Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2020_May_13 References

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 12 May	14 May >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. bibliomaniac 1 5 03:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Li Yunze

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

Too soon article WP:TOOSOON, doesn't meet any WP:NBAD Stvbastian ( talk) 22:37, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Stvbastian ( talk) 22:37, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:10, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

User is clearly not seeing the achievements of the player, having Medal in the grade 1 bwf tournament(BWF World Junior Championships), still nominating it for deletion. Maybe some sort of personal distress? Li Yunze have multiple medals as you see. Zoglophie ( talk) 06:09, 14 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Comment @ Stvbastian: WP:Notability (sports) says an athlete is notable if they are a "Medalist at tournaments of the BWF Grand Prix Gold and Grand Prix." Which all your nominations seem to be. Is there anywhere that says people who medal in junior tournaments don't qualify for notability under the same standard? -- Adamant1 ( talk) 08:18, 14 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Adamant1 Unfortunately, there is no statement in WP:NBAD that said players who only medal in the junior tournament are qualify for notability. BWF Grand Prix Gold and Grand Prix is a senior tournament and different with junior tournament. Stvbastian ( talk) 12:27, 14 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete long standing consensus is that we do not treat junior tournaments as notability grandting in the same way as senior tournamesnts. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:09, 14 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Johnpacklambert, you are actually on the same way, but I want to tell you, that not every player necessarily has medals in highest junior tournaments as the nominated players have. Some of them shine in junior level & have multiple accomplishments to show. Not everybody medals in World Junior Championship which you may consider 'weak' or 'little' in inclusion criteria, but is a Grade 1 Bwf tournament. This is verifiable, I wish you will confirm it. Thank you. Zoglophie ( talk) 02:18, 15 May 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Zoglophie: While I generally agree with you that just because they won junior medals doesn't mean they are not notable, your repeated personal attacks everywhere of the nominator and anyone that disagrees with you isn't helpful and it would be good if you stopped with it. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 09:39, 15 May 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Adamant1:, I really don't want to say such words to anybody here, and I'm trying my best to keep cool here, but you know, when somebody is keeping over-attention towards you and just interrupting you everytime, in pretty much every edit, it is quite somewhere frustrating. This has affected my free editing very much, while I generally agree to them everywhere even after their bit rude words. I have tried to maintain good mutual understanding with them and this is good for both the users. We all are here to edit Wikipedia as best we can do it, and mistakes are very common which doesn't mean you have to pinch user pretty much every where & every time.

As a humanly nature, Some anger is natural but even there i remain ethical. But this is not the matter of further discussion, here the talk is about Articles and i feel we should keep them as .....(reasons) i stated above. I'm glad you understood the reasons of keeping them, Please cooperate if you think I'm right somewhere! Thanks. Zoglophie ( talk) 10:03, 15 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete or Redirect to 2019 BWF World Junior Championships . This article does not meet wikipedia standards for WP:NBAD. Though the standard does mention that notability can be achieved by completion in the quarter-finals at a tournament of the highest level outside of the Olympics or World Championships, the BWF World Junior Championships does not qualify. It is documented that notable athletes who could qualify for the Junior Championships at age 18 jump to the actual World Championships if they are good enough such as Ratchanok Intanon. Thus the Junior World Championships are not the highest level for these athletes and therefore do not meet WP:NBAD. Bioforce12 ( talk) 23:33, 20 May 2020 (UTC) reply

However it should be mentioned that if the BWF World Junior Championships is recognized as notable enough to have a Wikipedia page, shouldn't the athletes that place in it has access as well? Bioforce12 ( talk) 23:39, 20 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. bibliomaniac 1 5 03:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Han Qianxi

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

Too soon article WP:TOOSOON, doesn't meet any WP:NBAD Stvbastian ( talk) 22:28, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:11, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Han Qianxi is another medallist at this top elite event (bwf world junior championships) even having many medals at the junior international events (all of them sanctioned by bwf) & it is highly inappropriate to consider deleting this article Zoglophie ( talk) 06:25, 14 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete junior competitions does not make people notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:05, 14 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete. This article does not meet wikipedia standards for WP:NBAD. Though the standard does mention that notability can be achieved by athlete completion in the quarter-finals at a tournament of the highest level outside of the Olympics or World Championships, the BWF World Junior Championships or similar Junior competitions does not qualify. It is documented that notable athletes who could qualify for the Junior Championships at age 18 jump to the actual World Championships if they are good enough such as Ratchanok Intanon. Thus the Junior World Championships is not the highest level for this athlete and therefore does not meet WP:NBAD. Bioforce12 ( talk) 23:48, 20 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. bibliomaniac 1 5 03:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Bai Yupeng

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

Fails WP:NBAD Stvbastian ( talk) 22:21, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Stvbastian ( talk) 22:21, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:12, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

I feel awkward to repeat my comment, but can you apply some basic sense? Getting even a medal at the Grade 1 bwf tournament, is NO Joke, and it can only be your odd mentality to not recognize such successful junior players & nominate all of them for deletion? Sorry but seems like you got an Olympic medal yourself & tend to belittle the top bwf tournaments. Zoglophie ( talk) 06:21, 14 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete the sourcing clearly does not rise to the level of GNG. I am beggining to think some editors views on GNG would justify them in creating an article on me. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 15:37, 14 May 2020 (UTC) reply
I recommend to amend the WP:NBAD, as rules needed to be revised with the time, not just sticking to them. User:Johnpacklambert, I may have created your article too if you had medalled in one of those tournament, but unfortunately you have not. I meant not to rude, just wanting to let you know that having highest junior medals is not what every player can achieve. Zoglophie ( talk) 02:29, 15 May 2020 (UTC) reply
- Having a Wikipedia article is not a sign of merit. It is something that follows significant, sustained coverage in reliable sources. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:53, 15 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. bibliomaniac 1 5 03:20, 21 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Tan Ning (badminton)

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

Too soon article WP:TOOSOON, doesn't meet any WP:NBAD Stvbastian ( talk) 22:17, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Stvbastian ( talk) 22:17, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Stvbastian ( talk) 22:17, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:14, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

User is clearly not seeing the achievements of the player, having Medal in the grade 1 bwf tournament(BWF World Junior Championships), still nominating it for deletion. Maybe some sort of personal distress? Zoglophie ( talk) 06:07, 14 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete I would love to keep it, but it doesn't pass WP:NBAD. Less Unless ( talk) 19:33, 14 May 2020 (UTC) reply
delete a clear failure of badminton notability guidelines. Also we need much better sourcing to ever consider having an article on someone under 18. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 21:04, 14 May 2020 (UTC) reply
I would like to recommend revision in the given badminton rules of Wikipedia. Zoglophie ( talk) 02:32, 15 May 2020 (UTC) *Delete reply
delete, Per Nom. WP:TOOSOON, Alex-h ( talk) 11:18, 17 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete. This article does not meet wikipedia standards for WP:NBAD. Though the standard does mention that notability can be achieved by athlete completion in the quarter-finals at a tournament of the highest level outside of the Olympics or World Championships, the BWF World Junior Championships or similar Junior competitions does not qualify. It is documented that notable athletes who could qualify for the Junior Championships at age 18 jump to the actual World Championships if they are good enough such as Ratchanok Intanon. Thus the Junior World Championships is not the highest level for this athlete and therefore does not meet WP:NBAD. Bioforce12 ( talk) 23:52, 20 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. – bradv 🍁 03:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC) reply

The American Journal of Economics and Sociology

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

This is a legitimate journal but not an impactful one per WP:NJOURNALS. It is ranked in the bottom quartile of economics journals by impact factor and I am unable to find any substantial third-party coverage of it. Per WP:V, "If no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it (i.e., the topic is not notable)." b uidh e 21:31, 5 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. b uidh e 21:31, 5 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. b uidh e 21:31, 5 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 22:22, 5 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 22:23, 5 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Speedy keep- historically impactful journal. WP:NEXIST

American Institute for Economic Research
Worldcat
etc. Lightburst ( talk) 22:41, 5 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Note that the first link provided is a link to an article published in the journal, #2 is a non-selective database, and as for the claim that it's a "historically impactful journal", ^{citation needed}. b uidh e 22:44, 5 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete - It may be a high quality journal, but I've been unable to find coverage of it in secondary sources (particularly when you include "-foldvary" in the search to exclude all results that say "Foldvary is notably known for going on record in the American Journal of Economics and Sociology in 1997 to predict the exact timing of the 2008 economic depression—eleven years before the event occurred"). The WP:NJOURNAL page seems to indicate that means it's not notable and should be deleted. It could be that this is a case of WP:TOOSOON and that in time the journal will gain notability. Ikjbagl ( talk) 00:33, 6 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep, passes WP:NJOURNALS, is indexed in both JCR and Scopus / has impact factor and SciImago Journal Rank, as well as several other major/selective databases (see MIAR: 0002-9246). Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 14:35, 6 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep per Headbomb. Moreover, I don't quite see the rationale for excluding sources that refer to a specific paper published in the journal. Granted, they're not directly discussing the history of the journal itself, in the strictest sense (like the date of its founding or the changes in its editorial board), but fundamentally, journals are worth documenting when they have published significant work. XOR'easter ( talk) 19:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Comment are there any substantial independent sources that actually go into detail about the journal? I don't think there's much value in creating an article that is entirely based on primary sources and database entries. Any of the "Foldvary" sources are just passing mentions that wouldn't count towards GNG. b uidh e 19:46, 8 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 17:33, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep. One of the WP:JOURNALCRIT is The journal is frequently cited by other reliable sources - which it does seem to be. Per the same page, If a journal meets any of the following criteria, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources, it qualifies for a stand-alone article. Now obviously WP:NJOURNALS is an essay, not policy, but I would argue its recommendations are sensible in this case. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 20:32, 20 May 2020 (UTC) reply
NJOURNALS also says "It is possible for a journal to qualify for a stand-alone article according to this standard and yet not actually be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject. Independent, third-party sources must exist for every topic that receives its own article on Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Verifiability: "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.")." I believe that this means we should not create articles on journals when there's no substantial independent coverage of them. b uidh e 23:05, 20 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Except we have those, we have JCR and Scopus for notability. And we have a lot of WP:ABOUTSELF-permitted sources for other content. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 23:10, 20 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. – bradv 🍁 03:39, 21 May 2020 (UTC) reply

1200 Micrograms

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

Not notable. GhostDestroyer100 ( talk) 11:30, 6 May 2020 (UTC) reply

I question their notability. Even though this psytrance group included the guys from Shpongle and GMS, I did not find anything that indicates notability for 1200 Micrograms. The article is sourced to Last.fm which is known to be an unreliable source, and their record label. I did a Google search and the things I found were: pages of festivals affiliated with this group (not independent from them), ticket portals (I don't even has to explain), Facebook, Spotify, SoundCloud, Amazon and the like, blogs and unrelated documents/articles that contains '1200' and 'micrograms' but that's it. Their Allmusic page only lists their discography and no biography. I have read on a blog that this band is considered to be "legendary" - then I find it kinda weird that no RS discusses them. They have articles on multiple other Wikipedias as well but the sourcing is a problem on them too (there are some pages that contain no source at all). I suggest a deletion, and the content of this page can be merged to Raja Ram's or GMS' article.

GhostDestroyer100 ( talk) 11:28, 6 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 ( talk) 11:30, 6 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 ( talk) 11:32, 6 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 May 6. — ^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:54, 6 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:32, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete, Per WP:GNG and WP:BLP, no evidence of independent coverage and no discernible information beyond releases. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - ( Talk) - 18:21, 17 May 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was merge to Yau Tong#Shopping. – bradv 🍁 03:41, 21 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Lei Yue Mun Plaza

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

Shopping mall with no significance MistyGraceWhite ( talk) 09:18, 29 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:35, 6 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:31, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Merge/redirect to Yau Tong#Shopping, since Lei Yue Mun Plaza is a shopping centre in Yau Tong, per WP:PRESERVE and Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. I was unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources about Lei Yue Mun Plaza. Cunard ( talk) 21:52, 17 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. Pax:Vobiscum ( talk) 19:53, 21 May 2020 (UTC) reply

X-Mas Project

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

Non-notable band GhostDestroyer100 ( talk) 08:14, 6 May 2020 (UTC) reply

A long-disbanded, short-lived German heavy metal supergroup centered around the theme of Christmas. Interesting concept. Unfortunately, I don't think they are notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. I did a Google search and I found nothing reliable on this band, only user-generated databases like Metal Archives and Rate Your Music, a blog site from where their album can be downloaded and that's it. The rest of the results were pages containing "X-Mas" (or Christmas) and "project" separately and they are not about the band at all. I also found a "Metal Kingdom" and "Metal Music Archives" pages, but they don't look too reliable either. I find it kinda weird that they have gotten unnoticed since its members participated in notable bands like Rage, Mekong Delta and Holy Moses. They have an article on German Wikipedia which does not contain any sources whatsoever. X-Mas Project also has a Hungarian Wikipedia article (which was written by me actually since I am Hungarian), it nearly has the same sources as the ones presented here. So, I think they are not notable because of the lack of reliable sources.

GhostDestroyer100 ( talk) 08:10, 6 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 May 6. — ^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:24, 6 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:46, 6 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:47, 6 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:31, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete The only source in this article is tertiary and seems to be user-generated. A web search did not turn up anything good for me either and I wouldn't know where to look for print sources. Tip for the nominator: all search engines I know of allow searching for an exact, complete phrase by enclosing in double quotes like this, which eliminates pages containing the words separately. PJvanMill ( talk) 14:08, 21 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 procedural close. Article deleted per discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/XLAB (2nd nomination) (non-admin closure) Dps04 ( talk) 05:58, 14 May 2020 (UTC) reply

XLAB

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

Article does not satisfy WP:CORP. A search for sources did not suggest that WP:NEXIST. AugusteBlanqui ( talk) 07:55, 6 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:35, 6 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:35, 6 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:31, 13 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. qedk ( t 愛 c) 06:40, 21 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Lacrosse Unlimited Inc.

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

non-notable apparel company. Fails NCORP MistyGraceWhite ( talk) 16:39, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:49, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:51, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:52, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete - likely paid-for spam. I've blocked the creator for this. MER-C 14:34, 16 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom. Sources fall well short of establishing independent notability. BD2412 T 04:32, 21 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete. A bunch of press releases, no reliable sources actually present. Fails WP:GNG and is created by a spam account. Lapablo ( talk) 05:48, 21 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) Natg 19 ( talk) 05:57, 20 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Constructing Post-Colonial India

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

fails NBOOK, non-notable book by a barely notable author MistyGraceWhite ( talk) 16:32, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:52, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:53, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep Passes WP:NBOOK by being multiply reviewed (and more than the one or two reviews that might be typical for a volume in this field). I have not tried to do an extensive evaluation of the author's wiki-notability, but with multiple reviews for this book, for an edited volume [1] [2], and for a co-authored book [3] [4], he may pass WP:AUTHOR. XOR'easter ( talk) 17:40, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep has multiple reviews in reliable sources now added to the article so that it clearly passes WP:GNG and deletion is not necessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk) 22:49, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep Article contains references to 3 reviews from peer-reviewed journals (possibly 4, not familiar with Jouvert) and a review from The Telegraph (a reputable national newspaper). Meets NBOOK#1: "The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.". -- Goldsztajn ( talk) 18:58, 15 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep – meets WP:BOOKCRIT/ WP:GNG. On a side note, at least one of his other works – namely Sexuality Studies – is also notable: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], etc. And other than these two books, his other works have also been reviewed, e.g. [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], etc. So, it is notable book of a notable scholar. - NitinMlk ( talk) 18:37, 16 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep, Has enough coverage to pass WP:GNG Alex-h ( talk) 11:34, 17 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) Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 19:51, 20 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Canis lupus dingo

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

Same species as Dingo just a synonym 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 ( talk) 20:17, 5 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 ( talk) 20:17, 5 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 ( talk) 20:17, 5 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 ( talk) 20:17, 5 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep This is not a duplicate of an existing page, but two completely separate articles, and the taxonomy page would be a valid fork. Not a good nomination. SportingFlyer T· C 21:06, 5 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment Could be renamed Taxonomy of the Dingo instead? since its disputed weather the Dingo is a subspecies of Canis lupus or its own species 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 ( talk) 22:16, 5 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Merge to Dingo. Part of the content is duplicate, and other content should be in the main article. Both are articles aren't at a size that warrants a split in my mind. I don't see the need for a separate Dingo evolution or Dingo taxonomy debate page. At the very least, the article should be renamed as the current title is misleading as it directly overlaps with Dingo (using one of the scientific forms of the name).-- Eostrix ( talk) 08:14, 6 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep. The article explicitly commences with "Canis lupus dingo is a taxonomic rank..." It is not "Same species as Dingo just a synonym", because it is not an animal it is a rank that includes animals. The Australian dingo (Canis dingo) is a taxonomic synonym for the wolf subspecies Canis lupus dingo, as is the New Guinea Singing Dog (Canis hallstromi) and a number of other extinct or believed to be extinct taxons across SE Asia according to the taxonomic authority MSW3. The article is supported by WP:RELIABLE WP:SECONDARY sources and therefore meets WP:GNG. The dingo and New Guinea Singing Dog are sub-topics of this legitimate subspecies class, not the other way around. I strongly suggest that you raise issues with any article badged under WP:DOGS at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dogs, which you have chosen not to do. The confusion is caused by the article on the Australian dingo displaying a subspecies taxobox, which it is not entitled to display as it does not represent the entire subspecies - you will find that issue already raised at Talk:Dingo immediately above your nomination for deletion there.

However, I am open to ideas as to what might be done with the article, because the recognition of the subspecies is now open to question, with the NGSD and Aust dingo being regarded as the domestic dog Canis familiaris: IUCN and IUCN/SSC Canid Specialist Group. Be aware that the people on the dingo article will not accept any material that does not relate to the Australian dingo - we have been down that path before. William Harris talk 09:28, 7 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep. First phrase on this page tells that Canis lupus dingo is a taxonomic rank that includes both the dingo that is native to Australia and the rare New Guinea singing dog that is native to the New Guinea Highlands. Assuming this is correct statement (apparently it is), it explains why dingo is a legitimate sub-page of this page. It does make sense they were recently classified as Canis familiaris, but I am not sure how can we change the current structure of these pages. My very best wishes ( talk) 00:26, 10 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:24, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep, article about the taxonomic rank, not the dingo. Cavalryman ( talk) 08:40, 14 May 2020 (UTC). reply
Keep per William Harris. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 19:05, 16 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep As stated above many times, this is a taxonomic rank and not "just a synonym". DCook58 ( talk) 03:08, 18 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; moved to draft per user request, but this should not be restored to mainspace without going through the proper AfC process. BD2412 T 04:33, 21 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Yann Blake

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

Run of the mill PR pieces, nothing that makes him pass GNG. MistyGraceWhite ( talk) 16:18, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

I agree every article has to be challenged. I do think with PR pieces from 2017 to 2020 and the relation to the film industry, it makes the article relevant and legitimate. I am happy to hear the opinion of other Wikipedia editors. -- ClémentContrib ( talk) 16:43, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:32, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:32, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:32, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:32, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete spam. Mccapra ( talk) 18:43, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete fails WP:N. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 23:25, 15 May 2020 (UTC) reply

If the outcome of this discussion appears to be on the Delete side, I would like to transform this article into a draft, for further improvements. -- ClémentContrib ( talk) 00:41, 16 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete Press releases are essentially primary and do not demonstrate notability. Sulfurboy ( talk) 22:52, 20 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 procedural close. Article was draftified by the page creator. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 ( t • c) 07:01, 14 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Sergey Boytsov

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

non notable model. Most of sourcing is to his own website, or to his employer/partner onfit.ru. Nothing notable in his life to make him pass GNG. MistyGraceWhite ( talk) 16:15, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:33, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:34, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bodybuilding-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:34, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:34, 13 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 Sinking of the RMS Lusitania#Last survivors. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 ( talk) 05:59, 20 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Barbara McDermott

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

This person is not notable beyond being the last American (not even the last globally) survivor of the Lusitania. She is covered excessively at Sinking of the RMS Lusitania#Last survivors, showing this article is not needed. See Talk:Sinking of the RMS Lusitania/Archive 1#Merger proposal for more. Benica11 ( talk) 15:24, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Benica11 ( talk) 15:24, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Benica11 ( talk) 15:24, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:04, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Redirect to the main article about the Lustitania, the biography is not notable per WP:ONEEVENT Seasider91 ( talk) 21:06, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Redirect to Sinking_of_the_RMS_Lusitania#Last_survivors as she is only notable in that context. Pam D 09:34, 14 May 2020 (UTC) reply
REdirect -- Being a survivor, even the last one, of a notorious shipwreck does not make a person separately notable. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:06, 16 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Redirect, I agree that she is not notable for being a survivor, so it is better to redirect it to Sinking_of_the_RMS_Lusitania#Last_survivors, Alex-h ( talk) 11:44, 17 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. BD2412 T 04:41, 21 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Mohammad Makhlouf

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

paid for spam about a non notable entrepreneur, sourced to black hat spammy seo nonsense. Praxidicae ( talk) 15:22, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:36, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:36, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:36, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:36, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete a non-notable businessman. Wikipedia is not a paid advertising platform. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:11, 14 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete insufficient in-depth coverage outside of the WP:MILL. serial ^# 14:21, 17 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete - according to DGG, a billionaire is presumed notable, but in this case there's insufficient sourcing. Bearian ( talk) 03:49, 21 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. Barkeep49 ( talk) 03:03, 21 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Salamat International Campus for Advanced Studies

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

No coverage found, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 15:10, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:43, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:43, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:44, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete For profit schools should be subject to WP:NCORP which this wholly fails. Sulfurboy ( talk) 22:53, 20 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. Tone 16:04, 21 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Hamdard Public School, Lahore

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

No coverage found, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 15:08, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:54, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:54, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:54, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete per WP:V. Bearian ( talk) 03:50, 21 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. qedk ( t 愛 c) 06:40, 21 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Syed Sameer Munna

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

paid for PR spam sourced entirely to black hat SEO fake sites and press releases/pay for publication. Praxidicae ( talk) 15:04, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:45, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:45, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:46, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

There is reference from The Hans India offcial website which means nobody can buy it from them & any pr spam or black hat seo - none of references are fake sites Thank you Sandwicked^(T) 16:46, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Wrong, The Hans frequently will post paid for publications without actually identifying it. Praxidicae ( talk) 17:39, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete the sources are obviously paid promotional junk. The page therefore lacks independent reliable sources to establish notability. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 17:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete spam. Mccapra ( talk) 18:45, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete - The subject of the article does not pass GNG or NARTIST criteria. Netherzone ( talk) 02:17, 14 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete - I do not think that the article is okay as per WP:GNG - also, random google search comes up with few sources, which are less neutral and more puffery. This puffery is highly self-published or paid. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 06:36, 14 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Guys i also researched as well without researching how can i write the article maybe if its not notability den fine atlest don't defame the person by saying paid pr or fake websites, i would say please someone once review the article again & end the discusses here Thank you i did not mean to disrespect any of you guys Thank you so much :D Sandwicked^(T) —Preceding undated comment added 08:07, 14 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete clear GNG failure Spiderone 10:41, 14 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete this is WP:SNOWballing. Can an admin come in and close this now? Pinging the closers of the last five discussions in this deletion sort @ Black Kite, Premeditated Chaos, Spartaz, and Northamerica1000:-- Theredproject ( talk) 13:55, 14 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete Reading through biography does not show anything to pass notability. Nika2020 ( talk) 15:32, 17 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete - As spam. Entirely fails any notability criteria you may care to list. -- Jack Frost ( talk) 11:27, 20 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 19:52, 20 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete - even assuming it's not spam, the sourcing is terrible and fails general notability. Bearian ( talk) 03:52, 21 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. Tone 16:05, 21 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Cadet College Kot Addu

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

No coverage found, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 15:01, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:48, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete per WP:V. Bearian ( talk) 03:52, 21 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. Tone 16:05, 21 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Sudhum Children Academy and Science College Rustam Mardan

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

No coverage found, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:53, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:58, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:59, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:59, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete per WP:RS and WP:V. It has a Facebook page and there are books mentioning it, but it could be fictional for all we know. I found zero news sources about this institution, and only two novels that use it as a location. Bearian ( talk) 03:55, 21 May 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:18, 21 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Citizens Public Secondary School

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

No coverage found, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:51, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:00, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:00, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:01, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete - another school that I'm unable to verify its existence. Bearian ( talk) 03:56, 21 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete, insufficient independent references for verifiability. Stifle ( talk) 08:26, 21 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. Barkeep49 ( talk) 03:05, 21 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Firebird Tours

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

No evidence there is significant coverage in reliable sources to satisfy the corporation notability thresholds or even basic notability guidelines. Article on the same topic was previously deleted at AfD in 2018 ( here) and there's nothing to indicate notability has changed since then. Coverage consists of passing mentions in reliable sources, blogs of no note, and the own companies website. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:31, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:03, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:03, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:03, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:03, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:04, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete, lots on not notable mentions, nothing changed since last AfD. Renata ( talk) 02:43, 15 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. Barkeep49 ( talk) 03:05, 21 May 2020 (UTC) reply

List of Enochian angels

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

This lists the names (and only the names) of about 300 Enochian angels and demons. It's an old venerable article, created in 2004, and has survived two deletion discussions: in 2005 (with "keep") and in 2006 (with "no consensus"). I'm not familiar with the topic matter, but I'm not seeing any sources discussing all these named beings other than very brief mentions in books like The Complete Enochian Dictionary or the Enochian Angels Handbook. While the topic of Enochian magic is undoubtedly notable, it's not at all clear why this list of names would have encyclopedic significance beyond their use by DIY practitioners of magic. There's also a non-trivial maintenance burden incurred in keeping the list – there are sourcing issues, so it will probably need to be compiled from scratch, and it has incoming redirects for about 180 of the demons, which will need to be examined for other meanings and retargeted or disambiguated as necessary. – Uanfala (talk) 13:25, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 13:28, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 13:28, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 13:28, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Pings to those participants of the previous discussions who are still active: Crypticfirefly, Grenavitar, Tonywalton, Nabla, Elonka (surprising how few of them there are!) – Uanfala (talk) 13:56, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:36, 14 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete, nom makes the case well. This is basically an excerpt from Dee; not our niche. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 20:15, 15 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Adding for the reord that I've checked the incoming redirects and none have any article content in their histories (other than a duplicate list at List of Enochian Angels). – Uanfala (talk) 12:52, 20 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. Seems to be a pretty strong consensus that this should be on wiki in some form or another, at the very least until a longer period has elapsed from the previous AfD nom. A pure keep seems more appropriate for now rather than a merge given the procedural concerns and the lack of clarity over into what article it would be merged. WP:NODEADLINE strikes me as applying here - nothing stopping it being reviewed again at a later date. (non-admin closure) Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 20:26, 20 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Murder of Julie Berman

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

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Julie Berman (transgender activist)

A sad event, but Wikipedia is not a memorial site WP:NOTOBITUARY. There is no lasting coverage in reliable sources, WP:LASTING. She was in the news, but only as a story, should be deleted according to WP:BLP1E. MistyGraceWhite ( talk) 13:22, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep - Since Berman's death marked a point in which trans rights became a big deal, this article should be kept. It might be in history books. JTZegers ( talk) 13:28, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

@ User:JTZegers, no her death had no such influence. There is no mention of her in any RS after the initial reporting in Dec 2019-Feb 2020 MistyGraceWhite ( talk) 14:22, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

@ MistyGraceWhite: How? JTZegers ( talk) 14:42, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

@ User:JTZegers How? by checking google for any news that shows lasting coverage, that's how. There is no lasting coverage. MistyGraceWhite ( talk) 16:10, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

~~Keep~~ Nothing fundamentally wrong with the content, and the sourcing is respectable. At worst, this should be merged somewhere and fit into a broader topic, like trans bashing or Violence against LGBT people. (We have an article dedicated to the History of violence against LGBT people in the United States, but apparently not yet one for Canada, though it would be a wiki-notable topic [18] [19] [20] [21].) XOR'easter ( talk) 15:42, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

@ User:XOR'easter which source is reasonable enough that it provides LASTING coverage? MistyGraceWhite ( talk) 16:08, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

@ XOR'easter: CHECK GOOGLE! JTZegers ( talk) 16:57, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Changing my !vote to speedy keep on procedural grounds, since the prior AfD was closed barely 3 months ago. XOR'easter ( talk) 22:24, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Merge per above. – ᕼᗩᑎᗪOTO ( talk) 19:43, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Merge So I was the editor that did a large portion of the work to get it passed the last AFD; however, time has passed and it does not appear to have made lasting impact in the media. The larger problem is to find out where to merge it. Maybe /info/en/?search=Significant_acts_of_violence_against_LGBT_people or /info/en/?search=Timeline_of_LGBT_history_in_Canada Affied ( talk) 20:44, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply
The last AfD was closed in February. I think it's too soon to revisit, on procedural grounds. (Quoting Shelbystripes from that page, with emphasis added: I wouldn't be opposed to a 2nd AfD in a year or two.) Bringing the same article to AfD again so quickly is poor form. XOR'easter ( talk) 22:24, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply
A cherry-picked quote from one user in the last AFD is not a consensus and is not appropriate to use as an argument in this case. There has not been an article or even a mention in an RS about the murder or the victim in 3 months, it is hard to make an argument that this meets WP:Lasting. Affied ( talk) 22:10, 14 May 2020 (UTC) reply
A lull in the news is to be expected; there's going to be an interval between somebody being arrested and a verdict, for example. As I said below, I think 3 months is simply too short to make a judgment about lasting-ness one way or the other, and it's barely half the minimum time between AfDs that Wikipedia editors generally seem to find reasonable. XOR'easter ( talk) 14:16, 15 May 2020 (UTC) reply
I realize that is your opinion, can you point to any policies that back up what you are saying? Specifically "it's barely half the minimum time between AfDs that Wikipedia editors generally seem to find reasonable". Thanks in advance Affied ( talk) 21:49, 15 May 2020 (UTC) reply
It's not a matter of policy, but of how I've observed people acting over my ~3 years of hanging out at AfD. I don't think a rigid standard has ever been set in print for how soon is too soon, and in fact, trying to do so seems rather silly, given that different events will naturally tend to develop on different timescales. XOR'easter ( talk) 13:59, 16 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Your main contention is that it has been too soon since the last AFD, yet you yourself admit this is just your opinion and based on only your personals experiences - how do you justify your vote on procedural concerns, if there is no established procedure? Affied ( talk) 15:07, 16 May 2020 (UTC) reply

@ User:XOR'easterThere is nothing beyond news reports on her, if she was going to have a lasting impact there would have been something during the past 3 months. MistyGraceWhite ( talk) 22:50, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Three months is too short to tell whether there has been "lasting" influence or not, given that the legal proceedings have not yet even concluded. XOR'easter ( talk) 23:09, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:20, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:20, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith ( talk) 21:33, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith ( talk) 21:33, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Speedy keep per last AFD being mere months ago, also it meets GNG. Gleeanon409 ( talk) 10:38, 14 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Speedy keep as the previous AfD closed such a short time ago and the nominator either didn't check the talk page or was unfamiliar with the policy. DiamondRemley39 ( talk) 11:38, 14 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Also speedy keep on procedural grounds. You can't keep spamming the same articles with afds. Ford MF ( talk) 17:58, 17 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Speedy Keep: As this is a clear case of abusive nomination in violation of WP:BEFORE. Last AFD is less than 3 months. Kaizenify ( talk) 18:18, 17 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Speedy Keep - 3 months since last nom only. Spamming. BabbaQ ( talk) 17:21, 20 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. qedk ( t 愛 c) 06:40, 21 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Keren Jackson

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

non-notable Irish woman. Fails GNG. Shortlisted for an obscure award, nothing else. MistyGraceWhite ( talk) 13:03, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 May 13. — ^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:17, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete a non-notable person. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:01, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

Delete per nom. Fails GNG. Spleodrach ( talk) 07:04, 14 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 08:12, 17 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete Fails Wp:GNG. Nika2020 ( talk) 15:33, 17 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete - lots of women run a business and get into the local news for being shortlisted for some honor. FWIW, I'm mostly Irish-American. Bearian ( talk) 03:59, 21 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. qedk ( t 愛 c) 06:40, 21 May 2020 (UTC) reply

David Karli

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

non-notable doctor, sourced to press releases and black hat seo spam sites. No reliable coverage available. Praxidicae ( talk) 12:33, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete does not meet inclusion criteria for academics. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:35, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:29, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:52, 14 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:52, 14 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom Spiderone 13:34, 20 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. qedk ( t 愛 c) 06:40, 21 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Kilid.com

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

Non-notable company with no significant coverage in reliable sources. Current sources are mostly unreliable and/or press release. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. GSS  ^💬 12:25, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GSS  ^💬 12:25, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. GSS  ^💬 12:25, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. GSS  ^💬 12:25, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete - no significant coverage in reliable sources. Interstellarity ( talk) 12:59, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply
delete paid for pr spam by an SPA with no coverage. Praxidicae ( talk) 20:46, 14 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 22:39, 17 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 Incubate in draftspace until better sources are found, including a confirmation of whether or not the film has actually been released or not. (non-admin closure) Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 19:57, 20 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Dracula Sir

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

The film seems to lack notability. All the sources are either primary, plot summaries, interviews, or about what actors are in the film. There doesn't seem to be any in-depth reliable sources out there about it. Adamant1 ( talk) 10:27, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:04, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:04, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Draft move to draft space untill or if the film is released and receives reviews in reliable sources, imv Atlantic306 ( talk) 20:27, 17 May 2020 (UTC) reply

I'm fine with drafting. The Wiki said it was suppose to be released on May 1st and I couldn't find anything saying otherwise. So, I wasn't sure if it just lacked reviews because it is mediocre, or because it just hasn't been released for some reason. If anyone reading the AfD can find a source saying if it was delayed or something that would be good. Since I couldn't find one. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 09:42, 18 May 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. qedk ( t 愛 c) 06:39, 21 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Bicycle Kick (film)

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

None notable film. It's had a reliable sources banner on it since 2018 and the sourcing hasn't improved since then. Nothing comes up in a Google search to establish notability either. Adamant1 ( talk) 10:07, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:06, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:06, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Barkeep49 ( talk) 20:10, 21 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Dhumketu (2018 film)

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

The film doesn't seem notable. All the references appear to be about actors and actresses that are playing in it and not about the film itself. Most of them were also written before the film was released and are in the future tense. There just isn't a ton of in-depth coverage about the movie out there or a bunch of reviews to make it notable. Adamant1 ( talk) 10:03, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:06, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:06, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. qedk ( t 愛 c) 06:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Friend (2009 film)

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

The movie seems to lack the standards of notability. I couldn't find any in-depth coverage about it anywhere and the article only has one source that an interview with the director. Which doesn't cut it. Adamant1 ( talk) 09:53, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:07, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:07, 13 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. The nomination is completely unrelated to the article. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 ( talk) 19:04, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Reena Aggarwal

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

WP:BLP of a film industry worker, not reliably sourced as passing any part of WP:CREATIVE. The only notability claim stated here at all is that he and the films he's worked on exist, which is not an automatic inclusion freebie in the absence of any reliable source coverage in media to establish the significance of his work -- but of the two citations here are IMDb like other directories, and the only one that comes from an actual media outlet is a interview -- which means even that source is not about him for the purposes of helping to establish his notability. People do not get over our inclusion rules just because you can show them as the bylined creator of media coverage about other things -- they require sources in which they're the subject of media coverage created by other people. Bluue Bell ( talk) 09:25, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bluue Bell ( talk) 09:25, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bluue Bell ( talk) 09:25, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment I think you did an AfD for the wrong article, because this one is about a female actress and there aren't any references to IMDB in it. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 10:12, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:09, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:09, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:09, 13 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. Barkeep49 ( talk) 03:08, 21 May 2020 (UTC) reply

ActCAD

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

PROd removed by the creator. Not seeing how this passes WP:NSOFT/GNG. BEFORE does not show any reviews or in-depth coverage, only press releases and mentions in passing. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 07:49, 6 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 07:49, 6 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:56, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete Not notable. All or most of the sources seem to just be press releases. Plus, its clearly an advert article that appears to have been created and mainly edited by someone who is probably paid. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 09:41, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Adamant1: Can you please either substantiate or withdraw the WP:PAID allegation ... if there is a conflict of interest then the way to go is indicated at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to handle conflicts of interest ... it is not to make unsubstantiated allegation hints behind the back. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 18:15, 14 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete Having indirectly been sort of WP:CANVASed about the article on my talk page by ZengaONE I observe the standard of sourcing seems to show a complete lack of understanding of the minimal WP:RS needed for mainspace in a new article on the English Wikipedia; though it may be got away with on other language Wikipedias from what I hear. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 18:15, 14 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete, article is sourced to press releases and passing mentions, not anything which would help pass GNG. The article is also written terribly and is highly promotional. Devonian Wombat ( talk) 23:25, 14 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Comment. In related discussion on pl wiki, two reviews have been presented for consideration: [22] and [23]. Any thoughts on whether they are reliable? Ping User:Adamant1, User:Djm-leighpark, and User:Devonian Wombat. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 09:15, 16 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Hhhmmm, well, the first one looks like a basic overview of features with user reviews. I'm sure user reviews aren't good enough. Plus, it's hard to tell if the site could be considered a blog or not. If so, blogs don't usually count. Id say the same for the second site. Wikipedia says it's a "software and app discovery portal." Whatever that means in this context. But, they clearly profit from people downloading the software from their site. So they are not going to be neutral about it. Plus, it doesn't say who the author of the review is. Anonymous product reviews from run of the mill software download sites aren't usually acceptable. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 09:45, 16 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Pretty much agree. Looking for a hands-on review either peer reviewed or a person doing an in-depth knowledgeable review capable of picking out the weak spot and doing similar reviews for several products (And findings consistent with other sources). The first doesn't match that and neither does the second. A blog by a widely noted subject matter expert might be a different matter soon. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 10:09, 16 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete I wouldn't think a review on Softonic would be neutral or reliable. The other cited by Piotrus looks too much like promotion. Not seeing any credible sources for this. SD0001 ( talk) 13:09, 16 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete: Couldn't find any significant coverage from reliable sources. (nn) - Flori4nK T A L K 19:11, 17 May 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. qedk ( t 愛 c) 06:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Ishaaron Ishaaron Mein

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG, the only independent coverage available is a Times of India review [24] (not a great source) and a report that the show was cancelled due to the covid19 outbreak [25]. Despite nominally meeting WP:NSERIES, I think that given the circumstances of its cancellation this subject is unlikely to meet GNG. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:03, 29 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:03, 29 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:03, 29 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep for meeting WP:NSERIES. I see sources from the Indian Express and others. While I agree it may never resurface, or achieve greater notability, it has reached the notability required for an article. Ifnord ( talk) 21:45, 2 May 2020 (UTC) reply
I feel like the rationale behind NSERIES is predicated on assumptions about the typical life cycle of a show, which sees continuous coverage over the course of its run. Given that this series isn't getting a typical run, I don't know that it's appropriate to apply NSERIES here. On an unrelated note, the Indian Express piece is a Q&A with an actor and essentially no independent analysis to speak of. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:14, 5 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:39, 6 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:49, 13 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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 04:59, 21 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Lilith Games

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

non notable video game company MistyGraceWhite ( talk) 19:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:42, 29 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:42, 29 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC) reply

KEEP Ample coverage of the company at https://technode.com/2019/11/27/the-chinese-gaming-startup-outperforming-tencent-overseas/ and elsewhere. They teamed up with a major game company and got coverage for that at https://www.pocketgamer.com/articles/082700/afk-arena-developers-lilith-games-team-up-with-snk-to-bring-ukyo-tachibana-to-their-popular-idle-rpg-to-celebrate-its-1-year-anniversary/ Dream Focus 04:49, 1 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:43, 6 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:49, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete All the coverage seems to be trivial. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 10:54, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete Guidelines for notability state there must be multiple references. There is one reference posted by Dream Focus above from Technode that meets the criteria for establishing notability as it is significant and in-depth coverage containing Independent Content. But unfortunately I have been unable to locate a second reference - all the rest are rehashed press releases and promotions and announcements. If another reference is found by anyone, ping me and I will revisit my !vote. But, here and now, topic fails GNG/ WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:37, 20 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. There is general consensus that there is enough sourcing to support the notability of this as a hoax. It has been moved already to reflect this but the proper naming/location of the article is outside the scope of this AfD. Barkeep49 ( talk) 20:09, 21 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Lupe Hernández

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

The whole article is based on a brief mention in The Guardian article, which the article's author could not corroborate ( Wikipedia:Articles with a single source). All other sources either copy The Guardian or cast doubt on it. This was deprodded because "it could be merged into Hand sanitizer", but this, too, should only be done if the subject is actually related to inventing hand sanitizer, and there is serious doubt about it. Amir E. Aharoni ( talk) 07:10, 6 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:05, 6 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:05, 6 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete There was no student nurse in Bakersfield in the 1960s named Lupe Hernandez. Thus this is some sort of hoax. There were patents being taken out for the production of hand sanitizer, although not under exactly that name, at least as far back as the 1930s. This whole thing is a mess and we should not have an article where the basic claims have been proven false. On the other hand there is also not enough to justify an article on the fictional person here. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep in one form or another. This has been widely reported and/or debunked, making the topic notable, whether the person existed or not. Teach the controversy! e.g. Smithsonian National Museum of American History, LA Times, The Guardian, Remezcla, Vanity Fair, Salud America. pburka ( talk) 21:36, 9 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Is it notable as a hoax? Not so much. The LA Times dedicates a whole article to it, but covers it as a thing that almost certainly didn't happen. The Guardian story is from 2012, and it's the thing that started the probably-wrong story. Remezcla just mentions The Guardian story, without any more info, corroboration, or fact-checking. Vanity Fair has one paragraph that mentions The Guardian story. "Salud America" just says nothing at all.

The only link here that is in any way worth noting is the one from the LA Times, which is not enough to establish the notability of this story, even as a hoax. -- Amir E. Aharoni ( talk) 09:41, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

I'm sure the Salud America story was more substantial when I looked at it! pburka ( talk) 19:19, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:49, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete Seems to be a hoax and not a notable one. Keeping it would go against not having articles about people that where involved in a single event anyway. Especially if the person never even existed to be involved in the single event. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 10:59, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep for the reasons of those who wants this kept. Davidgoodheart ( talk) 18:35, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Huh? -- Amir E. Aharoni ( talk) 20:39, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep (or possibly merge somewhere) and rename as Lupe Hernández hand sanitizer legend we can't bio a fake person, but can report on the story. Reframe as an unambiguous legend since the experts who have researched it conclude there is no known person. The LA Times story makes a number of assertions of notability which are significant: "the legend of Lupe Hernandez from Bakersfield has bounced around the medical world" .. "Nursing textbooks, college professors and presenters at medical conferences repeated the tale" .. "Media outlets worldwide started to report on Hernandez’s “discovery.”" .. if this is not notability what is? It is a cultural phenomenon (in the literal sense). -- Green C 19:08, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply
This is not notability. This is a useless story based on a single news article. -- Amir E. Aharoni ( talk) 20:39, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Supporting the claim that this urban legend has been repeated in nursing textbooks: The Growth and Development of Nurse Leaders (2019) Springer p.261 pburka ( talk) 22:23, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply
- Which just goes to show that a lot of modern text book writers are lazy perpetrators of unsourced material who do not believe enough in going to primary sources. I am reminded of some of the horrid text books we were exposed to in my education program. Ones that took very biased positions against standardized testing. It also reproduced an alleged 19th-century teacher contract, that was immaterial to the discussion at hand because it was almost certainly the guidelines for Sunday school teachers, not public school teachers, and there was no explantion of exactly where or when or on whom the contact was binding. Shoddy scholarship and repetaing something from some other text book without determining if the item was real or made up by someone to advance their view of the past. For all I know the item originated in some fictional book written decades after the alleged time it covered. To prove this as a widely cited thing, you need lots of sources, not just one. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:27, 19 May 2020 (UTC) reply

See WP:BEFORE. A Google News search brings up 100s of news stories from around the world. They all repeat the same legend but that is the point of what the LA Times is saying. The LA Times is a reliable source and when they say "Nursing textbooks, college professors and presenters at medical conferences repeated the tale" there is no reason to doubt it. -- Green C 21:12, 19 May 2020 (UTC) reply

And I think the point is the same paragraph size (maybe 2 paragraph size) story, bereft of any details, and bereft of any significant commentary, is repeated over and over. It's not even a notable hoax or as an urban legend. The LA Times might be the only source that qualifies as significant coverage, but multiple sources are needed. Fails GNG, BASIC. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 18:19, 21 May 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Steve Quinn: what about the Washington Post story? It isn't just a restatement of the story, they attempted to corroborate it. With that, it would seem there are multiple good sources covering it as a legend. Kind regards from PJvanMill ( talk) 19:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep and rename appropriately. I think this is within WP:GNG per sources. at least for now. BabbaQ ( talk) 20:36, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply
And rename how? -- Amir E. Aharoni ( talk) 06:00, 14 May 2020 (UTC) reply
The problem with renaming it to something like "Lupe Hernández (hoax)" is that then Wikipedia would be taking a position on it. Which it's not suppose to do. Plus, it being a hoax doesn't seem to be reflected in all the sources evenly either. But, keeping it as is would have the same problem, but in reverse. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 08:29, 14 May 2020 (UTC) reply
That's my thinking, too. If it was a probably-true story, it would be fine to have a short article. But it's a probably-false story, and even as a misconception it's not notable enough to find a smart way to describe it in a useful and reliable way. It's better to just delete it to avoid any chance of xkcd 978 happening. -- Amir E. Aharoni ( talk) 13:31, 14 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia takes a position on many things. Global warming, vaccines, etc.. we follow what experts say. If expert opinion changes so does Wikipedia. This is a WP:FRINGE theory (as most urban legends are), we have many articles on/about fringe theories and urban legengs. There is no evidence it is a "hoax", though, which is intentional misleading. -- Green C 14:25, 14 May 2020 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure how you can say Wikipedia is taking a position in this case when the article contains a bunch of speculation and fact hedging. That's way different then the article about vaccines. No one is debating their existence or what they are, just their efficacy. Whereas, here we don't even know if Lupe Hernández is a real person, if they are even alive, or anything else about them. The sources can't even agree on the persons gender. Biographical articles have high standards, and it would be ridiculous to say that those standards are being met when we can't even reliably say what gender the person is. There has to be a clear statement of fact in biographical articles. We don't speculate about people. At least not to this degree, if at all. Also, generally IMO an article where almost everything is prefaced with maybe, might have been, or similar fact hedging language isn't encyclopedic and therefore doesn't serve the purpose of Wikipedia. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 09:33, 15 May 2020 (UTC) reply

What the article says now is junk that will be cleaned up. -- Green C 12:24, 15 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Doubtful. People always say that, but it never happens. I don't see a non-messy way to write it anyway. You can't clean up the sources not agreeing on the persons gender so the article meets WP:BIO. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 07:16, 16 May 2020 (UTC) reply

The article doesn't have to meet WP:BIO if we rename it. Even though WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, many, many articles do see substantial improvement after or during deletion discussions: there's a whole essay about it. pburka ( talk) 21:12, 16 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment The article has now been completely rewritten by pburka. -- Green C 01:44, 17 May 2020 (UTC) reply
In the current form it should still be deleted. I can't think of any other title under which it should be kept. -- Amir E. Aharoni ( talk) 06:45, 17 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep, meets WP:GNG, multiple sources discuss this "person", article now reflects this. Coolabahapple ( talk) 02:30, 17 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 02:33, 17 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment Wikipedia should take positions on less things than it does. I still do not think there is enough sourcing to justify this article. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Comment This article still needs to be deleted. Nursing textbooks being used as a source for the publication of wrong information in nursing text books is an example of using primary sources which is banned. This article has too much original research. It needs to be deleted as such and not meeting the guildeines of Wikipedia. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:33, 19 May 2020 (UTC) reply
That's simply incorrect. Here's the actual policy:
Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source.

The article uses a secondary source to support the claim that the nursing text books have repeated the claim, and also includes a reference to the specific text in question (the primary source). The primary source could be removed without affecting the verifiability of the article, but it would remove information which would be useful to a researcher. pburka ( talk) 19:10, 19 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Comment The problem with primary sourcing is this case is that the guideline says they can only be used to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified. Which I don't think works here because there are no straightforward verifiable facts about the subject, primarily obtained or otherwise. Maybe it could technically be argued that the primary sources verify that the facts aren't verifiable. Which can be verified. Although, that seems pretty circular and its not a descriptive statement of fact about the subject anyway. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 06:27, 20 May 2020 (UTC) reply
That's why I'm asking: How can this article be renamed in a way that will make any sense? And in other words, what is the article's actual subject?

It's quite clear that it cannot be an article about a person, because the person probably didn't exist. And sure, the English Wikipedia has Category:People whose existence is disputed, to which this article has now been added, but does it really belong in the same category with Robin Hood and Queen of Sheba, about whom there are highly notable primary sources and enormous heaps of secondary research literature?

So is it an article about a myth, an urban legend, a misconception, an Internet meme? Or about something else?

Once this is decided, it will be possible to discuss this article's keeping. Till then, please delete it. -- Amir E. Aharoni ( talk) 11:12, 20 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Robin Hood and the Queen of Sheba are notable as literary characters. Lupe Hernandez is a hoax, not a literary character. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 12:26, 20 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Yes, my point exactly. -- Amir E. Aharoni ( talk) 14:19, 20 May 2020 (UTC) reply
The story is notable per WP:GNG as discussed in multiple reliable sources The Washington Post, LA Times, Smithsonian Museum and Vanity Fair, and as indicated in dozens of other sources around the world as seen on Google News. -- Green C 14:28, 20 May 2020 (UTC) reply

It is mentioned in passing in multiple reliable sources which does not qualify it for GNG. This story has the reliability of a blog post, which Wikipedia is not. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 18:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC) reply

I strongly disagree with your characterization of the sources. -- Green C 19:39, 21 May 2020 (UTC) reply

If kept, must be moved - Per GreenC, this needs a title like Lupe Hernández hoax/legend etc. It is not appropriate for it to be set up like a bio. I am on the fence about whether it should be deleted or kept though.-- Darryl Kerrigan ( talk) 22:59, 20 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete The topic of the Guardian article is hand sanitizer and Hernandez has a passing mention [26] in the first paragraph.

The El Correo article is also passing mention, really it is hardly that [27].

Lupez gets passing mention in WAPO [28], but WAPO says it has been unable to confirm the story even after tracing it back to before the Guardian article. Also, WAPO could not find the patent that supposedly belonged to Hernandez. WAPO concludes:

Regardless of the facts, this is why we think the legend of Lupe went a little viral this week: because it is the story of how one woman — without access to a pharmaceutical lab or a PhD in chemistry, without the guidance of government, diligently and with a can-do American spirit — came up with a simple yet ingenious solution. Her story might not be 99.99 percent true, or even 0.9 percent true. But believing it might confer a little bit of emotional protection against the darkness of this pandemic. She could do it. You can do it. We can do it. It just takes a little bit of improvisation. A little bit of luck. A little bit of hope. If only we could bottle that.

This is supposition. Notice the phrase "why we think..." There is nothing of substance.

The Lemelson Center for the Study of Invention and Innovation (reference) says: [29] "So I began by searching for a patent issued to Lupe Hernandez (or several variations of the name), but I didn’t find any.I did discover patents for hand sanitizers from roughly the same period, but those covered apparatuses into which one would place one’s hands for sanitizing." The author discovered patent for these devices by Stevenson and Nelson. Earlier patents were discovered for 1934, 1936, 1908, and 1941 but were not necessarily hand sanitizers that we use today. So this debunks the story, and is barely passing mention.

This Spanish newspaper source [30] cites only the Guardian newspaper, does not discuss discovering the patent because they didn't investigate, mentions GOJO Purell, and mentions the H1N1 swine flu pandemic in 2009 where it transitioned to public use. Again this is passing mention but it's the same story as the Guardian as its source.

The LA Times couldn't verify the story [31].

Vanity Fair [32] is passing mention. The article traces the history of hand sanitizer from 1875 and variations in 1911 and 1936. In 1946 a husband wife team invented GOJO hand cleaner but it was cleaner not a sanitizer. "It’s not meant to kill germs, but to scrub off oil, grease, and other junk from the skin." In 1988 they concocted the hand sanitizer but different from Purell. Regarding Hernandez,

The origin of this claim appears to be a 2012 article in The Guardian; all other mentions of Lupe Hernandez came after that article and provide no other information. Facts about Lupe Hernandez are nonexistent: no patent under that name was filed, nor was any hand-sanitizer-related patent under any other name for a decade on either side.

So this is passing mention again, and there is no evidence this story is true.

In all these sources it fails verification as a real person and is not a true story. There are no details of this person life that are available. Hence it fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. It fails GNG because each source is passing mention. The only source cited by the sources is the 2012 Guardian article, so it's the same story repeated over and over again. This is not significant coverage in multiple independent sources as required by WP:GNG. Also, Wikipedia is not a blog, web hosting service, social media service, or memorial site. And, Wikipedia is not a directory. Wikipedia does have a bar or several bars for inclusion. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 05:29, 21 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Passing mention what? Some of these articles are entirely about it. Wikipedia as many notable urban legends see Category:Urban legends. I don't understand your point about the sources being unable to verify the story. History has many such things that are notable. Wikipedia is not "only things that are verifiable true". As noted above renaming the article is something we can do any time, to be about the story not a bio article. -- Green C 13:24, 21 May 2020 (UTC) reply

It is not true that some of these articles are entirely about it. Which ones are you talking about? The only one maybe is the LA Times article. And, I will look at that again. As has been stated above, enough significant coverage as an urban legend or myth has not been presented so the topic is disqualified under WP:1E. And as I stated, it is the same megear story over and over repeated in various RS. This is not significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. And Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information. -- Steve Quinn ( talk) 17:57, 21 May 2020 (UTC) reply

If top-tier national sources like The Washington Post, Smithsonian and LA Times are not sufficient then nothing will be, you have set the bar extremely high. WP:1E is for biography articles, this is an urban legend. We have many Category:Urban legends they are not "indiscriminate". -- Green C 19:43, 21 May 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Amire80: I doubt a ( non-admin closure) would be in any way appropriate here—and the inevitable WP:DRV would be so tiresome—but I really can't see any consensus to delete this; the real issue is not whether there's SIGCOV—there clearly is (now)—but what it is, precisely, that that coverage makes notable, a hoax or an individual. Either way, that's a discussion for the talk page. serial ^# 12:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Bold Rename to Lupe Hernández hand sanitizer legend. -- Green C 13:28, 21 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep Lupe Hernández hand sanitizer legend. Under its new name and in its current state, I think it is acceptable. The article does not say that the story is false, just that there have been failed attempts to verify it, so the concerns of Wikipedia taking a position have been adequately addressed in my opinion. PJvanMill ( talk) 15:01, 21 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. qedk ( t 愛 c) 06:37, 21 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Southgate Civic Center

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

Non-notable local arena. No significant coverage except for firsthand sources and scant mentions in the local newspaper and directory. — Notorious4life ( talk) 08:39, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. — Notorious4life ( talk) 08:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete a non-notable very local arena. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:36, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:58, 14 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete - fails WP:GNG Spiderone 13:34, 20 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete' - a local venue that can fit only 245 people is run of the mill. Bearian ( talk) 04:01, 21 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. WP:DUP does not apply, as the pages are not on exactly the same subject. WP:OVERLAP conceivably applies, but as discussed below, various RSes consider the series' differently, and there is a natural distinction shown between them. Given that the article is sufficiently sourced for GNG, it seems to make sense to keep it separate - although the inline citations in the article should be improved. (non-admin closure) Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 20:03, 20 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Mega Man X

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

Same basis as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mega Man (original series), WP:DUP. Redirect to Mega Man#Mega Man X seems more appropriate though. - || RuleTheWiki || (talk) 02:10, 29 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. - || RuleTheWiki || (talk) 02:10, 29 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:09, 29 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:09, 29 April 2020 (UTC) reply

delete redirect and merge per nom. Grmike ( talk) 13:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)grmike reply
Merge/Redirect given age of article and other cited redirect. No concern if pure redirect from me. -- Izno ( talk) 14:54, 29 April 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete redirect and merge. XVDC ( talk) 16:35, 29 April 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep reliable sources treat the Mega Man series and the Mega Man X series as separate entities. e.g. [33] the Mega Man 30th Anniversary Bundle [...] which compiles all 11 mainline Mega Man games and the eight Mega Man X titles. and [34] They just don’t seem to get as much love or appreciation as the classic Mega Man or Mega Man X games. Iffy★ Chat -- 20:26, 29 April 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep per User:Iffy and my thinking that if someone tried to cram all the info for these Mega Man sub-series into the Mega Man article (there's 6 of 'em with 4.5 games on average per sub-series) it'd become too large and unwieldy. Americanfreedom ( talk) 05:50, 1 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy ( talk) 05:11, 6 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:41, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep: This is clearly a separate series, with lots of content that wouldn't fit on the Mega Man page. It's unclear to me why you would even consider deleting this. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mega Man (original series) is a completely different situation. — Toughpigs ( talk) 01:07, 14 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep: RSes treat Mega Man X as a separate series and discuss it as such, and there's certainly enough about it to support a page; a redirect to Mega Man would lose information, while a merger would make it large and unwieldly. Also, since you note that Mega Man (original series) was deleted, it may be worth noting that pages for fellow subseries Mega Man Legends, Mega Man Zero and Mega Man Battle Network also exist. — Kawnhr ( talk) 21:01, 17 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. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) HawkAussie ( talk) 04:03, 18 May 2020 (UTC) reply

2000–01 Perth Glory SC season

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

This page fails WP:NSEASONS as the club wasn't in a professional league at the time with the National Soccer League being semi-professional at the time. HawkAussie ( talk) 04:19, 6 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie ( talk) 04:19, 6 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie ( talk) 04:19, 6 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie ( talk) 04:19, 6 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:05, 6 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete as I don't think there's enough for GNG. Ping me if you disagree so I can reconsider. Giant Snowman 16:07, 6 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Comment - @ GiantSnowman:, as the creator, most of the Australian media of that era is paywalled or not available online. I'm not too bothered if this gets userfied until I get access to sources to prove it passes WP:GNG. Hack ( talk) 02:17, 7 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep Looking at the sources presented in the article (I don't have access to them but am familiar with the West Australian) I'd be extraordinarily surprised if this failed WP:GNG. This was a top flight league at the time and while I'm not sure every club in the league would necessarily meet WP:GNG for a season article, but the Moffat/Cook/Hughes coverage for the WA should all be significant, and WP:NSEASONS is not exclusionary. SportingFlyer T· C 14:28, 7 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep - I think SportingFlyer aid it well above. Macosal ( talk) 12:18, 9 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep - agree with SportingFlyer. Deus et lex ( talk) 07:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down ( talk) 08:35, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep, per WP:SEASONS, the league was a top professional league–the notability guideline doesn't specify the level of professionalism. I'm not sure how you're supposed to prove WP:GNG for a sporting season but I've provided a series of references in the article showing the breadth of coverage the club received for their season. I don't have access to the archives for The West Australian that I had when I created the article but their coverage of the preseason matches shows an example of the level of local interest in the team at the time. Hack ( talk) 09:27, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

"Professional" in this context clearly does not mean "semi-professional", because that is the same as "semi-amateur". Giant Snowman 11:29, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep played in top-flight league, with over 100 references - some of them pretty serious. Poor nomination. Nfitz ( talk) 23:04, 16 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment @ Nfitz: It wasn't originally over 100 references because at the time it was 44 references with most of those references being the ozfootball references. HawkAussie ( talk) 02:34, 18 May 2020 (UTC) reply

And yet User:HawkAussie even then it had 11 other references than the 33 from that site. 10 from a well known mainstream newspaper ( The West Australian) with one of the highest circulations in the country! You should have withdrawn this already rather than wasting time highlighting your WP:BEFORE failure! Nfitz ( talk) 03:53, 18 May 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was merge to Freddie Mercury#Tributes. Barkeep49 ( talk) 20:05, 21 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Freddie Mercury Alley in Warsaw

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

I don't think this tiny street meets WP:GNG/ WP:NGEO ( Wikipedia:Notability_(geographic_features)#Roadways). Coverage is really limited to trivial and hardly in-depth gossip about 'new street has cool name'. At best this could be copied to Freddie_Mercury#Tributes or such, but I do wonder if such WP:TRIVIA is really going to improve the article. Thoughts? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 07:50, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 07:50, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 07:50, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:59, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Slight merge to Freddie Mercury#Tributes. To the extent that this alley is of interest, it would be as part of Mercury's legacy. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:34, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply
If kept, should be retitled to Freddie Mercury Alley (Warsaw) p b p 18:52, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Merge to Freddie Mercury#Tributes and rename redirect Freddie Mercury Alley (Warsaw) Djflem ( talk) 17:25, 15 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. qedk ( t 愛 c) 06:37, 21 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Loyola Schools Student Council

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

Purely "in-universe" article about a school student council, based on primary sources (the Guidon is the student newspaper). I redirected it to the school, but was reversed by the article creator. I guess deletion will do the trick as well. This is not a notable organisation, and even if it was, the article would need a complete rewrite, focusing on what the outside world has noted about this organisation, but not describing in excessive detail how this "presidential constitutional republic" is organised. We are an encyclopedia, providing a neutral, outside perspective on notable subjects; we aren't a site to duplicate the website or charter of an organisation. Fram ( talk) 07:49, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Fram ( talk) 07:49, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Fram ( talk) 07:49, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete - subject fails WP:GNG; present article content fails WP:NOT. Cordless Larry ( talk) 08:19, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete. Easily fails WP:GNG. Sources cited fail WP:IS — Hiwilms ( talk) 08:26, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:59, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete - this is so overblown promotion as to be deletable as G11. It's so inherently non notable a subject (stretching only a tiny bit) it could be A7. And it's so fanciful as to nearly be a hoax. In case you couldn't tell, I think WP:SNOW more than appropriate here. John from Idegon ( talk) 09:45, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete. No sources have been provided to indicate that this student government is of any notability outside the academic institution that it serves. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:37, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Restore redirect to Loyola Schools: Barely found any secondary sources about the student council. Article is definitely WP:PROMOTIONAL. My vote stands. ASTIG😎 _{(
ICE T •
ICE CUBE)} 02:17, 14 May 2020 (UTC) reply
- Comment - I would specifically oppose a redirect as too imprecise to be useful. There are hundreds of schools worldwide with "Loyola" in their name. There probably should be a "primary topic" discussion on the title of the university's article too. John from Idegon ( talk) 09:27, 15 May 2020 (UTC) reply
  - John from Idegon, there are indeed a lot of schools carrying the "Loyola" name. To address that concern, it'd be best to reframe Loyola Schools as "Loyola Schools (Ateneo)". But, my vote still stands since it's useful as an WP:ATD for this AfD. ASTIG😎 _{(
    ICE T •
    ICE CUBE)} 16:45, 15 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Merge to Loyola Schools.-- RioHondo ( talk) 14:09, 17 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 deleted. The article was speedy deleted by User:CaptainEek per WP:G11, "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:53, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Vinati

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

The article has no WP:RS and seems not notable as per WP:CORP except that its listed at National Stock Exchange of India ~Amkgp ✉ 07:42, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ~Amkgp ✉ 07:42, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~Amkgp ✉ 07:42, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Speedy delete - A7/G11, and I've marked it up as such. John from Idegon ( talk) 07:59, 13 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. Barkeep49 ( talk) 03:09, 21 May 2020 (UTC) reply

School of Inspired Leadership

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a private institute not affiliated to any university or approved by any government authority. As tells: ... We are registered under the Companies Act, as we claim we are here to do business. ... School of Inspired Leadership (Soil), which began operations in Gurgaon this July, has opted for a similar model. It is registered under section 21 of the Companies Act and managed by Grow Talent Company Ltd.

As their FAQ section url was used as reference to tell that they are not AICTE approved, now they have changed the url info. Archive URL under Credentials section says that it is not AICTE approved educational institute.

Such institute derive legitimacy by social media marketing and online presence including on Wikipedia. They charge large amount of money for their unapproved courses and give "certificates" of their courses. See [35] and [36]. They are called "fake" or "unapproved institutes". They are operated as companies, not education institutes. We should not have articles about these unapproved institutes. Nizil ( talk) 07:20, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

keep SOIL is an educational institute with 1100+ alumni. You have mentioned that the institute is not AICTE approved. However, the 2 year PGDM program launched by SOIL called SOIL School of Business Design is an AICTE approved program. This new campus & new program was launched & approved by AICTE in 2019.

In addition, SOIL (School of Inspired Leadership) has been ranked among top 20 one year MBA programs:

http://www.businessworld.in/article/Top-B-schools-One-Year-Programmes-/27-11-2019-179512/ https://news.careers360.com/soil-school-of-business-designs-pgdm-programme-gets-aicte-approval https://www.soilindia.net/2-yr-pgp/aicte-approval -> this is the certificate issued by AICTE. https://www.mbauniverse.com/one-year-mba/best-programs — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ib1404 ( talk • contribs) 16:06, 16 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Nizil ( talk) 07:20, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Nizil ( talk) 07:20, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

This institute is not notable as per WP:NORG (as a company) as well as WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES tells about "accredited" which it is not. The article was created by User:Soil gurgaon which clearly says SOIL (short name of institute) means it had WP:COI and had only edited this article. It was previously speedy deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/School of Inspired Leadership but was recreated in 2011.- Nizil ( talk) 07:31, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:00, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down ( talk) 06:19, 20 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Abdulrahman Al-Shammari (footballer, born 2000)

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

The player signed a professional contract but, at least according to Soccerway, never played a game in a fully professional league. Ymblanter ( talk) 07:13, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter ( talk) 07:13, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter ( talk) 07:13, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:00, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete has never played in a fully professional game. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 12:03, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:38, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:40, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete, fails WP:GNG, Alex-h ( talk) 12:30, 17 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:19, 21 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Marcel Cartier

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

WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO. I can't find any coverage of him, doesn't appear that his albums or books have gotten any reviews. – Thjarkur (talk) 20:11, 5 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 20:11, 5 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:57, 5 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:58, 5 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:58, 5 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:01, 5 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom. Some, if not all, of his books are published by self-publishing companies. I did find one Publishers Weekly review, but there do not appear to be enough RS. Caro7200 ( talk) 20:43, 5 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep I am new to wikipedia and this is my first article, I may have published it prematurely but I do not think it should be deleted.

Following Thjarkur's advice I have found more sources from independent sources. These include two interviews with Al Mayadeen news and an intervew and a review of his work by I Am Hip-Hop magazine.

User Caro7200 said all of his books may be self published but this is incorrect. The citation for his first book gives you the publisher John Hunt Publishing, which is an imprint of Zer0Books. His second book Berxwedan is self published using a collection of articles and essays on Kurdish nationalism originally published in the now defunct TheRegion.org.

Today I have attempted to fix the issues you have both raised and I will be continously improving it.

BulgeUwU ( talk) 08:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Strong delete a bunch of self-published works and a low level music career do not come even close to making a person notable. We really need to make all new articles go through the article creation process. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:55, 8 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Creator note In accordance with the WP:GNG I have included multiple secondary sources from various news outlets and music magazines and similar sources.

Marcel Cartier meets both the WP:ANYBIO for receiving a significant honour and the WP:AUTHOR for a significant collective body of work.

I feel as if John Pack Lambert) and ( Caro7200) both skimmed the article before deciding it should be deleted. The person featured in the article only published two books, one through an imprint of Zer0Books and the other a self published collection of articles originally published in TheRegion, yet both editors said that most if not all the author's books are self published despite the citations I've added to both the publisher's website and a review of Serkeftin by Publisher's Weekly. I think they mistakenly read the older version of the page.

BulgeUwU ( talk) 22:24, 9 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Thanks for finding these sources, hadn't come up when I Googled him. I am going to list the independent sources here:

Morning Star review – Good source. Coverage of his book.

Publisher Weekly review – Good source. Coverage of his book.

GreenLeft – Seemingly a good source. Significant coverage of him.

FAZ – Good source. One paragraph about him when discussing a report he did.

Almayadeen [37] [38] – Good source. Live interview.

IamHipHop [39] [40] – Can't quite see whether this is a reliable source.

He's definitely not a majorly notable individual, but he miiight just pass WP:GNG. I am neutral, leaning weak keep as I do think the sourcing available is very much on the weaker end. (I'll also say, Zer0Books's branding makes them look like a self-publishing service)

– Thjarkur (talk) 09:31, 11 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep With current sources, he can slip through GNG and SIGCOV, just barely so. MistyGraceWhite ( talk) 18:43, 12 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, qedk ( t 愛 c) 06:51, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Creator note The editor who nominated this article for deletion did so when the article was prematurely published and has since changed their mind and calls for a weak keep. Following their advice (thankyou very much btw) I corrected the article to better follow the WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO criteria. The only other two editors who called for a delete had not read the article very closely and mistakenly believed that this person's works were all self-published, I believe they may have read an older version of the page. In the meanwhile before the admin makes their decision I will be making further improvements. BulgeUwU ( talk) 05:08, 15 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep as per the reliable sources added to the article and detailed above the subject seems to be notable as an author and passes WP:GNG imv Atlantic306 ( talk) 00:19, 17 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep based on sourcing that seems to meet SIGCOV, but worth noting that TeleSUR is a deprecated source per WP:RS/PS. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 20:18, 20 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Comment Thjarkur, since you have changed your stance to neutral/weak keep, are you willing to withdraw your nomination so that this can be closed? Sulfurboy ( talk) 23:06, 20 May 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Stifle ( talk) 08:27, 21 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Phase One Studios

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

nn recording studio tagged since 2012 with no remedy Staszek Lem ( talk) 20:01, 5 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:03, 5 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:04, 5 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:04, 5 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:46, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Originally copied from [41], which clearly has a copyright notice. 78.26 _{(
spin me /
revolutions)} 14:01, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Kenneth M. Ford

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

Lack of nobility; reads almost like a biography from his foundation's website. Skylordjason ( talk) 05:28, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:01, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:01, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:01, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Speedy delete as cooyvio of this page, unless NASA material is copyright free (I can’t see that it is). Mccapra ( talk) 09:09, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply
@ Mccapra: I have tagged this article for speedy deletion. Interstellarity ( talk) 13:05, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. qedk ( t 愛 c) 06:36, 21 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Spring Creek, California

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

Could not find coverage to establish notability or verify the existence of a community. – dlthewave ☎ 03:46, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. – dlthewave ☎ 03:46, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. – dlthewave ☎ 03:46, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete - Fails WP:GEOLAND. Sulfurboy ( talk) 23:08, 20 May 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. qedk ( t 愛 c) 06:36, 21 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Springfield Meadows, California

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

Non-notable subdivision. Not a legally-recognized community, lacks significant coverage. – dlthewave ☎ 03:39, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. – dlthewave ☎ 03:39, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. – dlthewave ☎ 03:39, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete - Fails WP:GEOLAND. Sulfurboy ( talk) 23:08, 20 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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 05:04, 21 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Blacks in Egypt

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

There's no racial classification based on color in Egypt, whether in the modern republic or historically. The article seems more like an Essay made by synthesis of unrelated material. The notion of black or white as currently understood in the US and a lot of european countries is highly eurocentric and not familiar in Egypt. The sources that do speak about "Blacks in Egypt" don't speak of a united ethnic group as the article suggests. They either talk about the Black Egyptian Hypothesis, which is considered a fringe theory by mainstream scholars. Or, They talk about the racism that some dark-skinned African immigrants or refugees face in Egypt today, including dark-skinned Egyptians from the south sometimes (Ancient Egyptians attached no special stigma to the colour of the skin and developed no hierarchical notions of race whereby highest and lowest positions in the social pyramid were based on colour, According to most scholars), so suggesting that all these groups constitute a unified group only based on their potentially shared experience of racism, or based on the American definition of "black" is clearly original research. I suggest the contents be moved to the articles talking about racism in Egypt and Arab slave trade. Mohamed^Talk 03:17, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Mohamed^Talk 03:17, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete The very existence of this article supports essentialist ideas on race that have been rejected by scholars for decades. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:32, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:59, 14 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete a case of WP:SYNTH Spiderone 12:35, 15 May 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. qedk ( t 愛 c) 06:36, 21 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Tiger Lily, California

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

Could not find significant coverage for this place. Durham source lists it as a "locality". – dlthewave ☎ 03:14, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. – dlthewave ☎ 03:14, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. – dlthewave ☎ 03:14, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete - Fails WP:GEOLAND. Sulfurboy ( talk) 23:08, 20 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. procedurally, perhaps; but the nominator is globally locked; there is no strong feeling towards deleting this—indeed, the nom seemed to prefer redirection—and there is absolutely no reason to waste anyone's time any further. serial ^# 09:06, 19 May 2020 (UTC) (non-admin closure) serial ^# 09:06, 19 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Ahmed Rajib Haider

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

AfDs for this article:

Redirect- Was an assassination that made worldwide headline news, and not just for a few days after the incident. Other famous bloggers who faced assassination and attempted assassination knew him, he knew Avijit Roy. After his murder Asif Mohiuddin, another notable blogger who survived a machete attack spoke of him, and he knew him. International media coverage continued long after the incident (March 2015), as shown here. The original article was deleted in 2015 on the grounds of lacking news coverage after the incident, but after it was deleted there was more, rendering such reason invalid. The article also exists on other language Wikipedias. Consensus on the previous deletion was in no way unanimous, and the topic has come up again and in the news after the deletion. On the original deletion many argued for it to be kept. He many not have been in international worldwide news before the incident, but had presence in Bengali language media. Mithun Rahman ( talk) 02:56, 13 May 2020 (UTC) — Mithun Rahman ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Mithun Rahman has been globally blocked as a sock of the globally banned user:Bishal Khan

Comment The article Washiqur Rahman, was merged and/or redirected to Attacks by Islamic extremists in Bangladesh, Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Washiqur Rahman (2nd nomination)

You can read the previous discussion and closing comments yourself. Someone's reading seems to be that the original problem was a lack of news coverage after the incident. Although that concern was raised during the discussion, my own reading is that the major problem was that Ahmed Rajib Haider was a low profile individual notable only for one event. Quite an alphabet soup of policies and guidelines were cited in arguments:

What Wikipedia is Not: WP:NOTMEMORIAL, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:INDISCRIMINATE
Biographies of Living People (and low-profile individuals): WP:BLP1E
Notability: WP:N, WP:NEVENT, WP:ANYBIO, WP:VICTIM, WP:BIO1E

-- Mithun Rahman ( talk) 02:56, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mithun Rahman ( talk) 02:56, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Mithun Rahman ( talk) 02:56, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Mithun Rahman ( talk) 02:56, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 May 13. — ^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:13, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep-Third nomination this year. The nominator is a sock of Bishal Khan and has been blocked form editing. The socks have a history of going after atheist bloggers. Like the last two time, the subject is still notable and nothing has changed in five months. Vinegarymass911 ( talk) 11:06, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Comment; The person is notable only for his death and Wikipedia is not based on atheism nor any religion, this must be considered finally that this person is notable or not; I want to say that this article should be renamed as 'Murder of Ahmed Rajib Haider', please see: Murder of Nusrat Jahan Rafi, a Bangladeshi murder which got recognition of international newspapers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 43.245.121.227 ( talk) 13:16, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete or Redirect - Some international newspapers published the news of death of this person, yes it is true, but it doesn't mean that the person was notable, even the person's birth date is not shown in the article (Wikipedia article), the person was killed by Islamist terrorists and then it became an world-wide news. Wikipedia is not memorial or Wikipedia is not a newspaper nor Wikipedia is a blog; the article may be considered for redirecting to or merging with Attacks by Islamic extremists in Bangladesh (note: the person has no public domain image in Wikipedia commons and it is another proof that the person was and is non-notable, only attack after him and his death was notable). Wise Wikipedians are invited to say something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 43.245.121.8 ( talk) 09:31, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep. Clearly notable. His murder was covered all over the world. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:36, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep but Rename. The article should be renamed as 'Murder of Ahmed Rajib Haider' as the person's death event was notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.58.201.51 ( talk) 09:38, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

The IP above has only 1 other edit to Wikipedia. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 03:55, 19 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep per User:Vinegarymass911. Sockpuppeting and IP editing, vandalism, and harassment of atheist editors of the article by said vandal(s) has been a repeat problem, and this article has already been nominated for deletion before and kept. Also, lack of PD photos on Commons is NOT "proof" that someone wasn't notable. Standard copyright rules and practices vary significantly by territory - even some heads of state don't have photos on Commons! Due to the persistant IP attacks on the article, I reccomend that only registered users be allowed to comment in this discussion (to prevent the vandal(s) from spamming the discussion here). I would also like to note that the nominator is a very new user whose first (and only) contributions are in the realm of this deletion nomination - very suspicious. The fact that Haider received so much media coverage throughout the past decade and was the first Shahbag death is incredibly notable.-- PlanespotterA320 ( talk) 03:22, 14 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep per User:PlanespotterA320, the article's deletion discussion was 'keep's before; it must be kept in this discussion also as the person was notable because he was the first person to be killed in 2013 Shahbag Protest in Bangladesh. I have read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Washiqur Rahman (2nd nomination) and it was nominated by User:PlanespotterA320 and User:Worldbruce commented there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.67.156.118 ( talk) 07:47, 14 May 2020 (UTC) reply

The IP above has only 3 other edits to Wikipedia. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 03:56, 19 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep, 1) nomination by a blocked sock, 2) nominator wants a "redirect" not a "delete" so should have discussed this on the article talkpage (there is a closed discussion there but doesn't count as it lasted only one day/involved a couple of editors), 3) waste of time as previous 2 afds from this year resulted in "keep", and made by socks/same person(?), can an admin please close this early, also, some sort of article protection may be warrented?. Coolabahapple ( talk) 00:49, 17 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Comment. @ Moheen:, is a wise Wikipedian, he had commented on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Washiqur Rahman (2nd nomination). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 43.245.122.188

The above editor has only 2 other edits to Wikipedia, and may be related to the IP here with a similar number. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 04:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment Obviously redirectable to Attacks by Islamic extremists in Bangladesh. No reason to keep as a single article, where the subject is only notable for his death, and in Bangladesh, it's some kind of normal thing in the 21st century. Being an atheist doesn't meet the subject's notability. Most of them are non-native Bengali user commented who haven't proper idea about the actual event. ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 10:32, 18 May 2020 (UTC) reply
- He is not just famous for being an atheist. He is famous for being an atheist political/social commentator with a high profile who was assasinated and received a large amount of media coverage. Being an atheist doesn't automatically render a famous writer less notable.-- PlanespotterA320 ( talk) 21:37, 18 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete or Redirect Wikipedia is neutral, it does not rely on atheist people nor any religious person, Wikipedia can have articles of Muslim people and also Wikipedia can have articles of atheist people; the person Ahmed Rajib Haider doesn't seem to be notable as his news covered only for one event (the attack after the person and the person's death) and I don't think Wikipedia should have a separate article for the person, the article can be renamed as 'Murder of Ahmed Rajib Haider' or the article can be deleted and redirected to Attacks by Islamic extremists in Bangladesh. Wikipedia can't have all atheist peoples' articles, if it is a biography then where is the person's birth date and other personal information? Jason Aaron is an American atheist, his article is full of good information and contains public domain image in Wikimedia commons. ChokLador ( talk) 11:14, 18 May 2020 (UTC) reply
- Note: ChokLador has only four edits, this being their first edit, as of the writing of this comment, and is a brand new account. Highly suspicious.-- PlanespotterA320 ( talk) 21:32, 18 May 2020 (UTC) reply
  - Again, lack of photos on Commons is not a "litmus test" for notability. Not all people who have photos on Commons are notable, and not everyone who lacks a photo on Commons is not notable. Commons copyright policies are strict and result in significant variances in the amount of free content available for given subjects. There are far less Bengali medias that are released under Creative Commons licences than other counterparts on Wikimedia, and because of deficits like this we allow fair-use photos to be used on English Wikipedia. There are plenty of people, some far more notable than Haidar, including living heads of state, who do not have portraits on Commons. This argument reflects a previous failed argument brought up by another delete vote (and I would be quite shocked if you had no connection to IP 43.245.121.8 given all the shenanigans surrounding this article in the past year).-- PlanespotterA320 ( talk) 00:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Redirect per nom (fix the merger). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.58.200.28 ( talk) 11:18, 18 May 2020 (UTC) reply

The IP above has only 1 other edit to Wikipedia, and may be the same editor as 116.58.201.51, who already voted above. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 04:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment: What Wikipedia is Not: WP:NOTMEMORIAL, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:INDISCRIMINATE

* Biographies of Living People (and low-profile individuals): WP:BLP1E

* Notability: WP:N, WP:NEVENT, WP:ANYBIO, WP:VICTIM, WP:BIO1E, everyone must see these things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 43.245.121.43 ( talk) 07:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Deleete The person is not notable per notability investigation in google. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 43.245.120.92 ( talk) 12:08, 18 May 2020 (UTC) reply
- Note - IP has no other contributions to Wikipedia.-- PlanespotterA320 ( talk) 21:34, 18 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Comment again: I recommended that this page be closed as keep immediately due to the intense amount of sockpuppeting and unethical behavior from the nominator who is clearly pushing so intensely for deletion on political grounds (as evidenced by the comments from the sockpuppeter on various editors talkpages, their vandalism in the article history, harassment of editors of the page, user contributions, and clear repeat voting here [note the similarities in unusual syntax and vocabulary used by various anonymous "delete" votes]). There nominator behind this deletion has demonstrated through their behavior their very unethical agenda behind this deletion nomination.-- PlanespotterA320 ( talk) 21:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC) reply
@ PlanespotterA320:, I have taken my votes back! This deletion nomination can't be political agenda or something, I think you can understand Bengali-language (though you are not a native speaker). As this article was nominated by a sock an administrator must close and keep the article immediately (I am on behalf of your speeches), by the way I am also a female and radical atheist like you. ChokLador ( talk) 02:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC) reply
keep no less notable than before. -- Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 03:31, 19 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep, but rename to "Murder of Ahmed Rajib Haider". Beyond My Ken ( talk) 03:51, 19 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep at least until the actions suggested by user: mazca in the close of the first AFD have been implemeted.a full merge and redirect is not necessarily excluded if a trimmed article is trivially short. A merge discussion on the talk page about what content shouldn't really be here is the way forward, from the point of view of AfD this article is clearly not being deleted. I agree that some of this material should be moved, but another bad-faith renomination by a globally banned user (and support by another host of SPAs) should not be rewarded. Merge the off topic material, and then discuss what is left to see if it should be merged. Meters ( talk) 06:40, 19 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. qedk ( t 愛 c) 06:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Suz Andreasen

AfDs for this article:

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

Tagged for notability since 2012. Sourcing is inadequate – no direct references in reliable sources. I couldn't find anything at Newspapers.com or NewspaperArchive. This person's parents were notable, but as things stand, I don't see any case for independent notability. Nick Number ( talk) 23:55, 5 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:41, 6 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:41, 6 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:42, 6 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:42, 6 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:43, 6 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:46, 6 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete inadequate sourcing to establish GNG. The article is like a box of Cracker Jack, with many small bits stuck together to give the appearance of a whole. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 02:04, 6 May 2020 (UTC) reply

~~I don't find the Cracker Jack analogy particularly relevant. Bus stop ( talk) 17:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC)~~ reply

Bus stop! great to see you! Having a good time commenting on talk pages? ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 19:47, 11 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete - I'm not seeing anything to establish notability. Am also wondering why her father's obit is one of the sources, as notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Netherzone ( talk) 16:42, 6 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Nobody has argued that the subject's notability is dependent on the notability of the subject. Bus stop ( talk) 17:22, 11 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment I would like to see someone with subject area expertise evaluate the awards, before I !vote. I couldn't verify the claims to inclusion in the Smithsonian Institution and the other museum Schmuck Museum does not have digital records online, and while there isn't a en wiki page, there is a page on de wiki.-- Theredproject ( talk) 16:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Schmuckmuseum Pforzheim Bus stop ( talk) 17:10, 11 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Just noting that referring to NJOURNAL is obviously fine but it is not an official guideline and so actual notability guidelines should also be used when discussing its notability (or lack there of).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 ( talk) 01:57, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete There is nothing notable about this person Barrettsprivateers ( talk) 03:20, 13 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Koridas (... Puerto Rico for statehood!) 01:36, 17 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Advertising campaign

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

I can't understand what this article has any different from Advertising. It seems to be a content fork of that article. I'm not so sure if redirecting or merging would be okay, because the article is so big and has lasted for a long time, so I AFD'ed the article instead. Also, the article is very off-topic. Koridas (... Puerto Rico for statehood!) 01:57, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Koridas (... Puerto Rico for statehood!) 01:57, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew🐉( talk) 10:31, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep The topic is notable as entire books are written about it with titles like Advertising Campaign Design; Advertising Campaign Planning; Advertising Campaign Strategy. The rest is then a matter of ordinary editing per WP:IMPERFECT. Deletion has no part to play in this per WP:ATD which states that "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉( talk) 09:51, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep There is a difference between advertising generally, and a campaign. It is described in the lead section. There will naturally be overlap between these topics, but that doesn't mean they are a fork, content can be shared between articles. It is a question of balance and weight, which comes down to making an effort to improve the article. -- Green C 15:24, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep. Needs cleaning out, but an advertising campaign is definitely a different thing than advertising generally. A campaign often refers to a specific marketing effort on behalf of a product or service and is often associated with a repeated conceptual theme, which a Google search will confirm. - WPGA2345 - ☛ 19:24, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep, meets WP:GNG, as editors above, plus it is tertiary studied ie. "Advertising Management and Campaigns Project", "Marketing Communication and Advertising Major ", and "Bachelor of Business (Advertising)". Coolabahapple ( talk) 23:12, 16 May 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. Nobody's seriously suggesting deletion. Whether to merge, redirect, or neither of these can be taken up on the article talk page or by an individual editor under WP:BB. Stifle ( talk) 08:28, 21 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Victoria Park Avenue

AfDs for this article:

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

Redirect to List of north–south roads in Toronto#Victoria Park Avenue: The only cited section in this article is about public transport, and a quick google search shows that there are no sources about the road itself (just nearby buildings), thus failing WP:GNG. Username⁶⁸⁹² 22:05, 28 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Username⁶⁸⁹² 22:05, 28 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Username⁶⁸⁹² 22:05, 28 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep - The book Don Mills From Forests and Farms to Forces of Change goes into detail fo the history of this avenue. Spacing (magazine) and Metroland News has very in-depth coverage in addition. [42] [43] If the street is considered important and major enough to have its own Toronto subway station, Victoria Park station (Toronto), then it's important enough for Wikipedia. Far too much topic-specific content to merge into the already far too long List of north–south roads in Toronto article. Oakshade ( talk) 19:45, 29 April 2020 (UTC) reply
Oakshade, if you think at least 2 of those sources are good enough for the article and provide WP:SIGCOV, add the information from them to the article and I will withdraw my nomination. Username⁶⁸⁹² 19:54, 29 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Having a subway station on it is not a notability criterion for a street: see e.g. Chester, Donlands, Bessarion, Castle Frank. It might be a suggestion that a road has other notability claims, but does not clinch a road's notability in and of itself. Bearcat ( talk) 20:29, 30 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:42, 5 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 ( talk) 01:54, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep - The two sources presented by Oakshade is enough to demonstrate notability. I'm also not seeing anything particularly egregious about the previous AfD to warrant overturning that consensus. Sulfurboy ( talk) 23:19, 20 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. Tone 16:05, 21 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Abdul Khaliq (philosopher)

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

Promotional, fails WP:NPROF. Störm (talk) 15:17, 4 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:24, 4 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:26, 4 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Phil Bridger ( talk) 07:53, 6 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete: Fails notability guidelines on all fronts, reads like a promotional piece. Charmanderblue ( talk) 16:12, 4 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete a non-notable academic. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:48, 4 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep per WP:PROF#C5. Phil Bridger ( talk) 07:53, 6 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Stubify, or weak delete per WP:TNT. I believe the WP:PROF#C5 case put forward by Phil Bridger, but almost the entirety of the article is unsourced and unverifiable. I searched for several of the articles listed, and wasn't able to find them. The WorldCat identity appears to be another person of the same name. I could verify some of the books, at least. If kept, I don't see that we can support much more than "Abdul Khaliq is a Pakistani philosopher, who was Iqbal Professor at the University of Punjab" + a list of books. Possibly we could include the Pakistan Philosophical Congress presidency, but I think that would generally require an independent source (I couldn't find one). I'm agnostic on whether that leaves enough of an article to be worthwhile. I'm watching this discussion in case additional sources emerge. Russ Woodroofe ( talk) 10:30, 6 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Comment I stub-ified the page, since most of it appeared to be unsourced biographical material and miscellaneous promotion. XOR'easter ( talk) 22:45, 7 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 ( talk) 01:49, 13 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 Groovy Rednecks. Consensus is that he's not notable. Redirecting (with possibility of merging) to the band. If the band is deleted this should, as a backlink, be deleted as part of that closure. Barkeep49 ( talk) 01:39, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Steve Seifert

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

The band he was a part of has gotten coverage in LA Weekly, but he is not mentioned by name there. I can't find any independent coverage of him. – Thjarkur (talk) 09:23, 4 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 09:23, 4 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:05, 4 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Weak Merge/Redirect into said band. 120.20.170.114 ( talk) 12:34, 4 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete - He has only been in his semi-claim-to-fame band for a few years. There are not enough RS. He's not notable. Caro7200 ( talk) 12:45, 4 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete Most of the sourcing is trash (Facebook, links to buy CD's on Amazon). The RS don't actually cover Seifert. Best, GPL93 ( talk) 13:20, 4 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Pause - I have queried the subject regarding better, independent, and individual-specific references regarding notability. Toxdoc411 ( talk) 16:59, 4 May 2020 (UTC)Toxdoc411 reply

Toxdoc411 what is your relationship with Seifert? Best, GPL93 ( talk) 17:17, 4 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Acquaintance and occasional musical colleague. I will gather what info I can regarding notability criteria and update page or agree to deletion/redirection as appropriate. Toxdoc411 ( talk) 17:38, 4 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Merge/Redirect - Many of the subject's individual notability mentions are not in readily available online references. He is associated with a notable music group and other notable individuals. I'm okay with the suggestion for merge/redirect into said band, Groovy Rednecks. Toxdoc411 ( talk) 18:14, 5 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Comment Are we sure that the band itself meets notability standards? There is currently no sourcing and while it did survive an AfD that was back in 2005 and policies have changed significantly since then. Best, GPL93 ( talk) 19:35, 7 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Comment The first three references on Seifert's page are reliable media reviews of the band, attesting to their notability. Toxdoc411 ( talk) 05:40, 8 May 2020 (UTC) reply

I read them. One is a passing mention, one is a mention in the context of a larger subject and the third is an interview in a local newspaper and none are from non-local sources. I am not sure if that puts the Groovy Rednecks above the notability criteria. Best, GPL93 ( talk) 13:00, 8 May 2020 (UTC) reply

We disagree. They've been around for 20 years, get press in a major market (that second LA Weekly reference was for a story where they were featured on the cover), have a record contract and put out five albums, and are still going strong. Toxdoc411 ( talk) 14:54, 8 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Toxdoc411 who exactly is "we"? GPL93 ( talk) 15:00, 8 May 2020 (UTC) reply

"We" is "you and I," as in, "You and I disagree about their notability." Toxdoc411 ( talk) 19:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Merge to the Groovy Rednecks band article provided it survives its AFD. With a circulation of 160,000 the LA Weekly is a regional rather than local source, imv Atlantic306 ( talk) 19:58, 8 May 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 18:15, 23 May 2020 (UTC) reply

New Orleans Records

AfDs for this article:

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

Not enough sources exist to write an article of substance. Questionable notability. Article has been sitting here since 2009. Vmavanti ( talk) 17:13, 26 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:24, 26 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 15:16, 28 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 15:17, 28 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Soft keep -- I had a hard time deciding "keep or delete" on this one. Ultimately, I think we should delete the discography section per WP:UNDUE and leave the article as a two-sentence stub.

The only sources I could find were the following:

All About Jazz - one passing mention

Google Books - Short mention under Larry Hamilton

Enacademic - looks like a copy of the Wiki article

Tulane Univ. Digital Library - just a photograph of the building before it was torn down

Google Books - a few mentions on page 51

Google Books - some scattered mentions

American Record Companies and Producers - Seems like there is an entry inside for New Orleans Record Shop, but I don't own the book so I don't know how significantly the entry covers the subject

I find the arguments on a previous AFD to be mildly persuasive, namely that "a record company could[n't] last for 3 decades, especially in that era, without being at least somewhat notable" and "Shellac 78 record era company. I argue that record companies from this era tend to be notable in themselves, as making records in that era needed a considerable amount of industrial investment, quite unlike how easy it was to start what was called a "record company" in recent decades."

Ultimately, I fall on the side of keep because the WP:Notability page says "[Notability] is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." The "occasional exceptions" seem to mean that we should WP:Ignore all rules if it helps improve Wikipedia. I think that may apply here; the encyclopedia is better served by having a two-sentence stub than by having no mention/no article.

In sum, I think the discography section should be removed per WP:UNDUE and the two sentences in the lead are fine to keep as they are. Ikjbagl ( talk) 18:03, 26 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep The first AfD, while not perfect in reasoning, was generally compelling, and I find myself in agreement with the above editor. I disagree that the discography should be wiped, though - so long as it is verifiable, it's certainly encyclopedic content as the principal activity of the label, and can't see how it would be UNDUE to include it. Chubbles ( talk) 15:20, 27 April 2020 (UTC) reply

I have never found it necessary to adopt an "Ignore the rules" approach, and I find when people do so, it's an unimpressive act of selfishness and irresponsibility. I have no problem refraining from taking sides. I don't have an agenda. I disagree with some of the rules, but I'm able to follow them. This is called special pleading: "a record company could[n't] last for 3 decades, especially in that era, without being at least somewhat notable". It's a wild assertion, an article of faith, a hope, a wish. It's the kind of speculation you can find anywhere on Wikipedia every day. If it were a real criterion rather than a magic wand, nothing would ever get done.
Vmavanti ( talk) 23:23, 27 April 2020 (UTC) reply

According to WP:5P5, one of the fundamental principles of Wikipedia is that Wikipedia has no firm rules. The rules are there because they are generally very useful, but I don't think it's selfish or irresponsible to recognize that they don't work perfectly in every situation. That is why the WP:IAR-abg guide says "Since Wikipedia is consensus, think of [ignore all rules] as Wikipedia's jury nullification." It is also why the WP:Understanding IAR page says "even when a rule does have wide support, there may not be support for applying it in a specific case. Editors are always free to consider ways of doing things other than what the rules specify." Cheers, Ikjbagl ( talk) 23:36, 27 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Except that people get banned from Wikipedia. They get treated badly. So there are rules here. Some are followed very very strictly and seriously to the point where you can't even speak freely. Scary stuff. To think otherwise, to pretend otherwise, is to engage in make believe. Harry Potter fairly tale nonsense. One tries to hold in mind two contradictory ideas, Rules and No Rules, without trying to resolve the obvious cognitive dissonance. That kind of thing is for children and for people with agendas. I think Wikipedia works best when it is written by adults who lack agendas and who can try to be impartial.
Vmavanti ( talk) 23:50, 27 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:11, 3 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment. I'm not sure what "Shellac 78 record era company" has to do with this company, which is reported to have existed from 1949 to 1978 -- that is, it started one year after the vinyl LP record was introduced, and continued for 19 years after 78s ceased production in the U.S. (They may have started out releasing 78s, but the majority of their history was after 78s were obsolete.) -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:48, 4 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete. Most of the sources cited by User:Ikjbagl above seem to be more focused on the New Orleans Record Shop, a retail store which apparently was operated by the same person as this record label, than on the record label itself. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 ( talk) 01:33, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete Since this is an organization/company, the appropriate guidelines are WP:NCORP. I've been involved in AfD discussions previously involving allowing notability of record labels based on the significance of their signings/releases but nothing happened and nothing changed. Therefore, since notability is not inherited and none of the references are significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, therefore references fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/ WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:26, 20 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Comment and comment only. It is very difficult to search for information about this label, because it is rather unfortunately named, and 99.98% of search results on "New Orleans Records" have nothing to do with this entity. However, searching "Orin Blackstone" yields more positive results... but not a lot more for this label. Now, obscure 78rpm labels such as this are a specialty of mine, but I've gotta admit in decades of collecting I've not come across this label as a 78rpm. Are we certain all "New Orleans Records" up to 1978 are related to Blackstone? This is where wp:v becomes very important, and we don't have that. I have access to most issues of Record Research magazine, and there's no mention of the label in there. Other possible sources are Joslin's Jazz Journal, the IAJRC Journal, and the JEMF Foundation. None of which are online, of course. What ought to happen is an article on Blackstone is created (he meets GNG, he was a pioneer on discography, preceding Rust), and the information should include the Record Store (probably notable) and this record label (what verifiable information there is), and this should then redirect to Blackstone. I'm not !voting, because I have too many projects going on as is and will probably never get to it, and such an obscure ask of other editors is not likely feasible. 78.26 _{(
spin me /
revolutions)} 13:50, 20 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete- The difficulties in sourcing seem currently to be insurmountable, which makes getting an article that meets WP:V highly unlikely. When and if we can turn up enough sources to unambiguously identify the subject we can revisit the issue. Reyk _YO! 16:26, 22 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep I've been able to add several sources about the label itself and its history. After Blackstone's shop closed and he returned to newspaper editing, the label was revived in 1972 by the jazz trmupeter Clive Wilson. I'm sure there are more sources out there, but it would require library research. Unfortunately the 1978 issue of The Second Line containing an article which discusses several more NOR recordings is missing from their archive. Even so, a record company with this length of history and the number of notable musicians who recorded for it should have an article. Voceditenore ( talk) 11:56, 23 May 2020 (UTC) reply

"Several". Go ahead and list the number of sources you added. We can take it. But don't say "numerous". I'm still trying to figure out how many there are in a "numerous". I know "couple" usually means two and "few" usually means three, but "several" and "numerous" take us up into the clouds because they are abstractions, nearly meaningless, inviting speculation. When you say "should have an article", that's an opinion. Based on what? Based on the your affection for the subject? If so, that's not a good enough reason. You say, "I'm sure there are more sources out there", but it's precise to say "I think" when you don't know. If you are "sure", i.e. certain, then were are they? Opinion morphs easily into fact when one fails to be impartial. Word choice often gives the game away.
Vmavanti ( talk) 17:30, 23 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. czar 01:56, 20 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Sword of al-Sham Brigades

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

WP:N. All sources are wordpress, twitter or facebook. Ladsgroup^overleg 16:59, 26 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:07, 26 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:08, 26 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete or Merge? - I found the following sources:

Business Insider - lists them as a group the CIA allows munitions sharing with

RIAC - one mention, source has questionable reliability

SITE Intelligence Group - has some documents that are not in English, I can't tell if they're good sources or not

Gulf News - quote from the group's spokesman in a newspaper article about Assad

It seems like most of the sources about this group come from places like wordpress or Twitter that are not reliable, secondary sources; you could maybe call them news (see WP:NOTNP). I don't think this can stand as an article on its own. It could maybe be merged into Belligerents_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War, or could just be deleted. Ikjbagl ( talk) 20:52, 26 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:09, 3 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 06:00, 9 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 ( talk) 01:32, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete Only a passing mention from Business Insider is all you can find. Harmanprtjhj ( talk) 17:43, 14 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. czar 01:55, 20 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Lebanon Social and Political Structure

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

Does not meet notability criteria for books. MS 会話 17:06, 3 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:51, 3 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:52, 3 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:52, 3 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:54, 3 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:54, 3 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment -- If the claim that this book has inspired Iranian policy in Lebanon is correct, it will be a very significant work, but would be much better for being contextualised. WP is not the right place for book reviews; and this is not even a review. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:45, 4 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete. The book fails WP:NBOOK. The Persian language sources listed in the article do not appear to show notability and I couldn't find any English language sources or book reviews. The article from the Iranian Students News Agency is a short piece about the publication of the book and Fars News Agency article is based off of that. MarkZusab ( talk) 17:14, 10 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 ( talk) 01:20, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment This page has been deleted through AfD in Persian wikipedia fa:ویکی‌پدیا:نظرخواهی برای حذف/ساختار سیاسی اجتماعی لبنان و تأثیر آن بر پیدایش جنبش امل. MS 会話 04:53, 14 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete. I can't find any reason to believe this satisfies WP:NB. The sources that are accessible seem to be brief blurbs (based on a press release?) and none of the sources seem obviously reliable. I haven't been able to find any better sources. The usual caveats that I don't speak Persian and that there may be better Persian-language sources apply, but the fact that the Persian Wikipedia (whose notability guideline for books seems to be very similar to our own) chose to delete the associated article there suggests to me that we're not missing anything substantial. – Arms & Hearts ( talk) 17:31, 16 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete. Not seeingany reviews in English, and the coverage in other languages, from what I can translate, is very marginal; so this seems to fail WP:NBOOK. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 01:20, 19 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. czar 01:55, 20 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Moyinoluwa Adeyemi

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

She is into a lot of activities and decides to get a Wikipedia page but sorry to say, she is not notable enough! Ninjaediator ( talk) 15:31, 3 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:39, 3 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:39, 3 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:39, 3 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment Not a notable marathoner but has some third party coverage as the creator of a Yoruba phone app and Nigeria's first certified Google Android Expert [44] [45] [46] [47] SFB 22:07, 3 May 2020 (UTC) reply
The nominator Ninjaediator has been blocked as a sockpuppet. However, the nomination has some merit so I will leave this debate open. MER-C 18:46, 4 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete not notable as a runner nor a software engineer. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:19, 8 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 ( talk) 01:19, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete. Not seeing how this passes NBIO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 02:20, 15 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC) reply

K Denk

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

run of the mill hip hop artiste. Nothing in RS MistyGraceWhite ( talk) 14:30, 3 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete — non notable musician, literally half the sources are links to his videos. Very Promotional piece to say the least. Celestina007 ( talk) 15:35, 3 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:05, 3 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:06, 3 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:06, 3 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete. The subject fails WP:MUSICBIO. I could not find reliable sources that discuss any of his songs; he released his debut studio album in 2017 but it was not critically reviewed. He is a recipient of the Kisima Music Awards and did participate in Tusker Project Fame, but these two things are not enough to warrant a separate article. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 17:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete a non-notable musician. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 12:15, 4 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Strong keep Please, this is yet another example of rampant bias against minorities, youth culture, and non-WASP people on Wikipedia. I myself am a minority in a Western country and constantly have to deal with passive-aggressive bias like this. For a South Sudanese refugee who was at Kakuma, this is pretty darn notable. What do you all know about hip hop artists and smaller African communities? Deleting hip hop artists because you know nothing about it and are instead into mainstream WASP rock music should not make the article unsuitable for Wikipedia. And see the notable references that were cited, like the Nairobi News and The Standard in Kenya. 43 references isn't enough? Even without the YouTube links, it's pretty good. Trust me, I can easily nominate 100 other WASP musicians for being less notable, but is that the right thing to do?
Comment I'm one of these editors trying to fix Wikipedia's rampant bias problems.
- Editors Are Trying To Fix Wikipedia's Gender And Racial Bias Problem

MaghrebiFalafel ( talk) 03:17, 9 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment The nominator has a long history of deletionist bias against hip hop artists for no ostensible reasons. Think before you vote and don't vote delete just because every other guy who hates rap by minorities is also voting delete. MaghrebiFalafel ( talk) 03:19, 9 May 2020 (UTC) reply

MaghrebiFalafel, completely uncalled for. Are you WP:HOUNDing MistyGraceWhite because they nominated Hex Hectic, the article you created? Instead of dropping your truth bombs, try to look at the sources. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:07, 9 May 2020 (UTC) reply

- No, I am picking out hip hop artists that are being unfairly deleted, and MistyGraceWhite happens to be one of the deletors. MaghrebiFalafel ( talk) 06:02, 10 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Comment Why the bias against South Sudanese refugees? Why are they getting picked on much more than old white men and their boring rock bands? MaghrebiFalafel ( talk) 06:02, 10 May 2020 (UTC) reply

MaghrebiFalafel, please stick to the discussion and find some sources. That's it. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:07, 10 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep, I do not exactly feel comfortable taking the side of someone who is behaving like an idiotic fool, but I do think this person passes WP:GNG. He received coverage for seemingly joining with the South Sudanese anti-government forces, as can be seen here: [48], and also for when he then stopped fighting and became a peace advocate, as can be seen here: [49]. There is also this article, [50] which is partially an interview but also contains quite a bit of coverage. He seems to pretty clearly pass GNG with these sources. It would be good if his discography could be condensed into fewer sources though. Devonian Wombat ( talk) 02:22, 12 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep - thank you to Devonian Wombat who has added sources and improved the article. I believe there are enough reliable sources to indicate notability. However, I cannot condone the comments of MaghrebiFalafel. This was a deletion discussion raised in good faith - if you disagree with that, go and find additional sources or a policy based reason rather than assuming bias. This was a poorly sourced article and still needs fixing and cleanup. I agree that there is a bias towards European/American articles on here, but the way to help is to improve articles like this through strong sourcing, not through attacking editors you disagree with. Cardiffbear88 ( talk) 00:25, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 ( talk) 01:13, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep as per the multiple reliable sources added to the article since this discussion began as detailed above that show that the subject passes WP:BASIC and that delegion is no longer necessary, in my view Atlantic306 ( talk) 19:37, 14 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. There is a consensus for deletion, discounting the weight from WP:SPA or possible WP:MEATs editing in this topic area, as is customary. qedk ( t 愛 c) 06:31, 21 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Southern Ontario Model United Nations Association

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

Non notable local organisation. WP:BEFORE shows no secondary sources. Cardiffbear88 ( talk) 11:49, 3 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 ( talk) 11:49, 3 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 ( talk) 11:49, 3 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 ( talk) 11:49, 3 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 ( talk) 11:49, 3 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Their website claims that they receive delegates from around Canada/the world, so the "Southern Ontario" in the name might just be a reference to the location. Regardless of whether or not their claims of being a national-level MUN conferences are true, they aren't notable anyways. Chess (talk) (please use

{{
ping|Chess}}

on reply) 18:02, 3 May 2020 (UTC) reply

On the other hand, SOMA has received coverage from attending schools (see https://www.greenwoodcollege.org/news-detail?pk=1181757#, which is now a secondary source). Arguably, this makes the organization notable according to Wikipedia:Notability. Additionally, "Southern Ontario" refers to the location of the conference but the range of attending schools extends far beyond the region. Helmer Frederik — Helmer Frederik ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Notability requires media coverage written by journalists, not press releases from schools that are directly affiliated with it. Bearcat ( talk) 16:55, 11 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete. Organizations are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist — they need to show sufficient reliable source coverage in real media to clear WP:ORGDEPTH. But this features literally no non- primary sources at all — a press release on the self-published website of a directly affiliated school is not notability-assisting media coverage at all, yet that's the only source here that the organization didn't produce itself — and claims nothing about the organization that would be "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to show significantly better sources than this. Bearcat ( talk) 16:58, 11 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 ( talk) 01:11, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete per Bearcat. Individual Model United Nations organizations are not inherently notable, and this one is sourced mostly to its own website. We've deleted a number of articles about other Model UN organizations before -- see User:Metropolitan90#Model United Nations AfD results -- apparently including this very same one, fourteen years ago. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southern Ontario Model United Nations Assembly. (Although this article's title says "Association", the body of the article and the organization's website say "Assembly".) The current article is longer than the 2006 one that was deleted, but not much better sourced. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:48, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Save. This is a prominent local organization that has been patroned by Chrystia Freeland ( https://twitter.com/cafreeland/status/995693081491058693?lang=en) among others. Additionally, Greenwood is unaffiliated with the conference, and several other schools ( https://www.hcdsb.org/News/Pages/JV-Student-Attends-SOMA-Conference-at-UofT!.aspx, http://www.hpedsb.on.ca/archives/students-attend-the-38th-southern-ontario-model-united-nations-conference/, https://rchs.on.ca/lively-debate-at-model-united-nations/, inter alia) have also written about the conference. 110thMP ( talk) 21:17, 13 May 2020 (UTC) — 110thMP ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
- 110thMP Twitter usually isn’t considered a reliable source, nor are blogs from schools taking part in the event. Do you know of any independent sources such as published books or newspapers? Cardiffbear88 ( talk) 21:21, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply
- The notability test for an organization is not passed just because of who is or isn't a patron of it. The notability test for an organization is the amount of journalist-written coverage it does or doesn't have about it in real media, and cannot be passed by any amount of Twitter tweets or press releases from schools directly affiliated with it — if you can't show sources on the order of the Toronto Star, The Globe and Mail or the CBC, then the organization does not pass our requirements. Bearcat ( talk) 00:11, 15 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Save per User:110thMP and User:Helmer Frederik. While it is true that Model UN conferences are not inherently notable, the secondary sources/coverage from unaffiliated organizations (see references at Southern Ontario Model United Nations Association) and notable patrons/participants do more than clear the bar for notability. User: Grune Er'Grune —Preceding undated comment added 21:33, 13 May 2020 (UTC) — Grune Er'Grune ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
- Can you please show me which sources you feel indicate notability? All I’m seeing is blogs from participating schools and lots of primary sources. Cardiffbear88 ( talk) 21:43, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply
- As noted more than once above: notability requires media coverage in the likes of the Toronto Star, The Globe and Mail or the CBC, not twitter tweets or the self-published blogs of participating schools. Bearcat ( talk) 00:16, 15 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Save. User:Grune Er'Grune may have been referring to the following media article in the references of Southern Ontario Model United Nations Association: https://www.corporateknights.com/magazines/2017-better-world-mba-issue/meet-2017-top-30-30-sustainability-15081324/ where the conference and a key staff member from a few years ago is covered. Also, while tweets in themselves aren't notable, those from notable individuals shouldn't be thrown away entirely either. User: Helmer Frederik —Preceding undated comment added 01:45, 16 May 2020 (UTC) reply
- The article mentions the organisation once, as part of a biography. This is not in-depth coverage. Cardiffbear88 ( talk) 06:06, 16 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Comment for closing admin - User: Helmer Frederik, Grune Er'Grune and 110thMP appear to have all created their accounts in recent days specifically to respond to this AfD. Cardiffbear88 ( talk) 06:14, 16 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete fails basic WP:GNG and WP:CLUB- there just isn't in-depth coverage. Model United Nations organizations with hundreds of attendees are a dime a dozen. User:Metropolitan90#Model United Nations AfD results is very telling. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:48, 17 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete None of the sourcing in the article, or identified in the discussion above, reaches NCORP levels. I thought about closing this as delete, but felt a strong opinion forming so decided to vote instead to confirm the already-existing consensus - further relists aren't going to change the fact that the sources aren't adequate. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:18, 20 May 2020 (UTC) For the avoidance of doubt, my previous comment should not be read as a criticism of the original relist - I just don't think further relists would be helpful. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:31, 20 May 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 07:18, 21 May 2020 (UTC) reply

COVID-19 Case-Cluster-Study

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

It will suffice if this paper is mentioned in /info/en/?search=2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_Germany. It doesn't make sense to create a Wikipedia article for every paper on Covid 19. Da Vinci Nanjing ( talk) 14:58, 18 April 2020 (UTC) reply

This is not just any paper on Covid-19. In fact, there isn't ven a paper yet. This study is a part of a massive PR campaign to change policy on the pandemic in Germany. The bulletin has gathered international media attention. The German article documents already quite well. I will expand this article ASAP. Fossa _?! 17:10, 18 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Dear Fossa,

the article shouldn't be expaned it should be deleted. Yes this paper drew media attention, but everything releated to this paper should apper in
/info/en/?search=2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_Germany
As you already explained it'ts not even a paper. The German article should be deleted too no matter how detailed/long the article is. I am only contributing to the English language Wikipedia, I won't nominate the German article for deletion. Wikipedia won't get any better if we create an article for every paper. Maybe a paper that was the foundation for a nobel prize should have it's own Wikipedia article (e.g. Albert Einstein or John Nash). Da Vinci Nanjing ( talk) 12:14, 19 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:00, 18 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:01, 18 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:01, 18 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:02, 18 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep Regardless of being finished or not, or if its final content has any value, there is enaugh coverage that WP:GNG is satisfied. Agathoclea ( talk) 15:59, 20 April 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete—WP:NOTNEWS. An unfinished study doesn't satisfy WP:MEDRS so the content in its current form is unsuitable for merging to the Germany outbreak article or anywhere else. b uidh e 05:39, 24 April 2020 (UTC) reply
- Again: This is not only a study, but a major media campaign. Its "results" have been cited all over the world and it is used in politics. This is less a "scientific" lemma then a campaign lemma. Fossa _?! 15:33, 24 April 2020 (UTC) reply
  - The study's results are a form of biomedical information and need MEDRS quality sourcing. Judging from the dewiki article there is a lot of media buzz but a lack of solid MEDRS sourcing that would explain the quality of the result. b uidh e 17:43, 24 April 2020 (UTC) reply
    - If (BIG IF) MEDRS really has this implication then there is something seriously wrong with it and it has to be fixed. Else we get to a stage that an article cannot quote a newsreport about the death of a man after the roof of a hospital collapsed. Agathoclea ( talk) 07:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:18, 26 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Strong keep - the article on the German Wikipedia is much longer and better referenced. We should expand the article from there with appropriate references, not just delete it - there is too much content on the German wiki to move it into just the main pandemic in Germany article IMO. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 12:08, 26 April 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep - I am the original author of the dewiki article. It is not meant to be an article about the study itself in the first place, but the presentation of the first results were the reason for a big media and political confusion. If you need any help in enwiki to expand it, just contact me. -- Rennrigor ( talk) 15:59, 26 April 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete. The article in its present form is not offering any value to the reader. Keeping it as a separate page will serve the purpose of promoting an unfinished "research". Lordofthesky ( talk) 06:23, 30 April 2020 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordofthesky ( talk • contribs) 06:21, 30 April 2020 (UTC) reply

— Lordofthesky ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. - The user has made 7 edits to this point, six of them to 4 AFDs. - BilCat ( talk) 09:06, 30 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete Per WP:NOTNEWS. Just because an article exists on German Wiki, doesn't means it must exist here as well. Accesscrawl ( talk) 17:41, 30 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:40, 3 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep Extensive and in-depth coverage in many mainstream media - that includes both scientific and political commentary by big names in either area. This is well beyond WP:NOTNEWS already, even before formal publication of the study. Almost all available sources are in German and no one has done the difficult work yet of porting all that info, but that in no way is an argument for deletion. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 22:47, 3 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete Per WP:NOTNEWS. It's way too early to say that this one study deserves its own article just because it's getting a lot of attention right now. I agree with other voters who say this information should merely be a part of the COVID-19 in Germany article. JimKaatFan ( talk) 03:03, 5 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep. The study has some issues but it is highly notable in Germany and no doubt it will remain a frequent reference in the future, regardless of whether the results are confirmed or not. Lots and lots of Germans base both the danger of Covid-19 and the spread of the infection in the country mainly on this study. It's one of the most important driving forces behind the easing of the lockdown.-- walkee ^talkee 12:09, 8 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Info: on May 4, the authors of the study presented the final results as a pre-print. Those final results confirm what was presented at a press conference back in april. However, even the final results are contested by media and other scientists. -- Rennrigor ( talk) 12:21, 8 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep. This English version is simply terribly written and does not explain anything. Please compare with German version of this page. This is an important story and important study. Here is good publication about it, and there are follow-up publications, like this [51]. This is still a developing story, apparently. My very best wishes ( talk) 00:14, 10 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Right now there is no consensus about whether or not this passes NOTNEWS
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 ( talk) 01:10, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Strong Keep but also Weak Merge- It's part of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, as part of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, I would also recommend merging the article into the COVID-19 pandemic "main" article. JTZegers ( talk) 13:34, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

That - is not helpful... -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 13:48, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Strong Keep Has received significant coverage as per WP:GNG, so warrants inclusion on wikipedia. Whatever people think of it or whether or not it "gives value to the reader" isn't relevant. People who are saying it should be removed as it is unfinished - The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith and The Peloponnesian War by Thucydides were also not finished. I guess we should remove these also? AlessandroTiandelli333 ( talk) 16:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Their finished as far as they aren't being worked on anymore. Wealth of Nations as we have it is a final product. As in, Adam Smith isn't going to come back from the grave and add more to it. It's doubtful it would have gotten an article when he was still alive and working on it though. Which is the case with this IMO. Also, it's pretty hokey overall to compare Wealth of Nations to a Covid-19 study. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 06:47, 20 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.