Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 July 15

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 14 July	16 July >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:16, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The NewsMarket[edit]

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

Limited coverage, fails WP:NWEB. Störm (talk) 05:23, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with nom. Nothing else to add. MaskedSinger (talk) 06:20, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 23:19, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:59, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:59, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 23:58, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with nom. - Jacobz1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:17, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd suggest merging into the parent but that now seems to be DMA Media and we don't have an article on them. I get the impression that this scene is too fast moving for us to keep up with and so we should wait until the process of consolidation and pivoting settles down. Andrew D. (talk) 09:42, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and per above. Barca (talk) 12:41, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:41, 20 July 2019 (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. Clear "Keep" consensus based on the principle of the article passing the WP:GNG (non-admin closure) AmericanAir88^(talk) 23:39, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Terrence Parker[edit]

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

I can't find any evidence that the "top 20" claim of charting was anywhere meaningful and I can find almost nothing in the way of actual in depth, meaningful coverage or anything else that would otherwise meet WP:NMUSIC Praxidicae (talk) 23:46, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 01:39, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 01:39, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am not sufficiently familiar with the sources to say whether they are reliable and independent, but a Google search for ("terrence parker" parker DJ) turns up > 200,000 hits. Some examples of coverage: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. Cbl62 (talk) 14:41, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Have added refs and partial discography to the article. There seems to be plenty of additional coverage out there. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:50, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG which requires significant coverage in reliable sources: HuffPost [6], Red Bull Music Academy (which has it's own online magazine) [7], Vice (magazine) [8], AllMusic [9], Clash (magazine) [10], Le Parisien [11]. There are also bits here and there at Mixmag [12], fr:Trax (magazine) [13] (and seems there is more in the print version judging by the article), and fr:Tsugi [14]. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:49, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the above comment made it clear that it meets GNG. Masum Reza^📞 17:21, 22 July 2019 (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 Ma and Pa Kettle. Clear consensus to redirect. Just Chilling (talk) 23:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cape Flattery (Ma and Pa Kettle)[edit]

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

Unnotable film series location. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:01, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 01:47, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 01:47, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect 454 people saw this article in the past 90 days. Just redirect it to Ma and Pa Kettle. Dream Focus 05:21, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as it is a viable search term that is already present in the parent article. Aoba47 (talk) 02:37, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ma and Pa Kettle. Non-notable on its own, but can serve as a logical redirect to the show's main article. Rorshacma (talk) 15:54, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect no reference at all. Not notable to have it's own article. Masum Reza^📞 17:24, 22 July 2019 (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. RL0919 (talk) 23:24, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 International Championship of High School A Cappella[edit]

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

PROD removed by creator. Unreferenced and fails WP:GNG, WP:INDISCRIMINATE and Wikipedia is not a webhost. SportingFlyer T·C 21:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails as per the nom. HawkAussie (talk) 00:27, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 01:49, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 01:49, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Its collegiate cousin, the International Championship of Collegiate A Cappella has some notability but I'm afraid this article does not pass the notability bar, especially if you make it specific to the 2019 contest. Pichpich (talk) 23:44, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per nom. and above, fails WP:GNG Alex-h (talk) 16:13, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article and my main reason is its failure WP:GNG.Forest90 (talk) 12:12, 22 July 2019 (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. Additional sources have been produced since nomination and I am now seeing a 'keep' consensus. Just Chilling (talk) 23:15, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jacqueline Saphra[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a writer, with only minor claims of notability and only primary sources to support them. This leans heavily on her being nominated for mostly non-notable literary awards that don't constitute automatic notability freebies -- and while there is one award here that is notable enough to be a valid notability claim for a writer, that's still not an instant free notability pass that exempts her from actually having to have any WP:GNG-worthy coverage in reliable sources: the notability test for writers is not the things the article says, but the depth and quality of the referencing that the article uses to support the things it says. But the only references here are her self-written biographical blurbs on the self-published websites of directly affiliated organizations and events, not reliable or independent or notability-supporting media coverage. None of these sources cut it as evidence of notability, and the article claims nothing about her that's "inherently" notable enough to exempt the sources from having to cut it as evidence of notability. Bearcat (talk) 20:21, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:21, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:21, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:21, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 01:51, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am seeing some good coverage in GNews:

Madness, anxiety and poetry, a of one of her books of poetry in the Jewish chronicle,
THE NOISES, The Old Red Lion Theatre, a review in Broadway World that talks about a play she wrote,
An extract of her work listed in the Evening Standard article The 2017 TS Eliot Prize shortlist
coverage in The Telegraph, this time on the 2018 TS Eliot Prize,
From a web search, a review in a publication called Boundless: ‘A Bargain With the Light: Poems after Lee Miller’ by Jacqueline Saphra; review,
A review in the Dundee University Review of the Arts, and
a review of another play she collaboratively wrote, The Noises review at Old Red Lion, London – ‘muddled but well-performed’.

It's not enough for WP:AUTHOR, but it is enough for GNG.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:13, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable contemporary poet. I added some material to the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:51, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP more than adequate coverage of her works and enough coverage of her to write a start article. Sydney Poore/FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 01:15, 17 July 2019 (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. Consensus that this party fails our notability guidelines. Just Chilling (talk) 23:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Artsakh Conservative Party[edit]

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

Fails WP:GROUP and WP:GNG AmericanAir88^(talk) 20:09, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article was previously deleted for appearing like an ad, and I think the creator has a close connection to the subject due to the tone of language used. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 08:46, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nomination, Fails WP:GROUP and WP:GNG - MA Javadi (talk) 15:22, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the Article, I'm agree as above (per nom).Forest90 (talk) 12:13, 22 July 2019 (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 Roscommon University Hospital#Action committee. (non-admin closure) ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 18:44, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Roscommon Hospital Action Committee[edit]

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

It seems like this article should at best be a section in Roscommon University Hospital. This organization has hyperlocal notability - basically a group opposing a single hospital's administration. Toddst1 (talk) 19:54, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Toddst1 (talk) 19:54, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Toddst1 (talk) 19:54, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The organisation has attracted national level coverage in mainstream media over a five year period. Mccapra (talk) 22:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. Keep the title. But summarise and merge the content to sit as a section of Roscommon University Hospital. And redirect the title there. I suggest this because, per WP:MERGEREASON, there will likely always be significant overlap between this organisation and the hospital with which it is associated. And, similarly, there will be duplication of content between the two (as we already have). And/or a requirement for readers to visit both articles to gain the necessary context. These (overlap/content/context) represent three of the four merge reasons. Any one of which might suggest a merge on its own. Summarisation is also likely required because of the overly "newsy" nature of the content in the organisation's article. (We seem to have represented every news headline associated with the organisation as a line in the article. When, perhaps, this is overkill, and each of the protests, some of which were years ago and a few days apart could be covered in one line). Otherwise I would note that there are hospital action groups associated with any number of hospitals. 6 or 7 in Ireland alone that I can think of. And hundreds if not thousands worldwide. These organisations occasionally each receive some coverage. But their notability (and that coverage) doesn't really stand independent of the associated hospital. And so I don't see that such groups (like this one) are notable enough for their own independent articles... Anyway, merge and redirect would seem the most appropriate action to me. Guliolopez (talk) 12:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Guliolopez and WP:FORK. Bearian (talk) 16:42, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Guliolopez. Spleodrach (talk) 05:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Guliolopez and others. The topic itself does not seem notable enough to have its own article. Taewangkorea (talk) 11:34, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. I don't see much coverage in reliable sources. Masum Reza^📞 17:44, 22 July 2019 (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. Clear consensus that the subject fail notability guidelines. Just Chilling (talk) 23:17, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher C. Lee[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. All references non-reliable and not independent sources and the article has a strongly promotional tone. Article was previously deleted via AfD so it might be a candidate for Speedy Deletion via WP:G5 and I'd definitely recommend WP:SALTing. GPL93 (talk) 19:17, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the two sources left (after I trimmed a lot of promotional text) are both Blurb. This is pure promotion, entirely lacking wiki notability. Speedy and salt if possible (both Christopher C. Lee and Christopher Lee (photographer)).ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:03, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTPROMO, absence of WP:RS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:59, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt as unambiguous WP:PROMO resurrected from the sandbox copy stored by blocked user Siavash1398 [15]. The creator of this latest iteration has already been blocked for socking [16]. Bakazaka (talk) 22:11, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No credible sign of notability. That problem aside. . . .

Let me quote the version of 3 February 2019, at 01:37 (and therefore before deletion at AfD):

Christopher C. Lee was born to Taiwanese parents, Jeff Lee and Ai-Ling Tracy Chuang, in San Jose, California. His parents immigrated to California from Taipei, Taiwan and lived in Fremont during his childhood.

He began to develop an interest in various forms of artistry and was heavily involved in street art and hip hop. He immersed himself into streetwear, graffiti and urban culture through exposure to underground artist exhibitions and fashion shows. He conversed with Haight Street, San Francisco artists and designers to gain more knowledge. Growing up in his teenage years, he was known for being a polymath. He excelled in many topics such as physics, mathematics, philosophy, dance, fashion design, computer science, photography, cinematography, business and marketing.

By contrast (or not), here's the current version:

Christopher C. Lee was born to Taiwanese parents, Jeff Lee and Ai-Ling Tracy Chuang, in San Jose, California. His parents immigrated to California from Taipei, Taiwan and lived in Fremont during his childhood.

He began to develop an interest in various forms of artistry and was heavily involved in street art and hip hop. He immersed himself into streetwear, graffiti and urban culture through exposure to underground artist exhibitions and fashion shows. He conversed with Haight Street, San Francisco artists and designers to gain more knowledge. Growing up in his teenage years, he was known for being a polymath. He excelled in many topics such as physics, mathematics, philosophy, dance, fashion design, computer science, photography, cinematography, business and marketing.

(From which I've removed one reference, to a book by the biographee and self-published via Blurb, Inc..)

Therefore yes, this qualifies for deletion as an improper re-creation or as a creation by a blocked user. The article was re-created by Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alexkia1399 and I imagine that it will be re-re-created by some other sockpuppet if not salted. -- Hoary (talk) 08:16, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PS In the wordy message immediately above, I forgot to emboldify the important bits. So here you go: Delete and salt. -- Hoary (talk) 13:53, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - he's one of millions of vendors for these Fortune 500 companies. Bearian (talk) 16:41, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just removed the early life and education sections, which had a Google books reference that led to a BlURB publication by the subject. There's really nothing here source-wise. Article needs SALT.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have added 2 links from Yahoo and Forbes. Both news articles has significant coverage about Christopher C. Lee that would satisfy GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.6.78.120 (talk) 18:00, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Adding these two sources is the same edit that has been persistently added to the article by numerous IPs over the past few days. Neihter help with notability. The first source is a Yahoo republication of an AccessWire press release, so not RS. The Forbes source is one sentence: "Photomochi, founded by Christopher C. Lee, is one such agency that deals with the impact of how visual media today can quickly and succinctly capture an entire message within a single frame or a short film." This editor has a lot of similar interests as the other IP editors adding the same material to the page.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:33, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hear, hear.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:37, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable subject. Don't have enough coverage to include in wikipedia. Zinzhanglee (talk) 15:49, 22 July 2019 (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. Consensus is that this topic doesn't meet the notability guideline. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 19:02, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interaction Styles[edit]

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

The only sources documenting the Interaction Styles scheme itself appear to originate with Linda V. Berens or the Temperament Research Institute. Would need citations to reliable third-party sources to demonstrate notability. Unclear that this scheme is based on any actual research as opposed to just a framework to support a commercial enterprise; MBTIs themselves have been challenged as invalid, and this is a derivation of a derivation of that. -- Beland (talk) 19:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 22:32, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article looks as if it exists to promoted the author's work. It also contains a large amount of original academic-style research. A search for sources leads mostly to the Berens web site. (n.b. There is also a conflicting concept in the field of computer programming that deals with how people interact with computers. There are many more sources for that than there are for this model.) I would have to say GNG fail. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:26, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom and ThatMontrealIP. No evidence of independent notability.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:35, 17 July 2019 (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. Consensus that the subject fails WP:NSONG. Just Chilling (talk) 18:18, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Hook Up Song[edit]

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

Unnecessary seperate article for a song from the movie Student of the Year 2. -- CptViraj (📧) 17:39, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 17:39, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 17:39, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Student of the Year 2 as it lacks enough coverage for an independent article, but it could be a valid search term. Aoba47 (talk) 18:59, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The song isn't any special that it may require any Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harshil169 (talk • contribs) 07:14, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete, the song isn't remarkable at all

Keep Faithfully I see this discussion as useless in point of guidelines on which it is raised, should been source tag or any other been impactful rather than this. Correct tags are only helpful to Wikipedia.Amen IRIEN✓ (aka MAh'ia)🙏 11:59, 16 July 2019 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Manupriy Ahluwalia (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

@CptViraj: Explain "Unnecessary". Guidelines approves this. IRIEN✓ (aka MAh'ia)🙏 12:01, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete I couldnt find any notable awards won by the song. It is to be noted that India doesnt have chart(ing) system, but this song doesnt stand out at all; and there isnt enough WP:SIGCOV. This is just another song. Fails WP:GNG, and WP:NSONG as well. Even though redirects are cheap, it wouldnt make any sense "hook up song" redirecting to the film. Hence no redirect needed either. —usernamekiran(talk) 12:30, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails NSONG. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:54, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article is well modified meeting WP:Song criteria.IRIEN✓ (aka MAh'ia)🙏 15:35, 19 July 2019 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Manupriy Ahluwalia (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

Not really. It does not meet any of the 3 criteria of WP:NSONG. The so-called "Asian UK Charts" and "Mirchi Top 20" do not themselves meet WP:CHART. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:08, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:NSONG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:52, 21 July 2019 (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. Clear consensus that this list fails notability guidelines. Just Chilling (talk) 17:19, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of recurring Mario franchise enemies[edit]

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

Nominated per the suggestion of participants in the Zelda enemies AfD. The list fails WP:LISTN since it has a distinct lack of secondary sources to establish notability. It is Wikia level material that does not fit Wikipedia's current standards. I would also suggest potential WP:SALT of only the most prominent redirects, such as Bob-omb and Piranha plant, to prevent recreation if the article is deleted. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:56, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:56, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:56, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but Merge relevant content to - most likely - Mushroom Kingdom. Referencing the Zelda enemy AFD, we had Universe_of_The_Legend_of_Zelda#Creatures that would be an appropriate replacement for a list. I don't see a "Universe" article for Mario, but Mushroom Kingdom sufficiently covers it (and yes, I know there are some games that don't take place in it proper, but we're not Wikia, that's a trivial issue). That allows keeping brief one-two lines about various enemies, keep blue links to the notable ones, but cuts out the weight of in-universe descriptions. That type of list can then at least to be sourced to strategy guides or the like. --Masem (t) 17:05, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:06, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikia cruft, not independently notable. Sergecross73 msg me 17:13, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:GAMECRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 20:11, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Aoba47 (talk) 20:38, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but merge relevant content per Masem. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:51, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Sergecross73; notability independent of the subject is not established. Take what's relevant to other articles and conduct a deletion - not a plausible redirect nor is the history valuable if the subject will only ever be in-universe, so an alternative to deletion is not practical here. Red Phoenix ^talk 15:07, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nominator. Barca (talk) 15:20, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for edit history and links to items within the list. The list of recurring Zelda enemies was also redirected in the same vain. Utopes (talk) 23:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I see that somebody has undone the redirect at the Zelda article and the is being nominated for deletion. I couldn't care less there. But here, as somebody who had put in effort to clean up the article as best that I could, I can't support a full deletion of this article. I would rather redirect and protect it, as I do know that there are links to individual subheaders of the article. Merge at the least. Utopes (talk) 23:38, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But why? Not to be mean, but “I put a lot of work into it” isn’t a valid rationale for a merge/redirect, nor is anything else you said. Sergecross73 msg me 00:33, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can also continue said work at a fan Wiki if you so wish. That has no bearing on whether it should be here._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:39, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT. Fails the WP:GNG. AmericanAir88^(talk) 15:10, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy - bit last minute, but I'd like to put in a request to userfy this - I want to put in a more detailed search for sources and see if this article is salvageable when I have more time. Also, a friendly reminder to the closing admin that SALT should never be pre-emptive, and unless it has been repeatedly recreated in the part (which the nominator did not prove or mention) this page is not eligible for SALT. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 22:17, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can do all of that without user userfying though. Very little here is usable. If by some miracle you found appropriate sourcing, you’d pretty much have to start from scratch anyways. Sergecross73 msg me 00:17, 22 July 2019 (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. Unanimity that the subject fails our notability guidelines. Just Chilling (talk) 17:06, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge Luis Diaz Granados Lugo[edit]

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

Fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:CREATIVE and WP:ACTOR. Recreation of an article previously deleted via AfD by soft deletion (so I don't think it qualifies for G4) but essentially the same article, with the same non-RS sources and with exactly the same problems – fails WP:AUTHOR because all his work is self-published and has no reliable independent reviews, fails WP:ACTOR as an uncredited role in a short film, fails WP:CREATIVE as a participant in a non-notable local competition (see the previous AfD nomination for more detailed explanation). Richard3120 (talk) 16:30, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 16:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 16:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 16:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 16:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:53, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nom.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:27, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Zinzhanglee (talk) 15:54, 22 July 2019 (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 Speaker616 (talk) 07:50, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 social media strike[edit]

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

Fails notability requirements, at the very least per WP:PERSISTENCE. -- Fyrael (talk) 15:21, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 15:54, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 15:54, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A Reddit page and 1,500 people≠WP:N. Nate • (chatter) 02:51, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. VibeScepter (talk) (contributions) 15:46, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't really find anything about how it panned out. Sanger himself says it failed because of Twitter filters; that should speak for itself, IMO. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 06:33, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOTNEWS. No lasting notability. AmericanAir88^(talk) 15:19, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't look like it succeeded at all, I fail to see how important this will be in the future. – numbermaniac 03:18, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Total complete consensus. WP:SNOW Keep. (non-admin closure) AmericanAir88^(talk) 13:28, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mehrshahr[edit]

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

Per WP:V. See the past discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mehrshahr/here. Also, the subject lacks verifiability meaning it is hard to judge if it is notable. Willbb234 (talk) 14:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Willbb234 (talk) 14:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:01, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep My opinion has not changed since the same nominator put the same article up for deletion a couple of weeks ago. I'm not clear what it is about this article that the nominator thinks can't be verified. The place clearly exists and the sources referenced seem to be adequate to cover what the article contains. If there is some residual uncertainty about specific points this can be covered by adding a citation tag and there is no need at all to delete the entire thing. Mccapra (talk) 15:57, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If we're not at WP:SKCRIT #2, we're close, since this was closed as keep very recently and nothing has changed. This is verifiable with an easy web search, though whether it's a neighborhood or a separate city is unclear and probably best searched in Farsi. SportingFlyer T·C 17:48, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even the nominator agreed that the subject is notable in the prior AFD. The sources that I can read don't provide much in the way of detail (okay, hardly any at all), but they do establish that it exists and is populated, which is really all you need for WP:GEOLAND. If any of the content is unsourced and unverifiable, remove it, but the article itself should stay. CThomas³ (talk) 03:46, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per recent first AFD. --Doncram (talk) 06:52, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep without even assessing the article or sources, on the basis that I shouldn't have to: the article was nominated by the same user less than a month ago, and was kept. Re-nominating it in such a short space of time without any new justification is borderline disruptive, although I'm going to assume it's a genuine misunderstanding of process rather than deliberate. Hugsyrup (talk) 12:55, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think Mehrshahr is notable because there are enough secondary sources available in Persian for this subject. فرهنگ2016 (talk) 14:45, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think Mehrshahr is notable, and since the city clearly exists and the sources referenced seem to be adequate to cover what the article contains. - MA Javadi (talk) 17:10, 17 July 2019 (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. T. Canens (talk) 12:59, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eden Garden Boarding School[edit]

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

No indication of notability, no sources. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 11:42, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 11:42, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 11:42, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 11:42, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 11:42, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Willbb234 (talk) 15:03, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. AmericanAir88^(talk) 16:05, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Barca (talk) 15:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. - MA Javadi (talk) 16:46, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - run of the mill, small school in a small town. It fails my standards for secondary schools. Bearian (talk) 16:52, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the Article. It is not notable itself and also fails WP:GNG.Forest90 (talk) 12:17, 22 July 2019 (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. T. Canens (talk) 12:59, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ZineWiki[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable wiki with no obvious reliable sources anywhere. The page seems to be a combination of WP:G11 or WP:G10 depending on which iteration you look at. I chose G10, but realise this is more fitting the spirit of the policy rather than the letter, and would defer to AfD if challenged. That has now happened, so I'm coming here. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:18, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BOLLOCKS. Literally, get rid of this thing: three sources, each a passing mention. Fails WP:NWEB. ——SerialNumber54129 11:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reads like a personal blog, but not even a good one. Troll magnet. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:52, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. This article just does not die. Its a WP:NWEB violation. AmericanAir88^(talk) 13:38, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, WP:BOLLOCKS, WP:GNG and WP:NWEB. No place for such article in Wikipedia. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:02, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 14:13, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's at least four. The article mentions Niedzviecki 2011 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFNiedzviecki2011 (help). That did not exist at the time of the 2nd AFD discussion.
- Niedzviecki, Hal (2011-07-29). "Zine Wiki and the great indie cultural reservoir". Broken Pencil. No. 84.
Uncle G (talk) 20:16, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article also says "Other media sponsors of ZineWiki include Broken Pencil...." so that's not really an independent enough source that can show notability. It doesn't even explain what a zine is. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:16, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "To write with a broken pencil is pointless." The Broken Pencil website even talks about the results of the prior AfDs. Anyway, it can now be shown that no independent reliable sources exist that mention ZineWiki in depth. Hence, the article should be deleted. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 21:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete reference is too narrow. Barca (talk) 12:12, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is obvious non-notable open-source online wiki. SA 13 Bro (talk) 14:14, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete and close I am surprised it had passed two AFDs before, very clearly non notable Wiki, lacks RS. Meeanaya (talk) 04:05, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable site. Not enough sources. Must be deleted. Agree with all above! -- User:Vermont (talk) 10:16, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article because it's not well sourced and notable subject.Forest90 (talk) 12:19, 22 July 2019 (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. T. Canens (talk) 13:02, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Grady Bryant[edit]

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

Non-notable drag racer, article only sourced with primary sources, along with the article being created by someone directly close to the subject. Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Edits) 10:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Edits) 10:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Edits) 10:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:29, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:29, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsports-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:30, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete page created by an SPA [17]. Books appear to be self published. But I find very few sources, and can find no book reviews except what may be a book review in the Ft. Worth paper, or a feature story - I could not access the article. (Catch this This book's no drag: [NORTHEAST AM Edition], Fort Worth Star - Telegram; Fort Worth, Tex. [Fort Worth, Tex]06 Oct 1996: 14. ), also (What a drag Racer recalls better, cheaper era for sport: [ARLINGTON AM Edition] Harris, John. Fort Worth Star - Telegram; Fort Worth, Tex. [Fort Worth, Tex]05 July 1997: 1.) I am guessing that he lived in Ft. Worth.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:24, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete- Non-notable drag racer, agree with nominator, all signs of WP:COI. Meeanaya (talk) 04:02, 20 July 2019 (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) MrClog (talk) 13:00, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ben_Lee_(violinist)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Ben Lee (violinist)

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

Page is blatant advertising of the individual and his business News & Old (talk) 09:46, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:15, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:15, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:15, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:PROMO issues aside, there are some decent sources.[18][19][20][21][22]. Not amazing, but still. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:53, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources cited provide adequate evidence of notability. The promotional tone can be fixed – it's not a reason to delete. Maproom (talk) 21:21, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clear claim(s) to notability supported by multiple reliable sources. Even if the article is too promotional in tone, AFD is not cleanup. Hugsyrup (talk) 12:57, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and close - Very easily meets WP:GNG, there are multiple sources on the Google. Nominator seems to be a newbie, needs to learn what is notable and what is not. It is clearly wasting time of people here. 14.98.207.62 (talk) 10:03, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- I completely agree with Maproom, sufficient RS, meets WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 04:07, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article, it looks notable as its sources.Forest90 (talk) 12:22, 22 July 2019 (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. Additional sources have been found but several of the 'keep' comments are not well based on policy and there is a question about the depth of coverage. Just Chilling (talk) 15:21, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yuzu (emulator)[edit]

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

No evidence of any real notability, just another emulator. Slatersteven (talk) 13:32, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:52, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:52, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:52, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with nom MaskedSinger (talk) 17:14, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The references in the article don't demonstrate WP:SIGCOV and my standard BEFORE (newspapers.com, Google News, Google Books, JSTOR) reveal nothing not contained therein. Fails GNG. Chetsford (talk) 00:22, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per my same argument over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/XQEMU - not enough reliable sources and WP:NOTJUSTYET/WP:TOOSOON. Until these two emulators get significant coverage, it's highly unlikely a Wikipedia article about that emulator is going to survive. theinstantmatrix (talk) 19:09, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Theinstantmatrix: I've gathered several sources below if you would like to look at them below and potentially reevaluate your vote. There are more than that, such as Rappler and The Next Web, but I kept it to 10 in my comment. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 21:09, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: I'm seeing plenty of reliable sources discussing yuzu (edit: and providing coverage in sufficiently significant depth), including PC Gamer (twice), Gizmodo, HotHardware, eTeknix, Kotaku, TechSpot, Game Revolution, Tom's Guide, Forbes, etc. I'm extremely skeptical that the nonimator performed even cursory WP:BEFORE. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 18:22, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Those are reliable, but not significant. It's a case of WP:TOOSOON._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:02, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They're clearly, unequivocally significant per WP:GNG; literally every single one of those articles features yuzu as its main subject, and that's just what I found through 6 minutes of searching online. This emulator has received significant coverage in a number of articles from several reliable, independent sources since its creation, and as Dream Focus aptly notes, WP:TOOSOON makes absolutely no sense here. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 02:40, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Significant" does not mean that a prominent site mentioned it. That's a reliable source, but a decent amount has to be written on the subject that goes beyond just mentioning it and what it does. I'm not seeing that. Also, Dream Focus votes Keep on almost everything regardless of merit, so I wouldn't take his word as gospel with regards to policy and you should read it yourself._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:52, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What's with this personal insult? I clicked upon all the links posted and saw significant coverage. This isn't just announcements about it, but also mentions of when they made the bestselling game on the Switch run perfectly on it, etc. So over a period of time it still gets mentioned. Significant is context not just the number of words. Dream Focus 11:51, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that significance is not 100% guaranteed to be based on wordcount, but it almost always is. Usually very short articles don't indicate significant coverage, because significant coverage spends a long time talking about the subject and going in-depth._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:05, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"and you should read [the policy] yourself" I already had when I agreed with Dream Focus, so I don't understand your baseless assumption that I hadn't. Moreover, I'm aware that Dream Focus is an inclusionist (I should note that I'm usually not); that doesn't in any way detract from the merit of their argument. I'm just going to get this out of the way so I can stop arguing against these erroneous, red herring definitions of 'significant': ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." And like that, we have at least 10 different articles from reliable, independent sources featuring this emulator as their primary (and, for most of them, only) subject; regardless of their shorter-than-average length, each of them clearly exceeds a 'trivial mention' and constitutes significant coverage. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 13:36, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Significant" mean more then a couple of paragraphs that say "this is coming soon".Slatersteven (talk) 09:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how many of those articles you actually read or even clicked on, but half of the 10 I presented cover progress being made on the emulator. Moreover, the other five are still significant coverage of the then-upcoming emulator; that it was in its infancy doesn't somehow render its coverage insignificant. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 13:36, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

wp:crystal may also come into this. Do you have anything that indicates it is notable now?Slatersteven (talk) 18:16, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a crystal ball situation since as I have said, some of the sources given are after it was developed, it getting coverage for being able to run Super Mario Odyssey. Dream Focus 19:23, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then there is a serious problem with our article, as it does not give any release date and implies it is in fact still largely in development. Its website however does not imply it "yuzu is an experimental open-source".Slatersteven (talk) 19:34, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is still in development (which the website explains had you read into the second paragraph: "[...] with builds actively maintained [...]"). WP:CRYSTAL – as Dream Focus once again aptly points out – in absolutely no way applies here as you speciously assert, because not a single word of the existing article is making any sort of speculation on yuzu's development, and the subject's coverage at this point extends beyond just an announcement of its development's commencement. Please actually read the policies you're citing. "Do you have anything that indicates it is notable now?" Not only do you seem to have a tenuous grasp on what constitutes "significant coverage" and what WP:CRYSTAL is, but you also seem to fail to realize that notability is not temporary, making the question "is it notable now?" entirely irrelevant (if not completely nonsensical) in the context of Wikipedia's notability policy. Moreover, the article clearly meets WP:SUSTAINED as demonstrated by the sources above. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 20:50, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. It may become notable enough for an article in the future._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:02, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clicking on the reliable sources found by TheTechnician27 I see some give significant coverage so this easily passes the general notability guidelines. The too soon arguments makes no sense since its already out, and has been talked about for over a year. Dream Focus 01:50, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no deadline on how soon is too soon. Only that it has to be enough to get significant coverage. Significant as in: something more than "oh hey, this exists, check it out" which those articles are._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:50, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Too soon" is just an essay, not a guideline or policy. And it has ample coverage now Dream Focus 19:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:17, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but heavily rework the article to be at the very least longer than a stub, otherwise Move to draftspace. TheTechnician27 has provided plenty of reliable sources proving and establishing notability but the article itself does not reflect this, since right now it's basically just "this thing exists". --letcreate123 (talk) 16:46, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Woodroar (talk) 02:24, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yuzu was the first emulator and is the one currently furthest along in development. Usually an emulator remains obscure until it can run full games not available on any other platform. The emulator is just now at that stage and actively being developed, I think the article right on time, not too soon. Lunamoff (talk) 04:04, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yuzu can run Super Mario Odyssey, so that is notable. It is not perfectly running though. --Frmorrison (talk) 22:24, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep why delete it? Yuzu already exists, you can downlad a stable version of it (not alpha or beta), and it is not vaporware, its not something like 6G wireless networks, that article was deleted because we don't know if 6G is going to be a thing, specially if 5g succeeds on its mission, unlike 4g. Pancho507 (talk) 02:51, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Yuzu has sufficient RS and stable version, really Dream Focus's comment are noteworthy for a keep vote. Meeanaya (talk) 07:32, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think that there is enough significant coverage in reliable sources, but I think the article should be expanded and reworked to make it longer than a stub. Taewangkorea (talk) 11:37, 21 July 2019 (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) MrClog (talk) 10:17, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tanzim Qaedat al-Jihad[edit]

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

WP:BEFORE: [23][24][25]

This seems to me to be a case of a non-notable terrorist group per WP:GROUP (all the coverage is not all that significant nor show any WP:LASTING impact). Some of the articles I thought were going to be on this group were about the temporary rename of some militant metagroup in Syria. If this is somehow kept, it's likely going to just be a permastub. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:26, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:26, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:26, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:26, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but not strongly. I can also see a case for a redirect to Noordin Mohammad Top because most coverage of the group appears principally to be of him. Reliable sources nonetheless tell us a fair bit about the group, and enough to get the article out of stub territory. This links it to the 2009 Jakarta bombings. This source makes the same link and then has details about the end of the group in February 2010. There is also a BBC article with a fair bit of detail from the time of the group's formation: [26]. This has details of the group's leadership after Top's death. As does this, which appears to be a reliable source. So I think there is enough. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:42, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge with Noordin Mohammad Top, although I would be leery of that option given the group’s continued existence after his death. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:09, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:15, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. At the very least - a merge to Noordin Mohammad Top is in the offing, however I do see continuing coverage of this post-2009 - e.g. [27]. I would consider renaming this to Al-Qaeda in Malay Peninsula (per [28]) as there are multiple "Tanzim Qaedat al-Jihad fi somewhere else" which are not related (beyond sharing militant Islamism). Icewhiz (talk) 08:15, 21 July 2019 (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. T. Canens (talk) 04:56, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Banjo Billy's Bus Tours[edit]

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

Subject is not notable. It is just a small business that received a small amount of press coverage at one stage. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 00:07, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 00:07, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 00:07, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the firm has only local notability. Mccapra (talk) 03:47, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - cute but not notable. The coverage is the local coverage which a tour company would expect to get. Fails WP:ORG. Just Chilling (talk) 14:57, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with nom MaskedSinger (talk) 17:21, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I was able to find national coverage in this NPR Morning Edition transcribed segment; it doesn't contain many facts to use to bolster the entry, but is it enough to demonstrate notability beyond local coverage? Pegnawl (talk) 16:36, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for finding that source, Pegnawl (talk · contribs). I have provided some more sources below. Cunard (talk) 08:27, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

Grout, Pam (2010). Colorado Curiosities: Quirky characters, roadside oddities & other offbeat stuff (2 ed.). Guilford, Connecticut: Globe Pequot Press. pp. 35–37. ISBN 978-0-7627-3978-3. Retrieved 2019-07-10.
Beeson, Julia (2007-01-23). "Boulder: This Colorado enclave boasts 300 days of sunshine per year and endless offerings for the outdoors enthusiast". San Diego Magazine. Archived from the original on 2019-07-10. Retrieved 2019-07-10.
Branaugh, Matt (2009-08-14). "A spin on the wild side: Banjo Billy a Boulder sight". Daily Camera. Archived from the original on 2019-07-10. Retrieved 2019-07-10.
Fodor's Colorado. New York: Fodor's. 2016. ISBN 978-1-101-88027-2. Retrieved 2019-07-10.
Forster, Matt (2017). Explorer's Guide Colorado (Third Edition) (Explorer's Complete) (3 ed.). New York: The Countryman Press. ISBN 978-1-58157-496-8. Retrieved 2019-07-10.
Hernandez, Elizabeth (2016-06-28). "Banjo Billy's Bus Tours' former owner ordered to pay for employee retaliation". The Denver Post. Archived from the original on 2019-07-10. Retrieved 2019-07-10.
Husted, Bill (2006-05-25). "Bolder, Boulder … and Banjo Billy". The Denver Post. Archived from the original on 2019-07-10. Retrieved 2019-07-10.
Porter, William (2012-07-30). "A guide to offbeat ways to tour Colorado". The Denver Post. Archived from the original on 2019-07-10. Retrieved 2019-07-10.
Bryen, Whitney (2014-10-23). "Boulder County's haunted history includes ghosts in Longmont, CU". Longmont Times-Call. Archived from the original on 2019-07-10. Retrieved 2019-07-10.
"On the bus: Taking a spin on Banjo Billy's hillbilly contraption". Daily Camera. 2009-08-14. Archived from the original on 2019-07-10. Retrieved 2019-07-10.
Moore, Kaely (2010-06-11). "Boulder Brew Bus offers behind-the-scenes tours of craft beer industry". Daily Camera. Archived from the original on 2019-07-10. Retrieved 2019-07-10.
Darcangelo, Vince (2009-08-14). "Halloween haunts: Thirteen frightfully fun things to do this All Hallows Eve". Daily Camera. Archived from the original on 2019-07-10. Retrieved 2019-07-10.
Loomis, Christine. "Banjo Billy's Bus Tours". 10Best. USA Today. Archived from the original on 2019-07-10. Retrieved 2019-07-10.
"Best History Lesson on Wheels: Banjo Billy's Bus Tours". Westword. 2015. Archived from the original on 2019-07-10. Retrieved 2019-07-10.
Prokesch, Peter (2012-06-22). "Hop on: Banjo Billy's Beer Tours". 5280. Archived from the original on 2019-07-10. Retrieved 2019-07-10.
Davis, Mallory (2016-06-28). "Bus driver fired after refusing to drive unsafe bus". KXTV. Archived from the original on 2019-07-10. Retrieved 2019-07-10.
Winter, Tom (2014-06-05). "The Biggest Adventure of All: Life. How Banjo Billy took life by the wheel". Boulder Weekly. Archived from the original on 2019-07-10. Retrieved 2019-07-10.
Hood, Grace (2013-06-10). "Banjo Billy's Bus Tour: History, Mystery And Bad Jokes". Morning Edition. KUNC. Archived from the original on 2019-07-10. Retrieved 2019-07-10 – via NPR.

Sources with quotes

Grout, Pam (2010). Colorado Curiosities: Quirky characters, roadside oddities & other offbeat stuff (2 ed.). Guilford, Connecticut: Globe Pequot Press. pp. 35–37. ISBN 978-0-7627-3978-3. Retrieved 2019-07-10.
The book notes:
Can You Say "Yeehaw"?

Boulder

John Georgis isn't exactly sure why people started hollering "It's Banjo Billy!" at the top of their lungs every time they spotted his Boulder tour bus. After all, they don't yell "Hey, it's a taxi!" when a cab drives by or "Look, there's a limousine!" when a long black car with tinted windows whizzes by. But loudly acknowledging Banjo Billy's bus has become a Boulder tradition, one that Georgis's customers, twenty-eight when the tours are sold out, are required to answer with a hearty "Yeehaw!" One customer on each of the twice-daily tours even gets a megaphone and a job as "designated heckler."
But that's just part of the fun of Banjo Billy's Bus Tour, a wacky ninety-minute ride that takes tourists past Boulder's most infamous and little-known hot spots. Guests on the Banjo Billy bus—a refitted 1994 school bus that Georgis bought off eBay and drove to Boulder from Moline, Illinois, after offering to pick up every hitchhiker along the way—have a wide choice of seats. They can choose between several colors of Lazy-Boys, one of six saddles, or the comfy, over-stuffed couch in the back. Although Georgis's dream of turning the bus into a roving log cabin didn't quite pan out (the logs were too heavy to attach to the side of the bus), he was able to add a bunch of faux log fencing (it's lighter weight and scads cheaper), cut off the original roof, and weld a pitched roof that can be removed whenever the weather cooperates. Needless to say, he also added thirteen disco balls and a horn that "moos" like a cow.
Although the nine stops are the same (each guest, for example, hears about the false Boulder gold rush, a haunted hotel with three suicides and only one suicide note, and the obsessive forty-six-year-old Eagle Scout [see the "Man in Uniform" entry that follows] whose merit badge sash mysteriously shows up all over town), each tour is different. Sometimes incredibly different, like the time Georgis's tour included twelve drunk schoolteachers, a prim and proper elderly couple, and a Muslim family of six. But that's another story.
Beeson, Julia (2007-01-23). "Boulder: This Colorado enclave boasts 300 days of sunshine per year and endless offerings for the outdoors enthusiast". San Diego Magazine. Archived from the original on 2019-07-10. Retrieved 2019-07-10.
The article notes:
I SIGN UP FOR A GUIDED CITY TOUR on day two. Banjo Billy’s Bus Tour showcases (screams, actually) Boulder’s offbeat personality. It’s an 80-minute stand-up routine/tour/historical lesson enjoyed from the seats (take your pick between a saddle or recliner) of a 1994 yellow schoolbus reincarnated as an eccentric shack-on-wheels. Cruising around Boulder, “Banjo Billy” alternates historical accounts of Boulder’s earliest inhabitants and notable buildings with ghost stories and grisly true-crime tales. I spend my last night in Boulder at The Bradley, on Pearl’s east end. It masterfully combines the homey feel of a mountain bed-and-breakfast with the upscale style and privacy of an urban boutique inn.
Branaugh, Matt (2009-08-14). "A spin on the wild side: Banjo Billy a Boulder sight". Daily Camera. Archived from the original on 2019-07-10. Retrieved 2019-07-10.
The article notes:
Banjo Billy’s Bus Tours is rolling out, bringing a tour that weaves throughout the city every day during the summer months. The company is in the process of lining up a license from the Colorado Public Utilities Commission, the state agency that oversees commercial transportation.
Customers will get an 80-minute tour highlighting history and mystery, voting to hear which of the 10 ghost stories and five murder tales – sans JonBenet Ramsey, since all of them pre-date 1966 – available from a hillbilly tour guide while viewing notable historical sites, the Mork & Mindy house included, of course.
...
In 1999, Georgis trekked through Europe solo, using bus tours as opportunities to meet people. More often than not, he says he endured a lot of boring ones.
...
In February, Georgis headed to Illinois and shelled out $6,000 to buy an 11-year-old bus. He drove it back and got to work, calling upon his girlfriend Beth Godden to help with design.
Fodor's Colorado. New York: Fodor's. 2016. ISBN 978-1-101-88027-2. Retrieved 2019-07-10.
The book notes:
Banjo Billy's Bus Tours offer 90-minute tours of downtown Boulder, Chatauqua Park, the Hill, part of the University of Colorado, and other notable sites, aboard a bus that has been retrofitted to look like a shack. The tour's lighthearted, quirky commentary focuses on ghosts, history, and crime stories. Your seat may be a saddle, couch, or bench upholsterd with funky, mismatched fabrics.
Forster, Matt (2017). Explorer's Guide Colorado (Third Edition) (Explorer's Complete) (3 ed.). New York: The Countryman Press. ISBN 978-1-58157-496-8. Retrieved 2019-07-10.
The book notes:
Guided Tours: Banjo Billy's Bus Tours (banjobilly.com). To be fully immersed in the weirdness that is Boulder, take one of Banjo Billy's bus tours. There are several from which to choose. History tours (my favorite), ghost tours, and brewery tours are all conducted from the crazy hillbilly shack on wheels. Not your run-of-the-mill drive through town. The tours are entertaining as well as informative. Tickets in the $15–25 range. (They have also started giving tours of Denver.)
Hernandez, Elizabeth (2016-06-28). "Banjo Billy's Bus Tours' former owner ordered to pay for employee retaliation". The Denver Post. Archived from the original on 2019-07-10. Retrieved 2019-07-10.
The article notes:
The former owner of Banjo Billy’s Bus Tours has been ordered to pay a previous employee $11,000 for retaliating after an employee refused to drive an unsafe tour bus, officials said Tuesday.
The U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration found reasonable cause to believe John Georgis, previous owner of the Boulder-based business that gives guided bus tours around Boulder and Denver, retaliated against an employee, according to a U.S. Department of Labor news release.
Husted, Bill (2006-05-25). "Bolder, Boulder … and Banjo Billy". The Denver Post. Archived from the original on 2019-07-10. Retrieved 2019-07-10.
The article notes:
And every day of the week you can take one of Banjo Billy’s Bus Tours. It’s a hillbilly shack on wheels. Inside it has six saddles, four La-Z-Boys, some couches, 13 disco balls and a rubber chicken. Tour leader John Georgis, a.k.a. Banjo Billy, says it “reeks of Boulder. It’s kinda funky, it’s kinda weird.” His special Bolder Boulder tour includes a tribute to Boulder’s Olympic marathon champion Frank Shorter. Check it out at banjobilly.com.
Porter, William (2012-07-30). "A guide to offbeat ways to tour Colorado". The Denver Post. Archived from the original on 2019-07-10. Retrieved 2019-07-10.
The article notes:
In Denver, Banjo Billy’s Bus Tours can get a bit more raucous. The website bills it as “the funkiest 90-minute tour you’ve ever taken.”
Founder John Georgis launched the tours in 2005 — the idea had percolated in his head for six years before that — and takes 25 people in a converted school bus around a bevy of historic Denver sites. (They also offer tours in Boulder.)
The bus looks like a tin shed — Georgis calls it “a shack on wheels” — and the tour emphasizes the offbeat: rowdy times in pioneer Denver, shootings, the U.S. Mint robbery, illegal shenanigans and even the occasional ghost.
Bryen, Whitney (2014-10-23). "Boulder County's haunted history includes ghosts in Longmont, CU". Longmont Times-Call. Archived from the original on 2019-07-10. Retrieved 2019-07-10.
The article notes:
Macky’s mystery is one of several stories that enticed John Georgis to launch Banjo Billy’s Bus Tours. The company offers tours that include ghost stories of Denver and Boulder year round and expanded ghost tours in October.
Georgis took dozens of tours around the world as research before starting the company and found that people worldwide were intrigued by dark history and stories of the paranormal.
“We like to know that what we see is not what we get,” Georgis said. “There’s a core group that’s saying ‘life is not finite,’ and these stories give us some hope that when we die there’s something more.”
The story of Boulder’s only lynching victim makes up one of Georgis’ favorite stories on the October tours.
"On the bus: Taking a spin on Banjo Billy's hillbilly contraption". Daily Camera. 2009-08-14. Archived from the original on 2019-07-10. Retrieved 2019-07-10.
The article notes:
As a Boulder native, I just had to check out the hillbilly bus that’s been driving around Boulder all summer, offering tours of my hometown.
So on a recent Saturday, I put John Georgis, owner of Banjo Billy’s Bus Tours, to a test: Could he really tell me things I don’t know about a town I’ve lived in for 22 years – and could he successfully entertain me on a Saturday morning after a night of drinking?
...
Before the tour begins, Georgis tells me how his company came into existence. He says it began on a whim when, after traveling through Europe and going on bus tours to meet fellow Americans, he realized that Boulder could use a tour like that.
...
Georgis decided to create a more entertaining version of the bus tours he took in Europe, and bought a used 1996 school bus off eBay for $6,000 in February. He purchased a one-way ticket to Moline, Ill., to pick up the bus. Georgis says that’s when reality of his decision sunk in.
Moore, Kaely (2010-06-11). "Boulder Brew Bus offers behind-the-scenes tours of craft beer industry". Daily Camera. Archived from the original on 2019-07-10. Retrieved 2019-07-10.
The article notes:
Eccentric tour bus company Banjo Billy’s and the West End Tavern on Pearl Street are inviting beer lovers to “hop on” to the Boulder Brew Bus for an inside look at three local breweries.
John Georgis, also known as Banjo Billy, teamed up with longtime friend Mike Lawinski, general manager at the West End Tavern, for a business venture giving people the chance to experience the world of locally brewed craft beer.
...
Banjo Billy’s Bus Tours is known around town for its unconventional approach to touring the cities of Boulder and Denver. Old-school buses, decked out to look like hillbilly shacks, trundle through the streets and entertain passengers with ghost stories and historical facts.
Darcangelo, Vince (2009-08-14). "Halloween haunts: Thirteen frightfully fun things to do this All Hallows Eve". Daily Camera. Archived from the original on 2019-07-10. Retrieved 2019-07-10.
The article notes:
All of the fake ghosts are fine, but what about the real ones? Boulder has more than its share of ghouls — including a mischievous Boy Scout, a trio of hotel suicides and a hanged man — who still reside in the People’s Republic. You can hear their stories, and possibly even meet them, with the coolest and quirkiest tour guide this side of the afterlife, Banjo Billy.
“You get to learn a little history, and you hear some good ghost stories,” says John Georgis, aka Banjo Billy.
In 2005, Georgis built a bus resembling a shack on wheels and started giving historical driving tours of Boulder. He let his passengers pick what types of stories they wanted to hear, and the most requested tales were ghost stories.
So every October, Georgis runs Banjo Billy’s Ghosts of Boulder, a two-hour tour of 13 of the city’s most notorious haunted locales, including stops at the Boulder Theater, Macky Auditorium and the Hotel Boulderado.
The ghost tour has become so popular that this year Banjo Billy started a second tour in Denver, which goes to places like Cheesman Park and the Grant-Humphreys Mansion.
Loomis, Christine. "Banjo Billy's Bus Tours". 10Best. USA Today. Archived from the original on 2019-07-10. Retrieved 2019-07-10.
The article notes:
Sometimes the best way to sightsee is to let someone else do the planning, research, thinking and driving. Say hello to Banjo Billy's Bus Tours, which put a lot of fun into the mix, too. Join guides on an old school bus tricked out with unconventional seating (couches, recliners and a saddle chair) and big windows for taking in the sights. Most tours last 90 minutes and meet near the big blue bear on 14th street. Depending on the day and season, there are history tours and ghost tours, all of them chockfull of anecdotes, historic factoids and a healthy dose of humor. Brewery tours last about three hours and include three pints and three different breweries.
"Best History Lesson on Wheels: Banjo Billy's Bus Tours". Westword. 2015. Archived from the original on 2019-07-10. Retrieved 2019-07-10.
The article notes:
History tours of Boulder and Denver, brewery tours all over, nighttime ghost tours: Banjo Billy delivers the goods with funk and flair. Patrons can pick their seats on the hicksterish bus (try the recliner, the couch or, uh, the saddle); they also get to vote on just how much they want to hear about various attractions along the route. The knowledgeable guides breeze through the ninety-minute tour with field-tested patter, and it's all over before anybody can quiz you on your expanded knowledge of local culture and trivia.
Prokesch, Peter (2012-06-22). "Hop on: Banjo Billy's Beer Tours". 5280. Archived from the original on 2019-07-10. Retrieved 2019-07-10.
The article notes:
Eight years ago, John Georgis bought a dilapidated school bus to give tours of Boulder. He took the top off, refurbished the bus with wood planks, and started giving tours as Banjo Billy’s Bus Tours. (He earned the nickname when a friend teased him that he looked like a hillbilly in the bus. Georgis embraced the idea.)
Recently, Banjo Billy piloted a successful brewery tour in Boulder, so Georgis drove the idea to Denver. He describes his bus as “a shack on wheels,” fashioned with saddles, couches, recliners, disco balls, a sound system, and a rubber chicken. In its third week, his Brewery tour offers a wacky glimpse of Denver, as seen through the pint glass.
Davis, Mallory (2016-06-28). "Bus driver fired after refusing to drive unsafe bus". KXTV. Archived from the original on 2019-07-10. Retrieved 2019-07-10.
The article notes:
A previous owner of Banjo Billy's Bus Tours will have to pay a former employee $11,000 in back wages, interest and punitive damages after it was found the employee was terminated for refusing to drive an unsafe bus, according to the U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
Winter, Tom (2014-06-05). "The Biggest Adventure of All: Life. How Banjo Billy took life by the wheel". Boulder Weekly. Archived from the original on 2019-07-10. Retrieved 2019-07-10.
The article notes:
Georgis started Banjo Billy’s Bus Tours in 2005 when he purchased his first bus, a 1994 International on eBay.
...
“The first year was fun,” says Georgis. “You have the excitement and it’s new. But year two it really tested me. We didn’t know when to do tours. I hired some people at the start, and they didn’t work out. But the third year got much easier, everyone we hired was over 40, and their maturity really helped — 2007 was great, we expanded to Denver 2008, that was difficult, but not as hard as 2006, and in 2010 it blew up. It has been a lot easier since.”
Hood, Grace (2013-06-10). "Banjo Billy's Bus Tour: History, Mystery And Bad Jokes". Morning Edition. KUNC. Archived from the original on 2019-07-10. Retrieved 2019-07-10 – via NPR.
The article notes:
The rambling, funky ride called Banjo Billy's Bus Tours, in Boulder, Colo., is equal parts history, crime stories and comedy. It's all woven together by John Georgis — better known as Banjo Billy — in a playful, "choose your own adventure" style.
...
Overall, the experience is less Pirates of the Caribbean than Beverly Hillbillies. As we ride through Boulder's affluent downtown streets, Banjo Billy's remodeled school bus attracts plenty of stares. And what's better than cruising in a log cabin on wheels that occasionally makes barnyard sounds at pedestrians?
...
One common question on the tour has to do with Georgis himself. How did he get the name Banjo Billy? In 2005, he quit his job as a data analyst and bought a school bus on eBay. Then he remodeled it, raising the roof and removing the windows.

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Banjo Billy's Bus Tours to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

Cunard (talk) 08:27, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Banjo Billy's Bus Tours has received significant coverage in the Globe Pequot Press book Colorado Curiosities. This national source is sufficient for Banjo Bill's Bus Tours to meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Audience, which says, "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary." The company has also received short reviews in the nonlocal sources San Diego Magazine and USA Today's 10Best. It has received significant coverage in multiple articles in the local source the Daily Camera.
Cunard (talk) 08:27, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss Cunard's sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard's source findings. AmericanAir88^(talk) 16:07, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, looked as if this would be a delete as, although the article has plenty of sources, they are nearly all local, until the indomitable Cunard cast their eye upon this and has provided sources that are non-local, so WP:AUD is met as well as WP:GNG. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:31, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the hard work and determination of Cunard. WP:SIGCOV is met. Lightburst (talk) 18:20, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:29, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksander Mikic[edit]

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

Actor who doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:57, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:57, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:57, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:06, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:06, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with nom, a decent smattering of roles but nothing significant enough to meet WP:NACTOR and not nearly enough coverage for WP:GNG. Hugsyrup (talk) 13:02, 16 July 2019 (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. Article meets WP:NAUTHOR, as demonstrated post-improvements by David Eppstein. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:41, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Olivia Milburn[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet any of the criteria at WP:ACADEMIC. The Book Award isn't really prestigious, to my knowledge. She's not highly regarded in the field (perhaps decades down the road) and isn't a holder of a distinguished chair at a major university. White Whirlwind 咨 06:12, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 July 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:03, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:03, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:03, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:04, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject fails WP:NPROF in all criteria. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:17, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I just added 11 published reviews, at least two each for four of her books. I think that's enough for WP:AUTHOR. And the China Daily and WSJ sources go a long way towards WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:AUTHOR. XOR'easter (talk) 21:50, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:47, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:AUTHOR, a number of her books are "well known" ie. Cherishing Antiquity in a couple of hundred libraries (a good indicator), and have plenty of reviews (meeting WP:NBOOK, and entitled to standalones), winning a Special Book Award of China, although there is no WP article for it (yet:), also means she probably meets WP:ANYBIO - "1.The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor". Coolabahapple (talk) 02:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, certainly meets WP:NAUTHOR with the reviews added by David Eppstein. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:43, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the sources added suffice for the subject to pass WP:NAUTHOR. Mccapra (talk) 03:29, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:28, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Water Network[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage for this website. The article states that it "is the largest online knowledge sharing platform for the global water professionals", but I can't find any verification for that (This was brought up in February 2018 on the talk page). The article was created by single purpose account AquaSPE, which is the same name as the company that owns the website. Fails WP:WEB and WP:V. SL93 (talk) 03:40, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 03:41, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:05, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Low traffic AfD but such comments as have been made point to 'delete'. Just Chilling (talk) 14:28, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ikeda Center for Peace, Learning, and Dialogue[edit]

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

This organization does good work, but per WP:ORGCRIT they have not received reliable, independent, and significant coverage. Sources found during the WP:BEFORE process are their own self-created works, non-profit directory entries, and WP:ROUTINE announcements of events. The books that are already cited in the article are about the organization's general areas of interest, or about works done by some of their associates, but are not about this group themselves. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:35, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The book Global Citizens published by the Oxford University Press, one of the references I used, is an independent book from a variety of scholars from the U.S and U.K. who are not associated with the organizations related to Daisaku Ikeda. The Soka Gakkai is one of the many organizations he is either president of or founder of. The SG is a active supporter of the UN and the Center's work on themes of care for the earth, nonviolence, abolishing war and the Earth Charter seem important enough to appear in Wikipedia.Ltdan43 (talk) 20:14, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:35, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:35, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I could find some superficial coverage in some scholarly sources here,here and here, as well as two news sources which mention them,[29][30] but no significant coverage, nor of their previous name Boston Center for Research.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 18:35, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This organization seems to be doing good and important work, but it's the kind of work that would not necessarily r3eceive a lot of press or other coverage - conferences, seminars, etc. A significant institutin should not be deletged from Wikipedia jsut because its significance is subtle.--Daveler16 (talk) 18:17, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 00:30, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 01:26, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:08, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:32, 15 July 2019 (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. The nominator notes that the article fails GNG. E.M. Gregory brings two sources. Based on those sources, two keep !votes arise and one person strikes their delete !vote. This indicates that 3 individuals agreed that the sources establish notability. There is no explenation why these sources would not count as RS, and as such, closing as keep. (non-admin closure) MrClog (talk) 09:49, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Richard A. Fineberg[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. No sources in article, and I couldn't find any usable ones in a search. Marquardtika (talk) 01:18, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cant find any sources to support this either. Mccapra (talk) 03:43, 7 July 2019 (UTC) based on the sources found and inserted I no longer think this article needs to be deleted but don’t feel the sourcing is strong enough for me to switch to an a ‘keep’ vote either. Mccapra (talk) 22:37, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:55, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:55, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Created 12 years ago and this is the best it now is? MaskedSinger (talk) 17:26, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article may be notable man in need of an editor. He was more active a decade and more ago. GBooks search on Richear Fineberg oil: [31], Richard Fineberg Alaska [32]. E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:17, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources brought to light by E.M. Gregory. The editors who argue delete appear to believe that notability depends on the whims of one particular day's incidental Google search within the past X number of years, or that we're here to be a popularity contest instead of a collaborative information resource. At any rate, the excuse "I couldn't find any sources" offered by both was shown for what it really is by E.M. Gregory. While I don't have time right now to examine all the sources, the ones I saw indicate that he's been cited as an expert on energy policy for nearly half a century. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 23:07, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:01, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's unfortunate the only detailed personal biography appears to be his own website, but I have to agree with RadioKAOS here: the source searches don't seem to have been very careful. This book on Alaskan politics (published by an imprint of University of Nebraska Press) describes Fineberg as "one of Alaska's most diligent oil industry watchdogs". This publication by Congress confirms that he has worked as a senior state and federal government advisor in various capacities. I can find half a dozen instances where he's been cited as an authority in Congress just from a cursory search—in fact the earliest citations go back to his PhD work in 1968 (p. 1442). That seems like a very long record of wide citation as an authority. @MaskedSinger: "It's been here for 12 years and it's still bad" is explicitly not a valid argument for deletion; see WP:NOEFFORT. —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 14:02, 15 July 2019 (UTC) — Further research turns up an article about him in The Province from 2009, so that makes at least two independent bios (this article and the Congress one). —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 14:32, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As such a Wikipedia expert Nizolan you would be aware that WP:NOEFFORT is not actually Wikipedia's policy. MaskedSinger (talk) 14:08, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @MaskedSinger: I am not claiming to be an expert and I am not claiming NOEFFORT is a policy; I am just pointing you to an essay that explains why it is an invalid argument. AfD is a process for deciding whether an article can and should be included on Wikipedia, not for general comments on the quality of an article. —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 14:11, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article fails WP:GNG - adding anything else would be window dressing. MaskedSinger (talk) 14:22, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You need to explain that rather than asserting it. (GNG isn't a policy either, by the way.) —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 14:32, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added three sources to the article and rewritten it to reflect them. —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 15:13, 15 July 2019 (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. After two relists I am not seeing signs of a consensus emerging. Just Chilling (talk) 14:26, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Johannes Wahlström[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete - Renominating because the subject is only notably sourced for his relation to Wikileaks and through his father Israel Shamir, both of which have their own page. There are no independent indications of notability in terms of sources, outside the Wikileaks controversy and his relation to his father. The latter two are covered in their own articles, and it seems content forking to use them for a separate article. Otherwise, there is no indication of independent notability, relevant to his actual work. The article itself relies on archives of non-notable sources, except one English article mentioning him in relation to the Wikileaks controversy, and that is through the link to his father and to Wikileaks (both of whom have own article that can cover this issue). Avaya1 (talk) 03:27, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:34, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:34, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:35, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:35, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Was kept as late as December 2017. I see nothing that would change my !vote since then. Still passes WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 06:04, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It isn't mentioned in the English version of the article but it should be noted that Wahlström was also part of the team behind the TV documentary that exposed the fatal research fraud of Paolo Macchiarini (see information about the program as presented by SVT, Swedish national television: [33]) /FredrikT (talk) 07:26, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reasonably decent article. Cant see anything that would push this into Afd. scope_creep^Talk 22:31, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the WP:RS referring to him as notable, or secondary-sources coverage about him (also the sources cited only mention in him in relation to content covered in other articles - his father and wikileaks)? Where is the evidence of any independent notability?Avaya1 (talk) 11:56, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 12:33, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Reminds me of the guy from the girl with the Dragon Tattoo! MaskedSinger (talk) 17:17, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MERGE to his father Israel Shamir. As Nom states, there's not much here. The argument for keeping, such as it is, is that he was dumped by a leftist Swedish newspaper after making up quotes to support a racist conspiracy theory article, and that he was willing to bear false witness in support of his boss Julian Assange, making slanderous accusations against two women who accused Assange of rape. I have improved the page somewhat, he has fans (among conspiracy theory fans, I suppose) but I see no evidence evidence of the kind of accomplishment that meets WP:JOURNALIST. Merge with his Dad, with whom he shares his Jew-hatred, use of fake quotations and fake facts, and boot-licking worship of Julian Assange.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:17, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Length=notability. ThatLawStudent (talk) 20:37, 7 July 2019 (UTC) Striking !vote by a sockpuppet. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:35, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Length ≠ notability. Especially when, as here, many of the claims to notability, employment history are unsourced. And the well-sourced material is about his having been fired for falsifying quotations in his writing. When a low-level journalist is fired for faking his material, it doesn't make him notable. Just temporarily unemployed. He now works as paid propagandist. Michael Weiss of the Daily Beast dismisses Wahlström as a "fabulist hack". E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:54, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per E.M.Gregory to Israel Shamir. Appropriate since it's the basis of his very-slim notability. JSFarman (talk) 00:15, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:59, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, does the Swedish WP article, that expands on his achievements discussed in the english article, assist here? Coolabahapple (talk) 23:36, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article seems to be self-promotional (pehaps written by the subject) and much of its claims are self-sourced again (i.e. to IMEMC, which is the subject's website). There's little evidence of notability for an English Wikipedia article, especially as it was the basis for this article. Avaya1 (talk) 01:53, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There does not seem to be much independent notability, only through his relations with Wikileaks and Israel Shamir. Taewangkorea (talk) 00:01, 22 July 2019 (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 Starbomb. Nothing very clear in the way of consensus but what is clear is that there is no significant support for keeping a standalone page. The best fit appears to be 'redirect' but with the history retained, under the redirect, to allow any sourced content to be merged as a subsequent editorial action. Just Chilling (talk) 14:23, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The TryForce[edit]

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

Mburrell recently made an argument against this notability of this album, stating as follows, "The album's wiki-article citations don't appear to include any news coverage, although it does have chart rankings. [...] Web search found no news coverage of the album. (Multiple independent source requirement to show notability)." They later clarified that this was a general notability guideline (WP:GNG) issue. It was promptly removed from List of 2019 albums. If this album does fail GNG, then surely it is not viable to be an article topic. I've decided to open this up for debate since it not only concerns the future of this article, but also the future of List of 2019 albums and lists similar to it. I have decided to stay neutral in this conversation. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 08:13, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 08:22, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 08:22, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No coverage? There's this. I'm not sure why it would be removed from a list article while we still have an article on it. Subjects don't have to satisfy the clunky GNG to have articles. The fact that this charted in so many places makes it worth covering. Whether as a standalone article or within the band article should be the question. The chart placings at least need to be in the band article. It shouldn't be at AfD. --Michig (talk) 09:03, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep and comment on prior comment. I am not arguing for the deletion of the article for Starbomb's The Tryforce although I don't think it is well supported. The question for AfD is if the article for the album is non-notable or notable. That is covered under the Wikipedia project for Notability (music), under the paragraph of Recordings WP:NALBUM and the follow-up sub-paragraph of albums. Per the album sub-paragraph, if the album meets the general notability guideline, WP:GNG, it merits a standalone article. Otherwise, per the recordings main paragraph, the album must meet any of 7 criteria. Criteria number 2 is that the album should have appeared on any country's national music chart, which The TryForce has done so. Therefore, using criteria provided by Wikipedia, the article is adequate to be kept even without significant reliable news sources.

Since PhilipTerryGraham mentions the future of List of 2019 albums, I will expand on the criteria for listing albums and why The TryForce is inadequate to be listed there. A criteria should be selected for inclusion of data on lists, specifically for large lists. The list of albums for various years from 2005 to 2019 tend to be large lists, with about five of them on the Wikipedia database for longest articles Wikipedia:Database reports/Articles by size, so in general the lists have been regulated by a criteria for notability, specifically the general notability guideline WP:GNG, which has at it's paragraph header the statement "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." The paragraph then goes on to define the key words in the sentence, such as significant coverage and reliable. Using this criteria, The TryForce fails general notability, and should not be included on the "List of 2019 albums", even if it has an Wikipedia article. There is criteria for keeping articles, and there are criteria for including items on lists, and they are not mutually inclusive. As a side-note, the List of 2017 albums and the List of 2016 albums were subject to a discussion and a mandate to reduce size of the lists, which is one reason strict enforcement of notability requirements was imposed on the other lists in the series

Geek.com mentioned by Michig does not appear to be a news website, looks like a blog or fansite. When I look it up in Wikipedia, Geek.com is described as a technology news weblog. Wikipedia has a project page for listing reliable sources, Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and it is against personal and group blogs, which leaves open to interpretation organized blogs. Mburrell (talk) 00:22, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article on Geek.com. It may have started as an amateur website back in 1996, but since been sold a few times and has been a commercial website for many years, now owned by Ziff Davis and run with a professional staff. It isn't a blog. --Michig (talk) 08:28, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I encourage you to go to the Geek.com article and edit it to reflect current information, with supportive citations. For my other comments, one good news source citation still fails the need for signficant coverage (more than one, preferably four or more in my mind. Still, that goes towards my Keep vote for The TryForce album article. Mburrell (talk) 03:20, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 12:34, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:59, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Starbomb with any sourced/relevant information merged to the article. I can understand some limited notability being demonstrated with the sources and the chart placement so I am opposed to a deletion, but I do not see enough coverage to support an independent article. Aoba47 (talk) 19:02, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. T. Canens (talk) 04:55, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unfathomable Ruination[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG. Source never says whether the oxygen stunt actually happened or not, it merely previews it, and is the only non-routine source cited in the page. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 16:09, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 16:09, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found an article from Stereogum that features an image of the band being placed in the box and the schedule of when they performed in the box in London's Gherkin neighborhood. Don't know if it counts, but it does have an image of the box. [34] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thrashbandicoot01 (talk • contribs) 02:09, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 16:09, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 16:09, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 00:28, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:33, 15 July 2019 (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. OK, having lots of readers is not a reason to keep an article under notability guidelines. The question of whether GNG is met isn't so clear, as most of the sources are stated to be plot summaries rather than detailed analysis and there is the - somewhat vague - concern about non-independent sources raised. A merger was also discussed, but there does not appear to be a clear consensus either pro ("usual practice for minor characters") or con ("target is too long"). My sense is that while the keep arguments probably out-weigh the delete ones owing to several uncontested sources, the merge/redirect or no case would need a dedicated discussion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:52, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Myrcella Baratheon[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

XFD created on behalf of User:Aoba47. No reason provided at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Myrcella_Baratheon but I have asked User to add the reason to this AFD.

Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reason: The above character does not appear to have enough independent coverage from third-party, reliable sources to warrant a separate article or fulfill WP:GNG. I would not opposed to a redirect to the List of A Song of Ice and Fire characters list where an entry for the character already exists. Aoba47 (talk) 01:36, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew D. (talk) 08:57, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability. Also, no independent coverage of the subject exists, and she played a pretty minor role in the TV series and is not a POV character in the books either. The only other option would be to redirect it to the list of characters. Keivan.f^Talk 02:13, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is easy to find sources which discuss the topic in detail such as The gruesome Game of Thrones death viewers were never shown or Why Myrcella Baratheon Was Recast. The subject therefore passes WP:GNG and our policy WP:PRESERVE applies. Note also that the page gets substantial readership – up to 5000 per day – and, as its title is quite distinctive, this demonstrates a significant level of interest which is best satisfied with a separate page. Andrew D. (talk) 08:36, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that those two sources alone are enough to establish enough notability for a separate article. The information on her recasting and death scene could easily be sourced and contained within her entry in the list. Further sources would need to be cited to support notability. The character's "distinctive" name is not relevant to the conversation, and page views do not support notability. Aoba47 (talk) 13:53, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find further sources though, I would be more than happy to look at them. Aoba47 (talk) 13:56, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of A Song of Ice and Fire characters Very little can be said about this minor character except plot info. The recasting problem is not unique to to this character. Prior attempts to discuss the matter have not gone anywhere.[35] The argument that the topic deserves its own article because of the character's unusual name does not even merit a response. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:42, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that the article title and character's name is unique and distinctive. All those many thousands of readers were therefore looking for this particular subject, not some namesake or other topic. Why should we deny them and retrict readership to admins? Andrew D. (talk) 13:57, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A unique and distinctive name is not a reason why a character should have a separate article. Neither is page views. It should boil down to is there a significant amount of coverage on the character and I personally do not believe that is not the case. I can only see a limited amount, and it would be more beneficial for you to locate more sources from third-party, reliable sources to support your keep argument. Aoba47 (talk) 14:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article has had 165,806 views in the past 90 days. Probably far more popular before the character was killed off. Wikipedia claims to be an encyclopedia, but 99% of the people coming to it just read entertainment articles. Anyway, the general notability guidelines are technically met with the significant coverage found in reliable sources provided. Dream Focus 12:09, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Page views is not a part of WP:GNG and not a strong argument to keep an article. I am not arguing against entertainment articles as I only work with those types of articles with my own projects. The "significant coverage" has not been met, as I can currently only see a limited coverage that justifies the character having an entry on the character list and not a separate article. Aoba47 (talk) 13:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for all my responses. I will stay out of the conversation and let other editors discuss this. Thank you to everyone who has participated so far. Aoba47 (talk) 14:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of A Song of Ice and Fire characters. Even the few reliable sources that discuss the character are brief, don't go much beyond plot, and even mention within them what a minor character it was. The character therefore does not have the significant coverage needed to have a standalone article. However, the character does have an entry in the character list, which this should definitely be redirected to, and since that section is currently completely unsourced, those few, minor sources that are present in this article should be merged over. Rorshacma (talk) 15:42, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of A Song of Ice and Fire characters as a non-independently-notable character but one that can merit mention in a list._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a notable character from a notable mainstream production. Enough Wikipedia readers turn up each day to show that this subject is important to readers. GNG is met by the existence of references. Esquire, Hello Magazine, Hollywood Reporter, Los Angeles Times, And passing mentions in Business Insider and many others. Lightburst (talk) 13:30, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the links. Aoba47 (talk) 02:53, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

None of those references provide any information that could be used to expand this article beyond simple plot summary. The only one that provides more than a passing reference or a detailed recounting of the events of the show is Esquire, which is wrong to take an unreliable book narrator's statement that she had her ear cut off as plain fact -- there is almost no "word of god" in ASOIAF. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:36, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanation. Aoba47 (talk) 03:40, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Lightburst Sydney Poore/FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 01:38, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FloNight: Please see WP:PERX. You need to provide your own rationale, rather than just piggy-backing on another editor whose argument was just waiting to be rebutted. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:36, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Our readers are interested in it. "This article has had 165,806 views in the past 90 days." To update it 157,197 from today's date.

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myrcella Baratheon. The "train wreck" continues
WP:NEXIST covers it.
WP:Sigcov in multiple WP:RS. A seminal character from a notable mainstream production. Reader views of this article demonstrates enough Wikipedia readers turn up each day to show its immportance. GNG is met by the existence of references: Miller, Matt. "Why Game of Thrones Actually Made This Key Death Less Violent". Esquire., Griffiths, Emmy (June 13, 2017). "This Game of Thrones death was meant to be MUCH more gruesome". Hello Magazine. Myrcella Baratheon's death originally involved mashed up bananas!, Wigler, Josh (April 26, 2016). "'Game of Thrones': How Dorne Story Completely Diverges From the Books". Hollywood Reporter., and Richardson, Aimee; Day, Patriick Kevin (July 31, 2014). "Former 'Game of Thrones' actress makes 'Princess for Hire' video" (Video). Los Angeles Times. The actress who played Myrcella Baratheon on the HBO series "Game of Thrones" makes a joke out of her character's recent recasting., and Renfro, Kim (October 25, 2015). "These 5 'Game of Thrones' characters were recast — and you probably didn't even notice". Business Insider..
No compliance with WP:Before. The list goes on, and if there had been compliance with WP:Before we would not be having this discussion. These sources were ~~can (and should) be~~ added to the article.
The article is WP:Hey, and not what it was when it was proposed for this 2nd deletion. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:26, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be too nitpicky, but WP:TRAINWRECK refers to "a nomination of a group of related pages for deletion or renaming which fails due to the disparate nature or worth of the pages" (as explicitly stated in Wikipedia policy) and only one article was nominated during this AfD so (The "train wreck" continues) is not applicable here. Aoba47 (talk) 17:46, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. Only a single car is involved in this WP:AFD nomination; and yet it continues. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:54, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Still not a train wreck at all according to Wikipedia policy, but thank you for the links. Aoba47 (talk) 19:37, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thirteen, please do not edit other editors' talk page comments. If this were the first time such an incident had occurred with you I could take it as a good-faith mistake, but this kind of stuff keeps happening with you.[36][37] Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, any claim that WP:HEY applies when even a cursory glance at the article reveals it still consists exclusively of in-universe plot information is ridiculous. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:46, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hijiri88 It is my practice to ignore you. You are toxic. We should not interact. ~~But I will not ignore another false claim that I edited someone else's comments. Yhis iisd part of alarger pattern. I will not be accused of adoption by silence in the face of false accusation.~~ Apparently I inadvertently did alter one of your comments in a nonimaterial way. It was unintentional. I apologize for that. ~~So, retract it, or go to WP:ANI.~~ Your ongoing and needless hostility should cease. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:33, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please retract the above You are toxic. personal attack, and do not respond again if you are not going to focus on content: you claimed that WP:HEY applied here, I pointed out that it didn't, and you responded with a needlessly off-topic rant about how you don't like me -- this is obviously inappropriate. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:40, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Res ipsa loquitor. You have your opinion, and I have mine. Yada yada. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:44, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per the links provided by Lightburst. Coverage by reliable sources. Dimadick (talk) 15:56, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dimadick: What is in those sources other than in-universe plot information? I looked through them and couldn't find anything useful. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:46, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article was viewed numerous times during the past month because GoT had just ended in May 2019. Thus, it's reasonable to assume that GoT-related articles attract readers for a few months after the finale, but there's no guarantee that this will be the case after a year or so. Keivan.f^Talk 03:37, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Yeah, I've been trying not to point out the obvious fact that this show is extremely controversial at the moment and so virtually all articles related to it will have their view counts artificially inflated. I'm not sure if Andrew and the others were aware of this fact and actively chose to ignore it (in which case they should really be sanctioned for tendentious cherry-picking of data) or were not aware of it because they know absolutely nothing about the topic and were only !voting here because they saw an opportunity to undermine a Wikipedia process they don't like. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:59, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The fact of the views exists. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:07, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but it won't in a year's time, and probably didn't a year ago. I don't know about you, but since about a month before Season 8 premiered I've had Game of Thrones related advertising showing up before every second or third YouTube video -- it makes sense that during this particular space of time all Game of Thrones articles on Wikipedia would have their view counts artificially inflated. I saw the same phenomenon with my List of Man'yōshū poets article, which on April 1 had about 50 times as many page views as the previous day despite being only very peripherally related to the announcement of the Reiwa era name. We can assume that all GOT character articles are similarly enjoying high page view counts at the moment for this reason alone (not actually a valid reason to keep the article regardless of the cause) -- it doesn't change the fact that this character's lack of real-world notability means nothing has been, or can be, written about her except in-universe plot information. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:46, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The fact of the views will still exist. That you don't like them is just your opinion. Your WP:Crystal Ball argument is without evidence. The timing here was due to the date the AFD was started. Claiming that there was manipulation of data or a conspiracy is unsupportable. And indeed, y8our invoking WP:ANI is aNOTHER hollow threat. And the beat goes on. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:33, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The fact of the views will still exist. WP:CRYSTAL. Are you claiming that Myrcella will somehow be resurrected and get her own spinoff? That's the only way I can imagine her article not going the way of all the other GOT articles and leaking viewers over the coming months once the current Internet explosion dies down. And again, page views aren't a valid reason to keep the article, and neither you nor anyone else has addressed the lack of any third-party sources that allow us to discuss this topic in a real-world, non-plot-summary fashion. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:33, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of A Song of Ice and Fire characters, no true real world notability. Nothing much of value to merge to the list, but feel free to add any info there. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:12, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:NTEMP applies to this article: once a subject is notable, it remains notable (even long after interest wanes). The main consideration regarding notability as it relates to the subject is found in the WP:NEXIST policy (reliable sources exist). I am unaware of any WP:POLICY regarding retaining an article based on the number of views the article may receive in the future. The article easily passes WP:SIGCOV with multiple WP:RS. Lightburst (talk) 17:12, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comment. I agree that the matter of page views is not really relevant to whether or not the subject is notable enough for its own article. The discussion should be kept entirely on whether or not the subject has received enough coverage from third-party, reliable sources to justify an independent article. I did a before search before nominating the article, and I was uncertain if the sources that I had found were enough to warrant an article outside of the character's entry in the list so I wanted further feedback on it. I will respect whatever the consensus turns out to be, and thank you to everyone for their participation. Aoba47 (talk) 17:17, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have done a copy-edit to the article, and did two major changes. I removed the "Character description" section completely as it was just repeating plot summary already present in the "Storylines" section. I have also moved the sources from the lead and tried to show what information they represent. I am still uncertain on whether or not these sources are enough to establish notability for a completely separate article as opposed to the list entry. However, I wanted to try and make a more fair representation to anyone interested in participating in the discussion. I will of course respect whatever the consensus is. Aoba47 (talk) 18:14, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47 It is not appropriate for the nominator of an article to make wholesale changes (References and sections removed) while the AfD is in place. It is a demonstrable COI based on the fact that the nominator has proposed the article for deletion. Other editors are working to improve the article, it is best to let this process continue without making reductions based on your opinion. Lightburst (talk) 18:22, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the article to better integrate the sources into the actual article and represent their information for editors who would like to get involved in this discussion. Before, they were all just clumped together in the lead for no apparent reason. I did not remove any references as you erroneously claim, and I fail to see how it is a conflict of interest when I am genuinely trying to make information clearer for this discussion and editors to form their own opinion on whether or not said information is enough to form notability for a separate article. Aoba47 (talk) 18:59, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - in addition to sources mentioned above (and those in the article), a very very quick search shows, Entertainment Weekly, St. Louis Post Dispatch, Bustle.com. Not included in these links are Buzzfeed and Huffpost. Reliable sources exist & hence we should keep. Victoria (tk) 20:00, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the message and the links. I personally believe the links in the article and the ones you have provided above are enough to satisfy WP:GNG. @Victoriaearle: Should I request for the AfD to be withdrawn to the change in my personal opinion or should it be left open until a consensus has been reached has there are several redirect/merge votes? Aoba47 (talk) 20:21, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My advice would be to just let it run its course. I literally spent five minutes on this, didn't look in the g-news archives where there might be more to be found, so I'd say wait and see what other people come up with and let the closing admin make a determination. Personally I'd oppose a merge to List of A Song of Ice and Fire characters, which is overly long and does seem to lack reliable sourcing. In my view this character, Jaime & Cersei's daughter, who does get quite a lot of ink in the books, has reliable sourcing, is able to stand on its own. Victoria (tk) 20:28, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response. I am not sure how I missed the links during my before search, but I am grateful for the participation in the above discussion. Here are some additional ones that I have found: Zimbio, The Week, Screen Rant, Vulture.com, Vulture.com, and Bustle to help with the discussion. Aoba47 (talk) 20:38, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. We are all fallible. WP:AGF mistakes happen. That's why they put Delete keys on computers.

It is one of the beauties of the WP:Article rescue squad, which mobilizes other sets of eyes, including diverse backgrounds, and their research skills. I know there are detractors, but in my experience the focus is on article improvement, not mobilizing !votes. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:52, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of ASoIaF characters - Probably resulting from being a minor character in both the books and TV series, I can't find any independent sources about the character, apart from a ScreenRant article about why Myrcella was recast (and failed to provide an answer) and a few articles about why her death wasn't that violent. This shows to me that the subject of this article does not meet WP:GNG by a long shot. --Ted Edwards 17:38, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the character list per above, per usual practice for minor characters. Everything about GoT gets coverage, this doesn't mean we need to become a fan wiki. We still select topics according to theid significance in the real world. Sandstein 05:43, 22 July 2019 (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. T. Canens (talk) 04:53, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kaitlin Cullum[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. There does not appear to be enough coverage on this person to warrant an article. Aoba47 (talk) 01:40, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:41, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, sadly I searched high and low. No non-trivial coverage of the subject. Lightburst (talk) 02:25, 20 July 2019 (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 Single-cell analysis#Mass spectroscopy–based methods. Consensus has developed for a merge with which all the commentators are happy. Just Chilling (talk) 01:00, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Micro-arrays for mass spectrometry[edit]

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

No evidence of notability is provided. The references are all primary research articles coauthored by the technique's inventors Renato Zenobi and Paweł Urban, at least one of whom (or someone close to them) appears to have been involved in coauthoring this article. This article appears to be part of a citation farm or self-promotional circle jerk attempting to establish notability for Paweł Urban. The scientific paper that originally described this technique has been cited only 82 times since it was published in 2010 [38], and Google Scholar is known to be very generous in what it counts as a citation. This is not a highly cited article. There is no evidence (e.g., reliable second-party sources) that this is a notable technique deserving of a Wiki article. Bueller 007 (talk) 01:43, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:24, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Single-cell_analysis#Mass_spectroscopy–based_methods. There's a paragraph there that does a good job of summarizing a number of related technologies, and a sentence on this technicque would fit right in. I agree that as a separate article it looks more like a circle-cite exercise than anything else. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:34, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a merge with a longer article would be appropriate. Vorbee (talk) 06:16, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge is a good resolution. Bearian (talk) 16:47, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is fine with me. Bueller 007 (talk) 19:11, 21 July 2019 (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. Low traffic AfD with no consensus. It has been over a fortnight since the last comment so I can't justify a third relist. Just Chilling (talk) 00:54, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The D&E[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG/WP:NTOUR. No substance, but concert dates and setlists Kleuske (talk) 18:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Kleuske (talk) 18:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Kleuske (talk) 18:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: more background information has since been added and the article has been cleaned up, citing reputation sources Kodi 6 —Preceding undated comment added 08:34, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:18, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:22, 15 July 2019 (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.