Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 June 11

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:46, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pulippunam CSI Church

Pulippunam CSI Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This church does not appear to meet WP:GNG. My search on Google and Google Books does not turn up any independent coverage of the building or congregation. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 23:43, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 23:43, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 23:43, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I cannot find any coverage of this church to establish notability. There is only one reference in the article, but I am unable to find any mention of the church in that source. -- Whpq (talk) 23:02, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not meet WP:GNG. --Xannir (talk) 13:08, 18 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Christian E. Elder

Christian E. Elder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I am the subject of the article and I am a private non-notable person Xianelda (talk) 23:41, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:04, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:04, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete clearly not notable enough to have an article over the subjects protests.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:44, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - lacks the coverage that would establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 23:07, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as notability appears borderline and I can’t see any need to retain this against the subject’s wishes. Mccapra (talk) 04:26, 18 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tourwrist

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

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

Fails WP:NWEB. Official website is dead link, no evidence company still exists. Sources appear to be PR in nature and article is promotional in nature. Rogermx (talk) 22:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 22:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 22:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 22:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 22:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• But, but: "TourWrist also owns and operates the world’s largest panoramic photography forum Panoguide.com". Except that it seems not to. Good nomination; delete. -- Hoary (talk) 00:23, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• delete blatant advert article about a non-notable company. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:49, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete What we have here is a press release, not an encyclopedia article. -- Whpq (talk) 23:10, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - In no way notable, even if it were still in existence. Wikipedia is not for advertising. --Jack Frost (talk) 00:19, 19 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:27, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Malec

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

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

There are two claims of notability here, one is a company he owns and the other is for a reality television appearance.

The bulk of the article is a near complete cut-and paste from Birdman Bats, a company that he's involved with. My WP:BEFORE search turns up This source (and to a lesser extent this one) which provide inadequate justification for a standalone article.

The next is for appearing on Labor of Love, for which the sources appear to weak.

I would suggest a redirect to Birdman Bats as an option in lieu of deletion. Alansohn (talk) 21:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Alansohn (talk) 21:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Alansohn (talk) 21:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Alansohn (talk) 21:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Just noting that there's a COI discussion going on here. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 22:15, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I just tagged this for UPE following the COIN discussion. The user has been asked to disclose.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:04, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Note Article creator has been blocked for unambiguous violations of the Terms of Use. Yunshui ^雲_水 14:41, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Associated article, Birdman Bats, has been deleted following discussion at WP:COI. This nominated page also reeks of paid editing. Most sources on the page do not even mention the subject. Subject otherwise fails WP:GNG. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 15:02, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete there is some coverage, for the Labor of Love tv show and Birdman bats. But it is not in terrific depth, and the article is a strong promotional effort that would require serious rewrite. I'm not sure we would find enough good sourcing for a proper article.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:14, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:27, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:50, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:50, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Snowden-McCray

Lisa Snowden-McCray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

All coverage is interviews in the context of entities she has been involved with, not about her. I struggled to find significant, independent coverage of her in an outside search. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 21:35, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 21:35, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 21:35, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 21:35, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: All references are either WP:MILL or don't come close to WP:SIGCOV. Needs a lot more primary sources on her to pass WP:GNG Jackreed86 (talk) 06:56, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable writer and journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:47, 18 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:28, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood Sex Wars

Hollywood Sex Wars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non notable film with no know actors. Only review is from a site called "bullz-eye" Donaldd23 (talk) 21:23, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 21:23, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no reviews on the level that would show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:33, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no significant reviews (only blog reviews, including bullz-eye, and user reviews from what I found) and no significant coverage about the making of the film or its impact. Does not meet WP:NF. BOVINEBOY2008 11:06, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable. --Lockley (talk) 02:47, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete we don't need a wikipedia article for every movie ever made. --Xannir (talk) 13:09, 18 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. This is partially due to the nominator being a sockpuppet. (non-admin closure) Captain Galaxy (talk) 21:26, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

François Gourd

François Gourd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

• Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. Has never been elected.--User19004 (talk) 21:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:21, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable politician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:23, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - hard to imagine that the founder of the current Rhinoceros Party and Les Foufounes Électriques wouldn't be notable. There's literally decades of media coverage of this person - and this was noted in the previous AFD. Why are neither User:User19004 nor User:Johnpacklambert discussing the unanimous keep in the previous AFD? Nfitz (talk)
• Comment - Please note nominator has been blocked for sockpuppetry and has done little but AFD articles since they created their account - all of which that I've carefully checked seem to be notable. Nfitz (talk) 09:00, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - [1], [2], [3] are some of the coverage about this person. I would venture to say that WP:NPOL is the wrong measuring stick to use for notability given that the Rhino party was a satirical one. In any case, WP:GNG is met. -- Whpq (talk) 23:27, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Captain Galaxy (talk) 21:26, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marc-Boris St-Maurice

Marc-Boris St-Maurice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

• Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. Has never been elected.--User19004 (talk) 20:58, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:21, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

• Keep May not meet WP:POLITICIAN, but simple google search shows he meets WP:GNG. I've added some sources to the article to prove as much. To quote WP:POLOUTCOMES "Leaders of registered political parties at the national level are sometimes considered notable despite their party's lack of electoral success". I think this is one of those times. Samsmachado (talk) 19:56, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - references support notability. Meets GNG. Nfitz (talk) 04:07, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Please note nominator has been blocked for sockpuppetry and has done little but AFD articles since they created their account - all of which that I've carefully checked seem to be notable. Nfitz (talk) 09:01, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's true that he doesn't strictly get over NPOL for his role as leader of a fringe political party per se — but he certainly does get over GNG for his larger role as a marijuana legalization activist. Context is your friend. Bearcat (talk) 20:29, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets GNG for marijuana stuff. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 20:02, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:49, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bernardo Urbina

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

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

Although there are refs from reliable sources, it seems to be an WP:1E case with no other notability guidelines met (no more mentions in reliable sources rather than about him using debris to create furniture). Moreover, the article reads very promotional. Less Unless (talk) 20:52, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 20:52, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 20:52, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Note for admin I think this could be speedy deleted as it is all copyvio. The history contains a version with two refs, one of which is the subject's web site.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio cleaned up, revdel requested. There are three independent sources now.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:05, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable, search finds inadequate sourcing for GNG.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable furniture designer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:39, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete pernom. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 23:05, 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) 21:26, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Serge Brisson

Jean-Serge Brisson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

• Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. Has never been elected, lead a party that has never held a seat.--User19004 (talk) 20:51, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:22, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

• Keep That he doesn't meet POLITICIAN has no relevance given the previous AFD found numerous sources. Why User:User19004 is another AFD necessary, given the sources listed in the previous one? 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. 7. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15? Nfitz (talk) 03:33, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As per Nfitz, previous AFD found to be notable and notability cannot be lost. Also User19004 is a sock, so not sure if the re-nom for AFD is really valid. Samsmachado (talk) 04:33, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Commment - yes as it's created by a sock for a blocked user, it's eligible for speedy close under criteria 4 and probably 2 as well. Nfitz (talk) 04:57, 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) buidhe 17:31, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chukwu octuplets

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

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

Article is trivial. Per WP:BLP1E, "Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article." User:Namiba 16:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 16:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete trvia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:16, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep There was understandably a lot of coverage when this ocurred (^[1][2][3][4]), but there's rather sustained coverage 2009, 2008, "World's first octuplets celebrate 3rd birthday". Jet. 101: 23–24. January 2002., [4] and they are referenced just about every time octuplets are born [5] [6][7]. It's borderline, but I think there's enough to indicate a significance that isn't just passing or trivia. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:36, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This special set is so rare, and therefore the amount of sources used in the article are very large, I would say the article could be expanded, but it shouldn't be deleted as it has multiple reliable sources. Koridas (...Puerto Rico for statehood!) 22:27, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The birth of octuplets who are all still alive and thriving (except for one) ten years later is too exceptional an event, and very well documented. But if we can find reliable updates on the octuplets' lives as teenagers and adults, that would be great. Methychroma (talk) 04:18, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: There is discussion of the Chukwu octuplets in Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Controversial Issues in Human Sexuality, McGraw-Hill (2000), pages 123-130. I think that this along with the considerable contemporary news coverage demonstrates notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 03:46, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:39, 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. (non-admin closure) buidhe 17:31, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Moen

Tim Moen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

• Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. Has never been elected, lead a party that has never held a seat.--User19004 (talk) 20:45, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:23, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:25, 11 June 2020 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep The nominator has been blocked for sockpuppetry as a previously blocked editor, so this AFD is eligible for speedy close under criteria 4 and probably 2 as well. Nfitz (talk) 05:02, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep The nomination itself was bogus. --Xannir (talk) 13:10, 18 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) 21:27, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tower Theatre (Sacramento, California)

Tower Theatre (Sacramento, California) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Might be notable, but the entire article is copied from [8]. Fuddle (talk) 13:26, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete per WP:G12 as unambiguous copyright infringement. Devonian Wombat (talk) 13:27, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 13:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 13:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• comment Rather than rush to delete a copy vio, since Wiki is meant to be a collaborative effort, why not start the article over based on the information provided? I blanked the text, found a different source so it now has at least one reference. I found a site that gives you a brief history of the theater. I challenge you to improve the article and not pursue deletion. Postcard Cathy (talk) 19:31, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article's problems as described above are surmountable since deletion is not cleanup.Djflem (talk) 07:27, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:12, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:12, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, if, as the article states, the theater is a national historic landmark then this would be a slam "keep" as meeting WP:NGEO but it doesn't appear in the wikiarticle List of National Historic Landmarks in California, nor appears on the National Park Service "List of NHLs by State", nevertheless, it is on the Sacremento Register of Historic & Cultural Resources (see here). Coolabahapple (talk) 13:07, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was the one that put in the landmark designation but as I usually don’t edit articles about buildings, I didn’t know about the articles you mentioned. Can you please make any and all edits to other articles you think are important? Postcard Cathy (talk) 23:04, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have opened discussion Talk:Tower Theatre (Sacramento, California)#Landmark status? to clarify and tagged as dubious.Djflem (talk) 07:24, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets GNG, and it seeps the copyright problems have been addressed. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 15:05, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It would be very hard for a Streamline Moderne building not to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:58, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Clearly notable thanks to the improvements by Postcard Cathy and Djflem. — Toughpigs (talk) 03:54, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Thanks everyone for contributing to improving this article! I created it because I believe it is significant and meets GNG, I just did not have the time to produce original content. — MHansen (talk) 18:00, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User:MHansen -- does your casual comment mean there are other copyright violations in your editing history? Wikipedia is compelled to take that seriously. You should too. Have a look at Wikipedia:Copyright violations. If you didn't have time to "produce original content", please don't create time-consuming messes for others to solve. If you've done this before, clean up after yourself. In good faith and good humor --Lockley (talk) 04:54, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep: It is significant historically and clearly notable. I have seen many less significant theatres having their own Wikipedia article. So this one shall be kept. It just needs some fixing. And as per the guidelines by wikipedia that the nominator should read before nominating any article, articles that can be fixed shall be kept. Regards Pesticide1110 (talk) 09:58, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: There's fairly clear consensus to keep now that the copyvio has been removed, but could the closing admin please RD1 up to 960940992, which is the revision before the infringing text was removed? Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:51, 18 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:30, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dotmobile

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

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

no clear evidence of notability-- not yet even in operation, DGG ( talk ) 20:35, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:29, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:29, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete if Data On Tap Inc. isn't notable enough for it's own article, it's highly doubtful that a division of it is and nothing in the sourcing points to that being the case. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:53, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable and non-existent, however those two ideas fit together. Either one would be enough. --Lockley (talk) 07:52, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: An 11th-edit article creation by new user DTInc2020, doing little but describing a start-up's regulatory approvals. Searches find announcement-based coverage but not the WP:RS coverage needed for WP:NCORP, and there is no article on the parent company which could provide a redirect target. AllyD (talk) 10:16, 18 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)  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 00:38, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Krishna Shankar

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

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

Fails WP:GNGACTOR. Period! Hatchens (talk) 05:43, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 05:43, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 05:43, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable actor. JavaHurricane 07:17, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:37, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as passes criteria 1 of WP:NACTOR with prominent significant roles in multiple notable nationally released feature films such as Marubhoomiyile Aana, Thobama, Allu Ramendran, Mariyam Vannu Vilakkoothi and Mohan Kumar Fans as confirmed by reliable sources some of which are already in the article. Hopefully this nomination and similar are not due to US centric bias as I can't imagine a US actor with this number of prominent roles being nominated, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:17, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. He plays the lead role in Kochaal and the second male lead in Allu Ramendran.^[1][2] TamilMirchi (talk) 20:24, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Important upcoming actor. One of the leads in Allu Ramendran and Marubhoomiyile Aana. Notable roles in other movies as well, as detailed above. Jupitus Smart 17:54, 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 draftify. (non-admin closure) buidhe 17:32, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual Team Dynamics

Virtual Team Dynamics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Very questionably notable neologism. Beyond that, the page is riddled with WP:TONE, WP:NPOV, WP:OR and close paraphrasing issues that would require WP:TNT to fix. I attempted to CSD it for G12, but the CSD was removed by an ip editor.

Further the multiple WP:SPA accounts editing this page makes WP:COATRACK and WP:UPE concerns very probable per WP:QUACK. Sulfurboy (talk) 09:17, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify. Thank you for explaining in detail the issues you see in the article, as well as aspiring to keep the content quality up to WP standards. As one of the article's main editors and indeed as a new editor, I recognize the issue of WP:SPA and one instance of WP:NOR in the last section.

In my opinion, it is justified to have concerns about neologism, WP:COATRACK, and WP:NPOV. A review of the article by an expert of the field would bring clarity/justification to the issues. I contest that these are a case of WP:QUACK for simply deleting the article. Furthermore, I contest that the article has major issues on WP:TONE although of course there is some room for improvement.

I contest the claim of WP:UPE because it is not the case. I also objected to CSD for G12 based on points made in the article's talk page. To summarize it, the source appearing with a high match on Earwig is already cited extensively, while another source had a high match because it also used the previous source. Therefore I genuinely do not understand if there is a real problem here. If, despite these concerns, there are still copyright problems, please WP:AGFC and explain what it is.

As you can see, we are new editors and we have spent weeks on this article. While I can only guess what kind of new editors you deal with on a daily basis, please consider WP:AGF over WP:QUACK and thank you for offering to discuss the issues rather than rushing to deletion. All points considered, I strongly protest to a need for deletion or WP:TNT. My vote would be to draftify the article and resubmit it into the AfC process.

Speaking of AfC, originally I had moved the draft to the mainspace myself after reaching the understanding that it is fine for an autoconfirmed user to do so, based on what I read on pages about AfC and user permissions. If this understanding is wrong, please also WP:AGF and be assured that we will let the article sit as draft in the AfC process for as long as it needs and undergo further improvements, based on constructive feedback, until senior reviewers find it fit for publishing. --Cosmonought (talk) 10:52, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Update: I have now made an edit to resolve what I believe was the case of WP:OR in the article, by finding sources to revise and justify the content in the last section of the article. --Cosmonought (talk) 11:37, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:14, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:14, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify Virtual team dynamics (the lowercase version) seems to be a possibly notable topic, based on a perusal of GBooks. The article does have problems, but if there is an editor willing to learn and get this page conformant to WP policies and practices, then draftify is a reasonable alternative that will allow others to check the work. It there are paid editing and COI issues, AfC is also a good venue to vet such content by independent editors. Hence, draftify. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 21:21, 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 Move to draft. Clear consensus this needs proper sourcing Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:22, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Souguellis

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

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

Has not been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in reliable, not self-published sources, lacks WP:MUSICBIO CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:16, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:16, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:34, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:34, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:34, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:34, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The sources currently in the article indicate that she has gotten some minor notice in the Christian music media, but via Google Translate these are revealed to be either brief promotional announcements or coverage of larger events in which she was merely listed as present. Little else can be found in either Portuguese or English. Not enough significant and reliable media coverage to establish notability. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Please keep the article, it can be great. The article is about a well-known singer from Brazil, with thousands of followers on social networks and millions of views on her YouTube channel (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5ixXXGYdPE this video, for example, contains more than 75 million views). The article is good and already contains great references, but it can be improved and new references can be added. --213.57.143.21 (talk) 18:52, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify - If it "can" be great but is not great, then it should go in the draft space until someone can fix it up. --Xannir (talk) 13:11, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Draft move to draftspace for improvement as there are indications she could become notable in due time, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:05, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the sources do not show that she is notable now. If she ever becames notable the article can be REFUNDed. buidhe 01:26, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:48, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dodgeland, California

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

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

This one was added from Dunn's book of place names, and does not appear on any topo map until it was copied in from GNIS. Other sources, however, say that "Dodgeland" was actually the Butte County office of the Dodge Land Company, whose business was to lease out land for growing rice. Not having Dunn's book at hand, I cannot see what he said, but the Butte County histories have numerous mentions of the company and none at all of a town by this name. The coordinates they give roughly coincide with those from this list of weather stations, but again it describes a building, not a town. Mangoe (talk) 19:34, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This apparently was a post office at one time [9] but as we've seen before, it doesn't guarantee that there was once a community here. More likely the site of Dodge Land Company offices/property. Glendoremus (talk) 18:29, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a non-notable locality. --Lockley (talk) 11:27, 18 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) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher E. Mason

Christopher E. Mason (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Subject fails WP:NPROF and WP:GNG. Wikipedia's guidance about notability says nothing about number of publications, citations, or h-index, so any belief about those is purely subjective. Most of the citations here are what the subject co-wrote so they do nothing for notability. None of the independent sources are about the subject. The subject is not in a named chair. This article was created because Draft:Christopher E. Mason has been declined at AfC. UPE is definitely a possibility. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:NPROF C1 for numerous highly cited papers. Citations are relative to field, but this is a strong record even for a fairly high-citation field. Agree that the article needs a lot of cleanup. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:10, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Russ Woodroofe: That's incorrect: AfD is not for cleanup. The issue is that we don't know what "highly cited" means. You, who claim to be an associate professor, say "this is a strong record" but what reliable source can you provide to prove it is? Chris Troutman (talk) 19:20, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm well aware that Afd is not cleanup, but the promotional tone and other details requiring cleanup seem to be the reason for the nomination, and I'm actually sympathetic to that. As Eddie891 says in more detail below, this citation record compares favorably to blps that we have kept in the past. 2800+ citations on the top-cited paper indicates quite a bit of impact. I'm uncertain as to why you'd take the aggressive tone. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 21:07, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • The reason for the nomination is in part because I declined the draft and was watching this space just in case such an end-run around AfC was made. The nomination is because the subject isn't notable, which is the only reason to nominate for deletion. My frustration with your assertions is that some editors make claims about "highly cited" but we, as a community, have never created objective standards regarding h-index, etc. I think your argument is essentially ILIKEIT. At least Eddie891 is making a statistical claim. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:19, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Google scholar profile suggests a pass of WP:NPROF#C1 (top cited paper 2807 cites, ~4 with over 1000, ~9 over 500, and at least 20 over 200) which is 'highly cited' based upon consensus established in many past AfD's. I can understand (and perhaps support) efforts to clarify these guidelines (as to what exactly 'highly cited is'), but the standing consensus is that these numbers would meet NPROF. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've made up a list of some past AfD's that have been kept as 'highly cited' with quotes for easier checking at User:Eddie891/highly cited? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:46, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any argument using a version of OUTCOMES is circular reasoning. Even if AfDs went the wrong way 200 times in the past does not mean we have to repeat that mistake for consistency's sake. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:19, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd completely agree that we don't really have much besides circular reasoning. We seem to have slipped into thresholds that haven't necessarily been backed up. All I found outside of Wikipedia is that he is listed as a "Highly Cited Researcher" which based upon their methodology puts him in the top 1% of scholars in their field, which indicates that he's highly cited to me. This ranking should be taken with a grain of salt because it doesn't seem to have much recognition outside of the company, but it's also made by Clarivate, a seemingly reliable statistics company. Best wishes, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:PROF based on the citation record of his research. See his Google Scholar profile to confirm. TJMSmith (talk) 21:43, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per the first criterion of WP:NPROF, with sympathy to the nom's point of view. I admit the first criterion of NPROF is problematic. Our threshold is "author of highly cited academic work", but citation indices only give us numbers of citations. "Highly cited" differs from field to field, and so we rely upon past AfDs (circular reasoning, as nom points out above), calls to authority (I work in or am familiar with [insert field] so I know what highly cited looks like), and arbitrary rules of thumb to decide where the line is. I'll apply my circular logic and arbitrary rule of thumb here to say: we usually seem to keep pages for profs in biomedicine that have been the senior author on several papers with over 100 citations. According to SCOPUS, the most cited work with the subject as senior author are [10] (456 citations), [11] (172 citations, but it's a review so my opinion is it doesn't really count), [12] (129 citations), [13] (125 citations), [14] (125 citations; another review), and [15] (112 citations). So I would call that a narrow pass through NPROF. If we want to discuss tweaking NPROF to hammer down some more usable boundaries, I'm all for that (to the nom's point above, I've never seen a reliable source say "several papers with 100 citations is quite highly cited in biomedicine" and I'm not sure how we've assumed this habit). Based on the way that draft looked, this could very well be a case of WP:BOGO. But besides cleaning up the page to make it less awful, I'm not sure what we should really do about that... Ajpolino (talk) 22:40, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:30, 12 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:34, 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. Academic Challenger (talk) 18:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Santrex

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

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

This article about a defunct webhost is currently sourced exclusively to what appears to be a blog. There has been some recent edit warring, which introduced a bunch of other unreliable and primary sources; in investigating the edit war, I spent some time searching for independent, reliable secondary sources that would satisfy NCORP, but found nothing but primary sources, affiliated sources and UGC. Suggest deletion as best solution. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:21, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:21, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:21, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:21, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, Agree and did the same but no reliable information in depth available. Elena Marcus D (talk) 20:14, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete couldn't find any reliable sources. Antila ✉ 05:46, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not pass through WP:CORP and references consists of interviews and supposed sponsored mentions that are not WP:RS ~ Amkgp 💬 14:37, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The blog posts discuss some malign uses to which this hosting service was put, but WP:NOTINHERITED may apply to that? Regarding Santrex itself, I am seeing routine listings and user reviews but not the coverage needed to demonstrate notability. AllyD (talk) 10:08, 18 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 06:43, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ashok Arora

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

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

The article falls short of notability criteria. Seems to have been written by the subject himself as a puff piece. The article is very poorly cited and the statements made often have no connection the sources cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devasuran (talk • contribs) 12:03, May 8, 2020 (UTC)

• Comment This discussion page was created without the {{afd2}} template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no opinion of my own at this time. @Devasuran: For future nominations, please fully follow the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO. Thank you. --Finngall ^talk 18:16, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable lawyer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:01, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Despite what looks like copious references, they are either not significantly about the subject or not independent or mere passing mentions. No indication of passing any applicable notability standard. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:08, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG. References provided to attest for significance and notability are not independent. Runforlimit505 (talk) 06:29, 13 June 2020 (UTC)Blocked sock. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:33, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. - Hatchens (talk) 12:32, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Well (church)

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

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

Not more than a brief mention in the weakest of secondary sources. As far as I can tell, this institution doesn't exist anymore. There is no value to keeping this stub article, which can never be anything other than a two line description. Yes, it was a church in Philadelphia. This article does no one any service. Jontesta (talk) 18:10, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• leaning delete It seems to have attracted a little notice as a example of an emergent church, but its original pastor moved on to Oregon (and other things) and the church seems to have evaporated sometime in 2015 after the move into sharing another church's space. And at this point not a single one of the original sources is accessible, and a fair number of them seem to be articles about the emergent movement in which it seems to have appeared as an example. At present the only sources are the church's archived website, and the former pastor's blog. Wikipedia:CONG (which was used as the justification for keeping on the last go-'round) failed, and at any rate the message here is that until someone writes a history of a church, it probably isn't notable. Mangoe (talk) 20:50, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:31, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:31, 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 delete. Academic Challenger (talk) 18:29, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Galactic Civil War

Galactic Civil War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Isn't this just a WP:CONTENTFORK of the entire Star Wars series? This is entirely sourced to primary sources. And even if you can find sources, the common name literally the title and entire subject of the movies. We could also create an article for The war against the Terminator robots or we could just leave it at Terminator (series). These aren't actually separate topics. It's the same topic under a different name. Jontesta (talk) 18:03, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 18:03, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 03:57, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Random Lurker Comment IDGAF whether or not this article is kept or not, as the entire article is sourced in primary sources, and I can't be bothered to make improvements when I'm trying to establish a life in a new city, but I would like to point out that because the Clone Wars and the Galactic Civil War were two separate conflicts despite being perpetrated by the same Sith, the Content Fork argument is invalid, and should be dismissed in favor of the fact that there are nothing but primary sources. I bet you would see a lot more delete and merge !votes if you did that. Hope this helps in this and future deletion nominations. Sasuke9031 (talk) 00:36, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as failing WP:NFICTION (primary sources, WP:PLOT) etc. as raised above. However, I am a bit surprised Star Wars universe just redirects to Star Wars. Where is our article describing the in-universe timeline, summarizing major factions and characters, and so on? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:58, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a lack of secondary coverage showing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:31, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no evidence of independent notability for this topic. Fails WP:NFICTION._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:04, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. As mentioned by the nom, this is basically just a summary of the plots of the movies, which already is covered on the articles on the movies. It could potentially be useful as a redirect to Star Wars, though. Rorshacma (talk) 20:37, 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 keep. (non-admin closure)  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 17:33, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mode Plagal

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

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

Unknown band. Only sources in this article come from the band's own website. Should be deleted. Glucken123 (talk) 15:41, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clearly notable. A quick Google reveals ample independent sources like this, this, this, this, this, etc. Give me a day or two and I'll incorporate them into the article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:54, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Glucken123 (talk) 15:41, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural Keep - No evidence that WP:BEFORE was followed and good evidence that it probably wasn't as this was part of a mass-nomination of dozens of articles about Greek culture over the course of a hour. FOARP (talk) 15:57, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:57, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Ghmyrtle sources clearly show they are known and notable, e.g. The Guardian knows about them.--Eostrix (talk) 16:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: is the Guardian's live review enough to justify encyclopaedic notability? If not, then what other factors should we take into account? I am just asking, because it seems that articles with lack of sources can remain online indefinitely. Glucken123 (talk) 16:16, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NEXIST in particular, TL;DR, yes, simply lacking references is not a reason for deletion. There is no deadline for adding references to the article, if they are known to exist and can be added. FOARP (talk) 16:35, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per Ghmyrtle's sources, and more available. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 13:15, 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 speedy keep per WP:SK#1. A valid rationale for deletion is not present. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:56, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Filter (magazine)

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

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

PR mag. Acousmana (talk) 15:41, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Acousmana (talk) 15:41, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Acousmana (talk) 15:41, 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 redirect to Nama band. The standard for keeping as a redirect is much lower than notability. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:23, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aris Pavlis

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

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

Unreliable sources and a virtually unknown person with no notability. Should be deleted. Glucken123 (talk) 15:40, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Glucken123 (talk) 15:40, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:57, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural Keep Redirect to Nama band (see below references) - No evidence that WP:BEFORE was followed and good evidence that it probably wasn't as this was part of a mass-nomination of dozens of articles about Greek culture over the course of a hour. FOARP (talk) 15:58, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Dear FOARP, may I ask you to google those names before voting in any discussions I nominated for deletion? I investigated those Greek articles for hours and carefully nominated each and one of them. The fact that it happened at the same time does not mean there is vandalism involved. Like I said, in other deletion discussions, Aris Pavlis is another example of a virtually unknown artist in Greece who somehow ended up with a Wikipedia page. Can you again, google their name and have a good look at their notability? Any sources might do. Thanks in advance. Glucken123 (talk) 16:05, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You should do the research first, before nominating, and I honestly don't believe you did that based on this mass nomination of dozens of different articles in such a short time. PS and look at the references I found even with a short search - 1 2 3. At most a merge/redirect to Nama band might be justified, but since you've nominated that for deletion as well it's clear you never saw those references. FOARP (talk) 16:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Those references are not enough on their own to provide encyclopaedic notability! In this case, a short review (in fact, a tiny paragraph) from a Greek site in 2008, could not really help a Wikipedia article stand on its own. Furthermore, there are so many exaggerated claims - something like a press release. Flash.gr is an unreliable blog btw! Glucken123 (talk) 16:40, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:NEWSORG, Flash.Gr appears to be a pass as it is not self-published, has an editorial team, is professionally-made etc. etc. Definitely not a blog. FOARP (talk) 16:48, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FOARP, is there international notability of this band? The answer is no. A random mention on a Greek blog does not mean the band should remain on English Wikipedia. Furthermore, the lack of available sources online - or complete articles on the band makes this case quite hard as well. Have you heard of them? Have you ever listened to their music? Glucken123 (talk) 16:55, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"International notability" is not a requirement of WP:GNG or WP:NBAND. Me having heard of it or not heard of it is not relevant. FOARP (talk) 16:58, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:00, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, or redirect to Nama band. Known mostly as member of the Greek group Nama. Even if this band is considered notable, that doesn't make automatically all of its members notable as well. (btw the Pavlis' article is almost identical to the article on the band) ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 22:56, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:47, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nama band

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

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

Not much to say here, this loos like a catalogue of an unknown band. Glucken123 (talk) 15:40, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Glucken123 (talk) 15:40, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:58, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural Keep - No evidence that WP:BEFORE was followed and good evidence that it probably wasn't as this was part of a mass-nomination of dozens of articles about Greek culture over the course of a hour. FOARP (talk) 15:58, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep There are a few things here and there in Greek websites on music, but not much. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 23:07, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as they have won a major Greek music award as confirmed in reliable sources, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:53, 18 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) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:18, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Stamatis

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

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

No significance, no sources at all. Should be deleted Glucken123 (talk) 15:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Glucken123 (talk) 15:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:34, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:34, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural Keep - No evidence that WP:BEFORE was followed and good evidence that it probably wasn't as this was part of a mass-nomination of dozens of articles about Greek culture over the course of a hour. FOARP (talk) 16:03, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Part of mass nomination (20 Greek culture articles in 26 minutes). Notable author/poet. On 2 other Wikipedias. There is coverage in English on his writing in google books, one can only imagine the amount of sources available in Greek here.--Eostrix (talk) 16:09, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:16, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Plenty of coverage. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:28, 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 WP:SNOW keep. There is no reasonable prospect for a consensus to delete this article at this point. BD2412 T 22:47, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elena Penga

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

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

Unreliable sources, no significance. Glucken123 (talk) 15:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Glucken123 (talk) 15:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. Glucken123 (talk) 15:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:29, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:29, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural Keep - No evidence that WP:BEFORE was followed and good evidence that it probably wasn't as this was part of a mass-nomination of dozens of articles about Greek culture over the course of a hour. FOARP (talk) 16:04, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Part of mass nomination (20 Greek culture articles in 26 minutes). Notable award winning author, even in English in a search one sees coverage.--Eostrix (talk) 16:06, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notability evidenced in previous deletion discussion. Tacyarg (talk) 17:11, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:48, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:48, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: sources seem to support notability. PamD 08:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems to meet GNG (not to mention deletion spree as per previous comments). Samsmachado (talk) 19:22, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Lots of sources found upon a Google search, and more sources are found searching her Greek name. Someone who speaks Greek is needed to translate or use the Greek sources. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:37, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per my arguments on the previous discussion [16]. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 23:19, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Late to the gig but I would fought to keep it. Inherently notable. scope_creep^Talk 09:05, 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) buidhe 17:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Antonis Fostieris

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

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

This person is not truly encyclopaedic and with limited reliable sources, it is quite questionable how this article remained online for so long. Therefore, I propose its deletion. Glucken123 (talk) 15:19, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Glucken123 (talk) 15:19, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:28, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Part of mass nomination (20 Greek culture articles in 26 minutes). Exists on four other Wikipedias. Edits a notable journal. Searching for the name in google books shows quite a few sources.--Eostrix (talk) 16:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• speedy keep as it's a poor nomination. Even light Googling brings about a bunch of good sources, and looking off the Google would likely bring more. This is an easy one. I don't know how a person can be "encyclopaedic," but perhaps the nominator meant "notable." DiamondRemley39 (talk) 21:33, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per DiamondRemley39's arguments. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 23:11, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This article can not be accused of being unencyclopedic. The nominator appears to have concerns about the sources but that should not be a problem because that might be the minimum standard at the time the article was created. Cryforjustice (talk) 6:00,17 June 2020 (UTC)
• Keep He is a well known Greek poet.ScottHastie (talk) 08:29, 18 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:27, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Kumar

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

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

This page doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability test for biographies, and is overwhelmingly likely to have been created by the subject of the article himself. Also note that the account of the page's original creator (along with the accounts of subsequent editors) was banned for sockpuppeting. Aijiujoe (talk) 15:16, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Pi (Talk to me!) 16:16, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Pi (Talk to me!) 16:16, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Autobiographies violate Wikipedia policy.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:20, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. - Hatchens (talk) 12:29, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:01, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Pacifica Chen

Grace Pacifica Chen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable person, only claim of significance is placing or winning in multiple non notable pageants. Zero coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 14:38, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - does not meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 14:40, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 14:41, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 14:41, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 14:42, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - doesn't meet GNG, none of the sources cited are independant from the subject nor are they from a reliable source. From my attempt at a search, such sources about the subject do not exist. Samsmachado (talk) 18:58, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:GNG fail. Half of the references are links to her own social accounts. Best, GPL93 (talk) 11:53, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Obviously my vote is always to keep my articles. But if this will end up being deleted, please at least redirect to Miss Teen BC. I merged the most useful info on there anyway. --Wiki2008time (talk) 23:24, 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 Redirect to Miss BC. Consensus that the subject is not notable, redirecting per ATD. (non-admin closure) Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:01, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra Gin (Canada)

Sandra Gin (Canada) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

non notable person who won a non-notable pageant. no coverage otherwise to satisfy n criteria. Praxidicae (talk) 14:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 14:33, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 14:33, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 14:33, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:39, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — non notable individual lacking in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. Celestina007 (talk) 10:33, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Only one source on the page is independant of the subject and reliable, so the article doesn't meet WP:GNG. Google reveals no missing sources or anything that could help this meet GNG.Samsmachado (talk) 19:13, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject failed basic WP:GNG, therefore she is not notable for a WP entry at this time. Google search does not provide any significant information about the subject which can be used to establish its notability. Cryforjustice (talk) 16:52, 14 June 2020

• Obviously my vote is always to keep my articles. But if this will end up being deleted, please at least redirect to Miss BC. I merged the most useful info on there anyway. --Wiki2008time (talk) 23:26, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Miss BC please, as I anticipate this being deleted but at least redirect the valid search term - her info is on that page. --Wiki2008time (talk) 02:33, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:00, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Time Flies (band)

Time Flies (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable band. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 14:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC) Short-lived hardcore punk/straight edge band from Virginia. I doubt their notability. The articles on their albums are also on AfD on behalf of their non-notability. The sources in the article are poor, with the sites of their record labels, Last.fm and a site named "Band to Band" which does not look reliable to me either. But anyways, I searched for this band (with the keywords "Time Flies punk band" and "Time Flies Virginia band") but nothing reliable came up, just the usual stuff like Discogs, Facebook, the site of their record labels, Wikipedia mirrors and stuff where the words "time" and "flies" appear but not related to the band. So no RS whatsoever. Actually, there is an article on Lambgoat about the band, but it's just about them breaking up. But no album review, no interviews, nothing that would make any reliability whatsoever. I also searched for their albums but nothing came up besides retail sites, blogs, download sites and YouTube videos. It seems that this was a very underground band which have made no waves whatsoever and did not met with much success. To be frank I have never even heard of them before today, I just met them because I saw that the articles about their albums are up for deletion and I decided to look them up. But anyways I think they are not notable. This article also managed to stay here since 2006. I said this a few times I know, but I can't believe that so many non-notable bands manage to stay here for such a long time. Underground bands which have not achieved coverage in reliable media shouldn't be in Wikipedia. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 14:25, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 14:28, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 14:28, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 14:28, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - My WP:BEFORE just confirmed the nom's analysis - couldn't find anything searching "Time Flies" and band member names. Good work. FOARP (talk) 15:00, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment @FOARP: Thanks! GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 16:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per nom; fails notability. --Jack Frost (talk) 03:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Numatic International. (non-admin closure) buidhe 17:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hepa-Flo (vacuum bags)

Hepa-Flo (vacuum bags) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

As to be expected, a minor product for a vacuum is highly unlikely to receive the coverage required for an article. I attempted to boldly redirect to the parent company Numatic International but it was contested. I am proposing to delete and redirect as it has no independent notability for a stand alone article. Praxidicae (talk) 14:28, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 14:35, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 14:35, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Numatic International or delete it's so obviously not notable that there really shouldn't have needed to be an AfD for this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by adamant1 (talk • contribs)
• Redirect - Not a whiff of notability. --Jack Frost (talk) 11:57, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to International Brotherhood of Magicians. Youth division is already mentioned at the target article. (non-admin closure) buidhe 17:36, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I. B. M. Youth

I. B. M. Youth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is the youth organisation for International Brotherhood of Magicians. This article has no reliable sources. As per WP:ORG, this is non-notable, there has not been significant coverage. JohnmgKing (talk) 10:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. JohnmgKing (talk) 10:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. JohnmgKing (talk) 10:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. JohnmgKing (talk) 10:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect as a single paragraph into International Brotherhood of Magicians --Lockley (talk) 02:36, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:27, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Divina Enema

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

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

Non-notable band. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 14:04, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A metal band from Belarus. I question their notability. The article is very poorly sourced and my sources turned up nothing better. The usual stuff came up: unreliable sites like Metal Archives, Discogs, Last.fm, GetSongBpm, Amazon, Youtube and the like, the rest of them were blogs, forums and trivial mentions. I found two sources that establishes notability: an album review from Chronicles of Chaos and a biography on Metal Inside. If I am correct, both of these sources are reliable since these are metal zines on the net. But if they are not reliable, then there are no RS to this band. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 14:03, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 14:06, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 14:06, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Yah, not seeing how this meets WP:BAND--Surv1v4l1st ^{▌Talk|Contribs▌} 01:22, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources Chronicles of Chaos is a reliable source but Metal Inside is not listed as reliable or unreliable, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:00, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Atlantic306: Interesting. Metal Inside is neither reliable nor unreliable. Then it's "neutral" (for lack of a better term) or what? Strange. I don't know. I always thought it looked reliable, but I don't really know anymore. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:40, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• To determine it's reliability it would need a discussion at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources talkpage, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:58, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per Nom Sidchakrab (talk) 14:24, 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 no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:28, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Jones (physicist)

Dylan Jones (physicist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable academic. The article originally included the claim that "Jones is one of only five black physics professors in Canada", a thin claim to notability in the first place, but that claim has been removed as there is no reliable source to verify it. No other claim to notability is made nor can any be found. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Appears to be a full professor with his own group [17], and his h-index is fairly high at 42, but there isn't evidence of him passing WP:NPROF. Almost no sources exist about him. – Thjarkur (talk) 13:34, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Searching Google scholar for author:dba-jones gives me citation counts of 1610, 737, 291, 185, 165, 156, 116, ... but the heavily cited papers have a lot of coauthors. The ones on which he was first author start at 80 and 78 citations. According to this author biography he held a Tier II Canada research chair. Both the citations and the chair are borderline for notability (Tier I would pass WP:PROF#C5). I didn't find any sourcing about his ethnicity or being notable for it. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:04, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The subject has a Google Scholar profile, but a number of the articles on it are not from him. There are indeed some highly cited papers, but they also indeed have an awful lot of coauthors, and he's middle author in a field where order matters. @XOR'easter: I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on this one. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:23, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give a link to the GS profile? An h-index of 42 would give a clear pass of WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:21, 11 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]

​[18], but it appears to include some unrelated medical papers as well. – Thjarkur (talk) 22:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, removing the medical citations I go for a Keep for WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:41, 11 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]

• Weak keep Borderline arguments for passing WP:PROF#C1 and C5, per David Eppstein. (The "Ontario Early Researcher Award" [19] mentioned in the author bio seems to be more of a grant than a prize.) Sifting out the false positives in the GS profile (the algorithm including the wrong D. Jones, etc.), there's still enough for a decent C1 case. Being a middle author weakens the case, but not enough to erase it, IMO. XOR'easter (talk) 22:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. The record isn't as nearly strong as it looks at first glance, but I believe that it is a marginal pass of WP:NPROF C1 (with support from almost-C5), per the arguments set out by David Eppstein and XOR'easter. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 22:58, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete neither his citiation record nor his academic appointments actually rise to a level of passing our notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:17, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:31, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non notable academic. There is little to suggest that this particular person's contributions are of note. A Google Scholar search brings up a list of his papers, but a standard search brings up no references about him. There is little in way of sources about this person. --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 19:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The available referencing looks pretty typical for an academic who is recognized for their work rather than their personal life. (That situation is kind of why WP:PROF exists at all.) XOR'easter (talk) 19:53, 18 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:29, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On Our Way

On Our Way (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This album does not appear to be notable, as there are no reliable sources or significant coverage to be found. I can only find listings on retail sites. JohnmgKing (talk) 12:52, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. JohnmgKing (talk) 12:52, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. JohnmgKing (talk) 12:52, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. JohnmgKing (talk) 12:52, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Per nom. Also, the notability of the band itself is questionable to me. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 14:12, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete doesn't meet WP:NMUSIC. Graywalls (talk) 18:23, 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 delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:03, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can't Change the Past

Can't Change the Past (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is an article about an album called Can't Change the Past, although the article seems to call it 'Can Change the Past' as well. Anyway, I don't think it is notable. I can't find RS or coverage. Just to let you all know, there was an EP with the same name, by the same band, in 1998, adding to the confusion of looking for sources. JohnmgKing (talk) 12:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. JohnmgKing (talk) 12:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. JohnmgKing (talk) 12:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. JohnmgKing (talk) 12:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable, just like the band's other album and the band itself. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 16:54, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Don't see how this passes WP:NMUSIC guidelines. --Surv1v4l1st ^{▌Talk|Contribs▌} 21:40, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:29, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Conversion led marketing

Conversion led marketing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No sources whatsoever, no attempt at establishing notability has been made. Google doesn't return many results either. Megaman en m (talk) 12:41, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Megaman en m (talk) 12:41, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 14:17, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The only source provided by the author of this article does not mention the topic but focused on a different subject entirely. It is the responsibility of the creator of an article to establish its notability. This article failed all WP guidelines. Ugbedeg (talk) 5:48, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Delete Not even worth draftifying this until someone makes a better effort to begin with, but there wouldn't be much to use given the minimal search results available. --Xannir (talk) 13:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:13, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Central College of Vocational Training Pvt. Ltd

Central College of Vocational Training Pvt. Ltd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

All the signs of a WP:UPE spam. No signs of notability. Note that it's not a WP:NSCHOOL, it's a WP:COMPANY. Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:58, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:58, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:58, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:58, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hy usedtobecool, I am new at wikipedia. So i don't know most of the policies but i am understanding at day by day and making some edits and artciles, Recently I had write about central college of vocational training pvt ltd, can you elaborate why this is under review for deletion. although it has strong citation and artciles, similarly i had seen kiec artcile but it has no issue but artcile about central college is same as it but why? can you please explain me about this so that i can make some edits and make it wiki friendly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSaugatDevkota (talk • contribs) 05:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TheSaugatDevkota do you have evidence that KIEC was created in return for undisclosed payments? I haven't looked at the article, so I can't say if it's certainly worthy of deletion, but that you mention it, it does look like WP:CORPSPAM The article, that is the subject of this discussion, does not have "strong citation"s. If Wikipedia articles supported by a few internet startup "news websites" with 1-3 "editors" and no journalistic credential were to be accepted, every company on earth would just setup three random websites to get itself on Wikipedia. No, we need reputable reliable sources that have significant coverage on the subject. If the organisation were notable, I would not nominate it for deletion. So, editing to make it "wiki friendly" is unlikely to be enough. What we need is proof that significant coverage exists in reputable reliable sources. I am pretty sure it does not. Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:13, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:05, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now I had added many citations from reliable sources like tryocity, bossnepal, narayanionline and many more, and there is no intension to advertise any services or products. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSaugatDevkota (talk • contribs) 09:00, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, you did not . Those are just ads in the form of stories, in adsense websites masquerading as news portals. Usedtobecool ☎️ 19:17, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No sign of GNG, and looks like spam. Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(You Asked?) (What I have Done.)} 20:40, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. As pointed out above, this is a company masquerading as a school. It appears to peddle immigration advice and fails WP:COMPANY. Ifnord (talk) 23:34, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per nom. Non-notable company represented in an article which screams spam. Wikipedia is not for advertising. --Jack Frost (talk) 03:28, 19 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 Brandon Sanderson. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:32, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hard and soft magic systems (2nd nomination)

Hard and soft magic systems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This seems to be a concept invented by some bloggers that never caught on beyond their blogs. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete too much the product of one man's ideas to be considered a broadly applicable set of ideas as this article implies.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:58, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Does this argument also work for the Chekhov's gun article? Chekhov's gun is a product of one person's ideas, and any product of one person's ideas cannot be broadly applied (?), and anything which cannot be broadly applied should not be a Wikipedia article (?), right? -NorsemanII (talk) 02:52, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Chekhov's gun is a broadly understood and accepted concept taught in established institutions of higher learning that originates from one of the great writers of modern literature. The same cannot be said of this pet theory of a contemporary genre writer of limited recognition.
• Keep We already discussed this earlier this year – see WP:BEFORE and WP:DELAFD, "users should allow a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating the same page for deletion again ... It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome." The topic is notable and so should be covered per WP:PRESERVE. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:03, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Brandon Sanderson - Unlike the broader topic of Magic system, which was the primary article discussed in the prior AFD, this term/concept is based entirely on a single individual's idea. The sources currently in the article are all invalid for establishing notability (three are from non-reliable sources, three are just written by the person who coined the term). In the prior AFD, Andrew found one source that mentioned the concept, but even that was limited to summarizing Sanderson's paper on the subject, and is the only seemingly reliable source I have found discussing the concept in detail. However, while I don't think the sources support an independent article, the author that coined the concept is notable and has his own article, so it would make sense to discuss the concept there, though obviously the merge would need to be limited to just the definition and origin of the term, and not the copious, unsourced examples. Rorshacma (talk) 15:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Brandon Sanderson per Rorshacma's rationale. Rupert Loup (talk) 12:40, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I disagree with the consensus that it should be merged. The merger will reduce the length of the article of information vital to understanding the concept behind "hard and soft" magic systems, simply because they're not sourced properly. If this article in its complete form can be fused in the main one without cutting out the content, I would support the merger. I do not support it, however, on the basis that the ideas presented here are important for understanding different types of literary development on the subject of fantasy writing. girleymen (talk) 22:35, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Information that isn't sourced properly is not supposed to be kept in articles regardless of whether or not a merger occurs. Rorshacma (talk) 02:36, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• It has been sourced properly, it's all essentially the same one source. Someone else has added more links but the main content of this article has a source backing it. There are instances in Wikipedia articles were something is not sourced properly and still on the page and this site has been known to host links from unreliable sources that is the crux of criticism against it in the academic field. Removing this information weakens people's understanding of this concept, and a very helpful tool at that, on the ground that it only has one primary source? How many sources does it need to have to be notable? There are figures in history whose pages are less than a paragraph long that are still on this site. Should they be deleted too? girleymen (talk) Girleymen (talk) 05:36, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a valid argument for keeping, but to answer your question, yes, information in any article that is not properly sourced should not be kept. Rorshacma (talk) 15:28, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Brandon Sanderson. The article is not notable in its own right, but is applicable and has enough references to be included in Sanderson's article. The examples, although unsourced, could be condensed and kept if given proper explanations. My recommendation is two examples per type of magic. BlacknoseDace (talk) 11:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Brandon Sanderson. The topic itself is not notable, but it does deserve some coverage on the page of the person who invented the concept. Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment about notability: I would like to highlight that the terms are becoming increasingly used and have indeed caught on. You can see them on Reddit pages and YouTube channels that discuss fiction writing since as far as last year. Searching the terms "hard magic" or "soft magic" on r/magicbuilding, r/fantasy, or YouTube will point you to examples. Cosmonought (talk) 13:39, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • To alter a quote from Hitman 2, if Wikipedia looked to YouTube and Reddit as the sources that defined notability this website would have collapsed a long time ago. Devonian Wombat (talk) 13:50, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for your kind explanation. In any case I am happy to throw in my two cents to note that these terms are searched and discussed a lot. Cosmonought (talk) 14:10, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that Reddit and Youtube aren't reliable sources, but they are a very good way to determine if things are becoming notable or popular. I would still recommend a merge due to the lack of reliable sources. BlacknoseDace (talk) 14:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to magic system, while it is an interesting topic and has some reliable coverage I don't see there being enough right now to have its own spin-off article. It could very likely (based on YouTube and Reddit searches) one day become more popular and earn its own article but not right now.★Trekker (talk) 21:33, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I just added six references from six different authors citing this topic including a book on designing magic systems for games. I came to Wikipedia looking for more information on this topic as it had come up in a discussion, and I would be mildly annoyed to have to sift through Sanderson's page or the page on magic systems to find this. This also should not fall into the same categories as Sanderson does (or vice versa), as that would also create an annoying barrier to finding the information I'm looking for. The article itself leaves a lot of room for improvement, but that's not what AfD is for. -NorsemanII (talk) 02:52, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Those added sources are not from reliable sources, though. They're writing blogs, peoples' personal websites, etc. These are not considered reliable sources, per WP:SPS. Establishing notability isn't just finding how many times that a certain term or concept has been used on the internet, its finding information from actual reliable sources. The only one of the added sources that could be considered a reliable source is the one book that I already mentioned above. Rorshacma (talk) 15:28, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I do not see any evidence that this topic is covered by reliable sources. At present, except for the book source, all of the cited pages appear to be blogs. This is simply not enough to pass WP:GNG. BenKuykendall (talk) 18:19, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I just added two more references, one from a literary magazine and the other from a peer reviewed academic journal. Please people, just do a couple quick Google searches to see if a topic is notable before you try to claim it isn't and should be deleted. I've now added eight references to this article with a small amount of spare time. I genuinely don't understand how people can find the motivation to go find an article they're not interested in and write up a comment in favor of deleting it, without having the motivation to type a couple of keywords into Google. It boggles my mind. -NorsemanII (talk) 03:42, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @NorsemanII: those new sources look much more better than the six added last week. The Mythlore article is certainly reliable and decently in-depth. I don't know about the other source though; do we know that The Curious Reader is reliable? After reading them I am leaning towards saying topic is notable.BenKuykendall (talk) 04:48, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is one author's own idea about how writers can think about "magic systems" while writing a novel. It is simply helpful advice for writers and not a generally accepted, wide-spread concept or practice.
• Keep It's similar to Chekhov's gun or Three Laws of Robotics. All of them are just some author's ideas. But that author is someone very very influential in all these cases. Also it's not just Sanderson's suggestions for better writing. Regardless of who first suggested this categorization, soft vs. hard magic system is a valid and useful way to categorize speculative fictions. navidk (talk) 21:53, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Neither the concept nor it's creator are a widely recognized and / or accepted as your two examples. It is not the same thing. In fact, it is nothing more that writing advice that said writer of limited recognition and importance uses in his writing classes.

• Delete- Although this is an interesting subject and by no means the worst article of its type I have seen here, ultimately it is still too much of a how-to guide based on cobbling together bits and pieces from sources that are predominantly blogs. Reyk _YO! 14:12, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP yet again Six said KEEP months ago when this went to AFD, one said merge, and no one but the nominator said delete. Anyway, as I said last time: Whenever video games or other games are reviewed, they usually review the magic system as a key part of those games. Reliable sources give significant coverage to this concept such as https://www.cbr.com/shonen-action-rules-fullmetal-alchemist-my-hero-academia/ and https://www.thegamer.com/harry-potter-rpg-never-happen-because-magic-system-sucks/ Dream Focus 21:02, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep clearly notable per WP:SIGCOV In January 2020 this subject's merits were debated and the editors overwhelming decided to Keep. Lightburst (talk) 22:00, 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 speedy Draftify to Draft:Spider roll (2) (non-admin closure) -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 20:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft/Spider roll

Draft/Spider roll (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The text of this article has been placed at Spider roll several times, and reverted (mostly by me) as being largely unsourced or poorly sourced, overly instructional and, in places, largely irrelevant to the topic of spider rolls (including the general sections on popular sushi restaurants of Japan and sushi etiquette). It is clear that the author here was trying to create Draft:Sushi roll, but that draft already exists. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:04, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:04, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy draftify to Draft:Spider roll (2) or user's sandbox, or histmerge into the existing Draft:Spider roll. It's obvious that the user intended to create this in draftspace and I don't think it's worth spending a week discussing it. Concerns about sourcing and the quality of the article don't apply in draftspace. Spicy (talk) 15:02, 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 redirect to Stars of Track and Field. (non-admin closure) buidhe 17:37, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You Came Here for Sunset Last Year

You Came Here for Sunset Last Year (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Another non-notable EP, it's difficult to find anything at all about this one, and certainly no RS or significant coverage. JohnmgKing (talk) 10:35, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. JohnmgKing (talk) 10:35, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. JohnmgKing (talk) 10:35, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. JohnmgKing (talk) 10:35, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Definitely not notable. Foxnpichu (talk) 11:29, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Changing to Redirect to Stars of Track and Field per Superastig. Foxnpichu (talk) 10:37, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Stars of Track and Field: Barely found anything about the EP. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 02:17, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oof. Why didn’t I think of that? Gonna change to redorect too. Foxnpichu (talk) 10:37, 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 keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:33, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zafar Masud (banker)

Zafar Masud (banker) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The subject fails WP:GNG, notable only as survivor of an airplane crash - WP:1E. Less Unless (talk) 20:10, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 20:10, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 20:10, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As CEO of a reasonably-sized bank, there should probably be sources somewhere (I know, I know, WP:BTMBS, but still...). I'll try to find them as soon as I have the time. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 20:29, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Keep The subject appears to be of interest to secondary sources based on coverage. This source says he's the son of a popular Pakistani television actor, Munawwar Saeed. This source further states he is a maternal grandson of Taqi Amrohi, a Pakistani journalist who was chief editor of the country's largest and oldest Urdu newspaper, Jang. That same source also says he's therefore a direct relative of Bollywood film director Kamal Amrohi (the latter being his grandfather's cousin). For those who may not know, Taqi Amrohi himself was also the brother of the two very well-known Pakistanis Rais Amrohvi and Jaun Elia, which this ref briefly notes as Kamal's relatives. While notability is not inherited, I guess the point is that there appears to be enough interest and sustained coverage of his personal life in addition to his career as the CEO of Punjab Bank that a decent article could be salvaged IMO. I just don't know if I'd have enough time to commit to it for now. This reading is just what I found while scratching the surface. Mar4d (talk) 14:34, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed my !vote after reviewing some further sources and work. The subject is notable as a senior banker in Pakistan. I believe a good article can be written from the information that is present. Mar4d (talk) 07:09, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No evidence of notability per nominator. Most coverage only concerns a crash. Azuredivay (talk) 01:44, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While it's true that a lot of coverage at the moment is focused on the crash, it won't be entirely true to say that he wasn't covered by sources before. This ref from March gives better details about his experience and states he was CEO of Barclays in the southern Africa region, in addition to working at many other banks, being CEO of a credit finance company and formerly heading a government department. This one from April says he as 27 years experience in banking and was in the board of directors for the State Bank of Pakistan [20]. This one from October 2018 notes that he left the board some time in 2016.

This one from February says he's also a board of directors' member at the National Bank of Pakistan. This article is actually on Citibank's history in Pakistan but quotes Masud as a former Citibanker (and as per the article's own admission: Citibank seems to have produced more financial leaders in Pakistan than any other financial institution. In both Corporate Pakistan – as well as the government – it means something special to be able to call oneself an “ex-Citibanker”, more so than any other financial institution.) These are all before the crash, so I can see a case for enduring notability. Mar4d (talk) 07:07, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete While many dots are being attempted to connect to establish the notability, there is clearly no evidence of notability. SyedAfzaal123 (talk) 04:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Week Keep per Mar4d. But he's non-notable except for being sole survivor of a plane crash. --Saqib (talk) 10:32, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - CEO of a large bank. Bearian (talk)
• Keep The fact that he survived a large plane crash alone is not enough to make him notable. However, I think he is notable, because he is the CEO of a large bank. Wikipedia:Find_a_Grave_famous_people implies that founders and CEO's of relatively small corporations are notable enough to have their own articles. Scorpions13256 (talk) 06:03, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - Not too notable, but the CEO of a large bank. Foxnpichu (talk) 11:29, 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 redirect to From Autumn to Ashes. (non-admin closure) buidhe 17:38, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These Speakers Don't Always Tell the Truth

These Speakers Don't Always Tell the Truth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I can't find anything to suggest that this EP is notable. There are no RS and no significant coverage that I can locate. JohnmgKing (talk) 10:19, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. JohnmgKing (talk) 10:19, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. JohnmgKing (talk) 10:19, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. JohnmgKing (talk) 10:19, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, no RS to be found. Caro7200 (talk) 13:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to From Autumn to Ashes: Barely found anything about the EP. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 02:16, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - Per Superastig. --Jack Frost (talk) 11:41, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) JohnmgKing (talk) 15:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Complex (English band)

Complex (English band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Withdrawn by nominator.

I struggle to find RS or much coverage for this band. There's this interview [21] in a psychedelic music magazine, and a fan blog post or two, but I don't think there is enough to pass GNG or the band notability requirements. JohnmgKing (talk) 10:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. JohnmgKing (talk) 10:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. JohnmgKing (talk) 10:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. JohnmgKing (talk) 10:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The band has an extensive profile on the French Website disquesobscurs.fr. Disques Obscurs appears to be a pass for WP:NEWSORG as it has an editorial team and professional reviewers. The Blackpool Gazette profiled this band in 2013, though they have now deleted the article from their website it was archived here. Record Collector Mag briefly reviewed one of their albums here - short but it does at least list the band members. The French book "Encyclopédie du hard-rock des Seventies" by Denis Protat appears to come from a professional publishing company called Editions Alternatives (i.e., is not self published) and lists their albums with a fairly long review of their second album, the text of which can be seen here. Appears to be a pass for WP:NBAND no. 1, specifically reliable sources are still talking about this band as notable some decades after their career.

BTW - researching this was an example of exactly the kind of rabbit-hole that doing work on the AFD page can lead you down - I'm not a psychedelia fan and knew nothing about this band but have just spent ~20 minutes doing nothing but read about them. Obscure, but notable. FOARP (talk) 14:09, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Thank you, I will speedy keep this because your research shows it is notable and there haven't been any delete votes. I simply failed to find the sources you did.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Although it sounds delightful for the kind of people that like that kind of thing, it's not encyclopedically notable. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:53, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sex Island

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

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

A non-notable event with non-reliable sources including WP:DAILYMAIL ~ Amkgp 💬 09:43, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 09:43, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 09:43, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 09:43, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Only tabloid sources, nothing better found. Edwardx (talk) 10:33, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment there are lots of media outlets reporting about this event, including Fox News, NY Post, Vice.Com, and a lot of Colombian news sites, also național newspapers like Adevarul.ro. This event îs reported quite all around the world. Barecode (talk) 17:42, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (as proposer) ~ Amkgp 💬 20:28, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Even CNN report the event, also elpais, elmundo and Europa FM. I think it is notabile. Maybe ridiculous for some yet notable event. Barecode (talk) 12:44, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  You don't have to say delete as proposer. It's already understood that you want to delete since you nominated it for deletion in the first place.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 00:26, 19 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:33, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stefano Cilio

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

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

Promotional page about a non-notable author with two self-published books and radio DJ whose page on the Italian Wikipedia has been deleted in an AfD entry, and then repeatedly re-created to the point it had to be indefinitely protected from creation. His only achievement seems to be the creation of an unofficial music chart that he promoted on minor radio stations. I feel like the author thought he could get away with spamming the page on here after being repeatedly rejected from it.wiki. ×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 09:41, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:05, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:05, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:05, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not promotional, evidence is given. He has 100.000 followers both on Facebook and on Instagram. It’s very well known in Italy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.112.15.71 (talk) 19:28, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

100k followers is known now? Leaving aside the fact that social media numbers can easily be manipulated, I have never heard of him, and the online sources aren't exactly copious. ×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 19:36, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Online sources (don’t delete them again please, this is not censorship) Pagina Facebook verificata a gennaio 2020 con SPUNTA BLU e oltre 110.000 fan (https://www.facebook.com/mezzosecolodiritornelli) Riquadro Google verificato a febbraio 2020 (https://g.co/kgs/4WE2Pt) Intervista su Radio Monte Carlo (https://www.radiomontecarlo.net/audio/1183246/STEFANO-CILIO-Autore-del-libro-.html) Intervista su RTL 102.5 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h70Us14Kc3k) Intervista su M2O Radio (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ng6EiMOmV0) Intervista su Radio Capital (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9HCYlr6bJ4) Articolo su Sette Corriere della Sera (https://www.pressreader.com/italy/corriere-della-sera-sette/20190906/283811445341208) Articolo su Rockol (https://www.rockol.it/recensioni-musicali/libri/964/stefano-cilio-mezzo-secolo-di-ritornelli) Articolo su Sentire Ascoltare (https://sentireascoltare.com/recensioni/stefano-cilio-mezzo-secolo-di-ritornelli) Utilizzo del libro su Rockol per una serie di 22 articoli (ad esempio https://www.rockol.it/news-713069/canzoni-italiane-le-piu-vendute-degli-ultimi-60-anni) Recensione su ADN Kronos (https://www.adnkronos.com/intrattenimento/spettacolo/2015/06/24/numeri-uno-mode-tormentoni-nelle-classifiche-italiane-tra_ABcCxrhE7irievgYH44fJO.html) Libro su Amazon (https://www.amazon.it/Mezzo-secolo-ritornelli-Stefano-Cilio/dp/8862316437) Libro su sito internet Arcana editore (http://www.arcanaedizioni.com/prodotto/stefano-cilio-mezzo-secolo-ritornelli-le-canzoni-piu-presenti-nelle-classifiche-italiane) Recensione su sito internet di Radiocity (https://www.radiocity.it/metti-in-valigia-mezzo-secolo-di-ritonelli) Recensione su CSI Magazine (http://www.csimagazine.it/review-stefano-cilio) Recensione su Inchiesta Sicilia (http://www.inchiestasicilia.com/tag/mezzo-secolo-di-ritornelli) Recensione su Eroica Fenice (https://www.eroicafenice.com/comunicati-stampa/mezzo-secolo-di-ritornelli-di-stefano-cilio-oltre-50-anni-di-musica) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.112.15.71 (talk) 19:56, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for spamming official social media pages and direct purchase links for the book as well as some minor publications here and there... this proves nothing. As I said, Wikipedia is not a self-promotion platform. Hence the permanent erasure from it.wiki then, and the AfD here now. ×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 20:58, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You should be deleted instead, you only apply censorship! Shame on you!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.112.15.71 (talk) 21:37, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Minor pubblications? Arcana is the number 1 music editor! Sette (Corriere della Sera) is the most read italian magazine! RTL, m2O and Radio Capital have millions of listeners... Adnkronos and Rockol are top 10 websites in Italy. Where do you live? 😂 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.112.15.71 (talk) 21:45, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I totally disagree with AFD, there is no self promotional material, every entry is linked and verified. He also has a verified Facebook Page, proving he's known in his country. Torsellino (talk) 15:17, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A blue tick doesn't mean much, considering even writing one single Buzzfeed article will get you one. What proves that he's not known (or at least, not relevant enough) is the permanent protection of the page from creation on it.wiki due to constant, persistent and insisting spamming. ×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 14:56, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He has no Buzzfeed article, please check facts before talking and spamming yourself. He has been verified by Facebook for his notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.159.185.206 (talk) 18:36, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Non-notable. Not a sausage on my search for sources. --Jack Frost (talk) 11:39, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete little more than promotional spam. Social media verification standards are far, far lower than Wikipedia's notability standards. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:26, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep relevant radio speaker and book writer, journalist on magazines and on the net there are lots of interviews — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.159.79.8 (talk) 07:28, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rit Parade

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

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

Non-notable music chart presented by one minor radio station. The radio host's page has been repeatedly deleted (and is now indefinitely protected from creation) from the Italian Wikipedia for complete lack of notability. The one and only music chart the Italian music industry considers official is FIMI's weekly Top Singoli. ×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 09:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:06, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:07, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to inform, everyone in Italy knows the Rit Parade and radio show has 105.000 listeners every week. FIMI chart is not on the radio and it’s followed only by majors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.112.15.71 (talk) 19:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spreading blatant lies such as that "everyone in Italy knows Rit Parade" (I've lived in Italy since I was born and I even worked for a music company, and I'd legit never heard of it before someone brought it up on it.wiki) is a clear intention of spamming said irrelevant chart - and Wikipedia is by no means a promotional platform. ×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 19:39, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Irrevelant chart? Are you kind of envious? 😂😂😂 People should get a life before judging the other ones’!

Please do not insult in this page. Nobody judges anybody. BTW I live in Italy and Rit Parade is very well known, the chart is on the radio and on a famous weekly magazine that considers the chart more significant than the F.I.M.I. one. I disagree with deletion, it's the only popularity chart in Italy and it deserves a page on Wikipedia. Furthermore there is no promotional tone in the article and every point is linked to verify. Official Facebook Page is verified, proving the speaker is known. Torsellino (talk) 15:22, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't mean a lot, considering you're one of only two editors of the page (a page, I shall remind everyone, has been rejected and permanently protected from creation on it.wiki for persistent spam and proven irrelevance). ×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 14:54, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is it personal or what? Why don’t you stop insulting people? The only irrevelance is yours.

• Wandering IP, no personal attacks are allowed, please do not post any. buidhe 17:29, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete per Merynancy. Likely an attempt to continue promotionalism after Italian Wiki SALTed it. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:39, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per nom. Nothing to indicate notability on my search either. I'm sensing shenanigans following the article being unceremoniously booted off the Italian Wiki, whom one would expect to locate any Italian language sources more easily than enwiki (if they were to exist). I would suggest that the closing administrator consider SALTing the title for good measure. --Jack Frost (talk) 03:39, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Eostrix (talk) 13:15, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elaine DiMasi

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

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