all these stress would be reduced by at least half. Celestina007 (talk) 15:40, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep The subject is clearly notable as they pass WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:38, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- KEEP https://www.bbc.com/pidgin/tori-53414173 The BBC gave her ample coverage and ever covered the reactions to her death where the Speaker of di Nigeria House of Representative and others reacted. And of course all the news in her country are giving her coverage. The fact that this much is said about her in other nations around the world speaks to her notability. Dream Focus 22:44, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
The wikipedia community need to understand that all wikipedia guidelines gave room for exceptional cases and one of those cases is our subject of article, but i have come to discern that many editors do not bother about exceptional cases, they do not logically see the value of an article to it targeted audience, they are quick to exterminate harmless articles all in the name of good faith. Editors who voted delete are Indian, British, and American respectively that is why it is easy for them to delineate a first x in country y which is clearly irrational in this case but i do not expect them to understand this because they really do not know and i am here to enlighthen their perception as regards our subject of article. In a country that is tainted of bigotry, nepotism and judicial acrimony, Tolulope Arotile grew up in a society of unambigous discrimination against the girl child, they are been married off at a younger age, barely 2% of the girl population made it to the university, they are being condemned to the kitchen as full housewives and seldomly participate in matters of the nation. She went on to graduate with an Hons in Mathematics, broke a 55 year old jinx to became a combat helicopter pilot, she was a venerate in the eyes of an average Nigerian girl. This young girl was killed in a freak accident that does not resonates with any yoruba intellect, her death is becoming to generate a national controversy as Gani Adams and other social group(paticularly from her tribe) are beginning to discountenanced the explanation to her untimely death (but how do we add these information if the article is being strangled at birth?). This is not to berate every editor who voted otherwise but it is a clarion call on everyone to not be insensitive with every article especially one that has to do with a diversed group and or region as it may fuel ethnic dissension (see George Floyd's talk page)--Brain7days (talk) 05:56, 17 July 2020 (UTC).
Speedy keep: it beats my imagination to see this article nominated for deletion. Does the editor who nominated it for deletion bothered to conduct at least a simple WP:BEFORE nomination? It appears to me that some editors take pride in the number of articles they nominate for deletion without checking to see that an article qualifies deletion. The subject of this article meets WP:GNG and WP:SOLDIER but some have argued here that the subject fails WP Soldier maybe because the subject did not fight in world War. A simple Google search results have shown that the president of Nigeria, the current and immediate past presidents of the Nigerian Senate, a former vice president of Nigeria, the governors of 19 Northern states (Northern Governors Forum) have paid tribute to the subject of this article. All these tributes can be seen in a Google search. Jokolis (talk) 7:35, 17 July 2020 (UTC)- Interesting perspective from a User who's been on WP for 18 days. Mztourist (talk) 07:39, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Mztourist, don’t worry about the editor. They are obviously not new & are a either a sock or a returning blocked Nigerian editor. I’ve watched their page now & would observe edit pattern & history to reveal the master sock or the returning user. Eitherway as usual, I’d always nab them no matter how clever they appear to be. Celestina007 (talk) 01:00, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- Blocked sock. MER-C 08:55, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- Mztourist, in case you missed it. They have been blocked for sockpuppetry just as I rightly guessed. Thanks MER-C for the swift nabbing & action. Celestina007 (talk) 17:07, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- Noted thanks! Mztourist (talk) 03:13, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
- Mztourist, in case you missed it. They have been blocked for sockpuppetry just as I rightly guessed. Thanks MER-C for the swift nabbing & action. Celestina007 (talk) 17:07, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. WP:ONEEVENT, it appears. While being the first women do to x in country z is interesting, I don't think this is enough, and she wasn't written about until she died. Sadly, outside being the first Xyz and dying she hasn't left any mark on history. I don't think this is enough to get her into the encyclopedia (also, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTOBIT). Either way I am also concerned about the copyright status of the picture used which it's claimed to be 'own work' by a not very active user... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:47, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. The first woman to hold a national post like this is generally notable. Normally I wouldn't challenge such a recent AfD (even though I disagreed with the outcome), but these are unusual circumstances (few people die so soon after losing their article at AfD) and the wide coverage and obituaries since her death clearly prove notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:15, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- WP:SNOW Wikipedia:Speedy keep broke a 55 year old record of the Nigerian Airforce to become THE FIRST NIGERIAN FEMALE COMBAT HELICOPTER PILOT, also first Nigerian to ever fly the AgustaWestland AW109 fighter-jet in Nigeria,acquired 460 hours of flight in helicopter which was an outstanding performance for a combat pilot,fought in numerous battles against insurgency in the North-Central region of Nigeria including Operation GAMA AIKI (use google) her most recent, clearly passes WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO and as well as #2 WP:SOLDIER Given the present sourcing, this AFD is a travesty. Clearly no compliance (pretended or otherwise) with WP:Before. Moreover, this this picture is worth a thousand words. Article and sourcing is now what it was when the AFD was started. WP:HEY 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:36, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- 7&6=thirteen, bit of a choker that the picture is not worth any words at all now :D ——Serial 12:28, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep her position as the first-ever female combat helicopter pilot in the Nigerian Air Force is notable. If she was the second perhaps she would not be notable. She has SIGCOV in sources like CNN. Lightburst (talk) 19:54, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep if she was British or American nobody would be asking these questions. Nigeria is the largest population in Africa and she has been a notable first, plus her death is itself notable GrimRob (talk) 20:59, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- As I noted at the previous AFD, Nicky Smith (RAF officer) was the first female RAF helicopter pilot and the first female to command an RAF squadron, while neither alone satisfies WP:SOLDIER the combination arguably meets WP:GNG. Pages for "First female combat helicopter pilot" don't exist for the UK, US or Canada and nor should they unless they acheive something more notable. Mztourist (talk) 08:42, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Nicky Smith has an article. Sally Murphy has an article. This proves GrimRob's point. Q.E.D. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:00, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- You should read what I wrote, we don't have pages for "First female combat helicopter pilot" for the UK or US. Mztourist (talk) 03:17, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- Yet! As I've said before, Wikipedia is a work in progress. Don't yet have doesn't mean won't ever have. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- You should read what I wrote, we don't have pages for "First female combat helicopter pilot" for the UK or US. Mztourist (talk) 03:17, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- In addition see Jo Salter Roni Zuckerman see full list here an Interesting perspective from a User who's been on WP for 10 years, you should probably stick to expanding military articles in East and Southeast Asia--Brain7days (talk) 09:10, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- We're talking helicopter pilots. Cut it with the snide remarks, looking at your Talk Page, you're already flying very close to a block.Mztourist (talk) 03:17, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- Mis me with that "flying very close to a block",is that suppose to scare me? I will be sure to add that to the list of threats I have received on Wikipedia.You claimed "we don't have a list of First female combat helicopter pilot". My comments are always base on fact and are vindictive on all grounds.Brain7days (talk) 06:53, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- We're talking helicopter pilots. Cut it with the snide remarks, looking at your Talk Page, you're already flying very close to a block.Mztourist (talk) 03:17, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- Nicky Smith has an article. Sally Murphy has an article. This proves GrimRob's point. Q.E.D. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:00, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- As I noted at the previous AFD, Nicky Smith (RAF officer) was the first female RAF helicopter pilot and the first female to command an RAF squadron, while neither alone satisfies WP:SOLDIER the combination arguably meets WP:GNG. Pages for "First female combat helicopter pilot" don't exist for the UK, US or Canada and nor should they unless they acheive something more notable. Mztourist (talk) 08:42, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Strong Keep Before I start, l'm extending my gratitude to User:Brain7days and user:Andrew Davidson for standing firm and strong, this article with no contemplating clearly pass WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO, those suggesting delete are not making the suggestion base on any rules, just beating around the bush, trying to explain something else, not contrary to the real reason, which is not according to the basics rules of Wikipedia's notability, let me make this clear and simple, Notability in Wikipedia is base on Independent Secondary Reliable Sources, and I see them in here Tolulope Arotile. CNN, Vanguard, Media Trust, P.M. News, Africa News, The Punch and BBC, these are National and international Independent Secondary reliable sources, enough to establish notability. I assure you this, in the whole Nigerian related articles, these are the best press release references you will be seeing, no more than this, there are no any other press release better than those in Nigeria. if those references are not enough to establish notability, tell me what reference do you want to see? Please if you don’t know Nigerian affairs stop scaling its affairs. Take a look at the rationale provided by User:Dream Focus, look into it carefully, that is enough to establish notability. currently, Tolulope Arotile is known by every Nigerian, Yes! I mean every Nigerian, because of her duty as a Nigerian soldier, and her story was told and spread everywhere, with more controversy on her death. She is in Nigerian Radio News, Television and Newspapers, a country with the highest population in Africa, imagine! And some users here are still arguing about her notability, I get to understand that you are not following Nigerian news. Jokolis you'v got it right, "It appears to me that some editors take pride in the number of articles they nominate for deletion without checking to see that an article qualifies deletion", and I didn’t see a barn star for that! I appreciate their effort in keeping Wikipedia clean, but I criticize their effort in” they nominate for deletion without checking to see that an article qualifies deletion" let them be proud by the number of article they’ve deleted and we will be proud by the number of articles we have saved, I prefer to be a savior, just like the angels. Piotrus Either way you are concerned about the copyright status of the picture used, that has nothing to do with her Notability, with or without the picture, and we are not concerned with the status of her picture here, with or without free license the picture carries no weight to establish notability, so take it to commons and nominate the picture for deletion, you are out of the line by making a diversion. Thanks to you for bringing up this Fighter_pilot#Female_fighter_pilots and this Nicky Smith (RAF officer), may be by now enough is enough for a neutral person.--- An@ss_koko(speak up) 09:23, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep per Necrothesp and Andrew Davidson - clearly meets GNG. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:45, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep I won’t bother to read the screaming match going on up there, but from what I have seen and my own perception of notability, she passed it in her lifetime—even if the recognition and coverage of it from reliable sources has mainly come after her death. Trillfendi (talk) 20:53, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. So much has been said already about this nom, the subject of this article has clearly pass this minimum criteria ANYBIO and the rational given by these users Andrew, Necrothesp and Anasskoko has supported it enough to be here. Em-mustapha talk 09:50, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- These obituaries
This obituaryAkinpelu, Yusuf (July 16, 2020). "OBITUARY: Tolulope Arotile: Nigeria's first female combat helicopter pilot dies in accident". Premium Times. Kingsley, Omonobi. "How NAF's first female combat helicopter pilot died in accident". The Vanguard. Retrieved 16 July 2020.should settle the issue. As an encyclopedia, we have national and language systemic bias; the Nigerian media obviously consider this to be a 'national tragedy.' But it won't satisfy the die hards. We will have to agree to disagree, and let the process play out. She should be in WP:ITN as a recent death, but we have this wasteful sideshow going on. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:19, 19 July 2020 (UTC)- I've posted it In the News candidates so there is some urgency in getting this resolved. "You don't need a weatherman to see which way the wind blows" 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:57, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- These obituaries
- Speedy Keep When I declined the WP:G4 tag placed on the article by User:Amkgp, as can be seen here. I was aware that a lot has changed since the last AfD, because she now has a substantive coverage in even more reliable sources, thus passing WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. She also passes WP:ANYBIO per her contribution to the Nigerian Air Force, it's really a pity that she had to die so early. I'll advise Amkgp to slow down on the CSD tagging and take the time to read WP:SPEEDY thoroughly. Best, —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 16:50, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep That the subject here so clearly and overwhelming meets GNG makes me think that the some here believe that SNGs supersede GNG. They do not. SNGs allow for a subject that otherwise cannot meet GNG to still be considered notable. Further WP:ONEEVENT cannot be applied where there is wide coverage for two distinct events. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:53, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep passes WP:GNG/WP:ANYBIO, per all the above comments. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:50, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Subject fails WP:1E which is a generally recognized exception to ANYBIO. Their only real claim to notability is being the first female combat helicopter pilot in Nigeria. All other cited accomplishments are fairly run of the mill for a military pilot. Their death, while tragic, is not a notable event in itself, with all coverage directly relating to her 1E claim to fame. Sorry, but that's not enough to ring the WP:N bell. I am a little disturbed at the plethora of supports above which seem to be setting a very low bar for notability. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:34, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- That's quite mistaken. WP:1E does not apply because the subject is known for at least three things:
- Her status as the first female combat helicopter pilot in Nigeria
- Her prowess in fighting against Boko Haram
- Her recent death at an early age in a freak accident
- Even if there was just one event, WP:1E would not imply deletion because it says clearly that "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." The subject's role in these occurrences is a large one and so the article is appropriate. Q.E.D.
- Andrew🐉(talk) 23:15, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- Nothing in her combat record is especially notable. People die young from accidents all the time. All of the coverage stems from her status as the first female combat helicopter pilot in Nigeria. Sorry, but this article is a giant flashing neon sign that keeps blinking "1E"... -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:34, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- I am struggling to stay silent on the subject but i just couldn't, like i stated before having theoritical knowledge of a subject will only birth suppositious comments, Operation GAMA AIKI in which she was notable for within the army deserves a stand alone article per WP:SIGCOV. But i guess you don't really konw what it takes to fight insurgency in Nigeria, you don't know what NTA Channels 10 looks like so you won't understand that the subject is being talked about on all-things Nigeria platforms, it's really exhausting defending the subject Wikipedia:WikiProject Nigeria really need active editors--Brain7days (talk) 00:08, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Brain7days. I have no familiarity with GAMA AIKI so I'm not going to discuss that. But participation in a military operation, even a highly notable one, does not ipso facto confer notability on a person. GNG/BASIC do not lay out any applicable criteria beyond SIGCOV, for which we have a single event. Other possible notability conferring criteria are covered in WP:NSOLDIER. AFAIK the subject of this AfD does not meet any of those criteria. If she does, then that would force me to reconsider my 'Delete.' -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:30, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- Apply WP:IGNORE then. Fighter_pilot#Female_fighter_pilots is a list of related subjects too, Thanks.Brain7days (talk) 00:54, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- IAR is always an available fallback. I've employed it a few times myself where I thought that the subject of an article just fell through the cracks in our notability guidelines but that commonsense would suggest the article be kept. Alas I'm not persuaded in this case. I just don't see a strong argument for the subject's long term significance. Female military pilots are fairly common place today. It may be a novelty in Nigeria but that isn't enough for me. I stand by my 'Delete.' -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:07, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- I am glad you finally acknowledge what the discussion is all about, it is not a big deal to you and everyone else because they are already on that list, and if a country like Nigeria waited 55 years to achieve then such individual deserves decoration not from you though but from me and everyone who identifies with the green white green flag. Thanks to Nnadigoodluck for including her on the list already. On that note what do you think of Madeline Swegle does she deserve a stand alone article, i suggest not going by your perception--Brain7days (talk) 05:59, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- You are correct. If we are going to start keeping articles about everybody who is the first (fill in your favorite special group) then we need to amend our notability guidelines. I have tagged the page until I have a chance to do some deep digging. But if I don't find anything more I will likely be sending it to AfD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- I am glad you finally acknowledge what the discussion is all about, it is not a big deal to you and everyone else because they are already on that list, and if a country like Nigeria waited 55 years to achieve then such individual deserves decoration not from you though but from me and everyone who identifies with the green white green flag. Thanks to Nnadigoodluck for including her on the list already. On that note what do you think of Madeline Swegle does she deserve a stand alone article, i suggest not going by your perception--Brain7days (talk) 05:59, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- IAR is always an available fallback. I've employed it a few times myself where I thought that the subject of an article just fell through the cracks in our notability guidelines but that commonsense would suggest the article be kept. Alas I'm not persuaded in this case. I just don't see a strong argument for the subject's long term significance. Female military pilots are fairly common place today. It may be a novelty in Nigeria but that isn't enough for me. I stand by my 'Delete.' -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:07, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- Apply WP:IGNORE then. Fighter_pilot#Female_fighter_pilots is a list of related subjects too, Thanks.Brain7days (talk) 00:54, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Brain7days. I have no familiarity with GAMA AIKI so I'm not going to discuss that. But participation in a military operation, even a highly notable one, does not ipso facto confer notability on a person. GNG/BASIC do not lay out any applicable criteria beyond SIGCOV, for which we have a single event. Other possible notability conferring criteria are covered in WP:NSOLDIER. AFAIK the subject of this AfD does not meet any of those criteria. If she does, then that would force me to reconsider my 'Delete.' -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:30, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- Being an outstanding helicopter pilot is not an event; it's a status, an occupation, a continuous thing. We have numerous articles about people who are notable for just one occupation – footballers, singers, scientists, &c. Even if we had an event it still wouldn't be an argument for deletion because the point of 1E is that you write an article about the event and so you still have an article. So, AE's case rests on a complete misunderstanding and misrepresentation of WP:1E. Essentially it's WP:IDONTLIKEIT with a veneer of flawed Wikilawyering. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:22, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- I am struggling to stay silent on the subject but i just couldn't, like i stated before having theoritical knowledge of a subject will only birth suppositious comments, Operation GAMA AIKI in which she was notable for within the army deserves a stand alone article per WP:SIGCOV. But i guess you don't really konw what it takes to fight insurgency in Nigeria, you don't know what NTA Channels 10 looks like so you won't understand that the subject is being talked about on all-things Nigeria platforms, it's really exhausting defending the subject Wikipedia:WikiProject Nigeria really need active editors--Brain7days (talk) 00:08, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- Nothing in her combat record is especially notable. People die young from accidents all the time. All of the coverage stems from her status as the first female combat helicopter pilot in Nigeria. Sorry, but this article is a giant flashing neon sign that keeps blinking "1E"... -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:34, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Weak delete Our watchword is notability, she appears to have received a fair amount of notice, but it all seems to be about her death. As such yes it does fail "notable for one event", if that is not the case find some sources about her before she died.Slatersteven (talk) 10:31, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep/Wait as soon as Nigeria awards her some medal posthumously she'll qualify for WP:NSOLDIER and we'll have to do this all over again. Hell, the article might even get posted to TFA. If she had been a WWI Australian fighter pilot we'd not even be having this discussion. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:32, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- Lay of accusations of racism, and no she would not get notable unless she is awarded their highest decoration. And see wp:crystal.Slatersteven (talk) 10:45, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Keep I had my reservations in the first AFD but with the number of multiple reliable sources the subject has now; it clearly passes GNG and deserve inclusion. Unfortunately the going back and forth in this AFD won’t be the case if she was American. Kaizenify (talk) 12:36, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- Kaizenify, careful now, you are beginning to indirectly insinuate racism. Celestina007 (talk) 16:11, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment. Although I still maintain the article should be kept due to the coverage, which clearly meets WP:SIGCOV, I think we should steer away from the "outstanding helicopter pilot" claims. She was a junior officer with no decorations. Her notability and coverage is down to her status as Nigeria's first female combat helicopter pilot. Everyone is always claimed to be the greatest whatever after their death; that's just human nature. She was a combat helicopter pilot. She did her job well by all accounts. So do countless other service personnel. Most of them don't have articles. Many people die prematurely in tragic accidents. Most of them don't have articles. Let's just stick to the actual reasons for her notability and not get carried away with the "she was the greatest helicopter pilot ever" rubbish. It doesn't help anyone's cause. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:48, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment — I hope the canvassing & sockpuppetry that has riddled this AFD would be taken into account by the closing admin. Celestina007 (talk) 17:09, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment − Admins are trusted users and they know better, the blocked sock has no connection with the article except an evidence of such suffice,the sock's decision was based on their own premise and should not be used to interpret the consensus. In addition any percieved canvassing should be provided with receipts.--Brain7days (talk) 08:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment And I hope they take the bludgeoning into account. Trillfendi (talk) 14:41, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Maybe doubtful before her death but since then, the huge media coverage in the Nigerian media seems to confirm her notability. No one would question the notability of someone whose death would have been similarly covered by the media in any Western country. --DonCamillo (talk) 11:54, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
- Really, care to give an example of somoene only notable for being dead?Slatersteven (talk) 12:08, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
- Read again, I have not said that she is notable for being dead, but that the media coverage on the occasion of her death leaves no doubt regarding her notability. --DonCamillo (talk) 12:23, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
- Quite. Having an obituary doesn't mean you're suddenly notable for being dead. It just confirms that you were notable when you were alive. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:24, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
- Not really, deaths are reported all the time, we do not have articles on them. When we do its because there was an impact beyond them being dead. So I ask again can we see some examples of this apparent double standard?Slatersteven (talk) 12:34, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
- There really is a big difference between a simple two-line report of a death and an obituary. Brief coverage of death doesn't equal notability, but wide publication of obituaries certainly does. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:42, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
- A claim has been made back it up. "No one would question the notability of someone whose death would have been similarly covered by the media in any Western country" so give an example of this.Slatersteven (talk) 12:45, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
- She had already achieved some kind of notability before her death (there are media articles about her in 2019, where she is mentioned as the "first female combatant helicopter pilot in the history of the Service"), and the huge coverage of her life and death on the occasion of her death confirms this notability. She's not famous because of her death, but because she is the first female combatant in the history of the Nigerian airforce *and* died a tragic death, in the context of a war against terrorist groups, during which she saw action - which makes her kind of a national hero right now in Nigeria, as the media coverage shows very clearly. Not sure about what is hard to understand here.
- Regarding the double standard, look for yourself: Category:Helicopter pilots. --DonCamillo (talk) 12:52, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
- As I do not see the double standard its down to you to demonstrate it, not me.Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
- Not for anyone to do your homework, sorry. Good luck. --DonCamillo (talk) 13:09, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Slatersteven: What DonCamillo means, of course, is "I will provide diffs to back up my assertion or you are entitled to query whether it's true" Cheers! ——Serial 13:17, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
- Do I really want to waste my time trying to convince people who apparently don't think there are double standards on Wikipedia (at least I had a good laugh)? I'm not sure. --DonCamillo (talk) 13:38, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
- The dearth of experience backing your position is duly noted. ——Serial 14:00, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
- Afd's are based on the strength of argument, not the number of votes. If your argument is not backed by evidence its not exactly very strong.Slatersteven (talk) 13:40, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
- Why are you saying that this lacks "experience" or "evidence"? I'm just stating basic facts: she's famous in Nigeria, she's a "first", her obits were on the frontpage of Nigerian media for days, this has been of the main topics of discussion all over Nigeria since her death (this is not opinion but fact with reliable sources). For many people here, these facts mean this article should not be deleted, can't you at least respect that? It is also a fact that there is a double standard and a bias against topics related to the global South (I'm not saying everyone here is biased or no one has the right to say this article should be deleted: I'm saying this double standard and this bias are a real thing). It's obvious for anyone who has experience on any of the large Wikipedias. No one would dare to challenge the notability of someone whose obit was on the frontpage of the New York Times (I've checked all the obits showing on the dedicated page of the NYT right now: 7 articles - without any AfD -, 1 without an article yet; is that enough for you?). For some reason if the obit is on the front page of the Daily Trust (one of the major newspapers in Nigeria) and basically one of the biggest news for days in a 200-million people country, it's fine to challenge. I think that's wrong and that's not the way we should go if we want to improve the way global South-related topics are treated on Wikimedia projects. --DonCamillo (talk) 15:49, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
- I did not say you lacked experience. So out of 7 obits one does not even have an article, so your bias is that we do not even waste our time on such people if they are "from the north". As to the rest who are they?Slatersteven (talk) 16:01, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
- Why are you saying that this lacks "experience" or "evidence"? I'm just stating basic facts: she's famous in Nigeria, she's a "first", her obits were on the frontpage of Nigerian media for days, this has been of the main topics of discussion all over Nigeria since her death (this is not opinion but fact with reliable sources). For many people here, these facts mean this article should not be deleted, can't you at least respect that? It is also a fact that there is a double standard and a bias against topics related to the global South (I'm not saying everyone here is biased or no one has the right to say this article should be deleted: I'm saying this double standard and this bias are a real thing). It's obvious for anyone who has experience on any of the large Wikipedias. No one would dare to challenge the notability of someone whose obit was on the frontpage of the New York Times (I've checked all the obits showing on the dedicated page of the NYT right now: 7 articles - without any AfD -, 1 without an article yet; is that enough for you?). For some reason if the obit is on the front page of the Daily Trust (one of the major newspapers in Nigeria) and basically one of the biggest news for days in a 200-million people country, it's fine to challenge. I think that's wrong and that's not the way we should go if we want to improve the way global South-related topics are treated on Wikimedia projects. --DonCamillo (talk) 15:49, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
- Do I really want to waste my time trying to convince people who apparently don't think there are double standards on Wikipedia (at least I had a good laugh)? I'm not sure. --DonCamillo (talk) 13:38, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
- As I do not see the double standard its down to you to demonstrate it, not me.Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
- A claim has been made back it up. "No one would question the notability of someone whose death would have been similarly covered by the media in any Western country" so give an example of this.Slatersteven (talk) 12:45, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
- There really is a big difference between a simple two-line report of a death and an obituary. Brief coverage of death doesn't equal notability, but wide publication of obituaries certainly does. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:42, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
- Not really, deaths are reported all the time, we do not have articles on them. When we do its because there was an impact beyond them being dead. So I ask again can we see some examples of this apparent double standard?Slatersteven (talk) 12:34, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
- Quite. Having an obituary doesn't mean you're suddenly notable for being dead. It just confirms that you were notable when you were alive. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:24, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
- Read again, I have not said that she is notable for being dead, but that the media coverage on the occasion of her death leaves no doubt regarding her notability. --DonCamillo (talk) 12:23, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
- Really, care to give an example of somoene only notable for being dead?Slatersteven (talk) 12:08, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment lets stop telling the admins to suck eggs. They know what they are doing and do not need to be told by us to it.Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 22 July 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:39, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
- Stefano Cicchini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
promotional pr piece sourced to black hat seo "fake news" sites, fails notability criteria for "bloggers" and "influencers" Praxidicae (talk) 12:06, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:13, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete clearly accepted at AFC in error. We all make those, but the sources here are unusually poor. This is pure Vanispamcruftisement from a declared paid editor and needs to go. Fiddle Faddle 13:23, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete a non-notable writer. Some days I wonder if I put too much faith in AfC, but then I remember we have articles that have existed for 15 years sourced only to the subject's own website.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:36, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Although the CBC news is reliable, the article is unlikely. 124.123.182.61 (talk) 23:13, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. Aren't PR-professionals non-notable by definition? Ok, seriously, this simply fails WP:NBIO and is a 100% obvious WP:VANITY piece. (Since the creator disclosed in edit summary that this is "Paid editing"). At least the COI was properly disclosed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:27, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - per GNG. I think the client is owed a refund on this one. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 12:40, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete I had draftified it in hopes that it would get improved and am very surprised to see it accepted from AfC without any substantial improvement. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:05, 22 July 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 keep. There is consensus that the sources provided support the notability of the subject. (non-admin closure) Jack Frost (talk) 10:53, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
- Albin Gutman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Other articles requested by IP:
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afu-Ra
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nemanja Kojić (musician)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Škabo (2nd nomination)
Can someone nominate these 6 poorly sourced article, as they are not notable here Afu-Ra, Nemanja Kojić (musician), Škabo, Albin Gutman, Beogradski Sindikat, and Bad Copy as they are more likely created as a fandom. These serbian articles is very awful as you think. 23:36, 15 July 2020 (UTC) 187.189.107.24 (talk) 23:40, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Nomination on behalf of IP. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:47, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:47, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:47, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:47, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Speedy keep WP:CSK #3. No policy-based reason for deletion, and AfD is not cleanup. Clearly notable person. No such user (talk) 12:12, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- No such user, well I /think/ the IP's reasoning should be WP:GNG since they are arguing that it's poorly sourced. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:31, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- I can agree that the article is in a poor shape, but again, WP:NOTCLEANUP. A former Chief of the General Staff (Slovenia) certainly passes GNG with flying colors. Complete biographies can be found with a 5-minute search: Nato.int Delo. No such user (talk) 12:43, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- No such user, well these articles could be considered first-party sources, I believe. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:49, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Irrelevant. They are reliable and prove he is who the article says he is. Given his rank and position he obviously meets notability guidelines. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:59, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- No such user, well these articles could be considered first-party sources, I believe. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:49, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- I can agree that the article is in a poor shape, but again, WP:NOTCLEANUP. A former Chief of the General Staff (Slovenia) certainly passes GNG with flying colors. Complete biographies can be found with a 5-minute search: Nato.int Delo. No such user (talk) 12:43, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- No such user, well I /think/ the IP's reasoning should be WP:GNG since they are arguing that it's poorly sourced. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:31, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete article in no ways meets GNG. It is time for people to stop using proceduralism to preserve clearly unnotable articles. Especially considering that we do not make new articles go through the AfC process. That is what we should make articles go through. As it stands it is still occasionally possible for people to create articles without starting an account and many others create accounts with the first and only things they do being creating an article. Wikipedia needs to fix this system.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:49, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. Very clearly meets WP:SOLDIER. Not only a general, but chief of his country's armed forces, as attested in reliable sources. Truly ridiculous nomination with no attempt at WP:BEFORE. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:56, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Weak Keep WP:SOLDIER is just a presumption of notability, while sources aren't currently on the page he seems to have some coverage in RS, probably enough to meet WP:SIGCOV and therefore WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 13:39, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep The article wasn't contributed, but it still passes as WP:SOLDIER. 124.123.182.61 (talk) 23:15, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep passes WP:NSOLDIER as confirmed by multiple reliable sources, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:44, 16 July 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 keep. If we progress beyond counting snouts, there is a convincing consensus that the subject meets the threshold of notability, and therefore that the article should be kept. (non-admin closure) Jack Frost (talk) 11:15, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
- Škabo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Can someone nominate these 6 poorly sourced article, as they are not notable here Afu-Ra, Nemanja Kojić (musician), Škabo, Albin Gutman, Beogradski Sindikat, and Bad Copy as they are more likely created as a fandom. These serbian articles is very awful as you think. 23:36, 15 July 2020 (UTC) 187.189.107.24 (talk) 23:40, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Nomination on behalf of IP. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:43, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Other articles requested by IP:
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afu-Ra
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nemanja Kojić (musician)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Škabo (2nd nomination)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albin Gutman
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:43, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:43, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:43, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Speedy keep WP:CSK #3. No policy-based reason for deletion, and AfD is not cleanup. Clearly notable musician. No such user (talk) 12:11, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- No such user, well I /think/ the IP's reasoning should be WP:GNG since they are arguing that it's poorly sourced. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:31, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete a non-notable rapper.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:42, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete as a same opinion from above. 124.123.182.61 (talk) 23:13, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Jesus Christ. How about collecting evidence instead of offering unsubsantiated opinions?
- from prestigious Politika, coverage spanning two decades:
- "Naći put do publike". Politika. 2006-09-08.
- "Loša opravdanja vode u ćorsokak". Politika. 2014-03-06.
- "Svet se pretvorio u komercijalu". Politika. 2008-08-14.
- "Hip-hop gužva". Politika. 2007-02-08.
- "„Beogradski sindikat" 28. aprila u Areni". Politika. 2012-02-22.
- ...or the national public TV, Radio Television of Serbia
- Speedy keep He's one of the several really notable musicians within the genre + per fellow editor @No such user. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 17:43, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep as per the multiple reliable sources showing significant coverage of the musician so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is not necessary in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 01:00, 19 July 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Jack Frost (talk) 11:24, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
- Nemanja Kojić (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Can someone nominate these 6 poorly sourced article, as they are not notable here Afu-Ra, Nemanja Kojić (musician), Škabo, Albin Gutman, Beogradski Sindikat, and Bad Copy as they are more likely created as a fandom. These serbian articles is very awful as you think. 23:36, 15 July 2020 (UTC) 187.189.107.24 (talk) 23:40, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Nomination on behalf of IP. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:43, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Other articles requested by IP:
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afu-Ra
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nemanja Kojić (musician)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Škabo (2nd nomination)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albin Gutman
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:43, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:43, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:43, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Speedy keep WP:CSK #3. No policy-based reason for deletion, and AfD is not cleanup. Clearly notable author. No such user (talk) 12:10, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- No such user, well I /think/ the IP's reasoning should be WP:GNG since they are arguing that it's poorly sourced. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:35, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- {{sofixit}}. It's not as if sources are so hard to find. For example, this full-scale piece in Serbian Vice would certainly do. No such user (talk) 12:48, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- No such user, well I /think/ the IP's reasoning should be WP:GNG since they are arguing that it's poorly sourced. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:35, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Speedy keep per NSU. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 17:43, 17 July 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 keep. There is an apparent consensus that the subject of the article meets the relevant notability guidelines (the subject-specific notability guideline WP:MUSICBIO was mentioned by name, and the general notability guideline was alluded to) and, therefore, that the article should be kept. (non-admin closure) Jack Frost (talk) 11:03, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
- Afu-Ra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Can someone nominate these 6 poorly sourced article, as they are not notable here Afu-Ra, Nemanja Kojić (musician), Škabo, Albin Gutman, Beogradski Sindikat, and Bad Copy as they are more likely created as a fandom. These serbian articles is very awful as you think. 23:36, 15 July 2020 (UTC) 187.189.107.24 (talk) 23:40, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Nomination on behalf of IP. But I did a rough before and couldn't find many third party sources covering this artist. Also, the article has no third-party references covering the artist.
Other articles requested by IP:
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afu-Ra
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nemanja Kojić (musician)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Škabo (2nd nomination)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albin Gutman
Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:42, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:42, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:42, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:42, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete a non-notable rapper.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:44, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Strong keep, this is ridiculous and in bad faith. Nominator thinks the subject is Serbian for crying out loud, just throwing around noms with no basis. Subject of the article has 3 albums with articles all of which have charted on the US, and elsewhere, so unambiguously passes the criteria at WP:MUSICBIO. This notice should be taken down and the bad faith nominator should be censured. The article could be improved, yes, but underground rappers from that era don't have as much written about them that's still accessible, though the Billboard charts are still there. JesseRafe (talk) 12:52, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- JesseRafe, bad faith? How is this bad faith?
- This is following the procedure at WP:AFDHOW for IP editors.
- Also, I can't find any third-party source for the subject. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:12, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- How is it not bad faith? Your nomination claimed an African-American from Brooklyn was a Serbian, so you obviously didn't look at the article once. Ergo you were either: nominating articles for no rational reason, not doing the modicum of research to click the actual wikilink to the nominee, or you were intentionally lying. Anyone of those (and I see no other options) is a bad faith nomination. You and the IP (as?) didn't even consult the guide to notability before beginning this process or seemingly even check Afu-Ra's already existent page for its clearly marked Billboard chart rankings. It's a waste of everyone's time to nominate articles that will obviously pass just because you have a pet peeve or something. Improve the pages if you can, but we don't delete just for lack of sourcing, we add the sourcing. JesseRafe (talk) 12:34, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- I see WP:AFG is tossed right out the window with your comment. As I said to you here, I have NO relation to the IP. You responded to that comment with "Get lost." As per WP:AFDHOW, an IP nomination is typically taken upon by a registered user like myself. But as this is an IP nomination, I have no opinion regarding the notability of this subject. I am just a proxy. I had a very rough look at Google News and found hits that were akin to press releases surrounding album releases so that alone would not pass WP:GNG, I believe. I did not do a thorough search of this subject as I'm not the one doing the nomination, so the onus lies on the IP nominator to do the WP:BEFORE. Also you removed the AFD tag, a big no no on Wikipedia. And you indirectly accused that I am socking as the IP with your summary "ridiculous and in bad faith, he's had a half dozen albums and appearances, improve the article, don't use IPs and alt-accounts to delete things, or is it a magical coincidence after all these years "two" accts want to delete this article?" --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:36, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- This is my last response here, but the onus is on you to demonstrate a reason for the nomination because blame the IP all you want, but you nominated the articles. I used my good faith the first time IP db-ed it, but my edit summary didn't go into the details because I thought the case "clear" enough, but you didn't even click on the article let alone look at the edit history. When an IP and then a reg user nominate the same page which had never been nominated in 14 years within 2 days, under 2 methods, it's not a breach of AFG to assume a connection, especially as the original nomming IP was not the same IP that posted in AFDHOW so following contribs wouldn't show that request. If what you're saying is that you perform zero due diligence and just parrot whatever any fly-by IP asks you to do -- that's a serious problem if you don't see that as a problem. How is that, in effect, different from being a meatpuppet? You just nominate articles under flimsy pretenses, without even clicking on them? And then wash your hands of it? It's fine to field IP's requests, but you should obviously filter them first. Just clicking the link would show you that he's not Serbian and has had multiple albums chart on Billboard, which should have shown you that IP's request was spurious and you should have decided there was no need to waste everyone's time... And I asked you to get lost because you were spamming my talk page, two new sections in 5 minutes? Please. I stand by that comment. JesseRafe (talk) 17:13, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- I see WP:AFG is tossed right out the window with your comment. As I said to you here, I have NO relation to the IP. You responded to that comment with "Get lost." As per WP:AFDHOW, an IP nomination is typically taken upon by a registered user like myself. But as this is an IP nomination, I have no opinion regarding the notability of this subject. I am just a proxy. I had a very rough look at Google News and found hits that were akin to press releases surrounding album releases so that alone would not pass WP:GNG, I believe. I did not do a thorough search of this subject as I'm not the one doing the nomination, so the onus lies on the IP nominator to do the WP:BEFORE. Also you removed the AFD tag, a big no no on Wikipedia. And you indirectly accused that I am socking as the IP with your summary "ridiculous and in bad faith, he's had a half dozen albums and appearances, improve the article, don't use IPs and alt-accounts to delete things, or is it a magical coincidence after all these years "two" accts want to delete this article?" --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:36, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- How is it not bad faith? Your nomination claimed an African-American from Brooklyn was a Serbian, so you obviously didn't look at the article once. Ergo you were either: nominating articles for no rational reason, not doing the modicum of research to click the actual wikilink to the nominee, or you were intentionally lying. Anyone of those (and I see no other options) is a bad faith nomination. You and the IP (as?) didn't even consult the guide to notability before beginning this process or seemingly even check Afu-Ra's already existent page for its clearly marked Billboard chart rankings. It's a waste of everyone's time to nominate articles that will obviously pass just because you have a pet peeve or something. Improve the pages if you can, but we don't delete just for lack of sourcing, we add the sourcing. JesseRafe (talk) 12:34, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
It was, for this reason, I thought that IP request had some substance.
Admittedly, some of WP:MUSICBIO does not rely on third-party sources to prove the significance and merely rely on the artist's appearance on a music chart. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:44, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Afu-Ra, his albums were consistently reviewed by RS: AllMusic, A.V. Club, RapReviews; also written about in Billboard, Orlando Sentinel, etc. Caro7200 (talk) 13:14, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete non-notable rapper, lacks of third party sources. 124.123.182.61 (talk) 23:08, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep as his releases have been the subject of reviews in multiple reliable sources such as Billboard, Rap Reviews, AllMusic, AV Club and others, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:41, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep I will be blunt, Tyw7: at this stage, I don't believe that you tried finding "any third-party source for the subject". The subject is all over Google news search in a lot of media worldwide. He's been featured in The Rough Guide to Hip Hop. (Peter Shapiro (January 2005). The Rough Guide to Hip-hop. Rough Guides. pp. 1999–2000. ISBN 978-1-84353-263-7.). No such user (talk) 08:40, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- No such user, they look like press release to me. At least the Google news sources. I do not have access to that books so I cannot comment. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 08:54, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Per WP:MUSICBIO
Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart.
Body of the Life Force and Life Force Radio were both on the Billboard 200, as already mentioned in the article. See also here for all the details of which albums and singles made it to various other Billboard charts. Umimmak (talk) 10:34, 17 July 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 keep. Acknowledging that AfD is not a vote, and after weighting each editor's arguments accordingly; there is a clear and overwhelming consensus that the article should be kept. (non-admin closure) Jack Frost (talk) 11:21, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
- Fahim Saleh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Failed GNG. He gets some coverage because of murder.
- The person has not received a well-known and significant award or honor or has been nominated for such an award several times.
- The person has not made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field.
- The person has an entry in the Dictionary of National Biography or similar publication.
It Should be Redirect to Pathao#Death of Fahim Saleh. ~Moheen (keep talking) 11:17, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:20, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:20, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- - I don't understand what you mean by "The person has an entry in the Dictionary of National Biography or similar publication" when you are arguing for deleting an article. Kaisernahid (talk) 15:55, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep — He isn't only known for his murder. He founded Pathao, Gokada, and Prank Dial (which earned him USD$10 million). ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 11:56, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Redirect to Pathao per WP: NOTINHERITED and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 11:59, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Dom Kaos did you read this article or check news reference. Can you explain why you vote for redirect? 42.0.7.237 (talk) 22:38, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep — Notable for Gokada, Pathao, and Prank Dial. User:Gianluigi02 (talk), 16 July 2020
- A tech CEO who founded respectable companies should NOT have their wikipedia page deleted under any circumstance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabriel.Gebril (talk • contribs) 13:28, 16 July 2020 (UTC) — Gabriel.Gebril (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ~ Amkgp 💬 17:54, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete and Redirect to Gokada - Notability is not inherent and no independent notability apart from his organisations. 158.145.185.248 (talk) 15:08, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep — As per above. He was a notable businessman, and there does seem to be many sources online. The page definitely needs to be improved nevertheless. UserNumber (talk) 15:36, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep - Notable businessman, audacious movie-style murder, identity and motives of hitman of continuing interest. Erxnmedia (talk) 16:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Notable businessman. 172.58.107.161 (talk) 16:42, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep — You, my friend, seem quite anxious to delete the page of Fahim Saleh. Fahim was a giant of Entrepreneurship. The fact that he did not receive much media coverage prior his death does not belittle the contributions of his life; it shows the foolishness of the media to overlook the potential of this young visionary. Saleh was the mind behind PrankDial, a famous app that earned him over $10 Million. He also founded Pathao, a successful transportation business in Bangladesh, whose model he sought to replicate in Lagos, Nigeria with his new business Gokada. You itch to delete his page. I wonder why. I think I know: you are an Agent. Of whom, I do not know. But you are an agent -- an agent of destruction and assault. Fahim Saleh was already killed. But you, my friend, are killing his legacy -- an act which I consider far worse. I hope you have the basic human decency and common sense to revoke this deletion and reconsider what you have just done. Celsius123 (talk) 17:43, 16 July 2020 (UTC)— Celsius123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ~ Amkgp 💬 17:54, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep There is sustained significant coverage of him pre-death that shows he is notable. Furthermore, with regards to the AFD itself, it is highly improper to strike comments made by other editors, even if they are seemingly made by SPAs. Tagging as SPA should be sufficient. Acebulf (talk) 19:54, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Strong Keep A quick search on Google News shows headline from the Washingtong Post, CNN, New York Times, Business Insider, and tons of other reliable sources. His life and death is well covered. Amin (Talk) 22:06, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:BASIC. Saleh is a founder of 2 notable companies (Pathao and Gokada) see: [7][8] and his death generated significant international coverage [9][10]. TJMSmith (talk) 01:51, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 02:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 02:20, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- You guys are made an encyclopedia fun. Please mention that by which criteria the subject is notable accept his death? ~Moheen (keep talking) 06:52, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- It is hard to read your English. You can write either "You guys are making a fun of encyclopedia" or "You guys have made encyclopedia a funny thing" where I assume by encyclopedia you referred to wikipedia. Kaisernahid (talk) 15:55, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- When you say "Please mention that by which criteria the subject is notable accept his death?" do you mean "except" instead of "accept"? Kaisernahid (talk) 15:58, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep - Notable entrepreneur who founded Gokada in Nigeria. A google search of him shows significant coverage of him, prior to his death. He generally meets GNG as he has "Made a widely recognized contribution that is part of an enduring historical record in a specific field". Gokada was the first tech-savvy Motor bike, ride-sharing service in Nigeria and that is significant. His work with Pathao is also very significant. There is need to improve the article, however as it relies heavily on articles related to his death and so to the untrained eye, it would appear that he is only famous for his death. That is not the case.Orowalemuyola (talk) 08:00, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep - There are a number of reliable sources that prove his notability prior to his death, which have now been added to the article. There are at least [11], [12], [13], and [14]. The last one's reliability is unclear, but the others are certainly reliable and provide clear evidence of notability. Gbear605 (talk) 17:19, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep - The deceased satisfies the converse of criteria 2 stated in the original post of this discussion - The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field. In this case, the field the deceased significantly contributed to was in the tech sector. A notable independent contribution comes from a financially successful but controversial web application called PrankDial, other significant contributions are cofounding transport/ridesharing service companies called Gokada and Pathao. The independent contribution has endured in history to be widely used, while the latter two contributions can be argued to be significant in history despite the deceased not having independently created these two ventures. All this on top of the coverage in his death warrants a separate article. References to these contributions from reliable sources exist and have already been highlighted in this discussion chain. Phna7 (talk) 22:31, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep I'll keep my input short and simple. Fahim has had a significant enough impact on the world especially considering what he has done in the developing world. Yes he has been getting extensive media coverage because of his tragic death but that does not at all take away what he had accomplished and contributed to society. --Osh33m (talk) 17:50, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Strongly recommended to keep the article in Wikipedia. An young entrepreneur had few very successful and innovative ventures in different countries in more than three different continents and tragic murder that draw huge attention of mass media in different continents.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmnhossain (talk • contribs)
- @Drmnhossain: This isn't where you make an argument to keep the article. The place for that is the actual deletion discussion page. Adam9007 (talk) 00:26, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete and redirect Bangla Wikipedia also delete this article and redirect to Pathao, it's not consider WP:ANYBIO rules and it's need to redirect Pathao article here also. We should never follow just a emotional side, we need consider every kind of Wikipedia rules.F R Shuvo(talk) 03:23, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- Different language Wikipedias don't follow the decisions of other ones for a number of reasons, including different rules and different availability of sources in varying languages. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't do the same as Bangla Wikipedia, just that we shouldn't be persuaded just by that. My understanding is that ANYBIO is relevant for historical figures, which is not relevant for Fahim. In addition, on the page of WP:ANYBIO, it says "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included". Also on the page, it says "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." There has been significant coverage of Fahim in many sources (just look at the references on the current page), and those sources certainly meet the requirements (the articles from the New York Times, the BBC, and HuffPost, for example). Gbear605 (talk) 04:16, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep - In addition to the various examples given above describing the contribution of Fahim, I want to make argument here only considering his death. This article satisfies the criteria for WP:VICTIM and WP:ONEEVENT under WP:BIO. For additional example, you can check the wiki page for Rodney King or George Floyd under the same criteria. I would urge the people voting here for deletion to delete those articles of Rodney King or George Floyd first. Thanks. Kaisernahid (talk) 07:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep and Close The subject was a highly prominent business professional who made a significant impact in multiple countries. This request for deletion is clearly a mistake. Capt. Milokan (talk) 22:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep The subject is clearly notable enough therefore passes WP:GNG. Abishe (talk) 05:42, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep As the subject clearly passes WP:GNG for inclusion with the number of significant independent reliable secondary sources. Kaizenify (talk) 12:26, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep & Comment. There are more than hundreds of international news source available about Fahim. So how can its fails WP:GNG ? Are you stupid Moheen Reeyad? who said everyone need to first get award after notable? How do you say he didn't contribute any recognition? He was a successful entrepreneur and businessman who was CEO of Pathao, Gokada an also PrankDial. According to The New York Times published a news on fahim was a Millionaire business-man. What else do you need to believe that he was a significant person and businessman ? Change your stupid Bengali wikipedia politic mind because its not your Bengali wikipedia like your own choice. He’s just not known for his murders, A quick search on Google News shows headlines from the Washington Post, CNN, New York Times, Business Insider and many other reliable sources. His life and death are well covered, It was even internationally discussed & trending news. Even, Who vote here Delete and redirect, just need to understand that He didn't come to notable from his death or his emotional place. He was a successful entrepreneur and was a highly prominent business-man in his own right. This article passes per WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, WP:VICTIM, WP:BIO. I believe that who nomination this article WP:COIEDIT related. This article shouldn't be delete, Thanks. 42.0.7.237 (talk) 22:26, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep as per above all. -Hatchens (talk) 03:48, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Easily notable.Williamsdoritios (talk) 07:36, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep, Subject is quite notable founded two notable companies Pathao and Gokada and he is all over the internet. Em-mustapha talk 13:43, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep — Echoing M-Mustapha, Kaizenify, Orowalemuyola, Phna7 & of course CAPTAIN MEDUSA. There’s definitely sufficient coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Surely I doubt a thorough WP:BEFORE search was duly conducted. Why hasn’t this been speedy kept already? Celestina007 (talk) 19:30, 21 July 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 merge to Skillz (company). Needs to be mentioned in the article before it can be redirected. czar 04:12, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Tether Studios (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not meet WP:GNG or, more specifically, WP:CORP notability. Most of the sources that can be found about Tether seem to be talking about Skillz and only make a passing mention of this organization - I could not find any independent sources that showed significant coverage. Whisperjanes (talk) 07:07, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Whisperjanes (talk) 07:07, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Whisperjanes (talk) 07:07, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Whisperjanes (talk) 07:07, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Whisperjanes (talk) 07:07, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
- Merge to Skillz (company); specifically, I'm thinking the VentureBeat sources in this article could be incorporated to the other article. I also think leaving a redirect would be fine; while Tether Studios is not Skillz, it's mentioned quite a few times in reliable sources related to Skillz that anyone looking for coverage should probably be redirected there. On its own, Tether Studios appears not to be notable outside of Skillz; not even Pocket Gamer has any coverage of them, and I couldn't find anything in a WP:BEFORE other than being highly rated on Skillz. Red Phoenix talk 03:26, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:10, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kj cheetham (talk) 09:58, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 09:59, 16 July 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 keep. Spartaz Humbug! 08:05, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
- Nitol Solar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doesn't meet WP:ORG or have the coverage for WP:GNG. Russian-language article is also flagged for concerns around notability and referencing - both seem to have been written as advertising. Boleyn (talk) 07:46, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:50, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:50, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:56, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom. -Hatchens (talk) 05:30, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep This source from Der Spiegel [1], There is very significant coverage in that article. Also in the FT (Paywalled) [2] Reuters [3] In a scandal here [4]. Der Spiegel and FT put it over the line, notability isn't lost simply because a company is no longer in the news. I have no doubt based off the international sources that extensive coverage would be found in Russian PainProf (talk) 22:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
References
- ^ SPIEGEL, Jason Bush, DER. "Startup Success Story: Nitol, Russia's Emerging Solar Power Star - DER SPIEGEL - International". www.spiegel.de. Retrieved 2020-07-07.
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ "Subscribe to read | Financial Times". www.ft.com. Retrieved 2020-07-07.
{{cite web}}
: Cite uses generic title (help) - ^ "Russia's Nitol Solar says plans London IPO". Reuters. 2008-01-14. Retrieved 2020-07-07.
- ^ Dinzeo, Maria (2015-04-15). "Russian Execs Accused of Business Asset Heist". Retrieved 2020-07-07.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kj cheetham (talk) 09:58, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 09:58, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep: just enough to satisfy the GNG, I warrant. Ravenswing 07:51, 25 July 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. Tone 13:07, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
- Shariq Mustafa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doesn't appear to be a notable musician, lacks significant in depth coverage. Possibly too soon but the sources just aren't there yet. As an example, the first two sources are identical to one another which makes me wonder about the veracity of the publisher and come from this site to begin with. Which leaves us with milleniumpost which doesn't appear to be an RS and The Hindu, which is probably okayish but basically the single source discussing him. Praxidicae (talk) 18:16, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete does not meet any of the inclusion criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:28, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 18:53, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 18:53, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:52, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per nom Devokewater @ 10:59, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - fails WP:NMUSICIAN and WP:GNG Spiderone 11:52, 16 July 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. Tone 13:07, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
- Crest, Lassen County, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
If you've been following these discussions of Lassen County places, you'll recognize that "located on the Southern Pacific" is not a good sign, and indeed, this is yet another ex-Nevada-California-Oregon Railway siding/station, in this case with the slight bonus of a turning wye. It rails are gone, of course, and what's left is some ballast and a lot of empty land. I cannot find any mention of the place other than an extremely passing reference in Gudde and the usual railroad regulatory material. But no mention of anything that would suggest a town, which isn't surprising: the line was abandoned after the SP/UP merger precisely because building a narrow gauge line through the region attracted almost no settlers. Mangoe (talk) 18:55, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 19:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:06, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:47, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Delete It clearly used to be some sort of rail facility. Nothing to indicate it was ever a community. Couldn't possibly pass basic Wiki notability. Glendoremus (talk) 19:28, 21 July 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 keep. Tone 13:07, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
- Robert Gaudino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I don't think being an academic and writing a book alone makes this subject notable. They have very little coverage in sources and I don't think they meet any of the academic criteria? OXYLYPSE (talk) 09:15, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. OXYLYPSE (talk) 09:15, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Doesn't meet any of WP:NPROF but seems to be a really interesting character who inspired a generation that he taught - I have added a few more refs which show this and [15] and here [16] this gives more clues into the guy.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 11:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- I have found more sources including an article in the Boston Globe about his influence 15 years after his death, and that his book has been quoted in several publications. Still not sure he meets academic notability for Wikipedia.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 12:27, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:01, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:02, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:02, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- Weak keep. I'm making an WP:NAUTHOR argument. His book The Indian University has been reviewed [17] (also in brief [18]). I was unable to find reviews for his Uncomfortable Learning book. However, the idea (or some version of it) has gotten a fair bit of press coverage, enough that the fund established in his honor disassociated themselves with some of it [19]. The book is on the recommended reading list for the Peace Corp [20]. It's harder to find online materials on someone who died in 1974, so I'm grading a little bit on a curve here. But I weakly think that his books have had the impact that we're looking for. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:03, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Weak keep just scrapes by GNG including the coverage of his books, imo (t · c) buidhe 08:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, feminist 光復香港 時代革命 04:02, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kj cheetham (talk) 08:45, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. We have only a borderline case for WP:AUTHOR (I found more full-length reviews of his first book so now we have three for it but only a brief review of the second) but I think together with the extensive WP:GNG-type coverage of his life and teaching I think it's enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:54, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Tone 13:07, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
- Type 363 Radar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No sources at all. Radar is not listed on any of the pages of the ships listed in the article. Googling it only brings back articles copied from the Wikipedia page itself, the earliest which was from 2010. Seloloving (talk) 07:04, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:21, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:21, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete: No needed coverage. SL93 (talk) 00:19, 17 July 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 keep. Tone 13:09, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
- Joseph Spaniola (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. "chief composer/arranger for the United States Air Force wind band" is not a high-profile position. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:27, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. No significant coverage. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 07:58, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep - Just barely gets there. I added several articles.Patapsco913 (talk) 09:21, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:22, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep - admittedly specialised to military bands but does have coverage. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:09, 16 July 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 redirect to Amar Latif. Spartaz Humbug! 08:07, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
- Traveleyes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This page was created a minute after the same editor created the page for its founder, Amar Latif. Both pages have been identified as having possible COI edits. The organisation's page reads like an advertisement, and I cannot find any significant coverage which would allow it to pass WP:ORGCRIT. The page fails WP:INHERITORG, but as an alternative to deletion it could be redirected to the page for its founder. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 06:03, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:25, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:25, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:25, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Redirect per nom. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:25, 22 July 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:39, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
- Dating My Depression (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:NSONG. I can find no reliable sources for this. The songwriter is Indonesian, so it is possible there are foreign-language sources I can't find. I only speak English, so I tend to avoid CSD and PROD when non-English sources might be in play out of an abundance of caution. The artist who produced this song is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fizzle808. Hog Farm Bacon 05:25, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 05:25, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - The song is notable, and neither is the artist. Foxnpichu (talk) 13:15, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - Article was created by a fan who is probably unfamiliar with WP's citation and notability requirements. This song has no notice in any reliable media source, and is only present at streaming and promotional sources where the rapper probably uploaded it himself. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:06, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - per nom; created by same user as artist page was. No sign of notability. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 19:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- The user has only made edits on the two pages. I wonder if it is a single-purpose account created solely for promotional purposes? Foxnpichu (talk) 10:41, 18 July 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:40, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
- Fizzle808 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Appears to be a failure of WP:MUSICBIO. It's possible there's some non-English sources I missed, but I found literally no reliable coverage in my WP:BEFORE search. Hog Farm Bacon 05:23, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 05:23, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 05:23, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 05:23, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - Not notable, and blatant advertising. Foxnpichu (talk) 13:14, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - unsourced as I do not consider musicalandroid to even count. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 15:05, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - Not notable --Devokewater @ 16:12, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - He is present on all the usual social media and streaming services where anyone can upload their own stuff. He may very well have been noticed by other equally middling rappers, but he needs to be noticed by the reliable music media before he gets an article here. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:02, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note that he has one song article, "Dating My Depression", that has also been nominated for deletion. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:04, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Social media pages and streaming service links still does not establish anything other than the existence of the subject. That does not make something/someone eligible for a WP article. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 20:02, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete: Barely found anything about him. Easily fails WP:MUSICBIO. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 12:00, 18 July 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 speedy keep. Oops. Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Hog Farm Bacon 05:27, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Budget Cuts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG. This Forbes] piece is by a contributer, so it is not a reliable source. See WP:FORBESCON. [21] is an acceptable source. [22] is about the sequel, not this game. The sequel may be notable, but for this first one, the Verge piece is all I can find. Hog Farm Bacon 05:09, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 05:09, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Review in the notable source JeuxVideo.com (French) [23], the notable source 4Players.de (German) [24], a review in Eurogamer [25], a development interview in Gamasutra [26], some mentions in PC Gamer [27]. Clearly passes WP:GNG.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 05:23, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Also an unsourced review in UploadVR [28]. --Masem (t) 05:24, 16 July 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:40, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
- Rajiv Ghatalia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unable to find any significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. The article reads like a resume. M4DU7 (talk) 04:54, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 04:54, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 04:54, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 04:54, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 04:54, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. No evidence of notability - WP:NOTLINKEDIN. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 05:05, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete non notable --Devokewater @ 11:01, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete a non-notable businessman. We have a huge glut of articles on such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:33, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per all of the above Spiderone 08:31, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom and all of the above. -Hatchens (talk) 11:57, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Not notable subject, all sources are either press release, subject's LinkedIn or simply self-initiated information. — Infogapp1 (talk) 12:49, 19 July 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:41, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
- Dirty Monster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Can find no significant and reliable coverage for this band, such as album reviews or feature articles. Note that this WP entry is entirely dependent on citations to the now-defunct CDBaby site. All that can be found are the typical streaming, retail, and lyrics sites, and the occasional unreliable blog (e.g. [29]). They got songs onto a couple of TV shows but those strokes of good luck were not covered in the reliable media either. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 03:28, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 03:28, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete: the inclusion of their song in an episode of TV show falls short of WP:BAND criterion 10, and I don't see any other evidence of notability. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 09:36, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, no real RS, most mentions were about their song appearing in a TV episode. Caro7200 (talk) 13:05, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete I said this before and I say it now: If a Google search for a band only results in unreliable sites like databases, social media pages, their official site/the site of their record label, streaming service entries, blogs, Youtube videos, concert sites, lyrics sites, retail sites, download sites and trivial mentions/name checks, then that band does not deserve a Wikipedia article. These are not reliable sources. At all. It's a shame that Wikipedia is full of articles on non-notable bands. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 14:02, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --Devokewater @ 16:14, 16 July 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. Tone 13:10, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
- Ostrander, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Another spot-on-the-rails "town"" sourced only to Durham's placenames book. I was able to at least verify the existence of a station from a closure request in the early 1940s, but nothing else. Paradise has sprawled considerably over the years, and the apparent possible locations (south from Magalia) have been overrun by development; there's no sign of such a place on the oldest topo I could find, which was in the 1950s. At this point my reading is that this was a flag stop and not a real town. Mangoe (talk) 03:11, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:25, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:25, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:GEOLAND, appears to be a rail stop and not a community. –dlthewave ☎ 19:55, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:GEOLAND not a populated place, my newspaper account has found nothing. Lightburst (talk) 02:12, 20 July 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. Spartaz Humbug! 08:08, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
- K9 Pro Sports (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails general notability guidelines. K9 Pro Sports was a fly-by-night spin-off of a Schutzhund-like dog sport that lasted only a few years before morphing/merging into another spin-off protection sport group of a different name, morphed again, and therefore got renamed multiple times. K9 Pro Sports has been defunct for so long that you can no longer find online any citations to cover what it "was" under the name K9 Pro Sports. My searches for WP:BEFORE turned up nothing. One other editor's WP:BEFORE turned up two (subscription-required) articles from the Caldwell Burleson Star newspaper archives; the paper has been out of business for 15 years, and covered a small town of just 4,000 residents. Not exactly "broad coverage" and definitely not "significant coverage that addresses the topic directly and in detail". Passes neither WP:GNG nor Wikipedia:Notability (sports). Normal Op (talk) 02:52, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Normal Op (talk) 02:52, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Normal Op (talk) 02:52, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - seems like there are a few remote print sources, but these are either in niche magazines or local papers. In my view it does not pass GNG. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 15:07, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep once notable always notable WP:NTEMP. We have RS, local RS is still RS and stating that the newspaper is out of business for fifteen years does not diminish the validity of the source. And "broad coverage" is not a requirement of WP:RS. I will continue to search for sources to show notability. I removed the prod and began working on the article, the AfD was placed immediately. WP:NORUSH Lightburst (talk) 15:45, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: I will address your comments, and add a few more points:
- "Broad coverage" was my paraphrase for WP:GNG's
"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention,
and"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.
- @Lightburst: if you have access to those subscription-required newspaper archives, then please add a quote parameter within the citation so the average reader can see what the article says. I posit that those articles merely announce a competition, and probably do not cover the subject of "K9 Pro Sports" in any detail (unless it is a press release).
- WP:NORUSH doesn't apply here. The article has been sitting around, non-sourced and full of WP:OR for 9 years. I could have simply removed non-sourced content. In fact, I still might. It is important to remove it because scrapers take Wikipedia content and repeat it all over the internet (making it even harder later to determine whether the source is reliable, or a wiki editor's WP:OR, or someone else's words copied by a wiki editor for this article).
- As for the two original citations with no links: both are non-RS. Both "Dog and Kennel" and "Dog Sport Magazine" appear to have been minor mags from a non-notable publisher. They are mentioned here as
Dog & Kennel is the magazine for dog lovers and enthusiasts! Training, health care, feeding, grooming, bonding, events and the enjoyment of owning dogs.
andDog Sport: A glossy magazine with "how-to" stories giving agility, rally-o, obedience, and flyball enthusiasts practical ideas on how to improve the quality of their training and competing.
The first has no web content, the second's website seems unavailable. An advanced google search (which uses cached pages), such as"k9 pro sports" site:dogsportmagazine.com
, returns zero results. - So that leaves the article with ZERO sources for verification.
- Yesterday, I found a Facebook page with the name "K9 Pro Sports", checked out the attached website, and watched a few of their videos. It looks like a one- or two-man business that is basically a commercial operation starting a new dog breed (low-shedding German Shepherds), selling puppies, offering stud service, training dogs, and have created this "sport" as an adjunct to their business. It is perhaps a niche activity that others participate in, but to say it is notable is stretching matters. My understanding is that there was a small flush of interest in the beginning, but when top-level dogs (including Doberman "Kaz" Arkan Kazimir Von Rubenhof) were being crippled by "brick wall decoys", there was a mass exodus by the participants and dog owners on the basis that it was as an unsafe, fringe sport.
- — Normal Op (talk) 17:03, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Your interpretation of the RS in #1 number 1 is not correct. Your point #5 is also incorrect: it is unfortunate that you cannot read the newspapers but that does not make them irrelevant. Regarding number 2 WP:NORUSH: I cited that in response to the immediate AfD after I removed the prod and began to improve the article. Your numbers 4 and 6 just cover your opinions and WP:BEFORE work you have done. If the article is deleted, will the readers of the encyclopedia be served? I believe WP:NTEMP. Lightburst (talk) 18:45, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- "...will the readers of the encyclopedia be served?" is a rhetorical question for which there is no answer. William Harris
talk
11:06, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- "...will the readers of the encyclopedia be served?" is a rhetorical question for which there is no answer. William Harris
- Your interpretation of the RS in #1 number 1 is not correct. Your point #5 is also incorrect: it is unfortunate that you cannot read the newspapers but that does not make them irrelevant. Regarding number 2 WP:NORUSH: I cited that in response to the immediate AfD after I removed the prod and began to improve the article. Your numbers 4 and 6 just cover your opinions and WP:BEFORE work you have done. If the article is deleted, will the readers of the encyclopedia be served? I believe WP:NTEMP. Lightburst (talk) 18:45, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- "Broad coverage" was my paraphrase for WP:GNG's
- (edit conflict) Delete per nom, no significant coverage in reliable sources, just scant local newspaper mentions and a single industry magazine column feature, so in my view does not pass GNG. I could have an article with similar sources. Cavalryman (talk) 17:07, 16 July 2020 (UTC).
- Delete. Not seeing any coverage outside few google hits that are mentions in passing or PRIMARY, seems to fail WP:NORG. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:09, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete as per nominator. William Harris
talk
10:18, 24 July 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:42, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
- Hester Ford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Per WP:NOPAGE. All meaningful info (name, birth date, nationality, state of residence, (and eventually her death date) is already recorded concisely at List of American supercentenarians and elsewhere. Half this article is about someone else; a list entry is all that is needed. Newshunter12 (talk) 02:45, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Clearly less notable than many other supercentenarians who failed Afd. Fails GNG. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 06:54, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete just living an extremely long time does not make one default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:54, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete There is nothing of notability within her life, and even her age not being in the top half of the List of the verified oldest people is not notable.TFBCT1 (talk) 14:11, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete non notable --Devokewater @ 16:17, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Not notable. 172.58.107.161 (talk) 16:48, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Redirect to List of American supercentenarians. --Lockley (talk) 21:47, 21 July 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:43, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
- 9/11 In Movies Theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A bunch of random 9/11 conspiracy theories. No sign of importance or mainstream coverage. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:52, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:52, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete WP:COATRACK The article lacks any serious or academic sources, and there is no evidence I can find that there is any actual "theory". It's just an excuse for random fringe speculation. Schazjmd (talk) 00:59, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 04:49, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete this is more like a half-baked forum post than an encyclopedia article. Spicy (talk) 05:01, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Self-evident COATRACK (insert 'that conspiracy yarn board with Charlie from IASIP.GIF' here). Nate • (chatter) 07:13, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 16:12, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete "That X-Files spinoff predicted 9/11!" is the sort of take that bubbles up on listicles now and then. It's possible that a decent encyclopedia article on such things could exist, if historians of pop culture did the groundwork of documenting them first, but this article ain't it. XOR'easter (talk) 17:01, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. Obvious nonsensical conspiracy theories, not supported by any strong sources. — Czello 12:50, 18 July 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. Tone 13:10, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
- Steve Ernst (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
SNGs are a shorthand as to what level of achievement should generate WP:GNG coverage. They are not a blanket pass. He coached at a college that competes in a state level conference. I doubt this is what was intended when college head coaches were guven a pass in NCOLLATH. Fails GNG, radically. John from Idegon (talk) 00:48, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - per nom. This is a high school basketball coach with three years at a division three school. Just no way this meets any of WP's notability standards. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Ernst - this article was recreated despite prior deletion. He has only become less notable since then, as he is no longer even a college coach. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 15:11, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Meets GNG per [30] [31] [32] [33] [34]. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 16:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete The coverage given above is only in papers local to where he was. He does not even merit coverage in the Detroit News. Being a Division 3 basketball coach is not default sign of notability, yet we will get at least as much coverage for every division 3 coach.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:39, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Then that is an argument for more articles on D3 coaches that receive this level of coverage. It is not routine, and they are regionally important papers. Plus not every D3 coach has a player who goes pro. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 01:10, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete the sources included and available suggests they're WP:ROUTINE and the article subject is unable to satisfy WP:ANYBIO. Graywalls (talk) 21:52, 16 July 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 redirect to Disney Parks, Experiences and Products. Spartaz Humbug! 08:09, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
- Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not seem to pass WP:GNG, ongoing talk page discussion seems to conclude that this company's existence might be notable enough to be discussed elsewhere, such as on Disney Parks, Experiences and Products, but there's simply not enough information to justify having a full article about it. Nathan2055talk - contribs 00:07, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disney-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 01:16, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Amusement parks-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 01:16, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete: There's already an article addressing the larger segment of the company at Disney Parks, Experiences and Products. There are also individual articles on each of the two parks in the US, Disneyland Resort and Walt Disney World. Both those articles mention the Disney Parks, Experiences and Products division in the lead. It seems unnecessary and potentially confusing to have a separate article for this intermediate entity in the company's organizational structure. There don't seem to be any good arguments on the talk page for why this division of the company meets WP:GNG on its own. — Tartan357 (Talk) 04:44, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete: Does not have much information about this unit at the article, which speculative. I cannot find any news articles on the company. Spshu (talk) 17:50, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep: This is a massive business and there is extensive documentation about it at places like Dun & Bradstreet. Of course, it is part of the Walt Disney conglomerate but that's huge and has a complex structure covering a variety of businesses. The worst case would be some sort of merge/split restructuring but there's no case for deletion at all. See WP:ATD. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep: I agree with Andrew Davidson. 2600:6C5A:47F:F9E5:E072:38C1:D05A:4835 (talk) 19:09, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete: I can't find any real independent sources (all I could find is business registries and building permits.) This subsidiary is part of Disney Parks, Experiences and Products - merging into that article might be a good idea. Many or even most large companies have operational subsidiaries that do not have their own Wikipedia articles. 2600:4040:5006:F700:C9FB:2BFD:D658:BF14 (talk) 07:19, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete: There is nothing to indicate why this subsidiary of Disney Parks, Experiences and Products is in any way independently notable enough to need a spinout article. I was going to suggest a Redirect, but Walt Disney Parks and Resorts already is one, and tacking on the U.S. at the end probably isn't going to be particularly helpful for a search. Still, Redirects are cheap, so I would not be particularly upset if someone wanted to make this into one. Rorshacma (talk) 23:33, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- I'd personally prefer to change it back to a redirect, since that's what it was prior to the stub being recreated: see Special:Diff/966012737. It should probably be targeted to Disney Parks, Experiences and Products instead of Walt Disney World, though, since that's the more relevant article to this company/title. Nathan2055talk - contribs 23:55, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- Redirect To Disney Parks, Experiences and Products But Keep Its Edit History: Lets keep it as a redict untill its either Confirmed, Opened, Or We Learn Alot More Information About It. InspirePeople (talk) 19:07, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- Wait Oops Wrong Thing Sorry. InspirePeople (talk) 19:09, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- Redirect and merge To Disney Parks, Experiences and Products per above. But it needs to Keep Its Edit History110.137.124.152 (talk) 23:28, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- Redirect and Merge Not worthy of its own page. Put the suitable content on one of the many other Disney pages. MaskedSinger (talk) 15:15, 24 July 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:15, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
- Perslias (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Appears to be self-promotional; no independent references and none found. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:01, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:01, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:01, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. From the edit history, it seems fairly clear that the page is autobiographical. Fails WP:MUSICBIO on every count. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 04:57, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. No claim to notability and none found. wjematherplease leave a message... 09:44, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete: Self-promotional page. Home Lander (talk) 19:24, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. No evidence of notability found, none even claimed. Not only clearly autobiographical, but they've created a second account to make further edits to the article. Nothing specifically abusive enough for me to want to immediately haul them off to WP:SPI, but worth watching. --Finngall talk 20:54, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete As others have said, appears to be an autobiographical promo page without any significant independant coverage. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:10, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:SPAM, WP:MILL, WP:NOTRESUME, and WP:NOTWEBHOST. In 2009, we would have excused this, but in 2020, everyone knows we are not a MySpace or Linkedin. Bearian (talk) 17:27, 22 July 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.