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

The result was redirect to Marcus Wiebusch. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 ( talk) 01:18, 24 July 2020 (UTC) reply

...But Alive

...But Alive (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG due to there being no reliable sources. Fails WP:BAND (there's only one notable person in this band). P,TO 19104 ( talk) ( contribs) 20:13, 2 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 ( talk) ( contribs) 20:13, 2 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 ( talk) ( contribs) 20:13, 2 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to Marcus Wiebusch. ~dom Kaos~ ( talk) 07:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to Marcus Wiebusch. Fails WP:BAND and there is not enough coverage by reliable sources to meet WP:GNG.-- Crystallizedcarbon ( talk) 11:40, 17 July 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 23:26, 23 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Fortis Sports Academy

Fortis Sports Academy (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG. The two references contain only brief mentions. WP:BEFORE turned up only brief references   //  Timothy ::  talk  22:48, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.   //  Timothy ::  talk  22:48, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.   //  Timothy ::  talk  22:48, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 22:49, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply

BCL was supposed to start but it was canceled due to Corona. As a result, no more news was published about the club. Saiful Islam Jitu ::  talk 

• Delete - Haven't even played a single match. No sources available in either English or Bangla. -- Zayeem ^(talk) 19:14, 17 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:29, 18 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 08:32, 18 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete - clear GNG failure Spiderone 12:14, 18 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete, per above, fails WP:GNG, Alex-h ( talk) 10:57, 20 July 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 23:27, 23 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Aisling McLaughlin

Aisling McLaughlin (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

NN fringe actor, fails the GNG and WP:NACTOR. Only coverage out there are namedrops for her (or someone of her name, anyway) being the sister of a murder victim in Dublin. Article has been notability tagged for over a decade, and created by SPA, whose Wikipedia activity was to create articles for three actors in a NN (and ephemeral) Northern Ireland TV series. Ravenswing 22:44, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 22:44, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 22:44, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham ( talk) 14:56, 17 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete her acting lacks enough coverage to lead to a pass of GNG. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:44, 20 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete Fails WP:GNG. Appears to be a fairly run-of-the mill (local?) theatre actress. KidAd ( 💬💬) 08:09, 21 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete I failed to find anything substantial from RS's to pass GNG JW 1961 Talk 21:09, 22 July 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 23:27, 23 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Uttara FC

Uttara FC (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG. The two references contain only brief mentions. WP:BEFORE turned up only brief references and scores.   //  Timothy ::  talk  22:42, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.   //  Timothy ::  talk  22:42, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.   //  Timothy ::  talk  22:42, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 22:44, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete - per nom, no significant coverage in either English or Bangla. -- Zayeem ^(talk) 19:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:29, 18 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 08:32, 18 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment I really don't understand the point of this AfD, the article should of been sent straight to draft space. Firstly the club is brand new, signed up to the second tier of the Bangladeshi football pyramid, I think it's completely unfair to ask for notability when teams require time to establish that. That's partly why we have draft space, to help build articles of this kind. This is stigma deletion. Govvy ( talk) 10:37, 19 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete - clear GNG failure Spiderone 20:38, 23 July 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Neither improvement nor an alternative opinion to deletion has been offered for the period of this discussion. BD2412 T 02:47, 24 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Tony Naumovski

Tony Naumovski (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

NN actor, fails both the GNG and WP:NACTOR. No independent sources, no evidence the subject meets the GNG. Notability tagged for over a decade. Toss in COI issues and you have a real party. Ravenswing 22:22, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 22:22, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 22:22, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for actors. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:00, 20 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete per WP:SNOW, WP:GNG, WP:RS, WP:MILL, and WP:NACTOR. I don't know how any experience editor here could think this was a notable actor. This page is unsourced except for his own web page. There are many actors who have been in off-Broadway plays, including several of my non-notable friends and clients. Bearian ( talk) 17:03, 22 July 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 23:28, 23 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Operations Reckless and Persecution

Operations Reckless and Persecution (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Operations Reckless and Persecution both have articles. This one is redundant, and contributes nothing. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:04, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 22:06, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment As these were inter-related operations which occurred simultaneously (Persecution was undertaken to support Reckless), there's probably merit in having this article for essentially disambiguation purposes. I agree that there's no grounds to develop it into a 'proper' article though. Nick-D ( talk) 02:14, 17 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete "A and B" type article titles have very little value as disambiguation. If you already have to say "and"... ( t · c) buidhe 08:14, 17 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete: G'day, I can see some disambig purposes, but given both Operation Reckless and Operation Persecution exist as redirects to the individual battle articles, there probably isn't a need for this. If it does remain, I'd suggest converting it into a proper dab page, rather than leaving it as an article and potentially leading to more duplication. Regards, AustralianRupert ( talk) 10:05, 18 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete Since both operations already have pages, having one that mentions both is a bit cloying, so this one could be turned into a dab page. TH1980 ( talk) 23:39, 19 July 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 21:50, 23 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Atola, California

Atola, California (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

I found nothing on this except one reference in a list of post offices. GHits were very low in comparison to other dubious town names in the county. The coordinates point to a spot on the former rail line, but their source is anyone's guess; maps and aerials show nothing there. Mangoe ( talk) 21:47, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 21:54, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 21:54, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete No sign of anything at this location, presumably another rail landmark. – dlthewave ☎ 12:29, 18 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete Train stations were often the site of a fourth-class post office serving the surrounding countryside. As we've discussed many times, existence of a post office is not an indicator of notability. I don't see anything else that supports the idea that this was a notable location. Glendoremus ( talk) 17:00, 18 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete, nothing to prove notability. Alex-h ( talk) 11:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:08, 24 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Washington DC City Pages

Washington DC City Pages (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not meet the WP:GNG. Raymie ( t • c) 04:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Raymie ( t • c) 04:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Raymie ( t • c) 04:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete per WP:MILL and WP:RS. This page is about a local yellow pages. It has zero sources. Bearian ( talk) 17:05, 22 July 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy keep. No reason given for deletion. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 ( talk) 21:37, 17 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Maggie Baird

Maggie Baird (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Reason Mediati74 ( talk) 20:27, 16 July 2020 (UTC) 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 July 16. — ^{cyberbot I} _{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:43, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Procedural keep No reason for deletion presented; please give one. Nate • ( chatter) 21:10, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep - no reason given for nomination, subject clearly passes GNG. I notice that the nominator is a new editor and has nominated two other pages for deletion without adding a rationale. Per WP:BITE, I've left a comment on their talk page to help them understand how AFDs work. ~dom Kaos~ ( talk) 09:56, 17 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Although more refs can be cited, but her work lists are enough to prove her Notablity criteria. Shubhi89 ( talk) 13:39, 17 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Subject is an award-winning indie filmmaker, among several other somewhat notable life/career highlights. HeyitsBen ^talk 15:59, 17 July 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:08, 24 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Love Story Majhi Aani Tichi

Love Story Majhi Aani Tichi (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Cannot find any proof that this film was ever made. Have checked IMDb for the lead actors and director and cannot find it listed under their credits. Perhaps they changed the film name before it was released. Rogermx ( talk) 20:42, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Rogermx ( talk) 20:42, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Rogermx ( talk) 20:42, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Nothing notable about this film found online. Donaldd23 ( talk) 21:58, 20 July 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy keep. No reason given for deletion. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 ( talk) 21:36, 17 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Justina Valentine

Justina Valentine (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Reason Mediati74 ( talk) 20:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC) 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 July 16. — ^{cyberbot I} _{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:25, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Procedural keep No reason for deletion presented; please give one. shaidar cuebiyar ( talk) 03:23, 17 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep. No reason to delete - see my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maggie Baird. ~dom Kaos~ ( talk) 10:04, 17 July 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:08, 24 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Vladimir Thelisma

Vladimir Thelisma (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Non notable actor and director. WP:BEFORE shows few Google hits and zero reliable sources. No evidence of independent comment or analysis. All external links currently in the article are broken. Cardiffbear88 ( talk) 20:23, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 ( talk) 20:23, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 ( talk) 20:23, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Haiti-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 ( talk) 20:23, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom, WP:NACTOR, and WP:MILL. Roles are entirely of the Redshirt variety. Bearian ( talk) 17:09, 22 July 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Vanamonde ( Talk) 05:14, 25 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Argusville, California

Argusville, California (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

The article says almost every last thing I can find out about Argusville, and one thing that nobody but WP and GNIS says: that it is a "populated place". Every source I can find identifies it as a post office 3 miles north of Bieber. The one other thing I found is that this source identifies it with Hillside, California, except that Hillside, by the directions given by Durham, would be almost six miles south of Bieber. Of course, this presupposes that Durham is talking about the present-day Lookout. At any rate, I see nothing indicating that Argusville was a town. Mangoe ( talk) 20:14, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 20:18, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 20:18, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 21:51, 23 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Generation M: Misogyny in Media & Culture

Generation M: Misogyny in Media & Culture (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Non notable, independent release with no known verifiable reviews. Seems entirely written by the filmmaker or an associate. Donaldd23 ( talk) 20:58, 2 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 ( talk) 20:58, 2 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 ( talk) 20:58, 2 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• I have cited a couple of reviews in the article. I am not sure whether we have enough for notability. Phil Bridger ( talk) 09:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Weak keep as it does now have some references to scholarly reviews, imv Atlantic306 ( talk) 22:49, 8 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep: The scholarly reviews demonstrate notability. —  Toughpigs ( talk) 21:12, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep: Passes WP:NF. SL93 ( talk) 21:25, 18 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep: passes WP:NFO#1 with two reviews, and there's another review in Library Journal that can be added ( [1] for those with ProQuest access). — Bilorv ( talk) 16:29, 23 July 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:08, 24 July 2020 (UTC) reply

East of the Tar Pits

East of the Tar Pits (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Non notable, independent release with no known verifiable reviews. Donaldd23 ( talk) 20:56, 2 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 ( talk) 20:56, 2 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 ( talk) 20:56, 2 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete: I found no significant coverage. SL93 ( talk) 00:30, 18 July 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 17:08, 24 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Wallenberg Set

Wallenberg Set (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Kept at 2007 AfD, but standards were extremely different them. This is a 'skateboarding spot' where the occasional contest or photoshoot has taken place. It has no significant coverage, in-depth of the spot itsle and no long-term significance. Boleyn ( talk) 18:47, 2 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep I respectfully disagree. "Wallenberg is one of the oldest, most iconic gaps with a long trick history." - ^[1] The article needs some work, I will crack into it. Although relatively underreported on, the Wallenberg Set is most certainly notable. -- Wil540 art ( talk) 01:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 12:43, 5 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 12:43, 5 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 12:43, 5 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep. I see enough independent third-party sources to suggest this place has a "legendary" reputation. Plus the article is in halfway-decent shape. -- Lockley ( talk) 20:52, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian ( talk) 17:10, 22 July 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Pilbara. Due to the sourcing issues, redirect seems the best outcome at this moment, so that it is easier to restore it if better sources appear. Tone 17:07, 24 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Iron Valley mine

Iron Valley mine (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not appear notable, probably won't meet wp:n but not sure. The creeper2007 ^{Talk! Be well, stay safe} 01:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 04:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 04:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep - while the Iron Valley mine may be "small' in comparison to other iron ore mines in the Pilbara, at 7 million tonnes per annum it's equivalent to e.g. over one seventh of total Canadian iron ore production. Bahudhara ( talk) 05:15, 9 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep/merge The worst case would be merger to Pilbara per WP:ATD-M and so deletion is not appropriate. Andrew🐉( talk) 10:13, 9 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• delete This is really a corporation article, and I find nothing on this mine that isn't routinely reported of every mine in the world, so I do not see the notability. It also seems to me to fail WP:GEOLAND though I doubt the latter is really the applicable standard. Mangoe ( talk) 17:36, 9 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep - Bahudhara is right. Just because the article is a stub does not mean it is appropriate for deletion. Deus et lex ( talk) 08:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Strong Keep active and non active mines, regardless of size are notable - and relevant to the Mining project, to the Western Australian project, and to the Pilbara project - it has adequate referencing JarrahTree 14:56, 12 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Sorry, but not every mine is notable; if we are not a gazetteer, then we are not a gazetteer nor a directory of mines. I don't think you appreciate how common these things are, and how pitiful little information is known about them. 95% of them would fail WP:GNG, and while there is something to be said for notability guidelines which simplify checking, they are not loopholes for inclusion of minor items dear to a particular project. Mangoe ( talk) 16:30, 12 July 2020 (UTC) reply

"if we are not a gazetteer, then we are not a gazetteer ...", sorry, don't understand this, WP:5P1 - "Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers.", WP:NGEO - "Per Wikipedia's Five pillars, the encyclopedia also functions as a gazetteer; ...". Coolabahapple ( talk) 15:00, 14 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete There is absolutely no basis in guidelines or precedent that all mines are automatically notable, what utter BS. Lacks significant independent coverage, sources are databases or the mine owners. Reywas92 ^Talk 17:27, 12 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Weak delete. The Minday.org citation looks decent. However, the other information I can find is either published by firms utilizing the mine or trivial mentions in detailed lists of mining yields. I don't think GEOLAND applies here, as it is a man-made feature. Minor oil wells and small dams don't get free passes I don't think. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Hog Farm _Bacon 22:14, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde ( Talk) 05:18, 25 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Meridith Gould

Meridith Gould (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable pageant titleholder { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 19:59, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 20:01, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 20:01, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 20:01, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Dakota-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 20:01, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. -- Cewbot ( talk) 00:03, 24 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Logs: 2018-11 ✗ G6

• Delete. failed to meet WP:GNG-- Richie Campbell ( talk) 03:56, 25 July 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Not a copyvio. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 ( talk) 21:40, 17 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Tones and I

Tones and I (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Reason Mediati74 ( talk) 19:34, 16 July 2020 (UTC) The article is a copyright violation. Mediati74 (talk) 19:34, 16 July 2020 (UTC) 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 July 16. — ^{cyberbot I} _{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:50, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Mediati74, copyright violation isn't usually a reason to completely delete a page from Wikipedia. Please could you provide some evidence for your allegation, and also explain in more detail, with reference to Wikipedia's notability guidelines for musicians, why you think this demonstrates that the page should be deleted? ~dom Kaos~ ( talk) 20:04, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Speedy keep The nom needs to elaborate and point out what is a copyvio, but the subject is an obvious charting singer, no doubt. Nate • ( chatter) 21:09, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Speedy keep Per speedy keep criteria #1 and #3. Is a charting singer, clearly establishing notability, and Earwigs suggests the only reason for copyvio is some quoting from the interview. No valid rationale for deletion is advanced. Best, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:22, 17 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep "Violation possible" according to Earwig's Copyvio Detector, here relates to two quotes from a Triple J article. The source is properly acknowledged in this article by use of a suitable reference template. There is no copyvio here. shaidar cuebiyar ( talk) 03:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:03, 24 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Cycling age categories

Cycling age categories (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails to assert importance. Content is unsourced. OXYLYPSE ( talk) 10:51, 1 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 11:01, 1 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete Article is not sourced at all. Ashishkafle ( talk) 12:10, 1 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment – @ Ashishkafle: Note that per WP:NEXIST, "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article". North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:43, 8 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete per non -- Devokewater ( talk) 08:56, 8 July 2020 (UTC) reply

*Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:15, 8 July 2020 (UTC) reply

•  Note: Reasons given for RfD no longer apply. Article is now referenced, and per admin above, meets notability. — WILDSTAR ^talk 22:31, 15 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep per the recent improvements. I've struck-through my previous reply. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:49, 17 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete as unimportant details that don't merit a standalone article. The title is really misleading; it's only the categories for two specific organizations. If desired, the first half could be merged into British Cycling, while you'd have to wait until someone created British Schools Cycling Association to find a home for the second half. Clarityfiend ( talk) 04:51, 18 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete per WP:TNT - only edits to try to improve the article have been labeled as minor, and I agree. Bearian ( talk) 17:12, 22 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep per my note above, and because the article now has references, and asserts importance; satisfying the two reasons provided why the AfD was initiated. — WILDSTAR ^talk 14:57, 23 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete per WP:TNT. Perhaps the topic is valid but certainly an appropriate article titled "Cycling age categories" covers information much more globally relevant than two UK organisations. I don't believe the content on British Cycling is useful to that article. — Bilorv ( talk) 16:45, 23 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. MaskedSinger ( talk) 15:27, 24 July 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Anita Ratnam. Tone 17:03, 24 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Narthaki.com

Narthaki.com (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

No indication of notability. The references in the article are passing mentions or footnotes in books. A Google search did not yield anything else. M4DU7 ( talk) 19:22, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 ( talk) 19:22, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 ( talk) 19:22, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 ( talk) 19:22, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep (Creator) Qualifies per wp:GNG, it is India's first and largest, and award winning portal dedicated to Indian classical dance. (See inline citations in the article). It being in footnotes means that it is cited as a reliable source. The article has been expanded after it was nominated at afd. Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 12:41, 17 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete - at first glance, this might seem like it has significant coverage but most of the mentions are passing ones at best Spiderone 09:44, 18 July 2020 (UTC) reply

The dance portal is maintained by one of India's most noted classical dancers. Its notability can be ascertained in this news article - . I think this article should be retained in Wikipedia-- Vrsrini ( talk) 13:35, 18 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to Anita Ratnam: The site is mentioned in a number of articles, but was barely discussed. It's best to discuss it in the target article. ASTIG😎 _{( ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 20 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Redirect as suggested. I would not oppose a selective merge. Bearian ( talk) 17:13, 22 July 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Mokokchung#Education. While some sources have been added to the article during this discussion, nobody has demonstrated that they satisfy the requirement of substantive coverage to meet GNG. Draftifying this was suggested, but I can't see where anyone has expressed interest in working on this; if they want to do so, the history will remain available. I would strongly caution against recreating this without substantially improving the sourcing. Vanamonde ( Talk) 15:36, 25 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Queen Mary Higher Secondary School

Queen Mary Higher Secondary School (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL; lack of coverage in reliable secondary sources; lack of coverage in general. Spiderone 14:33, 30 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:33, 30 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:33, 30 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:33, 30 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to Mokokchung#Education. Redirect conforms best to WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, and since the school does exits, there is nothing to lose by redirecting readers to its locale. I don't believe a merge is warranted. iCBSE.com looks a bit self published, and there isn't really all that much info on the page to justify including it in the education section of a location. -- Puzzledvegetable ^{Is it teatime already?} 15:43, 30 June 2020 (UTC) reply
  • I'd be ok with Draftify per Steven (Editor). Either way, I don't think the article in its current state should remain live, but a variety of non keep options seem reasonable. The added sources don't really improve much. A single paragraph about the school, and a couple of articles about a student that mention in passing the school the student attends doesn't really make for encyclopedic sourcing. -- Puzzledvegetable ^{Is it teatime already?} 13:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep, this article can surely be improved. There are some coverage on media and it is generally more difficult to source an article from a remoter part of the world, and the fact that it is a notable school in Nagaland. -- Anonymousme ^{User talk:Anonymousme} 17:25, 30 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Where is this media coverage then? Spiderone 19:28, 30 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment - if there is no consensus to delete, I am happy with redirect as above Spiderone 12:39, 13 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment - The argument for deletion or a redirect is weak as there are enough sources cited. -- Anonymousme ^{User talk:Anonymousme} 06:56, 14 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Weak Keep per Anonymousme have added sources is one of the leading schools in the most remote parts of India. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 07:27, 14 July 2020 (UTC) reply

The sources are hardly enough to meet WP:GNG and are passing mentions at best. What makes refs 1 and 6 reliable sources as well? Spiderone 07:53, 14 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Draftify if the editor is willing to do more work on this, otherwise Redirect/Delete. I already draftified three new school articles by the editor of a similar format — pretty much look like directory listings which is not what Wikipedia is. Steven (Editor) ( talk) 02:08, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Draftify is a fair solution. They should not be in the mainspace until they pass GNG. Spiderone 09:27, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Draftify With the caveat that it has to go through a review to determine it's notability before being recreated. I think that's the fair thing to do. Otherwise, Delete.

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:03, 24 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Poolwo

Poolwo (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

No coverage whatsoever apart from a couple of news articles about the website launch. M4DU7 ( talk) 19:12, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 ( talk) 19:12, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 ( talk) 19:12, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 ( talk) 19:12, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 ( talk) 19:12, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete: The references in the article are routine listings and coverage of the January 2014 start-up. Searches find more such coverage from that time but no in-depth assessment and nothing concerning its fate. Fails WP:NCORP, WP:NWEB. AllyD ( talk) 15:21, 22 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete per WP:MILL. Even at its height, it was barely in the top half-million websites per Alexa. Bearian ( talk) 17:15, 22 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete: Barely found anything about the site aside from its launch. ASTIG😎 _{( ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:03, 24 July 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:04, 24 July 2020 (UTC) reply

The Authentics

The Authentics (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Non notable musical group not satisfying WP:BAND. A before search doesn’t show any evidence of notability Celestina007 ( talk) 18:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 18:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 18:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 18:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 18:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete There is a possible argument for keep based on the fact all members are indeed from notable bands. The problem is the sourcing. Just amatuer blogs covering the local music scene (including a gig at a local high school!). My hunch is the lack of coverage is that this is just a casual group of ex-1970's band members who all live in the same town, have been jamming together for years, play some gigs under a band name and decide to self-release a 6 song ep comprising covers of songs they did in their various former bands. It strikes me that this is more of a fun hobby for ex-rock stars than a full-fledged band worthy of encyclopedic importance. If there was a way to redirect to multiple other articles ( Sweeney Todd, Prism, Chillwack, etc) that may be appropriate. ShelbyMarion ( talk) 11:10, 17 July 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde ( Talk) 05:18, 25 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Acquisition (software)

Acquisition (software) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Abandoned file sharing client software never got much attention from reputable media as required by GNG and therefore fails the notability requirement and must be deleted. Ysangkok ( talk) 17:17, 8 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok ( talk) 17:17, 8 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it was previously discussed at AfD and the result was no consensus. -- Cewbot ( talk) 00:02, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Previous discussions: 2009-06 no consensus

Related discussions: 2007-09 List of applications developed by David Watanabe delete, 2006-09 David Watanabe ✗ DELETE

• Delete: per Nom. The sources just do not advance notability for a stand alone article. -- Otr500 ( talk) 03:10, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham ( talk) 18:45, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete I fail to see anything notable about this piece of software. In relation to the sourcing or really as a piece of software either. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 19:20, 24 July 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde ( Talk) 05:19, 25 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Micah Tawlks

Micah Tawlks (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. non-notable. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep ^Talk 16:50, 30 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 16:52, 30 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 16:52, 30 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete does not meet the notability for musicians. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:54, 30 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 July 16. — ^{cyberbot I} _{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:44, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep Thanks for the thoughts, everyone. I oppose the articles for deletion and would argue that this page should be kept, as Tawlks meets the guidelines for notability as outlined in WP:MUSICBIO and WP:COMPOSER. Specifically, point one: "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself." The references of this article contain many non-trivial sources, such as Paste Magazine, Nashville Scene, and Lightning 100.

Point two, he has released "two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels" as producer. Regarding WP:COMPOSER, Tawlks has "credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition." Naturally, a producer doesn't seem as notable as an artist, but given his roster of collaborations, I would argue that he does meet the notability guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshalxwarren ( talk • contribs) 13:20, 22 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Lots of references are passing mentions. Looking at them:

1. Ref 1 is a passing mention all the while moving in the same circles as Micah Tawlks
2. Ref 2 is a passing mention This time around producers Kevin Dailey (of Civil Twilight) and Micah Tawlks join him
3. Ref 3 is a passing mention brainchild of producer Micah Tawlks
4. Ref 4 show in the first track.
5. Ref 5 Micah Tawlks Engineer
6. Ref 6 Cold Answer: written by Matthew Perryman Jones & Caitlin Rose/Produced by Micah Tawlks

The rest the references as a producer. Consensus on Wikipedia is that procedures are really not notable. There is a reference on Mother Jones: [2] stated Micah Tawlks, a producer who works with the likes of Matthew Perryman Jones, and Isaaca Byrd, a bassist and backup vocalist for a range of artists, cranked out the bulk of the EP in three weeks USA Today has another passing mention, “‘Giving Up’ was produced by Micah Tawlks and myself On Instagram [3] he has 1600 followers, so no social presence. On Soundcloud [4] he has 42 follower. So he is no musician, he is a producer and he is non-notable. scope_creep ^Talk 19:21, 22 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete all sources seem to be passing or otherwise trivial mentions, and the person isn't automatically notable just because of who they work with. So, I see nothing here that would make them notable enough for an article. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 19:23, 24 July 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was merge to APICS. Given that the subjects themselves have merged, it appears obvious (and uncontested) that the articles should be merged also. Sandstein 21:05, 24 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Supply-Chain Council

Supply-Chain Council (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Doesn't meet WP:CORP or WP:GNG. Boleyn ( talk) 10:10, 27 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 10:12, 27 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Autry, Chad W.; Goldsby, Thomas J.; Bell, John E.; Hill, Arthur V. (2013). Managing the Global Supply Chain (Collection). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: FT Press. ISBN  978-0-13-309134-2. Retrieved 2020-06-28.
  2. Poluha, Rolf G. (2007). "The Supply Chain Operations Reference Model (SCOR Model) of the Supply-Chain Council". Application of the SCOR Model in Supply Chain Management. New York: Cambria Press. pp. 49–87. ISBN  978-1-934043-23-3. Retrieved 2020-06-28.
  3. Ayers, James B. (2000). Handbook of Supply Chain Management. Boca Raton: St. Lucie Press. ISBN  978-1-4200-2570-5. Retrieved 2020-06-28.
  4. Marshall, Ross E. (Fall 2007). "Supply chain management: analyzing industry and air force metrics". Air Force Journal of Logistics. 31 (3). Air Force Logistics Management Agency. Archived from the original on 2020-06-28. Retrieved 2020-06-28 – via Gale.
  5. Rendón, Héctor (2000-02-17). "Se reúnen empresarios y exponen experiencias - Fueron más de 110 empresas las que se reunieron ayer en la presentación de la asociación Supply-Chain Council" [Entrepreneurs meet and share experiences - More than 110 companies gathered yesterday at the presentation of the Supply-Chain Council association]. Reforma (in Spanish). Archived from the original on 2020-06-28. Retrieved 2020-06-28.

  Sources with quotes

  Autry, Chad W.; Goldsby, Thomas J.; Bell, John E.; Hill, Arthur V. (2013). Managing the Global Supply Chain (Collection). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: FT Press. ISBN  978-0-13-309134-2. Retrieved 2020-06-28. The book notes: "The Encyclopedia of Operations Management: A Field Manual and Glossary of Operations Management Terms and Concepts". The encyclopedia has an entry for Supply Chain Council: Supply Chain Council – A non-profit professional society dedicated to the meeting the needs of supply chain management professionals; most famous for its development and use of the SCOR Model. The Supply Chain Council was founded in 1996 by the consulting firm Pittiglio Rabin Todd & McGrath (PRTM) and AMR Research and initially included 69 voluntary member companies. The Supply Chain Council now has about 1,000 corporate members worldwide and has established international chapters in North America, Europe, Greater China, Japan, Australia/New Zealand, South East Asia, Brazil and South Africa. Development of additional chapters in India and South America are underway. The Supply Chain Council's membership consists primarily of practitioners representing a broad cross-section of industries, including manufacturers, services, distributors, and retailers. Poluha, Rolf G. (2007). "The Supply Chain Operations Reference Model (SCOR Model) of the Supply-Chain Council". Application of the SCOR Model in Supply Chain Management. New York: Cambria Press. pp. 49–87. ISBN  978-1-934043-23-3. Retrieved 2020-06-28. The article notes: The Supply-Chain Council (SCC) was founded with the aim of creating an "ideal" model of the Supply Chain. ... The increasing diffusion area of the SCOR model acceptance in the USA since the late 1990s, seen alongside the rapidly climbing number of SCC members, is an indication that a de facto standard for Supply Chain analysis is developing. With the reinforced efforts of the SCC to create a user basis in Europe via the foundation of a European Chapter, the SCOR model will, on these indications, continue to be diffused throughout Europe. The book notes: The SCOR model was developed and promoted by the SCC as a pan-industry standard for Supply Chain monitoring. The SCC was founded in 1996 by the Business Consultancy agency Pittiglio, Rabin, Todd & McGrath (PRTM) and Advanced Manufacturing Research (AMR), and originally included 69 voluntary member firms. Of equal importance for the SCOR model's diffusion are the respective inputs of manufacturers and implementers of system technologies, researchers and scientists, and governmental organizations. All of these groups participate in the SCC's activities and in the development and enhancement of the model. By the beginning of 2006, the SCC had more than 1,000 members worldwide and had branches in North America, Europe, Japan, Australia/New Zealand, Southeast Asia and South Africa. ... Member firms pay a small yearly subscription in support of SCC's functions. All who use the SCOR model are asked to make reference to the SCC in documents or representations applying to the model, in addition to all cases of its application. Additionally, members are urged to regularly visit the SCC's internet page and make themselves familiar with the latest information available in order to ensure that they are using the latest version of SCOR. The SCOR model represents, in a transposed sense, the SCC's consensus with respect to the management of the Supply Chain. Ayers, James B. (2000). Handbook of Supply Chain Management. Boca Raton: St. Lucie Press. ISBN  978-1-4200-2570-5. Retrieved 2020-06-28. The book notes on page 161: In Chapter 23 we profile the work of the Supply-Chain Council (SCC). The SCC is a non-profit organization formed by industry to promote supply chain integration. Since much of its work is directed toward the integration of information along the supply chain, we describe it at this point in the book. Chapter 23 is titled "Supply-Chain Council". Marshall, Ross E. (Fall 2007). "Supply chain management: analyzing industry and air force metrics". Air Force Journal of Logistics. 31 (3). Air Force Logistics Management Agency. Archived from the original on 2020-06-28. Retrieved 2020-06-28 – via Gale. The article notes: Within the private sector, the foremost industry authority on SCM is the Supply Chain Council (SCC). The SCC is comprised of nearly a thousand companies specializing in SCM and logistics functions. They perform SCM studies and research, present conferences and workshops, provide training, accomplish case studies, and publish articles on SCM issues and best practices. The SCC is the author and developer of the Supply Chain Operations Reference (SCOR) Model, a proven methodology and the only cross-industry supply chain standard being accepted, which facilitates the blending of business objectives, strategy, process, and technology. ... As previously mentioned, the SCC is recognized as an authority on SCM. It consists of nearly a thousand companies worldwide, many of which use the Council's services of training, research, and SCM implementation processes. The SCC is the author of the SCOR Model. The SCC created the SCOR Model as a way for companies to communicate their supply chain process. It establishes a framework for examining the supply chain, categorizing processes, and assigning metrics. ... The Air Force has obviously benefited from the work done in the private sector. The current effort underway to shape the SCM process using the SBPM is a result of the SCC's influence. The Air Force fully intends to proceed with the SCOR Model as it maps out the supply chain processes and further defines its metrics. The Air Force should proceed with the use of SCOR through the SBPM process, but should try to accelerate process completion, since history has shown that long, drawn out systems and process solutions rarely succeed. Continued participation in the SCC is also recommended. The SCC offers numerous benefits to the Air Force by providing information on industry best practices, access to leading experts in SCM, and consulting authorities. A study of the companies on the Forbes Magazine's Fortune 1000 list reflected a significant difference in the profitability of companies that are members of the SCC versus those that are not. The bottom line results were nearly two and a half times higher for SCC members than nonmembers. Rendón, Héctor (2000-02-17). "Se reúnen empresarios y exponen experiencias - Fueron más de 110 empresas las que se reunieron ayer en la presentación de la asociación Supply-Chain Council" [Entrepreneurs meet and share experiences - More than 110 companies gathered yesterday at the presentation of the Supply-Chain Council association]. Reforma (in Spanish). Archived from the original on 2020-06-28. Retrieved 2020-06-28. The article notes: Más de 110 empresas se reunieron ayer durante la presentación del Supply-Chain Council (SCC), que tiene como objetivo unir a las compañías y compartir sus experiencias sobre prácticas de negocios, procesos y costos de producción, operación, almacenamiento y logística. ... En esa fecha, arrancaron también las negociaciones con Supply-Chain Council en Estados Unidos para la formación, con sede en la ciudad de México, del Consejo Latinoamericano de esa organización, y juntando a empresas como DuPont, Novartis, GE-Plastics, Anderson Consulting, Kello1/2s, ITESM, entre otras. ... Cabe señalar que la Supply-Chain Council es una asociación no lucrativa creada en 1997, por representantes de diversas compañías interesadas en mejorar sus operaciones. A nivel mundial está conformado por 493 organizaciones y empresas entre las que se encuentran compañías de manufactura del Fortune 500, así como firmas de consultoría, proveedores de soluciones e instituciones educativas. From Google Translate: More than 110 companies met yesterday during the presentation of the Supply-Chain Council (SCC), which aims to unite companies and share their experiences on business practices, processes and costs of production, operation, storage and logistics. .... On that date, negotiations also began with the Supply-Chain Council in the United States for the formation, based in Mexico City, of the Latin American Council of that organization, and bringing together companies such as DuPont, Novartis, GE-Plastics, Anderson Consulting , Kello1 / 2s, ITESM, among others. ... It should be noted that the Supply-Chain Council is a non-profit association created in 1997, by representatives of various companies interested in improving their operations. Globally it is made up of 493 organizations and companies including Fortune 500 manufacturing companies, as well as consulting firms, solution providers and educational institutions.

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Supply-Chain Council to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard ( talk) 22:00, 28 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 15:29, 29 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 15:29, 29 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment, another afd where the nominator does not appear to have considered a "merge", in this case to its own subsection within the history section of APICS, although with the sources identified by Cunard, it meets WP:GNG so is a mute point. Coolabahapple ( talk) 15:52, 29 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Merge as suggested. Actually, the article its says, "merge with APICS." Bearian ( talk) 17:17, 22 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Merge with APICS as already suggested. I don't personally think it's notable enough on it's own for a separate article, but it's worth mentioning in the APICS article at least. Even when account for the new sources provided by Cunard. The majority of which seem like trivial mentions and the in-depth coverage that would be needed for this to be notable. The sources can help add notability to it in the merge target though. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 19:27, 24 July 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Appears to be a TNT case but editors encouraged to try again using the sources below Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:48, 25 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Mormon Transhumanist Association

Mormon Transhumanist Association (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable WP:ORG. All citations seem to be to a WP:Walled garden of transhumanism sources. jps ( talk) 20:29, 8 July 2020 (UTC) reply

I am fairly convinced by Tronvillain's work that it is possible to write an article on this subject that does not suffer from the problems from which the current version suffers. jps ( talk) 17:40, 9 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. jps ( talk) 20:29, 8 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. jps ( talk) 20:29, 8 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment: can you please explain what you mean by "walled garden"? I see several academic journals and books published by university presses among the references. Also YouTube, yes, but that doesn't invalidate the good sources not argue for deletion. ☆ Bri ( talk) 20:59, 8 July 2020 (UTC) reply
  • The sources that are to books published by university presses do not really mention this organization. As for academic journals, I don't see them. So many of the sources are to transhumanist websites and pocket journals that if you stripped all that away, you'd have nothing. jps ( talk) 21:06, 8 July 2020 (UTC) reply
    • Cosmos and History looks very dubious, and it just cites the MTA website to show that religious transhumanists exist. The book sources provide only passing mentions and don't say anything about the organization of the organization. It's possible that there's more substantial documentation elsewhere, but I'm doubtful at the moment. XOR'easter ( talk) 22:32, 8 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment Keep: I'm not entirely sure this has the significant coverage by reliable sources that would meet WP:ORG. I do see Interpreter, but that seems a little shaky as a reliable source—might need RSN if it was pressed. ^[1] Then there's a mention in The Transhumanism Handbook ^[2], which might be fine for an article but doesn't really contitute extensive coverage. And there's Theology and Science, ^[3] but that was by the former MTA president so can hardly be considered independent. There are a couple of pages in Theologically Engaged Anthropology ^[4], which might be something, as might a piece in Logic. ^[5] Then there's a piece in Ethnos. ^[6] I'll have to take another look tommorow. -- tronvillain ( talk) 22:58, 8 July 2020 (UTC); edited 14:02, 9 July 2020 (UTC) reply

  Looking further, there's also "The Immortality Upgrade" in The New Yorker ^[7], a bit in an American Ethnologist interview (Bialecki again, so that doesn't count as an additional source for notability) ^[8], a piece on The Next Web ^[9], a piece in The Carolinian ^[10], and an entry in Trancendence (which while about transhumanism, doesn't seem to actually be part of the walled garden beyond describing it). ^[11] Then there's "The Intersection of Tech and Church" on OZY. ^[12] Also, a piece on World Religion News ^[13] and an offhand mention on Religion News Service. ^[14] Looking at the whole pile, I think it probably constitutes sufficient coverage—it's coverage of nonsense, but organizations can be about nonsense. The article definitely needs some work though. -- tronvillain ( talk) 14:02, 9 July 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Great work, Tronvillain. I'm inclined to say on the basis of some of this (especially that New Yorker article), we might be able to write a piece on them. jps ( talk) 17:40, 9 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete due to lack of non-trivial independent sources about the group. Guy ( help!) 23:19, 8 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete much of the coverage is not on the organization per se, but reaction to a paper by one of the people connected with the organization. The coverage does not focus on the organization as such. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 12:46, 10 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 14:34, 14 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep. The sources cited here, particularly the New Yorker article, are sufficient evidence of notability. Tim Smith ( talk) 02:30, 15 July 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:04, 24 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Mp3splt

Mp3splt (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

No reliable sources WP:DEL#7 and not notable enough to warrant an article WP:DEL#8. Nightvour ( talk) 15:25, 9 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 16:44, 9 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 16:44, 9 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom -- Devokewater ( talk) 13:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham ( talk) 18:38, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom MaskedSinger ( talk) 15:26, 24 July 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was move to draft, as this appears to be widely supported, and an appropriate resolution for a subject expected to gain substantial coverage in the future. BD2412 T 02:54, 24 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Drag Race Australia

Drag Race Australia (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:GNG. Little information is know about the commission of the franchise. We don't even know the confirmed title - some of the international franchises have titled differently, no broadcast or network details or even details of judges, or dates. This is far too soon. ≫ ( Lil-Unique1) -{ Talk }- 18:12, 30 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ≫ ( Lil-Unique1) -{ Talk }- 18:12, 30 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 18:15, 30 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete WP:TOOSOON Davidstewartharvey ( talk) 18:19, 30 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep/Draftify this is one of many spin-offs from the immensely popular original and its ever-expanding brandings. This is only a question of when it hits the tipping point to meet GNG, which is arguably quite soon. So we’re just quibbling that it’s a week or month too soon, and nothing will really change, a bit more added, and the whole thing moved back to article space. I say leave it as an acceptable well-written, well-sourced stub, and it will grow like every other article. Gleeanon409 ( talk) 18:59, 30 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• Draftify: Its time will come, but it isn't a high quality article yet. TimeEngineer ( talk) 04:54, 5 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• I would support to draftify the article - it has been created speculatively. I do believe the series will go ahead but until it has a broadcaster, confirmed panel and date its far too soon. ≫ ( Lil-Unique1) -{ Talk }- 22:31, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Draftify has potential, but not suitable for mainspace currently. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 11:31, 8 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete as WP:NOTJUSTYET Hekerui ( talk) 16:28, 10 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Draftify. While I agree this is WP:TOOSOON, the subject will likely be notable when the series debuts, and I see no reason why the useful prose should be removed when drafity is an option which is encouraged in situations like this as an alternative to deletion. I would disagree with the WP:CRYSTAL rationale cited by the nominator, as the series has been reported in news sources and was anything but unverifiable speculation. The TOOSOON rationale cited by the two opposes, while true, does not preclude the option of draftification -- Dps04 ( talk) 14:22, 23 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Draftity: no dispute about it not belonging in the mainspace per WP:CRYSTAL/whatever but the series is likely to take place and the page can be usefully moved to draftspace for collaboration and improvements as more information is available. — Bilorv ( talk) 16:47, 23 July 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to STI College. Vanamonde ( Talk) 05:21, 25 July 2020 (UTC) reply

STI San Pedro

STI San Pedro (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Education providers would usually meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG, but I could find no evidence that this one does. Boleyn ( talk) 17:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 18:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 18:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 18:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to STI College: Per WP:INHERIT, not all school branches are notable. ASTIG😎 _{( ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:18, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to STI College. This doesn't seem notable enough on it's own for an article. There's reason it can't be redirected though for people that are looking for the term in Wikipedia. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 19:32, 24 July 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:50, 25 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Going Coastal

Going Coastal (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

I don't see how this meets WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Sourcing in the article either isn't independent, isn't significant coverage, is unreliable, or the link doesn't work. With that said, I searched google books, finding this Journal of Commerce that mentions it in passing, a mention in The New Yorker (looks like a routine listing of their event as far as I can tell). On google there are various charity listings and Wikipedia mirrors, none of which establish notability, and this, which barely counts as a book review-- I don't think it even mentions the book. I then checked my universities databases, and found exactly one passing mention. Newspapers.com is a little more promising, with some passing mentions (mainly this AP article), but that's again not enough to establish notability. The article further has a very promotional tone. It's possible (though unlikely) there could be enough coverage based upon how many different sites use the title 'going coastal', and the article has been around since 2005, but I just don't see a pass of NORG or GNG. Best, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:13, 9 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 04:29, 9 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 04:29, 9 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:02, 9 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:03, 9 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete I think the nominator did a good analysis of why this fails WP:GNG based on the sourcing. Everything seems to be trivial passing mentions. So, it's reasonable to delete the article. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 19:34, 24 July 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 00:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC) reply

WebSpellChecker

WebSpellChecker (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

I renamed this from "WebSpellChecker Software" before making the nomination, although it's a bit difficult to tell if the subject of the article is more about the spell checking software or the company itself.

In either case, there doesn't seem to be much in terms of notability. Searches don't come up with anything besides basic existence, or that such-and-such platform has a plugin for this, etc. – Deacon Vorbis ( carbon •  videos) 15:59, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. – Deacon Vorbis ( carbon •  videos) 15:59, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. – Deacon Vorbis ( carbon •  videos) 15:59, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. – Deacon Vorbis ( carbon •  videos) 15:59, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. – Deacon Vorbis ( carbon •  videos) 15:59, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete I found nothing to establish a pass of WP:GNG. passing mention here, no results on Newspapers.com, very few results and no sigcov comes up in a search. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:26, 17 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete Surely useful, but not notable. TheodoreIndiana ( talk) 14:11, 23 July 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 23:39, 23 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Liam Brennan

Liam Brennan (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

A half-hearted promotional attempt WP:PROMO. Calling for an AfD discussion. Hatchens ( talk) 15:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hatchens ( talk) 15:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Hatchens ( talk) 15:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep Unclear nomination; are you claiming he is not notable? He was President of the Royal College of Anaesthetists a leading UK medical organization; all his precedessors since 1988, and his successor, have articles. No particular sign of WP:PROMO. Johnbod ( talk) 17:17, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep satisfies WP:NACADEMIC C6, which supersedes GNG: The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society. BTW, Philafrenzy is a long-term contributor who specializes in biographies of academics, not a promo editor. Spicy ( talk) 17:29, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep subject passes WP:NACADEMIC Lightburst ( talk) 17:41, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep A humdrum biographical blurb, not actually promotionally toned. Passes WP:PROF#C6. If he had been editor-in-chief of the British Journal of Anaesthesia, he'd also pass WP:PROF#C8, but I think he's just been an editorial board member. XOR'easter ( talk) 19:08, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Keep Former president of a medical royal college is a major and notable role (he was in charge of the training of every anaesthetist in the UK). He is also the current deputy medical director of Cambridge University Hospitals NHS foundation trust a major non academic job. Well known in the anaesthesia field for his contribution to paediatric anaesthesia with a profile in the BMJ as well PainProf ( talk) 03:58, 17 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment. That's the first time I've seen a peer reviewed interview: [5]. Outside of this source there is very little in the article to suggest notability... -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:12, 17 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment No they don't peer review interviews, those are performed by the BMJ editorial staff. PainProf ( talk) 22:33, 17 July 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Bitcoin. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 00:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC) reply

CoinCorner

CoinCorner (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Notability per GNG not established for yet another Bitcoin exchange. Was at AfD previously, result was delete, those arguments still apply. Ysangkok ( talk) 15:43, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok ( talk) 15:43, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok ( talk) 15:43, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok ( talk) 15:43, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Redirect There's not enough for an article, but it does have sources showing that it's real and has generated some interest. Let's redirect this to Bitcoin. Eliteplus ( talk) 18:14, 17 July 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Ladislav Mecir:, I imagine you disagree with this? -- Ysangkok ( talk) 15:40, 18 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Redirect Current sources refer to Bitcoin and mention passing mentions of the exchange. It's promo at best and I support the redirect to Bitcoin — Infogapp1 ( talk) 12:13, 19 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Redirect as suggested and per WP:CHEAP. Bearian ( talk) 17:19, 22 July 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 00:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Tomato Torrent

Tomato Torrent (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Notability not established for BitTorrent client, abandoned many years ago, never got GNG coverage, unlikely to get coverage in future since project was abandoned. See also arguments of previous AfD. Ysangkok ( talk) 15:37, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok ( talk) 15:37, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 17:38, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 17:39, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Weak delete. Not seeing reviews for this to pass NSOFT, and frankly, this article is totally uninformative - it contains just basic directory info (version, OS, etc.). A mention in a list should be good enough for such content. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:08, 17 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete: Barely found anything about the torrent. ASTIG😎 _{( ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:00, 20 July 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde ( Talk) 05:21, 25 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Blog Torrent

Blog Torrent (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Notability not established for niche software, deprecated over a decade ago, never covered in reputable media, unlikely to get coverage in future since product is dead. Ysangkok ( talk) 15:33, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok ( talk) 15:33, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 17:38, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 17:38, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete - my search revealed places to download Blog Torrent, but no evidence of notability. I have seen nothing to establish notability. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 19:04, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Downhill Battle: Barely found anything about the torrent. ASTIG😎 _{( ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:03, 24 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete due to this not passing WP:GNG. I might have opted for redirect per the previous vote, but I'm not really a fan of redirecting badly sourced material to an article that's even more badly sourced. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 19:37, 24 July 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:49, 25 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Splashgear

Splashgear (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

I tried, first tagging this for cleanup. Then, as I looked more closely, I found I could not spot how it passed WP:CORP. The referencing is poor. Interviews with the principal, passing mentions, a dead link. Islamic compliant swimwear is an excellent topic, but this is a poor attempt by an apparently undisclosed paid (or at least COI) editor to use AFC to conceal an advert behind a welter of references. Fiddle Faddle 15:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 15:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 15:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. -- Cewbot ( talk) 00:03, 24 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Logs: 2020-03 move to → Draft:Splashgear, 2017-09 ✗ deleted, 2015-02 ✗ G12, 2015-02 ✗ deleted, 2015-02 ✗ deleted

• Delete Per the reasonable analysis of the sources by the nominator. Although sources do exist on this, they seem to be trivial passing mentions and the article was created/edited by a COI user. So, I see nothing about it to justify an article. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 19:41, 24 July 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Cryptocurrency bubble. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 00:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC) reply

2018 cryptocurrency crash

2018 cryptocurrency crash (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Notability not established for this arbitrarily defined event. The article may as well have been called "2017 cryptocurrency spike", prices fluctuate and media will always frame it in the most dramatic way possible. That does not mean that this event was anything but a news story. Ysangkok ( talk) 15:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok ( talk) 15:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to Cryptocurrency bubble. Basically all of the same content is already there. Citing ( talk) 15:58, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Cryptocurrency bubble. -- Devokewater @ 16:04, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep & improve The crash was notable in its own right, I think. It is certainly adequately sourced. Both this article and Cryptocurrency bubble are a little meagre and need fleshing out, but the 2018 crash was a significant event and received massive coverage. Boynamedsue ( talk) 10:27, 17 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Cryptocurrency bubble. The specific reasons for that crash are no more than the bubble itself. I think it might prove difficult to really improve the article beyond what can be summarised there. I'd be happy if someone could prove me wrong, though, as this particular crash was rather notable. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 12:27, 18 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Redirect as suggested, per WP:CHEAP, and as a plausible search term. I would not oppose a selective merger. Bearian ( talk) 17:20, 22 July 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 15:23, 23 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Bunnel, California

Bunnel, California (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Another railroad spot sourced only to Durham and not shown on any topo I have access to. To help confuse matters, there was a Bunnel Ranch which wasn't near here. With the help of this passage from Myrick's book I got a bit better idea of where it might have been, but the emphasis has to be on "might": there is absolutely nothing along this this stretch of the "Bizz" Johnson Trail (which replaced the railroad) except a pair of bridges, a tunnel, an unnamed camp area, and the Devils Corral trailhead, and then you get to Goumaz, where there is another camp area and nothing else. It's possible the first camp area is where Bummel was, but there's nothing at all there except a smallish cleared area hardly big enough for a house. Anyway, besides locating it on the railroad, Myrick says that a sawmill was established there, but a sawmill is not a town and I can remember as a kid going up into the woods a bit south of where we lived and coming upon a sawmill where we got some lumber or sawdust, with no settlement around it at all. Myrick's passage is also instructive in illustrating how dense named points on the railroad are: there is one every few miles, and one should not assume that there was a station building (or even any buildings at all) at each one, much less a town. Myrick's description is sort-of verified by this passage, except that it says that the mill was eight miles away, which on the scale of things is quite a hike. The only other mention of the spot is in this USDA report on possible water projects. And while it does talk about the spot in a way that makes it clear they are talking about the same place, a precise location isn't given, and nothing about the spot is described. And that's all I found, so I don't think this is a notable rail spot. Mangoe ( talk) 15:15, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 15:20, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 15:20, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete The sources verify that this is a place where logs were dropped off and lumber was picked up but that's about it. It's hard to tell whether the mill was at this spot or somewhere else (were there two different mill locations?) but in any case there's no evidence of a settlement here. – dlthewave ☎ 19:34, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete - This isn't a populated place and I see no evidence it fulfils the WP:GEOLAND criteria. Patiodweller ( talk) 18:33, 17 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete Getting something named on a railroad doesn't ensure notability. As we've seen, much of the named locations are entirely non-notable railroad facilities: stations, sidings, spurs, etc. This one is no exception. Non-notable. Glendoremus ( talk) 23:18, 22 July 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:51, 25 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Coal Bowl (basketball tournament)

Coal Bowl (basketball tournament) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Can't PROD this since it was de-prodded 11 years ago. There is some coverage, but even the coverage on the CBC web site was written locally, and the rest is all routine youth sports coverage. Fails WP:GNG. (Came across this doing CAT:NN cleanup - simple advertisement here, if you have a minute, check to see if there's an article which has been tagged as not passing the GNG for over a decade and see if you can rescue it or nominate it for deletion and help clean up the encyclopaedia.) SportingFlyer T· C 23:27, 6 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T· C 23:27, 6 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T· C 23:27, 6 July 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 July 6. — ^{cyberbot I} _{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete Unfortunately it does not meet the notable coverage guidelines. -- James Richards ( talk) 12:38, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment. Finding a fair amount of coverage. E.g., "(1) Coal bowl experience not just about the basketball", 2008; (2) " New Waterford Coal Bowl Classic officials bring wealth of experience to the court, 2020; (3) " New Waterford residents remember Coal Bowl over the years", 2020, (4) The Coal Bowl: youth basketball in Nova Scotia, 2001. See full results from Newspapers.com here, (5) " Unified at Coal Bowl in New Waterford", 2020, (6) Host Breton Education Centre Bears win Coal Bowl, 2016; (7) Hoop dreams and coal seams, 1999. Cbl62 ( talk) 15:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Passes WP:GNG (see above) and WP:NHSPHSATH. This is a national high school basketball tournament in Canada that has been around for 50 years, and the coverage is national in scope, including the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Cbl62 ( talk) 16:04, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Of the coverage you listed, one's a WordPress site, the other is NewsBreak which does not appear to be a reliable source (it's for a city in Ohio but aggregated the story from Nova Scotia). With one exception - the CBC broadcast - the remaining articles are just routine articles about a youth sports tournament, almost all of which are local. SportingFlyer T· C 23:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Respectfully disagree. I offered a variety of sources to show the breadth of coverage. For example, you ignored this feature coverage from the other side of the country in Saskatchewan. And the depth of coverage in this piece (originally from Shunpiking magazine) is impressive. I'm not generally an advocate of high school sports articles, but this tournament has both a breadth of geographic coverage, a depth of coverage, and long duration of coverage over roughly 50 years that I think is sufficient to demonstrate its notability. Cbl62 ( talk) 00:33, 8 July 2020 (UTC) reply

A few more examples of the geographic breadth of coverage: (8) another national television piece from the CBC; (9) this from Yahoo Sports/CBC in 2017; (10) this from Yahoo News/CBC in 2018; (11) this and (12) this from SaltWire Network (newspaper consortium in Eastern Canada); (13) this from Church News in Utah; (14) this full-page article from British Columbia; (15) this from B.C. in 1988; and (16) this from Alberta. Cbl62 ( talk) 02:09, 8 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep Meets GNG per Cbl92 sources. ~ EDDY ^{( talk/ contribs)}~ 22:36, 9 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep this is the rare instance where I think the new sources provided in the AfD warrant keeping the article. With the caveat that they should be added to article and used to expand it. Otherwise, I suggest the original nominator just renominates it in 6 months, because I'm not a big fan of people providing sources in AfDs and then them never being used to improve the article. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 19:46, 24 July 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Adamant1: I spent the time to find the sources. How about you take the time to add them to the article? Cbl62 ( talk) 23:01, 24 July 2020 (UTC) reply

I don't really edit articles that much these days because I got sick of being reverted all the time, but I might if no one else does. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 23:05, 24 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Thanks. Cbl62 ( talk) 01:29, 25 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep per the sources provided. —  Toughpigs ( talk) 20:55, 24 July 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 00:44, 24 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Ref Wayne

Ref Wayne (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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