The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. BD2412 T 01:27, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Alvin[edit]

Richard Alvin (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)

Insufficient third-party sources with significant coverage of the subject; only qualifying source is [1] this one, which likely fails the depth requirement of WP:BIO. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:37, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:59, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non notable businessperson 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 10:45, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non notable businessperson Angus1986 (talk) 12:17, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no evidence of any notability. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:56, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sreejith Sarang[edit]

Sreejith Sarang (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. I don't see anything of any substance written about this person in any of the usual places. I'm also very suspicious of how the article creator could know the pertinent details of this low profile worker's early life when none of it is sourced. Has the aroma of vanity editing / COI editing. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:23, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:23, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable film editor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. - Hatchens (talk) 11:46, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:56, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mahant Nirmal Das[edit]

Mahant Nirmal Das (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 politician. Note that this was already declined for notability at the (slightly different) Draft:Mahant NirmalDas (with very little change from the draft version). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 21:55, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 21:55, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 21:55, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not notable as a politician or a spirtual leader.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. - Hatchens (talk) 11:47, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not only is this politician not notable, this article is a complete mess, with grammar errors, broken citations, and a general disregard for any Wikipedia notability policy. RedRiver660 (talk) 20:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:57, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Diva Modelling and Events[edit]

Diva Modelling and Events (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 non-notable modelling agency. The references in the page currently seem to be a mix between some that are trivial references, and others that seem to be more acceptable sources in terms of notability, yet I can't really tell if these are actually reliable or not. But overall, I can't find anything that establishes that this is notable enough for its own article. Seagull123 Φ 21:53, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — A before search shows the modelling agency lacks coverage in reliable sources independent of them. Celestina007 (talk) 13:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:19, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:19, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)   Kadzi   (talk) 13:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ann M. Clarke[edit]

Ann M. Clarke (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 real credible claim of significance or why her research is significant.   Kadzi   (talk) 21:24, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 22:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 22:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 22:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Her GS citation counts look pretty good for someone who mostly published in the pre-Internet era. Mental Deficiency was an edited collection, but quite a widely-reviewed one [2][3][4][5][6][7]. So was the 1976 Early Experience [8][9][10]. The 2000 Early Experience was authored, rather than edited, by Clarke and Clarke, and it was also reviewed more than the token amount for an academic book [11][12][13][14][15]. Being an Honorary Fellow of the British Psychological Society (confirmed here) may also qualify for WP:PROF#C5WP:PROF#C3. I don't have time today for a deeper evaluation, but I'd be inclined to !vote "keep" unless someone had a rather good counterargument. XOR'easter (talk) 23:09, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's #C3, not #C5, that her honorary fellowship in the BPS would count towards (I can never keep those two straight myself either). In addition to the passes of WP:PROF#C1, #C3, and WP:AUTHOR suggested above, though, she does also pass #C5 by being given a personal chair at Hull (according to the source, the first one given to a woman at that university). —David Eppstein (talk) 23:53, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Passes WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:07, 29 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep Based on what XOR'easter and David Eppstein have said. Kj cheetham (talk) 10:25, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: That Methuen published Readings from Mental Deficiency: The Changing Outlook in their "Methuen's manuals of psychology" "University paperbacks" series looks like C4 of Prof :"4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions." PamD 13:32, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep OK, I think the case has been made, so I'll make my !vote official. XOR'easter (talk) 13:50, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, at the risk of piling on. NAUTHOR, as well as clear NPROF. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:49, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Author of notable books (multiple published reviews) as established by sources present in article. pburka (talk) 00:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above all. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 17:36, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Passes WP:Prof.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:39, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Satisfied WP:NPROF Pi (Talk to me!) 18:15, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hardluck, Nevada[edit]

Hardluck, Nevada (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)

Hardluck is not mentioned in the GNIS, though there is a Hardluck Mine in Mineral County, associated with Camp Douglas. This page is for a location purported to be in Esmeralda County (Note that Mineral County was carved out of Esmeralda County in 1911). A newspaper article states that Hard Luck Mine Castle is 35 miles south of Goldfield, which is definitely not the location of the Hardluck Mine mentioned in the GNIS. There also is a Hard Luck-Pradier Mine in Lander County. Hardluck is not mentioned in "Nevada Place Names." Searching Google Books for "Hardluck Nevada" finds references to the Mineral County location near Camp Douglas. Searching Google Books for "Hardluck Esmeralda" does not help, in part because Mineral County was carved out of Esmeralda County. Hardluck is not mentioned in "Nevada Post Offices" by Gammett & Paher. If this page is not deleted, then perhaps it would probably be best to consider moving this page to Hard Luck Mine Castle and consider the notability of that location. Cxbrx (talk) 18:43, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. 18:53, 20 May 2020 (UTC) Cxbrx (talk) 18:53, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. 18:53, 20 May 2020 (UTC) Cxbrx (talk) 18:53, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Hard Luck Mine if the mine itself is notable, otherwise Delete as I'm not seeing (through Google Maps satellite view) any sort of town in the vicinity. Americanfreedom (talk)

• I would guess this is it (also this) --Andreas Philopater (talk) 00:40, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Populated places in general merit separate articles. But even then verifiability is an absolute requirement. Currently, this is an unsourced article, and there is not much to go on in order to identify what would source it. Certainly willing to change my mind if these problems are addressed. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:02, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Cornellier (talk) 12:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per my nomination. What is up for discussion here is whether this page meets WP:GEOLAND and should remain and if it does not then whether the page should be deleted, moved or merged. I feel it should be deleted. There is no evidence that there was a notable settlement of any type at this location. There are no citations for there being a post office. The GNIS does not have an entry. As far as moving, the Hard Luck Mine is not notable, I could find no WP:RS for '"Hard Luck Mine" -Castle' that indicate notability. The Hard Luck Mine Castle is a building that has a bunch of web hits. The possible WP:RS hits are Atlas Obscura, Las Vegas Review Journal and Pahrump Valley Times. If someone wants to make a case for moving this page to Hard Luck Mine Castle, then go for it, but to me, this looks like a vanity page for a building. Cxbrx (talk) 22:13, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) BenKuykendall (talk) 07:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Green sauce[edit]

Green sauce (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)

Individually, there are many notable green sauces; however, I do not think the topic of green sauces is notable per the criteria of WP:GNG and WP:LISTN. This article is currently unsourced, and consists purely of original research; the "history" section in particular appears to be speculative. I did find a few possible discussions of green sauces (1 2) but they do not strike me as reliable enough sources to imply notability. BenKuykendall (talk) 21:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator per sources found below. The article still needs work, but at this point it is clear that WP:GNG is met. BenKuykendall (talk) 18:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. BenKuykendall (talk) 21:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:13, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:13, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article has been around over a decade, and there is indeed a coherent subject here, the green herb sauces. The German-leaning history section is very inadequate - this was huge as a basic sauce in medieval cooking, especially served with fish. Of course recipes are few and far between. Obviously references needed - searching for cookery refs is a nightmare as all you get is recipes. Note that none of the European sauces have articles, I was rather shocked to see: the Spanish and Italian salsa verde, the French sauce verte - the former goes to the Mexican one (it should be a disam) and I'll redirect the French one (currently a redlink) now. So this is all we have on this major sauce family, and it should be kept and improved. I think a firmer distinction should be made with the South American ones, and British mint sauce. Medieval refs, all to books: [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], Johnbod (talk) 22:08, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep Though I certainly agree that the current article needs work, it is the only article right now on the Italian salsa verde, which is unquestionably as notable as the Mexican salsa verde, which has its own article (because it is made of tomatillos, not herbs). The Italian salsa verde is important in Lombardy, Piedmont, and Tuscany. I've added a few refs. The French Renaissance sauce is probably the same thing in some real sense, though the modern mayonnaise-based version isn't. I agree, too, that additional research is needed to determine whether the German green sauce is related to the Italian one, but simply on the basis of generic similarity, it seems to belong together with the Italian one, at least until the article becomes too big -- which it certainly isn't yet. There is an important historical tradition of green sauces. Taillevent, for example, discusses green sauces.

PS, I would guess that in fact the various European green sauces do have a common origin, but we'll need to find some sources for that. --Macrakis (talk) 22:50, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Green sauces are treated together in reliable sources. Without much effort, I found, for example, Susan Volland's Mastering Sauces: The Home Cook's Guide to New Techniques for Fresh Flavors, W.W. Norton, 2015, which has an entire section on green sauces. James Peterson's comprehensive Sauces: Classical and Contemporary Sauce Making (multiple editions) talks about green sauces, including the English green sauces which are the ancestor's of today's mint sauce.

Wikipedia policy is not to delete articles which are incomplete, but to improve them. This article unquestionably needs improvement, but certainly not deletion! --Macrakis (talk) 22:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PPS The Oxford Companion to Food has an article on greensauce (ref added to article; also an OED ref), and gives the German Grüne Sosse as "an example of what is essentially the same thing in other cuisines". I hope that's definitive as to the notability of green sauce as a category. --Macrakis (talk) 23:32, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's obviously a broad topic and that's fine. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:28, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, of course, the article can be improved but the topic is relevant.--Pampuco (talk) 19:16, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks for the withdrawal! I'll copy this useful discussion to the article talk, for future reference. Johnbod (talk) 21:10, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nobody disagrees with the argument that an encyclopedia entry suffices for notability. Sandstein 16:53, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Acte Préalable[edit]

Acte Préalable (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)

Don't see any RS coverage, fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Had been PROD'd several years ago, but the PROD proposer reversed their own proposal, don't see what changed between proposing and reversing. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 20:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 20:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:15, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:15, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete consists of just a few short sentences. Pinging @Piotrus, who prodded it in 2017. Ghinga7 (talk) 21:53, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• DeleteWeak keep. Not seeing any sources in Polish; I took it to Polish AfD and will update here if anyone there finds sources or makes some arguments worth considering. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:18, 29 May 2020 (UTC) PS. Changed to weak keep as the company actually got an entry in the PWN Encyklopedia: [21], so the rule of thumb 'good for another encyclopedia' applies. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here}[reply]
• Keep, see added sources any record company that features regularly in print media as "a label specializing in Polish music" and records premieres of forgotten works and composers passes GNG. Whether it gets deleted on Polish Wikipedia or not is irrelevant - it's generally very easy to delete articles on non-English wikis due to lack of editor engagement and participation - English print sources for classical music have coverage of this label, it's specialist, significant, and passes notability. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:34, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could you add some of these sources? I couldn't find any. Also, wouldn't a record label be classified under WP:NCORP, as a business? BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 15:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have added some. Adding more will just be more of the same. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:37, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep An entry in a major Polish encyclopedia substantiates the label's notability. Chubbles (talk) 02:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:37, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SCPS International[edit]

SCPS International (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:ORG. Other than its own website, there is not a single reference to either this organisation, or the organisation it supposedly absorbed, on the internet. The references provided in the article appear to be an attempt at guessing the sorts of sources that might mention such an organisation, but actually vary from a book about management information to books about security policy. I go through each one on the talk page. I'd say that at best this is a well-meaning attempt to cobble together an article on an organisation that exists and about whom reliable sources are hard to come by, but at worse it's a hoax. I suspect SCPS International exists principally in the mind of its creator. Either way, there is absolutely nothing to verify the existence of this organisation whatsoever. I've chosen AfD over PROD as the original author seemed determined that the page should exist, and there is a long list of apparently genuine references. ninety:one 20:41, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree.Not notable in the slightest. It may just be a advertisement. Still, there is absolutely no need for it. Bicycle salesman (talk) 20:46, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No sources accept the official webpage found. Not notable. Less Unless (talk) 20:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:49, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:49, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Despite the crap nomination statement, I am seeing a consensus to delete, particularly per Keivan's undisputed comment about the sources and Persian Wiki deletion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:17, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sahar (singer)[edit]

Sahar (singer) (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 PERSIA ♠ 20:30, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails GNG, shoud have been deleted long ago Mardetanha (talk) 20:46, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:15, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:15, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:16, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:16, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. non notable singer who fails WP:GNG and WP:ENT. Electiondata (talk) 02:50, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable singer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:00, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I disagree with this AFD. More details needed for deletion. @Persia: you are nominating a lot of AFDs.. in this short period of time, it is not possible to nominate carefully. Anyway, this person is notable and she is definitely one of the most-notable female singers in the middle east. Lexy iris (talk) 23:22, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lexy iris: :)--ahuR ☘ 08:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lexy iris: :)) why in the middle east, in the world Mardetanha (talk) 09:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Alright, let's be realistic here and hang on to the facts not feelings. First of all, she's not known across the world. In order to be internationally notable you need to get coverage by various news sources from all across the globe, which is definitely not the case here. The other issue is notability in her own native country, Iran. Users on the Persian Wikipedia seem to have consensus that she doesn't meet the criteria for a standalone article and that's why articles created in her name have been deleted at least six times. I don't see coverage by reliable sources and since her songs haven't charted on any national or international music charts she's not notable and the article needs to be deleted. Keivan.f^Talk 06:09, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Meek[edit]

Paul Meek (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)

Biography of a living person sourced only to an interview and a single newspaper article. Notability not established. Mccapra (talk) 20:28, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:28, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:28, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete.per nominator. Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV — Preceding unsigned comment added by Electiondata (talk • contribs) 02:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per nom -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 08:59, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Nickan Ebrahimi[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Atour[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Antikarisma[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FOMO Tour[edit]

FOMO Tour (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)

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

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

Funktion Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

PrettyMuch Everywhere Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

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

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

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

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

Murder of Yaseen Ege[edit]

Murder of Yaseen Ege (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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Murder of Rina Shnerb[edit]

Murder of Rina Shnerb (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)

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

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

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

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

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

Keep per WP:DIVERSE and WP:PERSISTENCE multiple international source still report about the incident and its consequences [22] ,[23] ,[24],[25] --Shrike (talk) 14:43, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Comment It was the proposer who said[26] that murders in I/P conflicts that receive wide coverage should be kept.I fail to see any difference except the nationality of the victim --Shrike (talk) 16:49, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nishidani, If you think Iyad Hallak deserve an article go ahead and create one also see WP:OTHER.Btw Here is only recent article about Dvir Sorek [27] --Shrike (talk) 09:34, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Beitunia killings occurred 15 May 2014. Coverage was intense so

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

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

Contrast this type of stub.

The Murder of Rina Shnerb occurred on 23 August 2019

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rapid Re-Housing[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Look What I Found[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dan Regan[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wardheernews Somalia[edit]

Wardheernews Somalia (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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cinthya Carmona[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Claudia Poccia[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kahin Pyaar Na Ho Jaaye (1963 film)[edit]

Kahin Pyaar Na Ho Jaaye (1963 film) (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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Firebrick, California[edit]

Firebrick, 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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2018 Democratic Socialists of America candidates election[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Albanese Candy[edit]

Albanese Candy (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)

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

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

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

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

Keep Significant coverage includes [28] (already in the article, more than trivial), [29], [30], [31], [32]/[33], [34], [35]. I know these have a local WP:AUD but as the world's second largest maker of gummy bears and the largest non-chocolate candy maker in Canada (plenty large in the US and elsewhere too), I think this is a notable company. Reywas92^Talk 22:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Minor basilica[edit]

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

Major basilica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Minor basilica (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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

December 2015 Moscow bus stop attack[edit]

December 2015 Moscow bus stop attack (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)

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

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

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

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

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

• Delete. This is WP:NOTNEWS. Ajf773 (talk) 20:09, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not news, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A random attack that involved 0 deaths and lack of WP:LASTING impact. The article has certainly remained stub until now and used a questionable source.[36] I wonder how it managed to be here for this long. Capankajsmilyo (talk) 01:48, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - It's quite sad but this sort of thing is usual. No deaths, and no significant coverage. Koridas (...Puerto Rico for statehood!) 02:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Note - Why can't we all live in peace? Koridas (...Puerto Rico for statehood!) 02:15, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per the request of the author. Hut 8.5 17:02, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Castle nectar[edit]

Castle nectar (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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

List of shopping malls in Zambia[edit]

List of shopping malls in Zambia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aao Pyaar Karen (1964 film)[edit]

Aao Pyaar Karen (1964 film) (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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:31, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

American store headquarters[edit]

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

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

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

• Delete Fails WP:NOTDIR "Simple listings without context information. Examples include...offices, store locations..." ----Pontificalibus 05:48, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Another Real Jaryed cruft article: [37] as well as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Top 10 most populated places in each State. Ajf773 (talk) 10:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NOTDIR. I also agree with Ajf773's frustration with these listcruft articles. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:11, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete basically a failing of not directory. Also too inherently presentist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:43, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Almost entirely unreferenced directory. Pichpich (talk) 22:11, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Claims to be an exhaustive list of American store headquarters, but to create such a list would really be a monumental task, and would also violate notability, since most "American stores" are not notable. Even if it is amended to a list of store corporations, "store" is quite a broad term such that this kind of list isn't actually useful. Cameron Brow (talk) 00:36, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Ariel Mortman[edit]

Ariel Mortman (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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ludwig Hofmaier[edit]

Ludwig Hofmaier (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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LaTiesha Fazakas[edit]

LaTiesha Fazakas (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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Super Famicom Box[edit]

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

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

This article, which is for a very obscure Japanese video game console model, does not meet the notability criteria. Its two sources are unreliable, and there was nothing I could find via reliable, third-party sources that could make it establish notability. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 15:38, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

• Delete for lack of sources, or maybe merge with Super Nintendo Entertainment System. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edittac (talk • contribs) 16:59, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I'm noticing an absurd amount of impersonating sockpuppets trying to defend this article, all of which have been reverted and globalled. Hopefully this will end soon, because it's honestly getting ridiculous. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 20:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Super Nintendo Entertainment System. It seems notable enough for a mention or section in the regular SNES article, but probably not enough in it's current state for a separate article. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:47, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

List of first ladies in Africa[edit]

List of first ladies in Africa (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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pathway Bible Fellowship[edit]

Pathway Bible Fellowship (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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mustafa Bey Barmada[edit]

Mustafa Bey Barmada (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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:15, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unidan[edit]

Unidan (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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One Hundred and Eight Shiva Thandavam[edit]

One Hundred and Eight Shiva Thandavam (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 looks very much like a promotional effort, fails WP:GNG, no reliable sources found MRRaja001 (talk) 14:25, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Freeman Osonuga[edit]

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

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

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

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

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