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

The result was delete. czar 06:12, 15 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Nicholas Shaffer

Nicholas Shaffer (  | 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 significant coverage per WP:ENT. SL93 ( talk) 23:22, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 23:24, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete agree that the article fails WP:ENT. I couldn't find any reliable sources and he does not seem to have had significant roles in the productions that he's credited in. -- Suonii180 ( talk) 10:49, 14 June 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:44, 15 June 2020 (UTC) reply

State Research Institute Kristall

State Research Institute Kristall (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

It had a couple of explosions that got coverage, but isn't notable. Boleyn ( talk) 08:07, 24 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:22, 24 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:22, 24 May 2020 (UTC) reply

It can be confused with Kristall, the diamond-polishing factory in Smolensk. Hotspur23 ( talk) 17:13, 24 May 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment I wonder if there was ever a ru.wiki article and if that was deleted? I can’t read Russian sources but found nothing in English except news about the explosions. Mccapra ( talk) 10:19, 14 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• Weak keep 30K Google hits for Gosudarstvenny Nauchno-Issledovatelskiy Institut. Are we missing something here? I was trying to sift through these but this really demands someone more familiar with the topic. [1] More than willing to change my !vote if such a person arrives, please ping me. Ifnord ( talk) 17:43, 15 June 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was merge to Pink Triangle Press. (non-admin closure) Ifnord ( talk) 17:47, 15 June 2020 (UTC) reply

PinkType

PinkType (  | 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 about an organization, not reliably sourced as passing WP:ORGDEPTH or WP:GNG. The primary notability claim on offer here is that the organization existed, and the sourcing consists primarily of the self-published newsletters of directly affiliated organizations being cited only to metaverify those direct affiliations. The only source here that's actually fully independent of the organization is a glancing namecheck of its existence on one page of an 875-page historical timeline, which is not enough coverage to singlehandedly get this over the bar all by itself if it's the best we can do. We're not just looking for sources which verify that it existed: we're looking for sources that offer detailed and substantive analysis of its significance, but those are entirely lacking here. Bearcat ( talk) 16:48, 24 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 16:48, 24 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 16:48, 24 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:04, 24 May 2020 (UTC) reply

• Merge to Pink Triangle Press as the sourcing isn’t sufficient to support a stand alone article. Mccapra ( talk) 10:23, 14 June 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. czar 06:19, 15 June 2020 (UTC) reply

CrossCharge

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

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

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

Obvious G11 created by clear COI account, declined by DGG on the basis that it would require AfD. So again, here we are.

Sources presented in the article fail WP:CORPDEPTH badly, and a WP:BEFORE search turned up absolutely zip. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 22:29, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 22:29, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 22:29, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

neither corpdeath nor Before is relevant to G11. For asubject like this, I want others to hve a look also. DGG ( talk ) 06:11, 8 June 2020 (UTC) reply

I guess I just don't see what puts an obvious piece of corporate spam in need of a full AfD when G11 exists for just such things. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 07:35, 8 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment: The former Green Dot Charging company now appears to be trading as ConnectMyEV, and their conductive charging system appears to be similarly named as ConnectMyEV rather than CrossCharge. [2], so I have added another Find-Sources above. AllyD ( talk) 06:31, 8 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete: A WP:SPA article by Evcharging describing a start-up company's proposition, with the text featuring superlatives about their product being the first and safest such product, maximising convenience, etc., without reliable 3rd party sources. Aside from routine listings, searches find a 2015 brief Q&A with the company founder [3] and a February 2018 announcement about the venture arm of Stanley Black & Decker taking a minority stake in the company [4] but I am not finding the independent coverage which would be needed ( WP:PRODUCT / WP:NCORP) to sustain an article here, even if pruned of promotional wording. AllyD ( talk) 07:06, 8 June 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was 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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 07:26, 15 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Karan (film)

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

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

An article about a Bollywood film, sourced only to IMDb and to a site which purports to confirm the songs on the soundtrack. A WP:BEFORE search turned up a plot summary, which the article lacks, but zilch anywhere near WP:RS. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG.

(I regret to say that I have another hundred or so articles of this quality to put up for discussion. The creator, User:Magipur, blocked in 2016, whose Talk Page is no thing of beauty, could write this sort of article in 2 or 3 minutes. Due diligence for AFD takes me 10 or 15.) Narky Blert ( talk) 22:14, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 22:19, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 22:19, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. "Nothing is gained from deletion" is not a policy-based rationale to keep, especially in the face of a lack of in-depth sources. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 07:28, 15 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Lucy Grantham

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

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

Lack of WP:SIGCOV – subject does not meet WP:NACTOR, which requires "significant roles in multiple notable films". Article (which has been tagged since 2018) could be redirected to The Last House on the Left (1972 film), her only notable role. Muzilon ( talk) 10:15, 31 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Muzilon ( talk) 10:15, 31 May 2020 (UTC) reply

• Redirect per nom, very notable movie, but actor did not have sustained career. Caro7200 ( talk) 15:12, 31 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 01:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete a non-notable actress. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep - notable enough, and nothing is gained by deletion. Ivanvector ( ^Talk/ _Edits) 00:24, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment: Significant coverage is limited to her role in just one film (Last House). A couple of trivial mentions of her work on obscure low-budget/porn movies does not meet the threshold of WP:NACTOR, which requires significant roles in multiple notable films. Muzilon ( talk) 01:19, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment: I'm not sure why a relist is necessary. 2 votes to redirect (including me as nominator), 1 to delete, and only 1 to keep. Nobody has attempted to improve the article (which has had a "notability" tag for two years) with references to reliable sources – probably because such sources don't exist. Consensus is to redirect. Muzilon ( talk) 22:19, 8 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete Non-notable actor. I don't see the point of redirect when she has done so little and is so little know. scope_creep ^Talk 23:56, 14 June 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:47, 15 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Japan House

Japan House (  | 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 cultural center. Lacks sufficient sourcing to substantiate notability. User:Namiba 01:04, 23 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 01:04, 23 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 01:04, 23 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 01:04, 23 May 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment: Wikipedia has other articles on other cultural centers, like Japanese Cultural and Community Center of Washington, German-American Institute, Nuremberg, and Yupiit Piciryarait Cultural Center. When should a cultural center be considered notable? - HenryMP02  ^TALK 21:49, 23 May 2020 (UTC) reply

When it has multiple, independent, non-trivial sources covering it in detail per WP:GNG. The existence of something doesn't make it notable.-- User:Namiba 22:16, 23 May 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep - has 3 independent sources in the article already, as in "independent from the Univeristy of Illinois administration". Two are from the Champaign-Urbana News-Gazette, there seem to be at least three more from this source. The third is from the Daily Illini which is the University of Illinois' independent student newspaper. There's likely more sources related to Nick Offerman's close connection to JH. Smallbones_{( smalltalk)} 00:07, 3 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 10:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC) reply

There is one news story from the local paper that covers the organization at any depth. It doesn't pass WP:GNG. I would support merging relevant information to the University page.-- User:Namiba 19:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) feminist | freedom isn't free 02:55, 15 June 2020 (UTC) reply

The Gentle Intruder

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

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

Possible non-notable film. Couldn't find third-party sources for the film beyond the lone reference in the article. The New York Times link is dead. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 21:31, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 21:31, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 21:31, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 21:31, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 22:15, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep: I believe that silent films are generally considered to be notable, as part of Wikipedia's coverage of the early history of film. I fixed the New York Times link with an Internet Archive page. I also added references from Turner Classic Movies, AllMovies and American Film Institute, databases that are often cited on articles about early films. —  Toughpigs ( talk) 22:06, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

  Toughpigs, the all movie page just have a summary and doesn't have an analysis of the movie. Also TCM page is dead for me. It comes up with page not found. -- Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 22:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

The TCM link works for me. —  Toughpigs ( talk) 22:13, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Toughpigs, it's leading to http://www.tcm.com/unavailable. Maybe they're blocking me since I'm in the UK.

Plus, are you saying silent film gets to bypass WP:GNG? -- Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 22:14, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

I'm saying that it can be presumed that silent films got significant coverage, as this one did. I added references to the article from Motion Picture World, Reel Life, The Moving Picture World and Motion Picture News. — Toughpigs ( talk) 22:49, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep as per the additional reliable sources added to the article so that WP:GNG is passed in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk) 00:24, 8 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep, Per above, Article has enough reliable sources to pass notability. Alex-h ( talk) 07:12, 12 June 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Captain Galaxy ( talk) 22:08, 15 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Marie-France Morin

Marie-France Morin (  | 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:NHOCKEY and fails WP:GNG Joeykai ( talk) 20:23, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Joeykai ( talk) 20:23, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 21:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 22:26, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 22:26, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep - fails NHOCKEY through WP:BIAS for not having a penis. I've added 18 references to the article demonstrating that GNG is met. She was the first women drafted in the men's Central Junior A Hockey League and played on the men's Eastern Ontario Junior C Hockey League for four years, leading to much media coverage, and a lot of in-depth articles when she played for Canada in 2000, as well as in the 2002 Canadian National Women's Hockey Championship. Nfitz ( talk) 08:46, 15 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Nfitz sums it up. I believe WP:NHOCKEY completely either ignores or is blissfully unaware of women's leagues. Ifnord ( talk) 20:12, 15 June 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) feminist | freedom isn't free 02:54, 15 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Sarah Shantz-Smiley

Sarah Shantz-Smiley (  | 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:NHOCKEY and fails WP:GNG Joeykai ( talk) 20:14, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Joeykai ( talk) 20:14, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 21:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep Passes WP:GNG with the sources already in the article. -- Dammit_steve ( talk) 21:18, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 22:28, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 22:28, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. The sources in the article are just routine sports reporting. Deadman137 ( talk) 14:15, 8 June 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Thats a suprising take because these sources [5] [6] [7] [8] are all in the article and are not routine sports reporting. Here is also a feature about her turning around the national team program. Dammit_steve ( talk) 17:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep, subject passes WP:GNG as shown above. Sources in other languages are sufficient to demonstrate notability. Flibirigit ( talk) 12:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep - some great sources in the article. Nfitz ( talk) 02:23, 14 June 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Passes WP:GNG (non-admin closure) BEAMALEXANDER!, talk 08:48, 15 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Robbie Sigurðsson

Robbie Sigurðsson (  | 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:NHOCKEY; fails WP:GNG Joeykai ( talk) 20:11, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Joeykai ( talk) 20:11, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep Passes WP:GNG with the sources already in the article. -- Dammit_steve ( talk) 20:47, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 21:04, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 22:29, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep I agree, meets GNG. Played for the Icelandic national team. ~ EDDY ^{( talk/ contribs)}~ 13:33, 9 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep, subject passes WP:GNG. Sources in other languages are sufficient to demonstrate notability.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Joeykai ( talk) 22:11, 11 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep, Passes notability , has played for the national team Alex-h ( talk) 07:18, 12 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment I just want to say that simply playing for the Icelandic national team does not show WP notability. WP:NHOCKEY specifically says that notability is presumed only for those competing at the highest level of the IIHF or Olympics and Iceland does not qualify. I won't comment on notability because I don't have the time right now to research the sources to check if WP:GNG is met. Papaursa ( talk) 12:18, 14 June 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) Username ⁶⁸⁹² 14:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Miraculous plague cure of 1522

Miraculous plague cure of 1522 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

This article is particularly worrisome because it can be seen as supporting certain current efforts to exempt religious services and processions from public health measures during the COVID-19 pandemic - see [9] and Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic#Religious protection. The article says:

When the second plague pandemic hit Rome, Italy, the local authorities banned processions so as to stop the plague. However, Catholics made a 16-day crucifix procession from San Marcello al Corso, through the streets of Rome, and back to St. Peter's Basilica.... As the crucifix toured a neighborhood, the people of the neighborhood were miraculously cured of the Black Plague, so that each neighborhood sought to have the crucifix stay with them as long as possible. When the crucifix entered St. Peter's Basilica, Rome was miraculously completely cured of the plague.

The article concludes by noting that Pope Francis prayed before the same crucifix for an end to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Soon after the article's creation in March, an editor placed a template about the need for reliable sourcing, but three months later the article still has just a single source, Vatican News. I have not been able to find any reliable independent sources. I am proposing it for deletion because it violates WP:V, WP:FRINGE, and WP:MEDRS by giving credence to beliefs in faith healing. NightHeron ( talk) 20:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Withdrawn by nominator now that the article has been rewritten, retitled, expanded, and properly sourced. NightHeron ( talk) 15:37, 9 June 2020 (UTC) reply
  • • • • • Note: Article now renamed Plague procession of 1522 by Beyond My Ken - better imo, though including "Rome" would be bttter still. Johnbod ( talk) 11:05, 8 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep History is full of people believing in faith healing. The WP policies on pseudoscience were not intended to scrub history of pseudoscience, but to prevent people from advocating for it in the present day. If this was an article about how you need to go to a shrine to be cured from coronavirus, it would be a different picture altogether.-- Epiphyllumlover ( talk) 20:41, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete I have done a search for "Miraculous plague cure of 1522", I get no hits in any books or journals. As no reliable sources discuss this topic, the article should be deleted. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 20:48, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

That's a rather overprecise (and not very idiomatic) search term. Try a proper search - the difference is, well, miraculous! Johnbod ( talk) 20:58, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep or Merge to Oratory of Santissimo Crocifisso, where the cross now is after rewriting to better match the source. There are in fact, many, many RS on this, so it could be kept. The nom seems motivated by POV concerns. NightHeron and User:Psychologist Guy - what is the matter with you? Did nobody ever teach you how to do an internet search???? Johnbod ( talk) 20:58, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• Not really convinced by the FRINGE concerns: there is no FRIDGE or MEDRS issue with saying that 500 years ago people attributed something to magic. I think the merge suggested by Johnbod is very reasonable, though -- the different aspects of the cross and its location can be covered together, and it avoids the very awkward title of this article. -- JBL ( talk) 21:23, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep probably should be renamed to be about the crucifix, but yeah... this is definitely notable. The recent use of the item by the Pope in the pandemic brought significant attention, and given that it was significant enough for him to use, you're all but certain to find significant commentary on it in Italian sources making it notable outside the COVID-19 situation. Also see Johnbod's link above. I suggesIt was before, but especially given recent events it would easily meet GNG. When I worked more in content I spent a lot of time cleaning up overly religously or badly sourced Catholic articles, so I'm certainly sympathetic to NightHeron's concerns, but we typically consider relics, saints, and other religious subjects that are considered significant by a major religious group to be notable, because there will be significant commentary in their non-primary source histories and theologies. That's definitely the case here. Yes, the article could probably use a rewrite and a rename, but deletion is not the best option. TonyBallioni ( talk) 21:26, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• I disagree about re-naming for the crucifix. The procession qualifies as a notable event (I have little doubt that it happened) and reporting on what people thought it did for them is a legitimate subject. If there is significantly more about the crucifix than is in this article, a new article could be created without deletitng this one. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 03:28, 8 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment There are only two pages on Google books of visible material for Johnbod's search and they all seem off-topic or not in depth coverage. Can you list one reliable source that actually discusses this Miraculous plague cure of 1522 in depth? Some of those seems to be discussing something else. I am not convinced this is a notable topic. This looks like WP:SYNTH to me. Historians do not seem to be discussing this topic. I do a lot of historical research myself and I have never come across this. For me this is not notable. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 21:29, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Psychologist Guy, sure:
    • Eitel-Porter, Rhoda. "The Oratorio Del SS. Crocifisso in Rome Revisited." The Burlington Magazine 142, no. 1171 (2000): 613-23. Accessed June 7, 2020. www.jstor.org/stable/888898.
    • O'Regan, Noel. "Processions and Their Music in Post-Tridentine Rome." Recercare 4 (1992): 45-80. Accessed June 7, 2020. www.jstor.org/stable/41701104.
    • Von Henneberg, Josephine. "An Early Work by Giacomo Della Porta: The Oratorio Del Santissimo Crocifisso Di San Marcello in Rome." The Art Bulletin 52, no. 2 (1970): 157-71. Accessed June 7, 2020. doi:10.2307/3048704.
    • Pope Francis, his crucifix and the Virgin Mary: miraculous or merely traditional?

These are all in the context of the confraternity associated with the church building, but discuss the alleged miracle and the crucifixes later use in processions. @ Johnbod, Joel B. Lewis, and Andreas Philopater: I think keeping and changing to be about the crucifix is probably better than merging. It seems to be notable on its own in addition to being a significant part of the church. Again, I'd rename this article to be about the art object associated with it, because there seems to have been enough academic writing on that to meet our notability standards. TonyBallioni ( talk) 22:04, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

The oratory was built to house the crucifix; it makes no sense to have separate articles on each of them. It would if they had since been separated, but as it is it would like having an article about a painting and an article about its frame. -- Andreas Philopater ( talk) 22:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

The oratory is a physical building that is notable in its own right. The crucifix and the related traditions behind it is distinct as an art object. We also likely don't have as much writing about it in English because of the whole Henry VIII thing. I'd expect there to be even more on the crucifix itself in Italian. TonyBallioni ( talk) 22:11, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

If the sources can be found, sure. So far I'm not seeing them (and I have been looking). -- Andreas Philopater ( talk) 22:49, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Here's a dissertation to mine for sources, later revised and published. Oratory, archconfraternity and crucifix all look notable enough, but they should all fit nicely in a single article. fiveby( zero) 00:00, 8 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Delumeau Jean (1951). "Une confrérie romaine au XVI siècle". Mélanges d'archéologie et d'histoire. 63: 281–306. looks like most cited source independent of oratory. fiveby( zero) 00:30, 8 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Fiveby, good finds. I had already seen Delumeau's article, but since it is primarily about the confraternity, and only talks about the supposed miracles as a context for its existence, I didn't take that as a basis for keeping the end of the 1522 epidemic as a primary topic. At a glance the same applies to the dissertation, although I'm open to being persuaded otherwise. -- Andreas Philopater ( talk) 13:21, 8 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Merge and redirect to Oratory of Santissimo Crocifisso Rename to Confraternity of the San Marcello crucifix or Arciconfraternita del Sanctissimo Crocefisso in San Marcello and edit content accordingly. Add the plague outbreak to Timeline of the city of Rome. -- Andreas Philopater ( talk) 22:02, 7 June 2020 (UTC) -- Andreas Philopater ( talk) 13:21, 8 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment If the article is retitled so that it's about a notable relic rather than a miraculous plague cure, and if it's written so as not to suggest that belief in divine intervention to cure a pandemic is part of living Catholic belief, I'd be fine with that. As JBL said, there's no problem with reporting that people 500 years ago believed in magic. The problem is that today certain religious groupings still believe in magic, and this belief is widespread and powerful enough so that 15 US states have complete religious exemption from social-distancing measures during the pandemic. If the rewritten article mentions Pope Francis' prayer in front of the crucifix, it should not give the impression that the Pope wants people to anticipate divine intervention to stop COVID-19. NightHeron ( talk) 00:34, 8 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• If reliable sources say that it is part of living Catholic belief then that is what we should say. Phil Bridger ( talk) 08:36, 8 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• I should have put in the words "falsely" or "misleadingly." There are no Catholics in the list in Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic#Religious protection of religious or political figures who have made statements claiming that religious faith or religious rituals cures COVID-19. NightHeron ( talk) 10:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep Leaning a bit more towards Andreas Philopater's view rather than TonyBallioni's, but that is probably best resolved by someone reading the sources and working on the article(s), not at Afd. fiveby( zero) 01:15, 8 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep - I've added some references (from CNN and Reuters) to confirm that the alleged procession is thought to have happened, but I also moved it to Plague procession of 1522, on the theory that we should not say in Wikipedia's voice that this was an actual "miraculous plague cure". The new title seemed preferable to adding "alleged" to the current title, which was the other option. (Besides, I found almost no references to "Miraculous plague cure of 1522" on Google, so it's not like it's a common expression.) The title could also have been "Roman plague procession of 1522", but I didn't think additional disambiguation was necessary. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 02:04, 8 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep per the interesting discussion, and per the edits to the page since the nomination which seem to have moved it to the realm of the savable. Randy Kryn ( talk) 03:15, 8 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep as clearly notable. Any issues with the title of the page or how we organise the related articles should be discussed on the relevant talk/Wikiproject pages. Phil Bridger ( talk) 08:36, 8 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep (speedy, even, since the nominator appears to have withdrawn their nomination and the single !vote to delete seems to lack a WP:BEFORE): The subject has received scholarly treatment (as noted above, and e.g. Albinsky in Space, Place, and Motion: Locating Confraternities in the Late Medieval and Early Modern Period), and the single sentence devoted to its 21st-century relevance is quite due. —— Serial ^# 09:12, 8 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Excellent expansion of the article. Bravo! Beyond My Ken ( talk) 16:43, 8 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Just needed the mumbo-jumbo getting rid of, Beyond My Ken  ;) —— Serial ^# 17:46, 8 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Don't be modest, you also provided a lot more context. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 18:04, 8 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Notable subject matter, and not really fringe if treated as historical. Alexbrn ( talk) 16:37, 8 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment According to the Italian article on the Oratorio del Crocifisso, the cross there is a copy of the "miracle cross", which is actually housed in the " Chiesa di San Marcello al Corso". The information about the "miracle" of the cross (surviving a fire that destroyed the church it was in) and its use as a miracle cure during the plague in 1522 is in this latter article. There are few references in the Italian article so I am not saying that it provides definitive proof, but I have my doubts that the Oratorio (which seems to be known primarily as a venue for music) is deeply related to the "miracle cross." Lamona ( talk) 20:34, 8 June 2020 (UTC) reply

  @ Lamona: The problem here arises from the fact that the Oratory of Santissimo Crocifisso and the San Marcello al Corso Church are the same place; the oratory is an oratory attached to the church. So the cross, presumably, is in the Oratory of the Holy Crucifixion in the Church of St Marcellus. The church existed before the 1522 plague but the oratory did not. I suggest merging the two, and possibly merging this article with them both. GPinkerton ( talk) 14:29, 9 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep and repurpose The notable thing here is either the crucifix housed in San Marcello al Corso, or the 1522 plague epidemic in Rome, not some plagiarized papal miracle imitating the old Roman Plague of 590 legend. I would prefer a title like 1522 Plague of Rome or Crucifix of San Marcello al Corso. GPinkerton ( talk) 02:51, 9 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment NightHeron, if you could withdraw this nomination, we can carry on discussing the page move on the article talk page per WP:LOUSYTITLE. —— Serial ^# 13:23, 9 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Serial Number 54129: Done. And thanks for your extensive work improving the article. NightHeron ( talk) 15:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. czar 01:39, 15 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Charles Backford

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

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

As with Daniel Baradza, no independent sources. 1234qwer1234qwer4 ( talk) 18:52, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 ( talk) 18:52, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 ( talk) 18:52, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment: This can actually be fixed from the sources in the Spanish article. 1234qwer1234qwer4 ( talk) 19:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

@ 1234qwer1234qwer4: In that case, would you like to withdraw the AFD nomination and fix the article? ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 22:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete a non-notable sculptor. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:22, 9 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete No effective sources, non-notable. scope_creep ^Talk 00:16, 15 June 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. czar 21:17, 14 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Bradfordville School

Bradfordville 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)

Possibly non-notable school. No third party source given and non found. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 18:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 18:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 18:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 18:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Having applied for the NRHP is probably not enough, unless the application can be located. John from Idegon ( talk) 08:45, 8 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Fails WP:NSCHOOL per low amount of significant coverage. 🌴 Koridas🌴 (Negotiate) 00:33, 13 June 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle ( talk) 08:09, 16 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Digital Strips

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

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

Fails WP:GNG. I'm unable to find significant coverage in reliable, third-party published sources. Their About page mentions a lot of firsts, but there do not appear to be any reliable sources covering those firsts...or supporting any of their claims, really. They mention being interviewed by the New York Times, but it's a couple of pullquotes in three sentences about another publisher entirely. A search for "digitalstrips.com" and "Digital Strips" finds the usual primary sites, podcast hosts, social media, forums, open wikis, links from sites they've talked about, and random trivial mentions like at Wired. In short, the podcast exists, but there's virtually no coverage to write anything about it. Woodroar ( talk) 18:29, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Woodroar ( talk) 18:29, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. Woodroar ( talk) 18:29, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete The non-primary sources on this article are:
  • A fan comic (imagining "Digital Strippers", a site about webcomics crossed with BDSM).
  • A New York Times article, covering webcomics in general, containing the following relevant section: "“With the Net, you can get to a smaller group of people at a larger scale,” said Heiko Ramirez, who produces a popular podcast about Webcomics on the blog Digital Strips (www.digitalstrips.com), where he is editor in chief. He noted that a comic that might attract only a handful of readers locally could, at no additional cost, find a readership of 10,000 nationally. Nonetheless, “print will never go away,” he added. “People like to own what they love.”"
  • An interview of "Daku the Rogue" (one of the creators of Digital Strips) by a site called Broken Frontier. The source linked in the article is actually an archive of a contents page; the actual interview linked appears to be missing as archive.org apparently has not archived the mp3 file that contains the interview.

So we have an unreliable and trivial mention, a trivial mention, and an unreliable source whose contents cannot be found. Unless more sources can be found, this article should be deleted for the same reasons as it was the first time.— Preceding unsigned comment added by HenryCrun15 ( talk • contribs) 20:34, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. If this (2nd) RfA is closed as delete, please consider salting it as well. Ifnord ( talk) 20:17, 15 June 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle ( talk) 08:09, 16 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Ajay Chitkara

Ajay Chitkara (  | 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 promotional article about a businessman who is the CEO of a division of Airtel. I could not find any coverage aside from passing mentions and statements issued by him. M4DU7 ( talk) 17:38, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 ( talk) 17:38, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 ( talk) 17:38, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete a non-notable businessman. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 15:06, 8 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. - Hatchens ( talk) 12:28, 15 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete See nothing conclusive when it comes to WP:GNG. Bvatsal61 ( talk) 07:00, 16 June 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle ( talk) 08:09, 16 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Daniel Baradza

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

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

Artist doesn't have third-party source given and none can be found. Therefore, it fails WP:GNG. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 16:31, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 16:31, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 16:31, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 16:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 16:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete as I could not find independent RS. That said, there is a problem built into our notability rules in that they favour countries with strong independent media. The quantity of independent reporting that comes out of a place like Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Zambia or similar southern African countries is miniscule compared to the volume of reporting coming out of countries in the northern hemisphere. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 16:59, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• <irony>Because we urgently need to apply our notability guidelines strictly and rigorously, especially when it involves Black people from southern Africa, on which we have such an abundance of articles that we need to start culling. God forbid we tackle video game companies without any references since 2010 or something like amateur handball players from the Netherlands with 1 ref to a sport stat site.</irony> My irony meter just exploded. Anyway, he has an entry in Eyoh, Dickson; Zeleza, Paul Tiyambe (2005-10-24). Encyclopedia of Twentieth-Century African History. Routledge. ISBN  978-1-134-56584-9. and Winter-Irving, Celia (2004). Pieces of Time: An Anthology of Articles on Zimbabwean Stone Sculpture. Mambo Press., so that's a Keep Vexations ( talk) 18:51, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

  Vexations, page number? Also, I did not target this subject. I've just gone through random articles clicking "random article." -- Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 19:14, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Vexations I didn't mean we have to apply the guidelines rigorously, I mean we have to apply them uniformly. I tend to trust your views and judgement without question... but how long are the book entries, just for my own edification? 19:30, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

It wasn't directed at you, and I made a mistake. I saw the entry in Pieces of Time and misquoted the Encyclopedia of Twentieth-Century African History. The entry in Pieces of Time either shows or doesn't show, depending on how you access google books, so unless I can dig it up in a Library that isn't going to happen, that doesn't help either. My bad. My point, I suppose is this. Looking for articles to delete and targeting Black subjects as has just happened with Charles Backford exemplifies the systemic exclusion of Black subjects from the encyclopedia. Insisting that we treat everybody equally when we know so well that white subjects have an incredible advantage is perpetuating racist practices. Seriously, go after video game companies without sources instead. The only problem with doing that is that it would overwhelm AfD. Vexations ( talk) 20:31, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

OK thanks for that. Just to be clear, there was no targeting of this subject. As Tyw7 said, they found it randomly. I'd actually be right on the subject of African artists if I could find enough sources... which gives me an idea. I may start looking at African-continent Museum collections. Thanks for your source research. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 20:45, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep Covered in multiple books [10]. Vexations, articles about non notable companies and people are submitted for deltion at the rate of hundreds per day, have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 June 7. Its completely understandable that a 1 paragraph page with 0 sources would be submitted, it happens over 100 times a day. If there are pages with no sources then why not request they be deleted via WP:PROD or WP:SPEEDY. If you think that pages about Africans should be judged differently (possibly legitimately as sources could be in other languages) then why not take this to WP:VPP. AlessandroTiandelli333 ( talk) 21:20, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

I've always taken pages to XFD rather than PROD or speedy. So there's no bias there ie I have not treated this page different just because of the subject's race. Also, I can't see the contents of the book. Are they passing mentions or in-depth discussions? -- Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 21:22, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

@ AlessandroTiandelli333: I'm willing to be swayed to k*ep here, which is why I checked that book link. The Google books results routinely provide books on related subjects that don't have the search term in them, or have one of the words (e.g. has "Daniel" but does not have "Baradza"). On the first page of my results for your Google Books link (Google customizes results based on your location and their magic algorithm), I get one book that mentions him, three Wikipedia-based books and the rest do not seem related. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 21:51, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 22:12, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 22:12, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 22:12, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete not even close to the level of sourcing we would not to justify having an article on a sculptor. Wikipedia is not meant to right wrongs. If scultors of certain nationalities, races or combinations of the two are under represented in reiable sources of sculptors we can not ignore reliable sources and great articles on them. The place to right such uneven coverage is in the pages of journals that cover sculptors, not in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a place for a person to go to publish research. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 21:12, 12 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete fails WP:GNG. WP is not a place to WP:RGW or publish WP:OR, as JPL articulates above. b uidh e 19:19, 15 June 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Spinning Spark 16:20, 17 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Patricia Celan

Patricia Celan (  | 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 references section is clearly a case of WP:BOMBARDMENT with links to UGC platforms and other sources. Fails WP:GNG Zoodino ( talk) 15:43, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Zoodino ( talk) 15:43, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Zoodino ( talk) 15:43, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Rebuttal: While the references may include links to UGC platforms, according to Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites, social media sites can sometimes be used as sources. Note also several of the reference links are to non-UGC sources, such as news articles or non-UGC websites/PDFs. There are several indicators of notability such as trending news and tens of thousands/hundreds of thousands of views on related YouTube content. -- Wiki2008time ( talk) 15:59, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete won a beauty title that does not even come close to even remotely showing notability. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:06, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Rebuttal: While the title itself is not notable, related actions lead to several news articles including trending news in 2013, conferring notability. See other articles such as Amy Soranno; someone with an even less notable beauty title is considered notable enough for an encyclopedia article if other aspects of the person are significant. Other signs of notability in this case include performance arts with significant viewership and some notability within the medical field. Where only 18.46% of English Wikipedia's biographies are about women according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, one wonders about the systemic bias in suggesting an article about a female titleholder/physician is worthy of deletion whereas articles such as Ron Wear and Darren Storsley are allowed. -- Wiki2008time ( talk) 16:19, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

I started Amy Soranno myself. It's creation is irrelevant. Either, both, or neither article might get deleted. With millions of article, there's always something else that has issues. But, since we're comparing the two, I'd say, in both cases, the pageant by itself, is not important. You need substantial coverage from multiple reliable sources, that's not all tied to a single event, but rather, is biographical in nature, and focused on the subject.  The sources used here, need to be cleaned up. You can't use sources like linkedin or pintrest. Replacing these with better sources would help more than any argument. Now, I'll go over to the other article, and check for the inevitable AFD nomination. -- Rob ( talk) 21:47, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Rebuttal: Thank you for the explanation. Note in the article that while Pinterest and LinkedIn are sometimes used, they are not the only citation for any particular claim. For example, a PDF of UBC's official medical graduation document is also cited at the same time as Pinterest. As well, I mentioned above "according to Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites, social media sites can sometimes be used as sources." -- Wiki2008time ( talk) 22:24, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Sometimes on occassion, social media is a valid source for non-contentious material, written by the verified account of the subject. But, it never conveys any degree of notability, or supports claims of notability. Also, anybody can write anything they want on linkedin. It doesn't verify the claims. In most cases, it doesn't even verify the true identity of the account holder. -- Rob ( talk) 22:58, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

If you look at the actual content of what the LinkedIn and Pinterest pages are cited for, you'll see that they are not the claims that are suggesting notability; they are simply more biographical information. You could delete them and the article would still have merit based on the fame of the head shave, the extensive YouTube viewership for the head shave video and for the various musical parodies that Patricia worked on, and her medical career - all of which are supported by news articles or links from official university sources. The LinkedIn and Pinterest information is simply being kept there as additional background for interest. I looked at other Wikipedia pages such as Tara Teng when learning how to use Wikipedia, and I noticed in her Talk page that there were some extensive issues about excess background information that needed trimming. Her article was not deleted, but merely improved, which is why I am rebutting suggestions for deletion of my first article. While I could argue for why I chose to do everything that I did, editing out misguided additions seems to me more appropriate than full deletion of someone that I felt was notable, and I still feel including the LinkedIn/Pinterest sources provide some useful additional information. -- Wiki2008time ( talk) 23:16, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete as 1EVENT, ultimately. Trillfendi ( talk) 16:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Biographies of living people can often start as one event and expand from there with other notable information, which was the intention with this article. Wiki2008time ( talk) 16:46, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

If something is 1Event it’s just that. If there are no other forms of significant coverage besides that 1Event then it doesn’t meet general notability guidelines. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. It’s not the fact that she won a pageant that isn’t a major pageant, it’s the “she shaved her head” part, which is not news. Trillfendi ( talk) 23:20, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

I interpreted notability given that I saw several news articles about the head shave, 300K views on YouTube for it, 75K views on YouTube for her biggest parody project, 3K views for each of her other parody videos as well as 2-3K views for other performance videos each, and dozens of articles/blogs on mental health in which she contributed her expertise as a medical doctor. These are not part of 1Event but are separate aspects of the biography of one person over time. No crystal ball needed - these are all supported by my citations to news articles, YouTube videos, and official university sources. -- Wiki2008time ( talk) 23:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• sigh* YouTube views do not contribute to notability. The head shaving act is the 1Event. As of what I've seen, the sources referring to her as a doctor do not go deep enough for general notability. One sentence type of mentions are not enough, we need in depth articles on the subject's medical career. Just my opinion but I speak from experience here. Trillfendi ( talk) 00:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC) reply

I'm confused then, as shorter pageant stubs ( Debbe Ebben, Shalom Reimer) and medical stubs ( Mira Ashby, Emma Gaudreau Casgrain, May Cohen, April Sanders, and Kona Williams) I've seen around Wikipedia that have been around for years, as well as other pageant stubs I've created ( Courtnee Anderson, Gloren Guelos, Sandra Gin), have not been nominated for deletion, so I don't understand why this particular one was. I had more material to work with on this one compared to the other pageant stubs I've created or edited, where I couldn't find any notable career outside minor beauty pageant titles. I'm looking at this from the eyes of someone inexperienced and trying to learn by example, and relatively speaking, this is probably one of my better articles. I'm seeing double standards. -- Wiki2008time ( talk) 03:28, 9 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Most if not all of those articles warrant deletion proposals too. Some of them practically being brazen resumes, violating policy. The problem with this website is that any girl who wins a pageant has an article made without regard to standards. Trillfendi ( talk) 05:10, 16 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep The above criticisms are in regard to the pageant aspect of this page. However, this is a biography of a living person that started as one event (pageant) and grew to some additional notability (performance arts, medical career). Both the pageant and the medical career separately have sufficient reliable sources to have some notability within themselves, and most arguments are focused on only one field or the other but this person is simultaneously somewhat notable within both fields. Therefore arguing it does pass WP:GNG and is not "1EVENT". Also recommend keeping it on the basis of having inadequate Wikipedia biographies about women according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, having inadequate Wikipedia biographies in the category of Canadian women physicians, and other existing articles about Canadian women physicians are even shorter and without additional notability outside medicine, such as Mira Ashby, Emma Gaudreau Casgrain, May Cohen, April Sanders, and Kona Williams. As well, existing articles about Canadian pageant winners can also be found to be shorter and without additional notability outside pageants, which have been around for a long time, such as Debbe Ebben and Shalom Reimer. I have also cleaned up the UGC links per criticism, but per Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites, I do think the UGC added some helpful biographical information. -- Wiki2008time ( talk) 20:04, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Please only !vote once. -- Rob ( talk) 21:47, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Sorry, fixed. -- Wiki2008time ( talk) 22:19, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Fails WP:BIO. A one-time stunt that had no WP:LASTING impact. No other beauty pageant winners shaved their heads too. Clarityfiend ( talk) 05:22, 8 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Disagree, this article is not about a one-time stunt and once again, this is a criticism only about the beauty pageant portion of the article. Half the article is also about medical career including medical parody performances. Regarding the one-time stunt and failing WP:BIO, I added another source - this person is noted as "Miss Charity BC" in the Canadian Cancer Society's donor report and is the first instance I could find of a Miss Charity BC being in their reports. The fact that no other beauty pageant winners shaved their heads is something that confers notability; if it was commonplace to do so, then this act would be less significant and would not have sparked all the headlines in Canada, U.S., U.K., India, China. One could also argue the fundraising and head shave itself was a catalyst for her acceptance into medical school. Again, this article is a biography covering pageantry and a medical career, not just a one-time stunt in a pageant. By that argument, any pageant title is a one-time stunt, wondering why then pages such as Debbe Ebben, Courtnee Anderson, Gloren Guelos, Shalom Reimer are not marked for deletion given that there is significantly less news coverage available about their respective wins compared to this lesser title but more widespread media coverage. -- Wiki2008time ( talk) 14:18, 8 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Nobody following in her footsteps somehow makes her act more notable? That makes no sense. Also, her medical career is nothing out of the ordinary, so 0 notability + 0 notability = 0 notability. Finally, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a poor argument, but I'll get around to nominating at least Anderson, Guelos and Reimer for deletion. Not sure about Ebben. Clarityfiend ( talk) 23:19, 9 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Yes, because if many women were shaving their heads on stage at beauty pageants, then her doing this would be "nothing out of the ordinary" to use your words. By her doing this and nobody else in Canadian pageants that we know of, she gained significant notability within British Columbia and headlines in other countries as well. The notability may not be 1000, but it's more than 0. As well, her medical career is not nothing out of the ordinary; nothing out of the ordinary would be Kona Williams, who is known for nothing more than being the first First Nations doctor in her field in Canada; no evidence of any other notable actions, shorter article, yet her article remains for years. Here we have what seems to be the first beauty queen turned doctor in Canada (I can find no evidence of other beauty queen doctors in Canada) who has significant provincial fame for the head shave, then became a doctor who won at least one award during her training that has been documented and has been quoted as an expert repeatedly about COVID-19 and other topics, per Fuzheado's response. So medical notability is not 0; there is slightly more here than the "ordinary" doctor like Kona Williams. -- Wiki2008time ( talk) 00:02, 10 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 06:39, 8 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep - If folks took a few minutes to look beyond the pageant, one would find many quotes from her in 2020 related to COVID-19. Therefore, she is notable for more than one event, and she has been quoted as an expert in this field in multiple WP:RS. -- Fuzheado | Talk 18:00, 9 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• https://www.deseret.com/indepth/2020/5/12/21246611/coronavirus-utah-covid-physical-touch-hugs-hand-shakes-affection-distancing-effects
• https://www.babygaga.com/experts-discuss-the-impact-of-pregnancy-on-close-relationships/
• https://www.huffpost.com/entry/body-brain-quarantine-coronavirus-effects_l_5ebde414c5b698a29045d7a9
• https://bestlifeonline.com/global-changes-after-coronavirus/
• https://www.insider.com/what-is-ocd
• https://www.mic.com/p/did-coronavirus-kill-hugs-handshakes-22940828

• Comment: Substantial coverage about a subject in multiple reliable sources can convey notability. But, the ones citing Celan as a health expert, do not actually cover Celan as the *subject*. The only significant coverage about her is pageant related, and is narrowly focussed on a single event. Now, if there was coverage about something she's done, like research that she's released, or she gave opinions that generated notable disagreements/debates/support, won some awards, or recognition, or even a simple "life of a doctor" story, would convey some notability. -- Rob ( talk) 00:29, 10 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Per WP:GNG, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Need not be the subject of the articles to be notable as a health expert in dozens of articles about mental health. Also, she has been profiled on the UBC Medicine and Dalhousie Medicine websites, both of which are cited, so there's your simple "life of a doctor" story. I just checked, and every single doctor is not profiled on the university websites, only a handful. She also won an award within Dalhousie Medicine, which was cited. There were other awards she had won but I removed that background biographical information per complaints about UGC platforms, though per Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites, I still believe there is some merit to the background information provided by the UGC platforms. So once again, this is an article not just about a pageant win (which I would argue is slightly more notable than the average municipal or provincial-level beauty queen given the unique action of the head shave and associated fundraising), but also about a slightly more notable doctor than the average physician who doesn't get profiled, win an award, or get quoted as an expert in a long list of articles. -- Wiki2008time ( talk) 00:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete An article's coverage doesn't have to be mainly about her, but it does have to about her, to some extent. For example, a story about the life of doctors, that mentions a few, including her would help. But, the medical related sources are not at all about her. They are about medical topics. She's giving pretty standard/common opinion. Also, I really have to say MyBestMbestmattress.com is not a reliable source. They sell mattresses. They are not a media outlet with fact checkers. Her profile on their site is a standard promotional profile of somebody. The profiles at academic institutions she works for are not reliable sources. Those are self-promotional. -- Rob ( talk) 10:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC) reply

This response is completely disregarding some of the things said above, including things said directly to you in the preceding message. As stated above, sources 9, 11, 12, 13 provide doctor profiles and an award, all on university websites - these include stories about the life of doctors that mentions a few, including her. That's not "self-promotional", as those websites are not UGC and the universities are profiling the doctors, not the universities themselves. Besides medical, there are many articles about her within the pageant component. As well, per WP:GNG, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." The articles naming her as a medical expert do not need to be about her "to some extent", naming her as a medical expert in multiple quotes within an article is indicating more than trivial mention. I don't know what to say about mybestmattress.com, I just added that in as a bonus that can easily be removed without changing the overall article much so if it's not reliable then it can be removed. However, from what I see looking around the website, it looks to be a site that compiles reviews for mattresses, it does not seem to be selling mattresses. Their articles quoting Celan are about topics such as coronavirus insomnia, not selling mattresses. You've been overly involved in 3 different people's arguments here and on the attack of everything I've been posting on Wiki ever since I referenced your article Amy Soranno as an example of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which was not intended as a personal attack on your work but rather as a defense to keep my hard work, so please stop attacking my work with arguments that are not even fully informed. Per WP:BITE, please stop the hostility. -- Wiki2008time ( talk) 11:41, 10 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Not sure anymore - I'm going to abstain from !voting now. I think the article definitely was *not* ready to go into article space initially, and still isn't, but its in the midst of a cleanup. I suggest that if a closing admin decides this article should be removed, they should offer to move it it to user and/or draft space to be further improved. I do still strongly assert that a number of profiles cited, are actually promotional. That is, when a company/organization hires/uses an expert, they will publish a friendly bio about them (making both look good). University faculty/staff/student/research profiles are not at all reliable sources. They are almost always written by the subjects, and not fact checked, even in the most renowned/respected institutions. -- Rob ( talk) 02:49, 11 June 2020 (UTC) reply

You've removed the sleep expert one, so that argument is null now, and that was the only promotional one. The others are reliable sources that did not provide any kind of "promotional" profiling in them. About 1/3-1/2 of the article's sources are about the pageant, from several news outlets. Another 1/3-1/2 are about medical information, with reliable sources that simply discussed the relevant mental health topic and briefly described the expert as a psychiatry resident at Dalhousie University and then went on to use the expert's quotes - no "promotional" profiling. The universities profiling the doctors is not UGC any more than any news articles that interview subjects. Subjects can say anything in a news interview and have it quoted as-is, and the universities did the same in profiling their doctors. As well, they were not providing any outlandish self-promotional material, no wild claims, but rather were simple biographies of doctors. Nothing they said in the profiles scream, "Go to UBC! Go to Dalhousie! Hire me!" - they simply cover who these people are and what their interests are. -- Wiki2008time ( talk) 04:19, 11 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Ok, here is every single citation of in the "Medical Career" section based on the version as of my writing:
• 11 - sfu.ca => Reliable for facts, no notability conveyed, as it's a simplistic listing
• 12 - med.ubc.ca => Reliable for singular fact that she entered school. Q&A format means she supplied answers
• 13 - youtube.com => A YouTube playlist. Without watching it all, I assume it shows her singing and dancing. Not a reliable source, and not a sign of notability
• 14 - youtube.com => Not reliable, not a sign of notability. Having thousands of views on YouTube is a trivial matter, anybody can achieve. More importantly, no reliable source says anything about it.
• 15 - ubc.ca => Reliable source for fact of graduation. Not a sign of notability, as it's just a mass list
• 16 - cdn.dal.ca => Reliable source for fact of attendance. Not a sign of notability, as it just shows her picture, and gives her answers to a few questions. Not a reliable source of facts beyond mere attendance, since she supplied answers.
• 17 - medicine.dal.ca = > Doesn't mention her
• 18 - cdn.dal.ca => "..our own Dr. Patricia Celan wrote the winning entry..." is the only thing that's marginally notable, and reliable fact. Saying "our own" doesn't build independence.
• 19 - healthline.com => Reliable source for facts, not a sign of notability, as nothing substantial is said of Celan personally
• 20 - insider.com => ditto
• 21 - ca.finance.yahoo.com => ditto
• 22 - ca.finance.yahoo.com => ditto
• 23 - huffingtonpost.ca => ditto

In short, a few facts are verified, but nothing substantial is said about Celan personally. There's no indication of notability in any of this, except maybe, maybe, maybe, a tidbit about a writing award, that we have no meaningful coverage of, beyond that singfular fact. -- Rob ( talk) 05:05, 11 June 2020 (UTC) reply

(Keeping in mind your focus here is on dismantling the medical aspect, but we do also have the pageant aspect, and the 2 aspects together combine to create more notability than one aspect alone.) Some of these arguments seem to be differences of opinion. Agreed, some of those are simple fact checks. Re: YouTube, does this behind the scenes feature from a different source (UBC IT) provide more notability to her parody work for the one with 75,000 views? https://vimeo.com/121938108 If so, could add it?

Disagree about #12 and #16. They are not just reliably showing fact of attendance, they are profiling specific student doctors amid many other possible options, choosing these ones in particular for some reason. There is nothing wrong with the Q&A format, as that is usually the format in newspaper interviews too. She presumably provided the answers to the questions she was quoted in for the pageant articles too.

Once again, difference of opinion on being quoted as an expert in multiple articles. As stated above a few times, per WP:GNG, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Once again, she does not need to be the subject nor be personally described in any way for the significant coverage to be considered notable. She is repeatedly quoted as an expert speaking about medical topics. By virtue of being quoted as a professional expert, not as a layperson being asked for opinions about a local matter in a local paper, that provides more than a "trivial mention". Expert quotes are not trivial, and especially not in high quantity. I could add many more articles than the 6 listed to demonstrate that there are at least 50 articles she has been quoted in as an expert, but then I'd be accused of WP:BOMBARDMENT again, and a sampling of 6 seems to get the message across well enough. (Keeping in mind your focus here is on dismantling the medical aspect, but we do also have the pageant aspect, and the 2 aspects together combine to create more notability than one aspect alone.) -- Wiki2008time ( talk) 05:41, 11 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Also, I just checked, and where you said #16, I think you meant #17. The numbers may have gotten mixed up with edits, where #16 is now about UBC and #17 is about cdn.dal.ca. Anyway, #17 does mention her and profiles her, on page 4, it's not just a mass list - only 8 people are profiled. As well, #18 mentions her if you scroll down, and shows her winning entry - she was the only winner in the doctor category. #19 refers to the previous #18 you were talking about. Then the other articles start at #20. Anyway the point of this update is just to say that she is actually mentioned/profiled in all sources, there are no sources where she is not mentioned. -- Wiki2008time ( talk) 15:59, 11 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Meets "Academics" criterion of WP:ANYBIO "Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources." So she does not need to be the subject of the many articles she was quoted in. See WP:ACADEMIC criterion 7: "The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area. A small number of quotations, especially in local news media, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark." - Expert quotations are not small in number (look at this person's twitter) nor local news media (found articles for this Canadian physician in American outlets). This in itself invalidates the WP:ONEEVENT argument as this person is one event PLUS the academic part. "It is important to remember that "notable" is not a synonym for "famous". Someone may have become famous due to one event, but may nevertheless be notable for more than one event." -- Wiki2008time ( talk) 19:05, 12 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Saw a comment that shaving her head doesn't count as being an academic (editor then reverted this). Once again, this is a person who is not JUST a pageant winner who is notable for shaving her head, she also has a bit of notability in the medical field considering a contest win and dozens of expert quotations in conventional media, per criterion 7 of WP:ACADEMIC. Most comments are focusing on either the pageant or the medical career and disregarding the other half of the article. Please read the entire article in full before determining this person is not notable for one field or the other field, because she has combined notability from both fields. -- Wiki2008time ( talk) 06:31, 14 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep I'm not sure how having too many references is a criteria for deletion. While many seem superficial, a handful seem significant. Article needs editing and improving, not deleting. Nfitz ( talk) 22:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete No evidence of being academic in the least and doesn't satisfy any academic criteria. The article subject is a resident,a junior position and offering the basic of information. She is not allowed to offer anything, confirming again that she is not an academic Known for single event which has been spun in the references, to give reference bloat, and engender notability that doesn't exist. For example, there is 5 instances of getting her head shaved, there is 6 of beauty pageant, then a whole lot passing mentions, that constitute the rest. No real coverage outwith the single event. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep ^Talk 00:09, 15 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• I don't see how she is not an academic. I see multiple universities, UGC information that was removed indicated some research and university teaching assistantship, and she's a doctor in residency. Those all look academic to me. Not sure how junior or senior the position is has any influence on the ultimate decision. What do you mean "offering the basic of information" and "she is not allowed to offer anything"? I actually don't understand the argument there so I don't know how to respond. She would count as an academic who contributes to the field of mental health outside academia, per criterion 7 of WP:ACADEMIC. As for the pageant, I was not trying to "give reference bloat" but simply to demonstrate international coverage of the head shave, conferring more notability than the average winner in BC pageants with BC-local coverage only. -- Wiki2008time ( talk) 00:27, 15 June 2020 (UTC) reply

I don't think so. She is not an academic. To be a academic, you must be in that position. She is a junior doctor, a resident, and is allowed to give simple advice and that is it. She doesn't satisfy WP:ACADEMIC#7 in any situation. She entirely non-notable. scope_creep ^Talk 22:38, 15 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• "However, academics may also work outside academia and their primary job does not need to be academic if they are known for their academic achievements. Conversely, if they are notable for their primary job, they do not need to be notable academics to warrant an article." From WP:ACADEMIC. And then again, #7 says "Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area. A small number of quotations, especially in local news media, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark." She has a lot of quotes in conventional media as an expert in mental health. -- Wiki2008time ( talk) 23:48, 15 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• Also her website says she was a research assistant and teaching assistant in areas related to mental health, and now a quick google search will find her quoted in the news and in blogs dozens of times and all apparently related to mental health in some way. See Academic ranks in Canada. Looks to me like an academic contributing to the field of mental health. -- Wiki2008time ( talk) 00:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete, WP:BIO1E applies. Stifle ( talk) 08:10, 16 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Per the other discussions above (See also discussion under Trillfendi's 1EVENT assertion), this goes beyond 1 event. -- Wiki2008time ( talk) 10:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. The article has been significantly improved by the page creator and other helpful editors ( earlier and now), the content and the tone is more neutral and appropriate. The article still needs to be worked upon for WP:POV, focusing more on the article's subject rather than the founders.( non-admin closure) Zoodino ( talk) 04:56, 10 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Fast.ai

Fast.ai (  | 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 seems to be completely written in a promotional tone. 6 out of 10 references are to the group's website itself. No significant coverage and notability. Zoodino ( talk) 15:34, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Zoodino ( talk) 15:34, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Zoodino ( talk) 15:34, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Hi! I'm the original author. I can assure you that I have no conflict of interest whatsoever and didn't intend to write this in a promotional tone (?). I did take the MOOC myself and was browsing Jeremy Howards's page when I noticed fast.ai didn't have its own page. I thought it would be appropriate for it to have a page on WP and thought it would be a useful contribution. I've been working mainly on the Dutch WP in the past - maybe the rules for inclusion are slightly different there? Is there anything I can do to improve the article? I included the links to the group's website because I thought references would be good :| but I can ofcourse take them out if that's better. Paritalo ( talk) 17:38, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

I've tried to take some "promotional" language out, and now only 2 out of 6 references refer to their own page. Not sure how else to improve it - would welcome some guidance. Is the topic/page by itself wikipedia-worthy? Is the trouble just the language? I'd be happy to get some guidance to avoid this in the future... I was kind of hoping to create more articles on AI/ML-related topics, but now I'm not so sure anymore :( Paritalo ( talk) 18:02, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Hi Paritalo, the notability criteria say that notability is determined based on "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". You're correct that references are good, but for notability, some references are better than others. Refs to the company's website are not considered independent. Published books and major newspapers are usually good, if the subject is covered in some detail. I think that your strongest references right now are from the Verge and ZDNet — they're recognized, reliable, independent news sources in this topic ara, and the articles are about fast.ai specifically. If you can find another couple like that, it would be helpful. Check out the Google Books search results — that's often a useful way to find published sources.

For the promotional language, the section on #Masks4All is pretty obviously promotional. Phrases like "Jeremy Howard has been a prominent advocate for masks" are too strong — Anthony Fauci is a "prominent advocate" for masks, Jeremy Howard is not. "Information regarding the science behind the efficacy of masks during the pandemic can be found through fast.ai in 22 different languages" is also unhelpful — there are lots of information sources about the efficacy of masks, and encouraging readers to use fast.ai rather than public health sites is obviously promotional for the company. I see that another editor has already taken that section out, while I was writing this response. :) —  Toughpigs ( talk) 20:43, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Thanks so much for your explanations Toughpigs, that's very helpful! I'll definitely keep this in mind in the future for other articles. I'll try to see if the fast.ai page can be improved with more neutral information / external resources. Thanks again, I was kind of surprised by the deletion nomination but I see the point now. Paritalo ( talk) 22:14, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete: There is unreferenced content in the Lead that is not elaborated upon in the body of the article, and in the body there are unreferenced quotes from the founders of the company. David notMD ( talk) 23:21, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Hi David notMD, the reference for the quote is [11], which was taken out because there were too many references to their own webpage. Should it be reinserted? While you wrote your comment, I was working on the article, restructering and creating an additional section on the MOOC. What other content do you see that is unreferenced? Paritalo ( talk) 23:43, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Answered on your Talk page (AfDs are not the place for dialog with other editors). David notMD ( talk) 00:02, 8 June 2020 (UTC) reply

An article shouldn't be deleted because of errors that can easily be handled through normal editing. —  Toughpigs ( talk) 17:04, 9 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep While promotional tone, there are significant references to this website. [12], [13], [14], [15] come to mind. In fact, there's even some criticism of the website in these articles. Sam-2727 ( talk) 16:16, 9 June 2020 (UTC) reply

  Including the verge article present in the article as is, there are five sources supporting notability. Sam-2727 ( talk) 16:18, 9 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep: Business Insider, the Verge and ZDnet are legit sources. —  Toughpigs ( talk) 17:04, 9 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep. In addition to the previously cited sources, a cursory search reveals coverage from FastCompany, MIT Tech Review, etc. It was even cited (though just a passing mention) by the NY Times. While no book was written about it, at least three (UNCTAD's The Impact of Rapid Technological Change on Sustainable Development; Subramanian's Deep Learning with PyTorch; and Panetto et al's On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems) have discussed the subject. Darwin Naz ( talk) 23:09, 9 June 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. I have considered carefully the quantity and quality of contributions on both sides and there is not a consensus to delete. As with all my AFD closures, I consider them carefully before making them and do not change my decision based on talk page messages. Stifle ( talk) 09:19, 16 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Temi Olajide

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

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

Apart from her interviews in some borderline sources, there is no independent in-depth coverage in any RS. Fails GNG. MistyGraceWhite ( talk) 16:43, 22 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:23, 22 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:23, 22 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:24, 22 May 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete a non-notable individual. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:40, 22 May 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete — Fails WP:ANYBIO. Celestina007 ( talk) 22:40, 22 May 2020 (UTC) reply
• The nominator was blocked as a sockpuppet, however I am leaving the nomination open because it has some merit. MER-C 17:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC) reply
• keep - in a field of both sexes, she's the first Nigerian Child Sleep/Potty Training Consultant and Child Psychologist. She is co-founder of a major organization in Nigeria. Vanguard, Guardian, Punch, Bella Naija, Leading Ladies (all major media houses in Nigeria) have all done pieces on her and as such, she fits the basic criteria of notability. SuperSwift ( talk) 09:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC) reply
• keep per SuperSwift's position Olaniyan Olushola ( talk) 13:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC). reply
• Delete. The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. The article's sources are all interviews and are not independent of her. A Google search of the subject doesn't show in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 12:55, 28 May 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment – The nominator has been blocked for suspected likely socking ( WP:SOCKSTRIKE). North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:25, 29 May 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep - Subject of the article has been covered by multiple reliable sources which include Nigeria Guardian here, Punch Nigeria, Vanguard and a host of others and clearly passes for inclusion. Also, being the first Nigerian Certified Child Sleep consultant is something worthy to be on this encyclopaedia. Kaizenify ( talk) 05:41, 31 May 2020 (UTC) reply
• Per the relisting Comment above: More citations from reliable sources in Nigeria ( The Guardian (Nigeria), Vanguard (Nigeria), and The Sun (Nigeria) with a broader focus on the subject matters have been used to improve the notability of the article. SuperSwift ( talk) 15:26, 1 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep No evidence that WP:BEFORE was followed. Subject passes GNG. Article has been also improved enough since nomination. Orientls ( talk) 02:45, 4 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• Note to closing administrator. The people voting keep have failed to show exactly how the subject meets WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. All of the sources included in this discussion are not independent of the subject. I need to stress that these sources are primary sources and cannot be used to confer notability. The subject herself has no career to speak of apart from founding a non-notable company. The article's career section needs an overhaul; majority of the content in that section is fluff.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 13:21, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment: Versace1608, instructing a closing admin to note your misleading comment is not helpful. You wrote All of the sources included in this discussion are not independent of the subject.These feature-length articles in major newspapers The Guardian Newspaper, Sun Newspaper are definitely not primary sources and they clearly meet our definition of in-depth-coverage. I apologize, but either you are not reading these sources or you are selectively reading them. It is disruptive either way. She was listed as one of the 100's most influential, powerful, inspiring and innovative women in Nigeria by The Guardian. SuperSwift ( talk) 20:25, 9 June 2020 (UTC) reply

@ SuperSwift, you can’t say Versace1608’s comment or any other editor’s comment or point of view is disruptive as it is exactly like I said; there own point of view, you may either concur or disagree. Celestina007 ( talk) 21:22, 9 June 2020 (UTC) reply

@ SuperSwift: Please pratice civility when talking to others here. I stand by what I said. All of those newspaper sources are interview sources. They cannot be used to confer notability because they are not secondary sources and are not independent of her. For your info, publications where the subject talks about themselves is not considered secondary coverage.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 17:48, 10 June 2020 (UTC) reply

I stand by my comment that either you aren't reading sources or you are selectively reading them, if you continue to refer to this feature-length article, also this publication by The Guardian and this by The Sun Newspaper as interviews. @ Celestina007: If a user failed or refuse to get the point, not reading sources or selectively reading them and continues to argue without making an effort to see other users side of a debate, it is disruptive. SuperSwift ( talk) 08:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC) reply

@ SuperSwift: How exactly is this a featured length article? For crying out loud, the entire article contains six brief paragraphs. Making a newspaper's publication list does not automatically mean someone is notable. The article published by The Sun newspaper contains heavy quotes from the subject; how exactly is this independent of her? You clearly haven't fully grasp the meaning of secondary sources. I did not selectively read any sources and how exactly am I being disruptive? I am not obligated to agree with you on anything. You claim that these sources are independent and I am telling you they aren't.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 16:10, 14 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep, subject passes GNG. Six paragraphs is far and away significant coverage, and the act of including quotes in an article does not mean it cannot contribute to GNG. Devonian Wombat ( talk) 02:57, 15 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete I'm not convinced with arguments so far, for keep.I don't see much in the comprehensive secondary source that establish notability beyond all doubt. Really not a lot here, a simple small para that mentions her as a sleep consultant. I'm curious as to why so many editors are pushing to get the article kept when there is such tenuous notability. There is effectively no secondary sources that are in in-depth and that are independent of the subject. There is no other coverage, so it fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. scope_creep ^Talk 09:47, 15 June 2020 (UTC) reply

@ scope_creep, you couldn’t be more apt! Editors !voting to keep are doing so for the sake of it without substantiating it with policies. Celestina007 ( talk) 15:37, 15 June 2020 (UTC) reply

I would remind the both of you to stop casting aspersions. Devonian Wombat ( talk) 22:34, 15 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep There's enough sources to meet GNG here. Most of the sources (Guardian, Vanguard, The Sun etc ) are established papers and reliable in general. The nominator's claim of no RS is clearly unfounded. – Ammarpad ( talk) 00:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. If someone wishes to merge the content to, for example, Kazuo Ishiguro#Personal life, it can be restored on request at WP:REFUND, but I saw no consensus to do this. Stifle ( talk) 08:16, 16 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Naomi Ishiguro

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

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

This looks like a case of WP:TOOSOON. Unless I've missed something, she has so far published one well-reviewed but not award-winning or otherwise notable book. The refs reflect this, and I couldn't find more on WP:BEFORE: it doesn't amount to notability, so fails WP:AUTHOR. Her father is a huge literary figure, but WP:NOTINHERITED. Ingratis ( talk) 17:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Ingratis ( talk) 17:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:50, 30 May 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete a non-notable writer. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:34, 2 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete She has done some work but not enough to be notable yet. I agree with WP:TOOSOON. Nika2020 ( talk) 11:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete non-notable writer. Donaldd23 ( talk) 20:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep, or rename to Escape Routes (book). She's the author of a notable book per WP:NBOOK#1 and reviews in The Times, The Herald, Big Issue, NB Quarterly, The Canberra Times, and The Student. pburka ( talk) 20:59, 5 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete one notable book fails WP:NAUTHOR, which requires "a significant or well-known work or collective body of work." (#3) or "significant critical attention" (#4). There's a case for an article on Escape Routes (book), and should that article be created, her article could be redirected there. Seems likely in the future she may become notable, but it's too soon to tell. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:40, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete An article should be created for Escape Routes (book) because it is a semi-notable book. So far, she doesn't seem to merit an article ( WP:TOOSOON) Ajshul ^Talk _Work 15:59, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply
  • That could just be this article, with the order of the paragraphs reversed. Why delete when we can easily save the article through editing, without losing the history? I'd do it now, but renaming articles during AfD is discouraged. pburka ( talk) 18:24, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Agreed. The content of the article that covers Escape Routes (book) would be useful within an Escape Routes (book) article which there is definitely a case for (especially to replace this article). Ajshul ( talk) 03:15, 8 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• Merge to Kazuo_Ishiguro#Personal_life, where she is currently not even mentioned. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/ _{contributions} 05:43, 9 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep or rename it Escape Routes. The subject's notability is tied to her work 'Escape Routes' which has a number of reviews. Every author is notable for his own work and since Escape Routes is her work, let her enjoy that privilege. This author is most likely to publish more books in no distant time which will boost her notability. Alternatively the article can be renamed Escape Routes because it has earned a number of reviews. Ugbede ( talk) 7:54, 16 June 2020

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:03, 16 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Bellwether Technology Corporation

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

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

TL;DR: I believe the company only has two sources supporting its notability, one of which is local and the other of which is either primary or considered to be the same source as the other, depending on whether I am interpreting policy correctly. Regardless, it is thus not notable enough to merit an article. (It should also be mentioned that some serious CoI editing has occurred with the article.)

(Disclaimer: This is my first attempt at nominating an article for deletion, so I may have easily misinterpreted the notability guidelines. If that is the case, I apologize.)

Rationale: With regards to notability, the article currently has five references (not including one I previously removed for being unrelated to the company):

1. A link to a "Case Study" by Liongard, which is clearly listed under " Examples of dependant coverage" on WP:CORP as "not [being] sufficient to establish notability".
2. An article in a local newspaper about the company being "named to CRN’s Managed Service Provider 500 list". It's a local source (so it is not enough to establish notability if no other sources exist, per WP:CORP#Audience), but it appears to be independent and neutral and is thus otherwise fine with regards to notability (from what I can tell, at least).
3. An entry in PartnerPedia that reads straight like an advert. The banner at the website's top saying "Ready to list your company? Register Now" makes me suspect the content is also user-generated, which means it is also not an independent source.
4. An entry in the CRN website itself confirming that the company was included in the newspaper's Managed Service Provider 500 list. This is great, but A. it is a primary source (assuming I've interpreted WP:PRIMARY correctly), and B. it doesn't give any additional information or claims to notability beyond what source #2 provided—and from what I understand of the " multiple sources" requirement, a source publishing an article and another source writing about the first source publishing an article would only count as one source, though I could very easily be wrong here--as I've said previously, I do not have much experience in this field.) (Also, I should mention the note underneath the table stating "Unedited data provided by vendors" gives me pause).
5. An entry in a newspaper's "10 Fastest Growing IT Services Companies 2017" list, which I believe would be evidence of notability if the article wasn't blatantly promotional (the article's name itself is "On a mission to help clients excel by expertly applying and managing information technology: Bellwether Technology") and the article didn't continually refer to the company as "we" and "us", which makes me suspect the article is either pulled from a press release or written directly by the company itself. Either way, it is probably not an independent source.

Essentially, these sources show the company's article to have two usable sources currently: an award-giving website, and a paper writing about the company receiving an award from said award-giving website. This doesn't seem to be a very strong claim to notability thus far, in my opinion.

External websites:

• Performing a search in Google Search and Google News was unhelpful; I found an article on how the company sponsored a concert in a park, but the article is primarily about the concert and only trivially discusses the company, meaning that it falls short of the significant coverage" requirement. I also found several discussing the company's founder (Poco Sloss) whilst only trivially mentioning the company, which has the same problem.
• A search in Google Books brings up only a single paragraph in "Knowledge Potential Measurement and Uncertainty" that reads like a straight advertisement, so this is also unhelpful.

In short, the company truly has only two sources supporting its notability: a local source, and a source that is either primary or considered to be the same source as the other, depending on whether I am interpreting policy correctly or not. Either way, this company does not have "significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable, secondary sources," and thus this company should not have an article.

(Also, let's be honest here—the article wasn't created to provide neutral information about the company, the article was created to serve as a vehicle of promotion by the company. That is why a user who admitted to having worked for the company originally created the article in 2010 and maintained it for eight years straight, and why a bit over a week ago an IP address that geolocates to New Orleans (where the company is located) cleaned up the article and added bare references to two related articles ( Phishing and Cyber insurance, to be specific) linking solely to the company's website. From what I can tell, this is yet another case of a company attempting to use Wikipedia as the world's largest billboard.) —  TheHardestAspect­OfCreatingAnAccount­IsAlwaysTheUsername: posted at 18:05, 30 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 08:04, 31 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 08:04, 31 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 08:04, 31 May 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete: A WP:COI article setting out a company's wares. The nearest to a claim to notability is the company's inclusion in CRN magazine's list of service providers, but that is not inherently notable. I concur with the nominator's thorough analysis and my own searches are finding passing mentions of individuals associated with the company but not the coverage needed to demonstrate attained notability here. AllyD ( talk) 07:24, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion. I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/ WP:NCORP. HighKing ⁺⁺ 12:00, 15 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. scope_creep ^Talk 14:54, 16 June 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{( spin me / revolutions)} 03:34, 16 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Raste

Raste (  | 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 family as an entity fails WP:GNG. Although some of the family members appear to be notable figures on their own, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Sources listed do not provide in-depth coverage of the family itself. One source does not mention the name Raste at all, three are general histories of India, one is about Wai, and two are about the Raste wada. Alan Islas ( talk) 17:09, 30 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:53, 30 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:53, 30 May 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete: The sources don't seem to cover the family as a whole; individuals in the family may merit an article. Ajshul ( talk) 15:57, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete: I agree with above points. Krokusma ( talk) 14:00, 12 June 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. It appears BCAST is met 78.26 _{( spin me / revolutions)} 15:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Radioactive FM 96

Radioactive FM 96 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Promotional, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:58, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 15:16, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 15:16, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete. The only sources cited in this article are pages from the radio station's own website ... but the site linked is a domain for sale and has no content about this radio station. Even if the radio station actually had its website at the link, the article would still be overly promotional, as it makes claims about how popular the radio station is among youth without citing any sources other than the station's own website. That said, terrestrial radio stations are generally notable as indicated at WP:NRADIO, so I would be willing to change my mind if this article had proper sources to verify the station's broadcasting activity. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:46, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply
  • I'm changing to neutral for the time being, pending revision of the page to correspond to what Raymie has written below. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:45, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply
    • @ Metropolitan90: I just moved the article to Karachi FM and revised the page. There are next to no sources on station history or the change from Radioactive to Karachi FM. They might exist in Urdu, but that does me no good. Raymie ( t • c) 00:44, 8 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• @ Metropolitan90: Appears to now go by Karachi FM (their listed website redirects to this FB page). Radio in Pakistan is regulated by the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority and it is listed on the list of commercial FM licences. Keep and move to Karachi FM to cover current imaging and name. Raymie ( t • c) 23:28, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep: Per Raymie. As Radioactive FM 96, it's mentioned in an article about Radio in Karachi, one of its jocks was nominated in an award, and it was talked about in a section of a magazine. Therefore, with the sources indicated above, the article is good enough to pass WP:BCAST. ASTIG😎 _{( ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 08:00, 8 June 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle ( talk) 08:17, 16 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Séan Doran (intern)

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

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

With greatest respect to the subject, it is unclear how WP:ANYBIO is met. In terms of:

• WP:NSCIENTIST, the author points to this webpage in which the term "citizen scientist" is used. However, all other sources (that I can find) suggest that the subject is a digital/graphical artist. Otherwise there is no evidence that any of the NSCIENTIST criteria apply. That the subject is (or was?) an "intern" at NASA does not confer notability. The NASA website suggests that 2000+ internships are awarded (perhaps annually?). Not every NASA intern or employee is notable.
• WP:NARTIST criteria, perhaps more applicable given this interaction on the Cake.co website in which the subject is described as a "visual artist", also don't seem to be met. In that, while the artist's work attracted some attention, there is little to no coverage of the artist independent of those works. In that sense, WP:BLP1E would seem to apply.
• WP:NYOUTUBE and WP:INHERITWEB, it seems that the subject has had some attention on Flickr and YouTube and Reddit and what-have-you. But nothing to the extent that anywhere near WP:NWEB and WP:SIGCOV is met.

In general terms I would note that the subject here just seems to be a regular non-public figure. An otherwise "normal person", who has (what some people might see as) a pretty cool job. Which got some attention. And more power to him. But I'm not seeing how WP:GNG is met. Separately I would note that an editor, who stated that they were the subject (and probably is/was), attempted to remove poorly or entirely unsourced personal details from the article. Only to see them restored.

Otherwise, there are precisely ZERO news results about the subject (meaning SIGCOV is not met) and ZERO academic works relating to or by the subject (meaning NSCIENTIST is not met). The ONLY piece of content anywhere that seems to discuss the subject directly is that Cake.co microblogging "conversation". But that fails WP:RS by so much as to be (frankly) laughable. In any event, I don't know what criteria could possibly apply to support this article's existence here.... Guliolopez ( talk) 14:20, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez ( talk) 14:27, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez ( talk) 14:28, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez ( talk) 14:29, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete I've got little to add that Guliolopez hasn't said, but a google search indicates only passing mentions as a citizen scientist. rather clearly fails WP:NPERSON and WP:GNG. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:49, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete a non-notable scientist. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:22, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep - I know there isn't much background information about the individual, but he played a relatively major part in his role at NASA ans ESA's image catalog team. User:Raphael.concorde 11:24, 13 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment - Hi Raphael.concorde. Please have a quick look at WP:ITSIMPORTANT and related " arguments to avoid in deletion discussions". When contributing to an AfD discussion (where the concern is notability) it's best to relate your arguments to this project's notability guidelines. Rather than to considerations which are unrelated to this project or its guidelines. Cheers. Guliolopez ( talk) 12:08, 13 June 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment — Hi Guliolopez, thanks for your message. I'll see if I can put together an explanation that meets those templates and guidelines to help resolve the discussion.

• Delete. Per nom. Could not find a single quality WP:RS for which the subject was the main topic. No chance of meeting WP:GNG. Not even borderline. Britishfinance ( talk) 17:57, 15 June 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Captain Galaxy ( talk) 15:49, 15 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Fire Records (Pakistan)

Fire Records (Pakistan) (  | 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 record label, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 16:52, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 16:52, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 16:52, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep The article's current source basically states it was the most important Pakistani label in the decade of the 2000s, and had a virtual monopoly on the market at that time. The article may need to be supplemented with non-English sources, but...if this isn't notable, I doubt any Pakistani label is (which should give us pause). Chubbles ( talk) 19:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

I don't think it's a language issue, Chubbles. A search for فائر ریکرڈز in Urdu produced nothing of interest. M Imtiaz ( talk · contribs) 00:00, 8 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep I counted nearly 30 currently popular Pakistani pop singers that are signed up with Fire Records (Pakistan) recording label – all of them are already listed at the existing article. There was already a working newspaper reference at this article. I'll add some more references tomorrow. Certainly a notable recording label in Pakistan! Ngrewal1 ( talk) 00:28, 8 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment Found and added two more newspaper references today. I do not want to close my eyes to worldwide changes in everything including in the music industry. My argument for my 'Keep' vote above is based on the logic that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which also preserves history and the past practices in the music industry. For example, one can very easily find His Master's Voice article of the British music retailer Victor Talking Machine Company trademark and/or "His Master's Voice" (HMV) company with the famous logo of a dog listening to music from an old gramophone vinyl record player. Later RCA Records got involved in it and so on...

So I did what I could to the above article. Somewhat expanded it, has 3 newspaper references now. Made it a 'Stub article' for now, if someone wishes to expand it further. Ngrewal1 ( talk) 18:13, 8 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep per Ngrewal1. Passes notability. Mar4d ( talk) 18:48, 9 June 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:31, 16 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Sorceror (horse)

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

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

This article has been marked as possibly non-notable since 2010. I found a couple old media references, so I'm satisfied the horse existed, but it doesn't seem to have had a particularly impressive career, and there's some question on whether its name was actually "Sorcerer" or "Sorceror", as I found it spelled both ways.

That said, I'm proposing this for deletion mainly so that its disposition can be resolved one way or the other, because it will affect what needs to be done with another page I wanted to fix. Other than this one, I've satisfied myself that all the other subjects mentioned on the disambiguation page Sorceror (a misspelling of "sorcerer") are wrong, meaning that disambiguation page isn't needed. One is a video game whose box art uses the correct spelling of "Sorcerer", another is a recent novel whose cover page uses the correct spelling, and the third is a German movie so its original title isn't in English anyway. That leaves Sorceror (horse) as the only possibly-legitimate subject that might use the misspelling "Sorceror".

So, if Sorceror (horse) is worthy of inclusion, and if the horse's name was truly "Sorceror" and not "Sorcerer", then Sorceror (horse) should be moved to Sorceror, with a link added at the top to the (correctly-spelled) disambiguation page sorcerer. If, as I suspect, Sorceror (horse) is not notable, then it should be deleted, and Sorceror can should go back to being a redirect to Sorcerer (which is what it was until a year ago, when someone changed it for reasons I do not understand). Isomorphic ( talk) 13:32, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 14:01, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 14:01, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete. There must be more about the poor horse besides his breakdown in that one race but, given that no one has produced anything over a long period of time, I have to say that the article as it is fails the GNG. No Great Shaker ( talk) 21:18, 12 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete, per nom, and failing notability guidelines at WP:NHORSE. Ifnord ( talk) 20:20, 15 June 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Ifnord: WP:NHORSE is a redlink. Please can you clarify what you are referring to. Stifle ( talk) 08:17, 16 June 2020 (UTC) reply

I was being silly, there is currently no notability guidelines for horses. Ifnord ( talk) 13:52, 16 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete, per nom. Donaldd23 ( talk) 15:20, 16 June 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. The policy based argument is that this should be deleted or redirected or moved to draft. However, this isn't so cut and dried as we know the clock is ticking. As such, and given the range of policy compliant outcomes that don't involve deletion this feels like no consensus in any direction. In the event they are not elected we can redo this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:58, 17 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Janeese Lewis George

Janeese Lewis George (  | 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 case of WP:TOOSOON. An earlier PROD was removed citing that a seat on the Council of the District of Columbia automatically meets WP:NPOL - while this is absolutely true, the subject is a candidate for this seat - she does not hold it yet. Being a candidate for a notable position explicitly fails WP:NPOL. Though she is mentioned in the NY Times article, it is not about her, and the Washington Post articles are essentially local coverage in this case. Obviously, if she wins in November, the article should be reinstated. Jmertel23 ( talk) 13:39, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Jmertel23 ( talk) 13:39, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Jmertel23 ( talk) 13:39, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep There's no "if she wins". She's running unopposed in the general election. Even if she were opposed, in DC the Democratic nominee is the presumptive winner, as its 75% Democrat and 19% Independent. Why would you even nominate this page without proper research? If you bothered to look at the other nominees in the NYT article, you'd see that they all have pages. Bangabandhu ( talk) 14:01, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• Weak delete (without prejudice against recreation if she wins in November), alternately Draftify. though she may be the presumptive winner, it's not guaranteed that she will win. stranger things have happened. This is a fail of WP:NPOL until the election is concluded, and she doesn't have enough coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:NPERSON independently. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid AfD rationale. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:25, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

How amusing that you cite OSE in the same sentence as you reference other stuff. If she's struck by lighting, as in the example you suggest, the page would be reassessed then. Bangabandhu ( talk) 15:02, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

When she wins the general, why support a page then? By your logic she could still die in between the election and when she takes office. Bangabandhu ( talk) 15:48, 13 June 2020 (UTC) reply

amended vote to add acceptability of draftification Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:41, 9 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep The deletion rationale is explicitly foreclosed by the notability guidelines. The top of Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Additional criteria, of which WP:NPOL is one, explicitly states that Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included (my bolding). Rather, as described in WP:N, the question of notability always comes down to WP:V: are there enough reliable sources to write a good article about this person?

In this case, there is. Due to her socialist politics and positions on police reform, Lewis George is rapidly emerging as a notable figure in U.S. politics, receiving a 1500-word profile in The Intercept [16] and detailed coverage in the New York Times [17] and a HuffPost article [18], in addition to plenty of coverage in the Washington Post [19], DCist [20], and Washington City Paper [21]. This shows that Lewis George has unambiguously received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Therefore, she passes WP:BASIC and is a notable person. The fact that this coverage was generated in the course of her running for public office is irrelevant to the notability guidelines as written. FourViolas ( talk) 15:19, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

The Washington news sources are WP:ROUTINE and/or local news coverage of a city election. It's a mischaracterization to describe the NYtimes article as 'detailed'; all it says is "in Washington, D.C., Janeese Lewis George, a self-described democratic socialist, beat a sitting city councilman whose mailers said Ms. George wanted “to cut police in Ward 4.” She prevailed by 10 percentage points." The Intercept is a good profile and the HuffPost is valid coverage, but IMO there's just not enough there to pass WP:NPERSON; there's no consensus on the reliability of Huffpost and The Intercept is recognized to politically slanted.

It is not Wikipedia's place to decide who will win an election before the election occurs (it's simply too soon), and candidates do not have inherent notability just for running. The question to ask is not whether she will win an election, it's 'excepting that she's probably going to win, is she notable?"and the answer is, no. There's some coverage, yes, because she's a controversial candidate' but it isn't enough to substantiate notability. Though it's often overlooked, WP:BASIC specifically states "Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject." (my emphasis) Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:27, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

I appreciate your concurrence that she could theoretically be notable prior to being elected, if there were enough secondary sources to meet BASIC.

I disagree that the DC regional sources qualify as "routine". WP:ROUTINE gives announcements, sports, speculative coverage, and tabloid journalism [...] Wedding announcements, sports scores, crime logs,[...] sports matches, film premieres, press conferences as examples of what "routine coverage" means. These barely qualify as journalism; they're cookie-cutter snippets that are repeated over and over, sometimes within the same edition of a paper, with the names and dates changed. In contrast, the DC stories (especially the City Paper piece) go into unique details in creative, non-trivial ways: they describe her political positions, her professional history and life story, the interpersonal dynamics of the race, the historical context for the contest in terms of demographic changes and shifting alliances, notable campaign finance details, etc.

WP:NPERSON doesn't have requirements about the geographical breadth of coverage. WP:NCORP does have a stricter standard, WP:AUD, that requires at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source; I think the NYT (which, you're right, was less detailed than I implied) and Intercept both suffice to show that this page is of potential interest to WP readers outside the DC area. FourViolas ( talk) 23:49, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

I have to agree with Bearcat here, and I'd argue that it's still too early to say that she is definitively notable. We have NPOL and guidelines against articles on candidates for a reason, and allowing one because it seems almost definite she will win sets us down a slippery slope. While you may have no doubt whatsoever that historians of 10 years from now will be interested in her (presumably if she doesn't win), I have such doubts and regardless we cannot really be the ones to say what historians may or may not cover.

I think Bearcat is correct in saying that almost all candidates have coverage for running in local papers that cover elections (yes, even the WaPo article is 'local' here). The New York Times article really is no more than a sentence, which doesn't show me that there's interest outside of DC. We are then left with mainly her profile in The Intercept which I'd argue isn't enough to substantiate notability at this point by itself. I agree that she probably will win, and we can revisit the article then. However, Wikipedia isn't in the business of hosting candidate's biographies until they actually do definitively meet notability thresholds. Best wishes, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:38, 9 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete unelected candidates for city council are not notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 15:29, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• Userfy The article until the elections happen in November, if they even go ahead, this is a case of WP:TOOSOON Seasider91 ( talk) 18:14, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep Essentially an elected candidate as she is running unopposed. No point deleting an article just to recreate it in a couple of months. WP:COMMONSENSE. AlessandroTiandelli333 ( talk) 18:41, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep Her win is all but assured. She has also received plenty of coverage in multiple RS. KidAd ( talk) 00:01, 17 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 02:27, 8 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete, obviously without prejudice against recreation in November if she wins. Draftify also acceptable. The fact that she's currently running unopposed is not, in and of itself, an exemption from having to pass WP:NPOL the normal way — things can still happen that can still cause an unopposed candidate to never actually assume the office at all: even unopposed candidates have actually been forced to resign for health or political scandal reasons, or died before election day, and thus never actually assumed the office they were running for. So unopposed on the ballot or not, she still has to actually hold the seat, not just be a candidate, before she actually qualifies for an article. And no, the fact that campaign coverage exists is not in and of itself a WP:GNG-based exemption from having to pass WP:NPOL, either: campaign coverage of every candidate in every election always exists, so if that were how it worked then NPOL would be inherently meaningless because nobody would ever actually have to pass it anymore. So to argue that a candidate is somehow more special than other candidates, it is not enough to show that campaign coverage existed: what's necessary is to show that even if she dies or resigns before election day and thus never actually assumes the office at all, her candidacy has still somehow become so uniquely important that people will still be looking for information about it in 2030 anyway. Bearcat ( talk) 18:20, 9 June 2020 (UTC) reply

WP:NPOL explicitly states that an unelected candidate for political office [...] can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline. If we actually followed this perfectly clear rule, NPOL would not be inherently meaningless: it would simply state that people who have held sufficiently high political offices can be safely presumed to have enough coverage to be notable.

Separately, I have no doubt whatsoever that historians of 10 years from now will be interested to know that a socialist woman of color, running on a platform of defunding the police, won the only contested stage of an election for the city council of the U.S. capitol in 2020 amid national mass demonstrations against racialized police brutality. FourViolas ( talk) 18:43, 9 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Yes, it would make NPOL inherently meaningless. Every single person who's ever been involved in politics at all — mayors, city councillors, school board trustees, parks and library and planning committee members, non-winning candidates for office, and on and so forth — can always show three or four hits of campaign coverage without exception, so if showing three or four hits of campaign coverage were all it took to hand such people a GNG-based exemption from having to meet NPOL, then every single person involved in politics would always earn that exemption. Literally nobody would ever even have to be measured against NPOL at all anymore, because literally nobody involved in politics could ever fail to be exempted from it if a handful of campaign coverage were all it took to earn the exemption. Bearcat ( talk) 18:51, 9 June 2020 (UTC) reply

It's unclear whether you read the sourcing, don't understand it, or just don't care. She has had abundant national coverage that is wholly different from "three or four hits of campaign coverage". Bangabandhu ( talk) 19:06, 9 June 2020 (UTC) reply

( edit conflict) It is not remotely true that every library committee member and school board trustee in the U.S. has been the primary subject of full-length articles in the Washington Post, the Intercept, and multiple regional newspapers. It is true that applying the NPOL guideline correctly (as written) would cause a number of articles on candidates for subnational office to be kept, allowing voters and historians to rely on Wikipedia for reliably sourced, substantial information about the details of the world's political landscape; I fail to see how this is an argument against doing so. FourViolas ( talk) 19:09, 9 June 2020 (UTC) reply

I didn't say that every library committee member and school board trustee in the US has been the subject of coverage in the Washington Post — but every library committee member and school board trustee in the US most certainly has been the subject of coverage in their local papers, and the Washington Post is the local paper of a person who's doing those things in Washington DC. It's also a principle of NPOL that people who would ordinarily fail NPOL (library committee members, school board trustees, non-winning candidates for office, etc.) are not automatically more special just because they happen to live in a major city, so that their purely expected local-interest coverage happens to be appearing in a more prestigious newspaper than the purely expected local-interest coverage of other people doing the exact same things in other cities is appearing in — the Washington Post most certainly does still cover local interest figures in local interest contexts that wouldn't ordinarily clear our notability standards, and those people aren't automatically more special than everybody else just because they're doing not inherently notable things in Washington instead of Peoria and thus have their routinely expected local coverage showing up in the Washington Post instead of the Peoria Journal Star. GNG does still test for the context of what the person is getting covered for, and deprecate some contexts as less notability-making than other contexts. Bearcat ( talk) 13:22, 12 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Conditional keep WP:IAR. The subject does not pass WP:NPOL as an unelected candidate as Bearcat describes. And our general precedent encourages us discount local coverage of campaign coverage as WP:ROUTINE (the race is notable, the candidates may not be). However, common sense should apply in this situation and it's not worth the effort to split hairs and address all of the scenarios that could occur that prevent the subject from winning the election or taking office (write-in campaign, death, etc.). Unlike a solid keep, which would generally preclude revisiting the discussion, my vote is conditional or contingent on the candidate winning election. -- Enos733 ( talk) 19:27, 9 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• Question My knowledge of AfD process is dated, but isn't it a requirement to notify previous editors of the page that this is under consideration? I don't think that's been done in this case. Bangabandhu ( talk) 22:48, 9 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Bangabandhu, per WP:AfD "While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion." the creator (yourself) was notified. I suppose it wouldn't be out of place to notify Sheilafrazier22 and Wikipedia:WikiProject District of Columbia and WP:PLT. Best wishes, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:55, 9 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete Fails WP:NPOL in its purest sense. I don't see any mitigating reason, in the discussion abovem to keep it. It can be recreated in November, if needed. scope_creep ^Talk 14:50, 16 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• Strong Keep: As per AlessandroTiandelli333 and Enos733. Overall, FourViolas comment is the most complete and proper point in the whole of discussion. I, in particular, agree with his points on WP:N and WP:NPERSON. Also, it is clearly stated in the notability guideline for politicians that the subject may still be notable even if he misses on the criteria (barely misses) which is subject to the group of wikipedians examining the notability to decide. Regards Pesticide1110 ( talk) 15:52, 16 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep. She's running unopposed for an office that will make her hit the notability threshold. Deleting only to recreate when she's formally appointed is process wonkery. Stifle ( talk) 13:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. Closing this with a no consensus result, with no prejudice against speedy renomination as separate, individual deletion discussions for each place. At this time it is clear that this bundled nomination has included too many entries that can be comfortably handled, relative to the discourse of the discussion, how the discussion has transpired, and how it is coming across from participants that some entries may be notable while others may not be. One may wonder why this is being closed with as no consensus with all of the "keep" !votes present. Most of the keep !votes later on in the discussion are addressing single entries in the nomination. Some !votes have stated that a procedural keep is in order, while others have stated "delete all". The discussion has broken down into commentary about individual entries, and at this time participants are not addressing the nomination as a whole, which is another factor that has turned the discussion into a WP:TRAINWRECK of sorts. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:05, 15 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Aaitabare

Aaitabare (  | 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 am nominating this and all other articles in Category:Populated places in BayarbanKeroun VDC nepal as bad faith trolling/hoax creations from User:Bayarban,keroun hamro gau. Also nominating other categories, redirects and articles created by the same user under this username or via socks.

Category:Populated places in BayarbanKeroun VDC nepal ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Bargachhi (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Bhausabari (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Bihibare (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Daleli (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Dumrighat (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ghaletol (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Harakpur (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hattidubba (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ramailo, Nepal (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ramailo (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Redirect)

Bayarban Keroun (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Bayarbankeroun (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Redirect)

Shree Janasewa Higher Secondary School (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Triveni Baljagat English School (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Pearl Academy English School (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Articles in Category:Populated places in BayarbanKeroun VDC nepal

• Aaitabare
• Bargachhi
• Bhausabari
• Bihibare
• Daleli
• Dumrighat
• Ghaletol
• Harakpur
• Hattidubba

The titles likely represent real neighbourhoods in and around Bayarban VDC in Morang District. But these are not places that meet WP:NGEO. The articles themselves follow the template of VDC articles created by User: Encyclopædius (eg. Bayarban), and include nonsensical modifications. Note the populations of these places: Bhausabari has 1082 people, but so does Bihibare. Aaitabare, Bargachhi, Dumrighat and Ghaletol have 10802 people (one digit inserted into the previous figure) and Harakpur has 1080 people (trailing 2 removed from the previous figure). Aaitabare, Bargachhi, Dumrighat and Ghaletol have 2082 households, Bihibare has 208 and Bhausabari has 202 (same pattern as before). The talkpage of the user gives some hint as to why they might have done this.

Other places (articles and redirects)

I am nominating Ramailo, Nepal created by their sock User:Mero ramailo, and the redirect Ramailo which was created by the same user with nonsensical claims but was later redirected to the former. Ramailo is not one of the VDCs listed in the sources. Also nominating Bayarban Keroun which is a duplicate of Bayarban but there is no evidence that it's a valid alternative name to keep it as a redirect (if anyone would like to find evidence, I have no objections). Bayarbankeroun is another duplicate, later redirected. For lack of evidence that it is a valid alt name, nominating this redirect as well.

Schools (private and public)

I nominate Shree Janasewa Higher Secondary School created by one of the socks. It is unsourced; I don't feel like looking for sources to legitimise a troll's work. I have no strong objections to keeping this though, as the lead image indicates it's real. Also nominating Triveni Baljagat English School created by the same editor which needs to meet WP:NORG but is currently unsourced (no evidence that it's real from what's given in the article). Also nominating Pearl Academy English School for the same reason.

I am starting to get lost, so I am hitting publish. I will clean it up and add further information as I dig it up. Any assistance would be welcome. Usedtobecool  ☎️ 12:54, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool  ☎️ 12:54, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool  ☎️ 12:54, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool  ☎️ 12:54, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool  ☎️ 12:54, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

These places are not among the old VDCs or the newly created municipalities, and there are no legally recognised villages below that level. So, no, they do not meet GEOLAND. Notice how the same user also created Kanepokhari but I have not nominated it because that name was later given to a real municipality. Also, the new divisions were first recommended in 2017 ( Kathmandu Post) while these articles were all created in 2012. I did not say the titles were fakes. There are places (sometimes multiple, sometimes in other countries too) with these names, but the article content is fabricated (as I've shown in my nom) and there are no places in Morang District with these names that meet GEOLAND. Look at the history of the Kanepokhari article. It was created by this user with fake content, claiming that it was a VDC (the lowest legally recognised unit). Another user later converted it into a municipality article in 2017 and said in the edit summary There was no Kanepokhari VDC but only Village. Usedtobecool  ☎️ 15:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment I recently came across something similar. An Indian sock farm that was churning out dozens of bullshit geo stubs. Some of the places probably existed but much of the content was just made up and the sources were copy pasted from one article to another. Apparently some people think geostubs are a low risk way of pushing up their edit count without being detected. This junk is probably a good case for TNT. Mccapra ( talk) 17:01, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

  Mccapra, yeah NGEO is the easiest to crack, isn't it? India has some 600,000 villages, and there isn't even a definitive structure/hierarchy/list as we have with Nepal, from what I can tell from their administrative divisions article. Usedtobecool  ☎️ 19:24, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep (procedural), what a dog's breakfast of an afd! nominator has bundled numerous (20+?) articles together, has included categories, wrong forum! should be listed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion, and included a redirect, again wrong forum, should be listed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion, on top of this they allege that the editor who created the majority of these articles also used socks to create some of these, a serious allegation, but hasn't bothered following this up at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations, on top of this they more or less admit how rediculous/unworkable this afd is with the struck out statement above "I am starting to get lost, so I am hitting publish. I will clean it up and add further information as I dig it up. Any assistance would be welcome." umm, no Usedtobecool, an afd is not an article that can be edited/improved, you should never have "hit publish" in its present state. Coolabahapple ( talk) 02:20, 8 June 2020 (UTC) reply

  Coolabahapple, it is crossed out because it is no longer relevant. It was relevant when I was writing the nom in Twinkle, and it ended up being more extensive that I had in mind when I started and I knew it was gonna be a mess when I hit publish, which I needed to do to properly organise and format the nom. I don't see how having one category in the mix compromises the integrity so much that it has to be redone. If everyone feels that seriously about having a cat at AFD, I can withdraw the cat nom. It will be easily dealt with later on. I don't think redirects need a separate RfD. It's in the mainspace and fits the bundling. The point about the sock allegation did occur to me as something that might be a problem, since the justification for the bundling partly depends on that being true. I am not sure SPI takes stale cases. Do you know that it does? Perhaps, I should post at AN about this?! Usedtobecool  ☎️ 05:06, 8 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Procedural Keep. These appear to be legitimate settlements and the nomination is an utter mess in any case. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 10:54, 8 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment: I bring up 10 hoax articles to attention and all everyone cares about is whether I got the procedures right? I have withdrawn the nomination of the category. Do with the articles whatever you please. It's not like anyone finds those articles anyway. I give up trying to convince anyone of anything. The facts are all there if anyone cares to read. Usedtobecool  ☎️ 12:50, 8 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete all. None of these are notable are most of them are either blatant hoaxes or so incompetently implemented as to be indistinguishable from hoaxes. To be honest you would have been better off just putting a WP:PROD on each one, but it's too late for that now. Jonathan A Jones ( talk) 13:14, 8 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• @ Jonathan A Jones: and @ PJvanMill: see Aaitabare and Ramailo, Nepal!† Encyclopædius 20:06, 11 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete all, in agreement with Jonathan A Jones. I oppose the "procedural keep" reasoning, which is in direct conflict with WP:NOTCOURT. PJvanMill ( talk) 13:28, 8 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Procedural keep If Coolabahapple says this is a dog's breakfast, I say this is a cup of hot fat with a hair in it. The website that these are sourced to doesn't work and I can't find anything else in English, but a simple search shows that Ramailo and Keroun should not be deleted as they're not hoaxes, and schools are specifically exempted from WP:NORG. At least some of these should definitely be kept. I'm happy to go back and !vote delete on individual articles which are clearly unverifiable, but what we have here is a bunch of stubs which look to me to pass WP:NGEO and have incorrect populations. SportingFlyer T· C 14:36, 8 June 2020 (UTC) reply

At least some of these should definitely be kept I would contest that. Schools may be exempt from WP:NORG, but they are not exempt from notability altogether. Just the Nepal census as a source is not enough for notability, either. I've looked at each of these articles, and they all fall hopelessly short of significant coverage. Kind regards from PJvanMill ( talk) 20:00, 8 June 2020 (UTC) reply

An official census meets a legally defined place per WP:NGEO, which is one of the lowest notability standards we have. Schools do need coverage, but the school notability needs to be discussed on the merits, and not mixed in with other articles. The main reason for this nomination are hoaxes and failing WP:NGEO, and because at least some of them pass WP:NGEO and at least some of them are clearly not hoaxes, we can't bulk delete all of these. I would be in favour of deleting those that absolutely cannot be verified, or having a second AfD, but this one is badly flawed. SportingFlyer T· C 02:59, 9 June 2020 (UTC) reply

I nominated 10 articles as hoaxes; all of them assert 4 basic facts: what they are, where they are, how many households they have and how many people are in them. All articles are correct that those are places in Morang District. The rest are blatant lies. None of them are VDCs, and both the households and population are blatant fabrications. They don't meet NGEO as legally recognised places because VDCs are the lowest levels with legal recognition, but the notability doesn't figure into it when 3 out the only 4 things they have are blatant lies. I added three more articles that don't meet WP:V into that list because they came from the same user who can't be AGFed to get correct content without WP:V. I obviously messed up how bundling works at AFD, but I didn't mess up the things I could have foreseen. Bundling explicitly cites creation of the same user as reason to bundle. Someone taking one article and creating a completely different article under the same title doesn't change the fact that the article I nominated was effectively deleted in the process, and the rest of them still exist with 3 blatant fabrications out of the only four claims they make. Usedtobecool  ☎️ 14:41, 9 June 2020 (UTC) reply

The problem with deleting articles on legitimate subjects is that if a new editor decides to restart them they see a forbidding warning on a salmon background saying something like:

A page with this title has previously been moved or deleted.

If you are creating a new page with different content, please continue. If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the user(s) who performed the action(s) listed below.

That would discourage the editor from contributing. Better to clear away the inaccurate information, and perhaps use Google Maps or geonames to get reasonable coordinates. That leaves a stub that can be expanded. Aymatth2 ( talk) 20:52, 9 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Aymatth2, that would be a problem with all deletions that we do; we do them nonetheless. Nobody watches these kind of articles, and things like these go unfixed forever. But, if we do have editors like you willing to put in the effort to fix them, that's clearly a better outcome than deletion, and I have only thanks to offer you. Regards! Usedtobecool  ☎️ 06:46, 10 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment There is a village named Aitabare, Bayarban at 26°38′25″N 87°29′58″E / 26.640405°N 87.499579°E / 26.640405; 87.499579. This site confirms existence, but with different coords. Mindat gives the same wrong coords. According to this site the Jankalyan Secondary School is in the village. The Aaitabare article is probably meant to represent this village, but the coordinates are wrong, and the population is nothing to do with anything as the nominator points out, so the article as it stands is useless. I would not assume bad faith though, and perhaps some of the articles could be recovered if there are interested editors. Best would be to withdraw this omnibus AfD and start individual AfDs that refer back to the discussion here. Aymatth2 ( talk) 18:12, 8 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep Aaitabare, which now redirects to Aitabare (both spellings are used), which has been expanded enough to clearly meet WP:NGEO. This without prejudice to the above comment on splitting up this AfD into separate discussions for each article. Aymatth2 ( talk) 22:55, 8 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep Aaitabare per the great expansion of Aymatth2.† Encyclopædius 20:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep Ramailo, Nepal, a valid stub. I will clean it up. Aymatth2 ( talk) 20:52, 9 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment, thanks to Aymatth2 for the above ..... and another bundled afd begins to unravel. Coolabahapple ( talk) 08:28, 10 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• ditto below..... Coolabahapple ( talk) 01:52, 13 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep Ramailo, Nepal per the great expansion of Aymatth2.† Encyclopædius 20:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep Janasewa Secondary School, which seems to be notable enough for a secondary school affiliated with the Higher Secondary Education Board. The student numbers seem a bit confused, but I am sure that can be sorted out. Aymatth2 ( talk) 16:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep Janasewa Secondary School, per the great expansion of Aymatth2.† Encyclopædius 20:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• Procedural keep Batch AfDs should only be used for sets of articles that are substantially similar to each other. There are way too many disparate articles here, and just too many articles period. Nominating these in smaller batches will make things much smoother. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 06:22, 11 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep Bhausabari I fixed it up. Seems to meet WP:NGEO. Aymatth2 ( talk) 21:44, 11 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep Bihibare I fixed it up. Seems to meet WP:NGEO. Aymatth2 ( talk) 00:13, 12 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• Weak keep Daleli A real enough place, but not much information about it. Aymatth2 ( talk) 00:13, 12 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep Harakpur. Seems to meet WP:NGEO now. Aymatth2 ( talk) 14:44, 13 June 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. czar 15:52, 14 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Quinn Nystrom

Quinn Nystrom (  | 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 think this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. She does not meet notability guidelines for politicians, as she has only held local office and has not received national coverage - only local/regional coverage. Obviously, if she were to win the upcoming election, she would be considered notable and the article could be re-instated. Jmertel23 ( talk) 12:30, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Jmertel23 ( talk) 12:30, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Jmertel23 ( talk) 12:30, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete being a candidate for congress is not a sign of notability. Wikipedia is not a platform for campaign brochures we do not create articles on people before elected except in very, very rare cases with very large coverage which this is not. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:10, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete - all SIGCOV is from local sources. Willsome429 ( say hey or see my edits!) 21:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete. This is a case of WP:TOOSOON. She fails WP:NPOL because she is an unsuccessful candidate. If she gets elected in November, then she can get an article. Lefcentreright Discuss 23:22, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 00:43, 8 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete as WP:TOOSOON, being a candidate not enough, and WP:NOTPROMOTION, WP is not a publicity vehicle. Coolabahapple ( talk) 00:46, 8 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete per above.-- Mpen320 ( talk) 21:36, 8 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete failed candidates do not meet WP:NPOL. If she wins in November, we can re-address. Bkissin ( talk) 17:17, 9 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete, without prejudice against recreation on or after November 3 if she wins. As always, Wikipedia is not a free PR platform for aspiring future officeholders to publicize or promote their campaigns — the notability test for politicians is holding a notable political office, not just running for one, and candidates who do not have preexisting notability for other reasons independent of the candidacy are not entitled to be included here unless and until they win the seat. Bearcat ( talk) 18:29, 9 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Bearcat, but currently it is WP:TOOSOON. NavjotSR ( talk) 10:19, 11 June 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 18:45, 14 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Arthur Goldman (cricketer)

Arthur Goldman (cricketer) (  | 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 - BeamAlexander ( talk) 12:18, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Not sure how it fails notability, it was my understanding that First-Class cricket was sufficient grounds for a page given a large amount of stubs for players who have represented Australian states in first-class cricket. i.e.: /info/en/?search=Robert_Botten JagarTharnofTamriel ( talk) 12:29, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Hoping this works (not too familiar with wiki functions) but pinging JTtheOG ( talk · contribs) (as he approved previous articles for cricketers, and as such I presume is familiar with the cricket side of wikipedia?) JagarTharnofTamriel ( talk) 12:34, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 13:49, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 13:49, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 13:49, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep not 100% sure about NCRIC but definitely seems to pass WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T· C 18:30, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment @ JagarTharnofTamriel: Definitely passes NCRIC; first-class (FC) matches are a suitable criteria, and he even represented Queensland in their inaugural FC game, interestingly. Now for GNG I think it's important to keep in mind that he did play in the 20th century. The vast majority of players from this era and even more recent ones probably are not gonna have 10 different articles written solely about them, as you might expect of an athlete in 2020. That's why I don't think players from older eras should be penalized for playing in a time when there was barely any sports coverage in the first place and all you might hope to find besides that are mentions in articles/sites written decades later. I know it can be tough to find good sources with these older sports biographies, even if they're definitely notable in their own right (1950s NBA players, 1930s NFL players, 1910s MLB players, etc). I could be looking at it the wrong way, but that's pretty much my take. JTtheOG ( talk) 21:40, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep, state rep meets WP:NCRIC. Coolabahapple ( talk) 00:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep. State representative who has played cricket at the highest domestic level in Australia. Please take a little time to read WP:NCRIC before nominating. StickyWicket ( talk) 15:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep, as a first-class cricketer and as someone who played in the first first-class match for "his" state. Would be nice to get some more information, however, as some contemporary newspaper references call him "Albert" rather than "Arthur". Johnlp ( talk) 17:26, 9 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Fails GNG. No Great Shaker ( talk) 20:47, 12 June 2020 (UTC) reply

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