Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 July 26

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 25 July	27 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 no consensus defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:24, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hallelujah Junction, California[edit]

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

It's clear from every source I've found that this was never more than a road junction. The notability issue is that it is name-dropped a lot: by weird place names people, by roadside oddities people (there was a tree heavily decorated with shoes nearby which was removed a few years back), by rockhounds (a distinctive smoky amethyst is collected nearby), by mining stats people (there was a pumice mine to the south: you can still see the hole, which is listed separately on GNIS), and by the composer John Adams, who supposedly has a house in the general vicinity and who named both a piano piece and his autobiography after the place. All that was ever at the spot itself, as best I can determine, was the intersection and a store, both of which have been heavily modified over the years. I'm not terribly convinced by the origin story for the name, which sounds frankly like fakelore, especially since neither Fairchild's county history nor Gudde's gazetteers appear to mention the place. So, is the place notable because it's mentioned a lot? Right now, an accurate article would say "Hallelujah Junction is a highway intersection where there is a gas station and store," and then go on to list some of these other things. I'm not fully convinced this is enough, especially since the one reference which would unquestionably remain is the John Adams material, which is at best two sentences in his article. Mangoe (talk) 14:39, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:08, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:08, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have improved the article with history and this source: https://www.tipurdy.org/hallelujah-junction-2/ A place that had an airport seems important; the fact it was obliterated for a freeway is merely interesting. Goldenrowley (talk) 18:55, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:44, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sourcing. -The Gnome (talk) 09:30, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The "tipurdy.org" source presented above, while interesting, doesn't seem to fit Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source that might confer notability onto this subject—it looks like someone's blog that doesn't necessarily have editorial oversight beyond the judgment of its sole author. Even if it was reliable, I feel that we would need additional evidence of signficiant coverage beyond that single paragraph about the subject (the relevant notability guideline here is WP:NGEO). As it stands, I am inclined to agree with the nominator that this appears to have been a WP:MILL road junction. The song Hallelujah Junction by John Adams is interesting, and there is some coverage available about the song [1][2], but the road junction does not automatically inherit notability from the song—we would need evidence of independent coverage about the junction specifically. The name of this place appears to be ambiguous with a Wildlife Area also in California. Mz7 (talk) 19:05, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It was just a road junction which doesn't lend itself to notability. On top of this, it is a former road junction. The lack of depth of notable, reliable sources is another nail in the coffin for this article.Knox490 (talk) 16:31, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 22:30, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had some time to take a closer look at this subject today, and I wonder if another angle to this might be WP:GEOLAND, which provides near-inherent notability to Populated, legally recognized places. This entry in the Geographic Names Information System seems to categorize this as a "populated place", and there are some news articles that describe it as some kind of landmark or community, e.g. [3][4]. I'm not sure if this is the kind of place that enjoys automatic notability per GEOLAND. Mz7 (talk) 20:23, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nothing is inherently notable. Per WP:NGEO, "geographical features meeting Wikipedia's General notability guideline (GNG) are presumed, but not guaranteed, to be notable." A presumption of notability can be (and often is) challenged. The General Notability Guidelines calls for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." I don't believe this subject meets this standard. Glendoremus (talk) 21:50, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A generic information article sourced with enough references.DMySon 06:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Rachel Bloom. This discussion seems to have produced a rough consensus against both keeping and outright deletion with opinions on whether to merge or simply redirect being divided. In such cases my customary practice is to go with the least drastic option. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:28, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Shit (You've Got to Vote)[edit]

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

The subject does not pass our notability standards. Not a notable song per WP:NSONG and the video is not notable Lightburst (talk) 12:58, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 12:58, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 12:58, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 12:58, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I was able to find some pretty high level reliable source coverage pretty easily, both in and outside of the music industry. The Vanity Fair source even makes claims that stunts such as this may have negatively affected voter turnout in the 2016 US Election. I assume this was just a failure to follow through on WP:BEFORE. Sergecross73 msg me 13:56, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73: I did a before. It is easy to get attention with a profane song about Trump. I suspect whether this article is kept or deleted may also depend on your politics WP:NETRUMP like this lyric...Donald Trump is human syphilis. Sometimes WP:IAR is a good option. Lightburst (talk) 14:06, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

None of that is relevant. NETTRUMP (an essay) says Not every single thing Donald Trump does deserves an article. If the latest outrage has no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed not to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. To summarize, the subject you’ve nominated is not something Trump did, and it is covered by reliable sources. It’s the opposite of NETTRUMP. Your defense of the nom is even worse than the nom itself. It easily meets the WP:GNG with this level of sourcing. Sergecross73 msg me 14:59, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that you are upset with the nomination. I cited an essay about Trump and it was the only semi-humorous essay I could find which is tangentially relatable - we often use essays in AfDs WP:FANCRUFT etc. I do not think the article warrants inclusion in an encyclopedia. The article was prodded when I saw it this am, so I am sure I am not alone in my determination. We determine notability in this way. Soon enough there will be a consensus so there is no need to get cross. And I did cite a policy WP:IAR. So we disagree. I will retreat from the AfD unless I am pinged. Cheers! Lightburst (talk) 16:16, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not upset. Just pointing out all the flaws in the nomination and subsequent doubling down on its defense. You also haven’t given any valid reason to invoke IAR. The irony here is that you seem to be the only one treading on any WP:ATAs, your response to all these mainstream reliable sources feels like a mix of WP:NOTNOTABLE and WP:IDONTLIKEIT violations. Sergecross73 msg me 17:35, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Sergecross73. I think there is a sufficient coverage in sources of this particular Holy Shit. Yes, it is related to US politics and certain politicians, which only makes it more notable. My very best wishes (talk) 15:21, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Hollywood Reporter, Billboard, Vanity Fair and Time: obviously reliable, independent sources, speaking about the topic directly and in detail. The rest is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. — Toughpigs (talk) 17:59, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~: It needs a little expansion. Nonetheless, with reliable sources indicated above, the article is good enough to pass WP:NSONG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Just because something gets coverage in light of it being part of a much bigger event does not mean it itself is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:41, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, you’re citing WP:NOTNEWSPAPER for...a song...? That received dedicated reliable source coverage in and outside of the music industry? In very mainstream sources? That doesn’t make any sense. Sergecross73 msg me 00:22, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination That man from Nantucket (talk) 06:02, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Rachel Bloom. Notable? Doubtful. WP:NOTEWORTHY? Clearly. BD2412 T 00:10, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rachel Bloom. I grabbed some news sources with the intent of expanding this, but got stuck beyond the basic description present in the article now. Although there are several sources, they are all immediately focused on the 2016 election. I would expect for clear notability, there would be sustained coverage of it since. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rachel Bloom since that seems like the fair compromise to outright deletion. Since this doesn't seem notable enough on it's own but someone might still search for it. So, a redirect seems reasonable. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:40, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There are clearly a number of sources covering this, but there has been insufficient discussion to determine whether they are substantive enough to warrant a standalone article, or whether a merge/redirect would be more appropriate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 22:27, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Selective merge to Rachel Bloom#Career 3rd para maybe. A line about the existence and subject of the song to that para seems reasonable. Per Articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album, and I don't see this article growing beyond a stub, ever. Also, incredibly poor arguments by nominator. Failing to mention why exactly this fails notability when high quality sources exist, and then citing WP:NETRUMP and WP:IAR, for what exactly, to reinforce own bias? - hako9 (talk) 07:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Rachel Bloom. The Vanity Fair piece gives the song a paragraph as one example of celebrity endorsements of Clinton, the rest are short 'check out this trending video on Youtube!' articles. Made big enough splash to mention in her biography but not big enough for a standalone article. --RaiderAspect (talk) 13:58, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rachel Bloom#Career: Changed my vote, per reasons above. Though the article is good enough to pass WP:NSONG, I believe there's no way the article can be expanded. It's best to discuss it in the target article. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 00:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Rachel Bloom since the subject lacks the attributes for a stand-alone article. -The Gnome (talk) 10:52, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:35, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bithumb[edit]

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

The only proper articles written about this Bitcoin exchange were written when it was robbed. Wikipedia is not a news site, and a robbery does not warrant notability. Notability therefore not established. Ysangkok (talk) 16:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 16:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 16:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 16:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 16:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 16:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 16:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 16:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 16:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 16:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am ambivalent. Sometimes a news event is notable. So I will think on this. Lightburst (talk) 17:36, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lightburst:, are you aware of how many hacks have happened over the years? Wikipedia never covers the actual hack in detail (details are almost never released anyway!), so there is not enough content for an article. If you think the subject of exchange hacks is notable, we should just have our own list that would be analogous to that one. One could also cover security issues in general to include stuff like this one. Note that I was employed at Electrum at the time of that issue. --Ysangkok (talk) 18:44, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MILL. It's a bitcoin exchange that was hacked. So what? Bearian (talk) 03:15, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article needs some clean up. Nonetheless, it has received some coverage, including its venture to the indian market, its introduction of BTCS, its launch of Bithumb Coin and its partnership program, among others. With these reliable sources, the article is good enough to pass WP:NCORP. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:03, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Superastig: those are all PR publication websites that are pay-to-publish and will publish absolutely anything. They are not reliable sources, they are not reputable sources, they cannot be cited! Notability has NOT been demonstrated, I maintain my position that the article must be nuked. --Ysangkok (talk) 19:18, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

Jang, Hyeji; Han, Sung H.; Kim, Ju Hwan; Kown, Kimin (2020). "Identifying and Improving Usability Problems of Cryptocurrency Exchange Mobile Applications Through Heuristic Evaluation". In Ahram, Tareq; Falcão, Christianne (eds.). Advances in Usability, User Experience, Wearable and Assistive Technology. Cham, Switzerland: Springer Nature. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-51828-8_3. ISBN 978-3-030-51827-1. Retrieved 2020-07-25.
Park, Jae-hyuk (2020-06-25). "Bithumb IPO plan facing skepticism". The Korea Times. Archived from the original on 2020-07-25. Retrieved 2020-07-25.
Kim, Chang Yeon; Lee, Kyungho (2018). "Risk Management to Cryptocurrency Exchange and Investors". 2018 International Conference on Platform Technology and Service (PlatCon). Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. doi:10.1109/PlatCon.2018.8472760. ISBN 978-1-5386-4710-3. Retrieved 2020-07-25.
Lee, Kyung-min (2020-01-16). "Bithumb dispute taken to Tax Tribunal". The Korea Times. Archived from the original on 2020-02-16. Retrieved 2020-07-25.
Park, Ga-young (2019-01-17). "Crypto exchange Bithumb scales down on poor market conditions". The Korea Herald. Archived from the original on 2020-07-25. Retrieved 2020-07-25.
"Hackers steal Bitcoin funds from Bithumb exchange traders". BBC Online. 2017-07-05. Archived from the original on 2020-07-25. Retrieved 2020-07-25.
Hyun-su, Kim (2018-05-16). "Bithumb's Plan to List New Cryptocurrency Faces Backlash". BusinessKorea. Archived from the original on 2020-07-25. Retrieved 2020-07-25.
Kim, Cynthia (2017-12-12). Coghill, Kim (ed.). "Bitcoin exchange Bithumb says 'right' regulations in South Korea would boost market". Reuters. Archived from the original on 2020-07-25. Retrieved 2020-07-25.

Sources with quotes

Jang, Hyeji; Han, Sung H.; Kim, Ju Hwan; Kown, Kimin (2020). "Identifying and Improving Usability Problems of Cryptocurrency Exchange Mobile Applications Through Heuristic Evaluation". In Ahram, Tareq; Falcão, Christianne (eds.). Advances in Usability, User Experience, Wearable and Assistive Technology. Cham, Switzerland: Springer Nature. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-51828-8_3. ISBN 978-3-030-51827-1. Retrieved 2020-07-25.
The abstract notes:
This study aims to discover the usability problem of KDEX and Bithumb. Four experts conducted a heuristic evaluation based on ten heuristic evaluation items. Twenty-six usability problems were found in KDEX and eighteen in Bithumb.
The article notes:
Bithumb is an exchange started in 2014. It is a large cryptocurrency exchange that has 4.5 million members with a global trading volume of about 1 trillion won per day.
The article notes, "Most problems of Bithumb were in structure and shortcut". ... Bithumb has the most problems with the logical composition of the screen."
Park, Jae-hyuk (2020-06-25). "Bithumb IPO plan facing skepticism". The Korea Times. Archived from the original on 2020-07-25. Retrieved 2020-07-25.
The article notes:
Bithumb's planned initial public offering (IPO) could face a setback as it has yet to announce details as to how it plans to address some outstanding issues that could prevent it from achieving a successful IPO filing here, mostly related to recent cryptocurrency taxation issues.
...
Stock market experts, however, warned that Bithumb's IPO will take a long time and the company may fail to fulfill the strict requirements to become a listed firm.
...
Bithumb's governance structure is shrouded in secrecy. According to its regulatory filing, Bithumb Korea's largest shareholder is Bithumb Holdings that had a 74.1 percent stake as of the end of 2019.
Kim, Chang Yeon; Lee, Kyungho (2018). "Risk Management to Cryptocurrency Exchange and Investors". 2018 International Conference on Platform Technology and Service (PlatCon). Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. doi:10.1109/PlatCon.2018.8472760. ISBN 978-1-5386-4710-3. Retrieved 2020-07-25.
The article notes:
Bithumb offers both the security services provided by the exchange and the user's notes at the same time. Users should keep in mind the information about cookie information management, vaccine check before accessing the exchange, and information about fake domain name and texts. Users who are not particularly familiar with security can take primary prevention through these instructions. In addition, Bithumb provides the following security services [7].
Lee, Kyung-min (2020-01-16). "Bithumb dispute taken to Tax Tribunal". The Korea Times. Archived from the original on 2020-02-16. Retrieved 2020-07-25.
The article notes:
Korea's leading cryptocurrency exchange Bithumb filed a complaint with the Tax Tribunal against the National Tax Service (NTS) over what it considers a "groundless" tax the agency imposed on its customers, the company said Friday.
The firm claims that the cryptocurrency is not a legally recognized currency and therefore lacks the authorities lack the grounds to impose a tax of any kind.
Park, Ga-young (2019-01-17). "Crypto exchange Bithumb scales down on poor market conditions". The Korea Herald. Archived from the original on 2020-07-25. Retrieved 2020-07-25.
The article notes:
BTC Korea, operator of Korea’s largest cryptocurrency exchange Bithumb, is paring down its workforce as the market is showing no signs of an upturn, according to industry sources on Jan. 17.
Once the largest crypto exchanges in the country, Bithumb has retrenched 30 employees, accounting for about 10 percent of its workforce. The company offered retirement packages that included support to help them change jobs.
"Hackers steal Bitcoin funds from Bithumb exchange traders". BBC Online. 2017-07-05. Archived from the original on 2020-07-25. Retrieved 2020-07-25.
The article notes:
One of the world's largest cyber-currency exchanges is under investigation after it acknowledged that one of its employee's PCs had been hacked.
South Korea-based Bithumb has said that it believes personal details of more than 30,000 of its customers were stolen as a result.
...
Bithumb allows its members to buy and sell the virtual currencies Bitcoin and Ethereum. It is South Korea's biggest cryptocurrency exchange, based on recent trading volumes, and one of the five largest in the world.
Hyun-su, Kim (2018-05-16). "Bithumb's Plan to List New Cryptocurrency Faces Backlash". BusinessKorea. Archived from the original on 2020-07-25. Retrieved 2020-07-25.
The article notes:
Top South Korean cryptocurrency exchange Bithumb has withdrawn its plan to list a new cryptocurrency following a backlash from investors over suspicious business ties.
Bithumb announced plans to list a new blockchain platform Popchain (PCH) on its official website on May 15, but it postponed the scheme the next day after media reports that just two accounts owned over 90 percent of all traded tokens, which are also known as Popcoin.</blockquotee>
Kim, Cynthia (2017-12-12). Coghill, Kim (ed.). "Bitcoin exchange Bithumb says 'right' regulations in South Korea would boost market". Reuters. Archived from the original on 2020-07-25. Retrieved 2020-07-25.
The article notes:
Bithumb has been at the center of the speculative frenzy. With about 70 percent of market share in South Korea, it has been the dominant place that ordinary South Koreans go to buy and sell the virtual currency.

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

Cunard (talk) 11:24, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BBC Online noted about Bithumb in 2017, "It is South Korea's biggest cryptocurrency exchange, based on recent trading volumes, and one of the five largest in the world."
Reuters noted in 2018, "Bithumb has been at the center of the speculative frenzy. With about 70 percent of market share in South Korea, it has been the dominant place that ordinary South Koreans go to buy and sell the virtual currency."
The Korea Times noted in 2020, "Bithumb's planned initial public offering (IPO) could face a setback as it has yet to announce details as to how it plans to address some outstanding issues that could prevent it from achieving a successful IPO filing here, mostly related to recent cryptocurrency taxation issues. ... Stock market experts, however, warned that Bithumb's IPO will take a long time and the company may fail to fulfill the strict requirements to become a listed firm."
A 2020 Springer Nature article that discusses 18 usability issues in Bithumb noted in 2020, "Bithumb is an exchange started in 2014. It is a large cryptocurrency exchange that has 4.5 million members with a global trading volume of about 1 trillion won per day."
Cunard (talk) 11:24, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment By now, Cunard well knows the criteria for establishing notability and ref-bombing an AfD with references that fail the criteria in WP:NCORP is annoying and disruptive. Cunard is also aware that "sufficient coverage in WP:RS" is also not accurate since the "coverage" must meet particular criteria. It's quality of coverage, not volume, which we require. Cunard also knows that we require references that are *not* based on company announcements, are more than a *mention-in-passing*, do not rely entirely on material produced by the company and is not just a review of their software but *about the company*. Using Cunard's numbering, (1) fails because it is a mere mention in passing, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. (2) is a speculative piece on whether the company will, or will not, float on an exchange. At best some might consider it a weak reference, relying on a mixture of anonymous sources, emotive language such as "tightened his grip" and "unloaded his shares" and speculation about future plans. On analysis, it fails WP:CORPDEPTH. (3) is a mere mention in passing and relies on information provided by the company, has no in-depth discussion/opinon about the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. (4) is a report about the company taking a case against the Korean government, has no in-depth information on the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. (5) relies entirely on a company announcement of lay-offs, fails WP:ORGIND. (6) is a report based on the company announcing that it had suffered a data breach. Run-of-the-mill reporting, based entirely on the company's report, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. (7) is entirely based on company announcements and unattributed speculation. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Finally, (8) is also based on a company announcement and discusses the bitcoin market and bubble in general, fails WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:14, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete totally agree this is WP:MILL the sources are extremely trivial and don't pass WP:GNG or any of the specific ones. Even the ones provided by Cunard. All of which seem to be WP:MILL and trivial topics. None of establishes the topic as being notable. Ref bombing a bunch of trivial unreliable sources doesn't change that. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:31, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow substantive discussion of the sources presented.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 22:19, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per GNG. The BBC call the operation the fifth largest in the world, a clear claim of notability, the BBC are renowned for careful journalism. The company are involved in some rather interesting events, including the robbery of their exchange, ^[1]^[2], by North Korea!? It seems like they were also involved in a scandal which almost led to bitcoin being banned in South Korea^[3]. obviously once the BBC have noticed there are dozens of other stories. The Korean times is reliable, Reuters is reliable and the BBC is reliable. PainProf (talk) 01:13, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@PainProf: the BBC has no way to verify this information, market caps are huge and cannot be seen as evidence of notability. Whatever counts as interesting to you does not warrant notability. We have no guideline claiming that we have a bitcoin exchange becomes notable because it was the fifth largest in 2017. Actually, I can't even find the claim ("fifth largest") in the BBC articles you linked. Can you show me? --Ysangkok (talk) 17:11, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"It is South Korea's biggest cryptocurrency exchange, based on recent trading volumes, and one of the five largest in the world." Here It says the BBC have based that off trading volumes which suggests a journalist verified the claim. PainProf (talk) 17:29, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@PainProf: How would a journalist verify the authenticity of trades performed inside an exchange? It took months before people found out about the fake trades on MtGox. There had been no time for research like that for a news story like this. BBC is mainstream media, it wouldn't be able to verify anything. Note how other non-industry media like the London Review of Books helped Craig Steven Wright claim he is Satoshi. --Ysangkok (talk) 17:49, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If an outlet such as the BBC makes a claim like that you would have to find a more reliable source saying it is not true. Regardless, it is a highly reliable source for notability. BTW in my opinion if there are articles such as this it is better if you include them in the nomination and describe why they are not reliable sources as they are not particularly hard to find, you should list them and describe why each is unreliable. The Reuters article in particular refers to a second scandal... PainProf (talk) 17:58, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Last I checked Wikipedia doesn't peddle in scandals. If your talking about the Reuters article referenced at the bottom of the AfD, which I assume you are, it isn't even about Bithumb and they are only mentioned briefly in relation to the police raiding them over "alleged" tax evasion. Last time I checked Wikipedia is pretty solid on not peddling in things that were alleged to happen. Especially since according to this follow up article by CoinDesk "No charge of tax evasion was found" and Bithumb paid the taxes without any objection. So, essentially nothing ended up happening outside of the initial scandal. That it was mentioned in Reuters isn't really relevant to that. I think trying to claim that kind of thing proves notability "because Reuters" is another good example of the WP:NOTNEWS standard that you and ToughPig have maligned me for citing. Sources like that, that keep getting pushed by people who just want to keep articles, and the usually passing trivial nature of "scandals" that you seem to think make things notable are exactly what WP:NOTNEWS is talking about. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:03, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We dont second guess RS and question how BBC would have determined something based on an editor's opinion (aka WP:OR. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:07, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This one is easy. The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Not a single one of the references in the article or linked to above meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that do. Topic fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:38, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to be notable for the hacking event, which is poorly covered in the article currently, but a huge number of RS as pointed out above meet WP:GNG. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:08, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just GYI, "a huge number of RS" is *not* a criteria in WP:NCORP for establishing notability. Also, *none* of the references above or in the article meet the criteria. Can you point to specific references that you believe meet the criteria? HighKing⁺⁺ 15:14, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:01, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nishan Sumanadeera[edit]

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

This does not appear to be a notable entrepreneur or businessman. The article was created by a PR firm, and many of the sources in the article's citations are either dead or nonexistent. Aside from routine interviews (e.g. [5]) and a mention in this "venture capital journal", it does not appear that either this person or the consultancy firm he founded have been significantly covered in reliable sources. Mz7 (talk) 22:10, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mz7 (talk) 22:10, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Mz7 (talk) 22:10, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable. --Devokewater @ 00:03, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk)
Delete since subject fails WP:GNG, plain and simple. And because the stink of promotion is particularly nasty on weekends. The fact that the article has been created and then curated by this kamikaze account does not help either. Have PR people working in Wikipedia taken to hiding themselves now?-The Gnome (talk) 10:58, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per all of the above Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 20:15, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:36, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MimbleWimble[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. No coverage that I could find in RSes on a WP:BEFORE - all coverage is primary, unreliable or crypto sites. No suitable redirect targets. Contested PROD, though the evidence proffered was this IBTimes story - but IBTimes is listed on WP:RSP as generally unreliable, so not a source of notability. David Gerard (talk) 22:03, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 22:03, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since no evidence of notability adequate for a stand-alone article can be found. The text seems great for a brochure, though. Someone should save it up. -The Gnome (talk) 11:04, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater @ 10:51, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:05, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deep Trouble (Goosebumps episode)[edit]

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

Covered in List of Goosebumps episodes. One episode of a 74-episode anthology series does not meet WP:EPISODE/WP:N. AldezD (talk) 21:25, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AldezD (talk) 21:25, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. We've gotten to the point where every single episode of every single TV show is thought to be inherently notable. It is not. Delete--there's nothing of note in this article. Drmies (talk) 21:35, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I thought there might be a bit of coverage on this episode, as it appears to have been the series finale for the TV series, but that one top ten listicle that is being used as the sole source appears to be the only bit of coverage. All other sources appear to be talking about the book, not the adaptation. Redirecting to the List of Goosebumps episodes might be feasible, but ultimately kind of pointless - this probably is not a particularly useful search term, and nothing actually links to here except for that list itself. Rorshacma (talk) 21:51, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - What is even the point of this article?!?!. Why articles are popping up anywhere and everywhere about individual episodes of series is beyond my comprehension. I get it if the episode is one of a kind, like The finale of Friends which set records in attracting viewers, but most of the the information that this article encompasses is present on the series' list of episodes and everything else is just trivia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunshine1191 (talk • contribs) 02:17, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The author of this article has a record for creating bad articles. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 16:57, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater @ 18:30, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:NTV. -The Gnome (talk) 11:00, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 08:56, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:08, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Line of succession to the former throne of Jodhpur[edit]

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

This kingdom has been defunct since 1949. This completely unsourced article looks like unverifiable original research, including about the supposed royal status of living persons (WP:BLP). See also WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Compare Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Line of succession to the former Austro-Hungarian throne for a similar case. Norden1990 (talk) 21:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Norden1990 (talk) 21:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Norden1990 (talk) 21:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:DEL-REASON 6: Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes). It is impossible to attribute the current line of succession to this throne to WP:RELIABLE sources, because there is no current line of succession, because the princely state itself doesn't even exist anymore. TompaDompa (talk) 21:29, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DEL-REASON 6 . Nika2020 (talk) 23:12, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and the other comments above. Smeat75 (talk) 12:24, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Needs proper rewrite to meet standards. Jokejust1000 (talk) 20:03, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No RS support for this list of multiple living people. JoelleJay (talk) 23:50, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above Spiderone 14:13, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater @ 10:52, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 20:17, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:09, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Line of succession to the former throne of Waldeck and Pyrmont[edit]

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

This (semi-independent) principality has been defunct since 1918. This roughly unsourced article looks like unverifiable original research, including about the supposed royal status of living persons (WP:BLP). See also WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Line of succession is also available in parent article Principality of Waldeck and Pyrmont. Compare Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Line of succession to the former Austro-Hungarian throne for a similar case. Norden1990 (talk) 20:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:DEL-REASON 6: Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes). It is impossible to attribute the current line of succession to this throne to WP:RELIABLE sources, because there is no current line of succession, because the Principality itself doesn't even exist anymore. TompaDompa (talk) 21:23, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DEL-REASON 6 . Nika2020 (talk) 23:10, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Detailed, unsourced, hypothetical succession lines that are 90% non-notable living people belong on royalty and genealogy forums, not in an encyclopedia. JoelleJay (talk) 23:17, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:50, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:50, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and the other comments above. Smeat75 (talk) 16:11, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 20:18, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:10, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Line of succession to the former throne of Idar[edit]

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

This kingdom has been defunct since 1949. This completely unsourced article looks like unverifiable original research, including about the supposed royal status of living persons (WP:BLP). See also WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Compare Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Line of succession to the former Austro-Hungarian throne for a similar case. Norden1990 (talk) 20:43, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Norden1990 (talk) 20:43, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Norden1990 (talk) 20:43, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:DEL-REASON 6: Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes). It is impossible to attribute the current line of succession to this throne to WP:RELIABLE sources, because there is no current line of succession, because the princely state itself doesn't even exist anymore. TompaDompa (talk) 21:23, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DEL-REASON 6 . Nika2020 (talk) 23:12, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing to support giving the full names and birthdates of non-notable living people. JoelleJay (talk) 23:52, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above Spiderone 14:12, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per all of the reasons above. Futurist110 (talk) 23:12, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per all of the above Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 08:58, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tai Po Sam Yuk Secondary School[edit]

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

There doesn't seem to anything notable about this school. All of the references in the article except for one are primary and nothing that would establish the schools notability comes up in a search about it. Plus, the creator and main editor of the article clearly has a COI. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:32, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:47, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:47, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here are sources I found that discuss the subject:
1. "大埔三育中學" (PDF). Ming Pao (in Chinese). 2009-03-20. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2020-07-12. Retrieved 2020-07-12.
2. Poon, Shuk Wah (2008). "大埔教育:從鄉村師範的建立到鄉村學校的消失" [Education in Tai Po: From the Founding of Rural Normal School to the Demise of Village Schools] (in Chinese). Lingnan University. p. 217. Archived from the original on 2018-11-02. Retrieved 2020-07-12.
3. "34%直資中學加費匯知最勁貴四成". Wen Wei Po (in Chinese). 2014-04-29. Archived from the original on 2020-07-12. Retrieved 2020-07-12.
4. CK LI (2020-05-12). Sheun, Martin (ed.). "【家長難捱】22所直資校疫市申加費　大埔三育加幅達18.6%". Orange News (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2020-07-12. Retrieved 2020-07-12.
5. "三育中學轉直資校". Apple Daily (in Chinese). 2005-12-03. Archived from the original on 2020-07-12. Retrieved 2020-07-12.
There is sufficient coverage in these sources about the school's history and activities to satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
Cunard (talk) 09:22, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cunard: You should know by now since you've been told multiple times by pretty much everyone that primary sources don't work for notability. Which all but of one of those are. And the last source doesn't even exist to figure out if it is or not. At this point it's extremely wrong of you to continuing posting sources you know full well don't pass WP:GNG and to vote keep based on them. Especially when you have been told repeatedly to stop doing it. Either post sources that actually work for notability or don't post at all, but what your doing is getting pretty tiring and you should stop doing it. Otherwise, I'm going to report you to the admin noticeboard. If you want articles to be kept, get them kept the correct way. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:46, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think these sources are primary sources but am open to striking sources from the list if it is demonstrated that any of them are primary sources. If you think that this AfD contribution is disruptive, I recommend that you post at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents to receive input from the community about whether they agree.

Cunard (talk) 09:57, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The first source comes from ktsps.edu.hk/ which is either their website which would be primary or one closely associated with them and is therefore WP:OR, The second one is an academic paper and therefore definitely WP:OR, and the third isn't even about them and they are only mentioned briefly in passing. Same goes for the forth one, and like Whereas, the fifth is from their own newsletter so 100% it's primary. Also, the topics covered in the sources are extremely trivial anyway. All schools have tuition hikes and there's nothing notable about it. Which is why there's no non-primary sources covering it. You really should have checked the sources yourself. As I've said before, it's not on other AfD participants to vet your sources. I'm not going to report you if your willing to correct yourself and stop doing it, but it's been a repeated thing. It's not difficult to review sources before you post them to make sure they are usable. So do it. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:28, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed the sources before posting them and stand by my posting of them. The first source is a copy of a Ming Pao article. The second source is from an academic paper. Wikipedia:No original research says Wikipedia editors may not perform original research. Wikipedia:No original research does not say that Wikipedia editors cannot use reliable sources that perform the original research. The third and fourth sources each provide a paragraph of coverage that explains why the school increased tuition by such a large amount. These two sources help with Wikipedia:Verifiability more than they help with Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. The fifth source is independent coverage in Apple Daily.

Cunard (talk) 04:27, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you would. I didn't expect you to follow through on doing the proper thing. Anyway, original research in Wikipedia isn't just confined to editors. It also covers things like academic research papers and autobiographies. That's why the whole secondary source things exists in the first place and also why WP:PRIMARY, which is in Wikipedia:No original research, says "a scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted by the author is a primary source on the outcome of that experiment. Historical documents such as diaries are primary sources." The same goes for anything else written for academic purposes. Since they are original research and not a secondary synthesis of the data. Which is what the notability guidelines requires. Importantly, while primary sources are fine for adding basic information to articles, they are don't work for establishing notability. Just like it's OK to cite a tweet with basic information in an article, but it's not OK to use one as a source in an AfD. What can be in an article and what establish notability are two different standards. Also, if the last two sources just help with verifiability then they should be left out. Since that isn't what we are trying to establish here. Two trivial non-reliable sources verifying each other are still two trivial non-reliable sources. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:24, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, for exactly what I was talking about see WP:FORUM. "Primary (original) research, such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining new words, etc. If you have completed primary research on a topic, your results should be published in other venues, such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, open research, or respected online publications. Wikipedia can report your work after it is published and becomes part of accepted knowledge; however, citations of reliable sources are needed to demonstrate that material is verifiable, and not merely the editor's opinion." --Adamant1 (talk) 05:30, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The "your results" and "your work" referenced in WP:FORUM refers to the work of Wikipedia editors. It does not refer to the research of someone like Shuk Wah Poon, the author of the Lingnan University-published book chapter.

WP:FORUM mentions "other venues, such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, open research, or respected online publications". "Other venues" include Shuk Wah Poon's Lingnan University-published book chapter. Cunard (talk) 06:11, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mine and other peoples that why it says "Primary (original) research, such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining new words, etc." And the talks about someone posting their own research. Original ideas are still original research if they are mine or not. I can't post my friends thoughts on an idea anymore then I can my own. Or visa versa by having them post my original ideas just because they aren't me. That's why you need it to be published in secondary reliable sources in the first place. Otherwise, there would be zero reason reason for it and people could generate their notability by hiring PR firms to write about them and crap. A PR piece isn't "the person", but it's still not reliable because it's original research. Lingnan University-published book chapter isn't "Other venues" because it's the college he was attending and it was published through them as part of him writing it. Generally, "other venues" do not include the place you attend who has a vested interested in and publishes your work. Like if if I attend Standford, while a PhD thesis while going there, and they publish it, that's not "other venues" and it is exactly what the article is doing. Otherwise, it would have to be in a third party peer reviewed journal or something.

Also, WP:SCHOLARSHIP says "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses." And also "dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence." So, you'd have to prove that 1. Lingnan University is a well-regarded press and that what they publish is vetted first 2. Show that the specific book or article has had significant scholarly influence. Neither of which you can do and still wouldn't get around the original research thing anyway even if you could. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:35, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some source listed above are clearly not primary source (some are newspaper but for "routine" coverage of school fee and change from one government subsidy scheme to another ("直接資助")). Is it in-depth source is another thing. While secondary school latest criteria is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Schools. I would suggest to create a list of secondary school in Tai Po District instead as number of secondary school in the district are relatively static. Matthew hk (talk) 14:34, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:42, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:33, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think more third party analisation of Cunard's sources is required before this discussion should be closed either way. Cheers! -- puddleglum^2.0 20:33, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- puddleglum^2.0 20:33, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there are not enough secondary sources to justify the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:56, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:11, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump's Portsmouth Rally (July 2020)[edit]

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

After reading WP:EVENTCRITERIA, I don't think individual rallies or campaign events (by any candidate) merit their own article. The information can be included in Donald Trump 2020 presidential campaign instead. GoingBatty (talk) 20:14, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. GoingBatty (talk) 20:14, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. GoingBatty (talk) 20:14, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. GoingBatty (talk) 20:14, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL. There need not be a page for a rally that has not occurred. KidAd (💬💬)
Delete Event never held, there's nothing to go over. Nate • (chatter) 21:58, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CRYSTAL and WP:TOOSOON. Nika2020 (talk) 23:15, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL. Event never even held, and every individual campaign rally is not automatically notable. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:35, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The mind boggles, really, and that's irrespectively of politics. Next up, an article pehaps about Biden's 2021 birthday party. -The Gnome (talk) 11:06, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per all of the above Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 08:59, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:06, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mainstream Top 40 top 10 singles in 2017[edit]

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

They don't meet WP:NLIST or WP:GNG. Previous AfD was no consensus (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Billboard Mainstream Top 40 top 10 singles) and had limited participation.

Boleyn (talk) 19:52, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged each of the nominated articles and added the 2018-2020 lists to the nomination as well. To bundle, the instructions can be found at WP:MULTIAFD. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:32, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:33, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:33, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 08:07, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete do not pass the notability guidelines for lists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 11:53, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. As per previous AfD's top ten singles on any particular chart are not notable unlike #1's aer. Ajf773 (talk) 08:55, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and commentary above. -The Gnome (talk) 11:08, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom Spiderone 18:17, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: per all of the above Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 09:01, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is wide agreement that this is an appropriate topic for the encyclopedia regardless of the present state of the article. The suggestion of renaming the page can be followed up on the article talk page. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:12, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mental disorders in film[edit]

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

Notability is in no way established through either a summary nor reliable sources. This article has numerous issues with a lack of reliable sources, formatting issues throughout, many incorrect links, etc. It's an overall mess. Factfanatic1 (talk) 19:31, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons stated above. Factfanatic1 (talk) 19:32, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 19:36, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes, the page is in miserable shape, but that's not a reason to delete. WP:SOFIXIT. Lack of notability of the subject would be reason to delete. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:44, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A list of mental disorders in film seems as appropriate as many other lists currently existing on Wikipedia. As noted at the inauguration of this list in 2008, "A striking feature of the overwhelming majority of fictional (as distinct from documentary) film presentations of psychiatric disorders is the gross distortion of the phenomena ostensibly portrayed." As my own contribution to making this list more reliable, I have corrected nosological (diagnostic) names for psychiatric disorders listed and, as appropriate, have moved specific films to more appropriate diagnoses or – when aware of a film's speciousness – have deleted such films. Nihil novi (talk) 01:54, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a notable concept and I think worthy of having a list. Poor quality and not sourcing isn't a reason to delete an article. WP:NOTFINISHED (essay). --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:15, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Of the top of my head there's bound to be plenty to say about Psycho; Gas Light; One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest; Rain Man and many more. Articles are expected to be imperfect and AfD is not cleanup. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:53, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Blatantly notable topic, yes the article is in poor shape but that is no reason for deletion.★Trekker (talk) 16:14, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It will take me a bit of time to read thru all that has been posted about possibly deleting this page, and the rules/guidelines for posting, so for now, I'd just like to say that I specifically searched for exactly this page this afternoon, so I hope it does not get deleted! My adult child has several mental health disorders, diagnosed early in childhood, and now at age 27 received a diagnosis of ASD. So, I am doing lots of reading and watching the two films that I was aware of. That's why I searched for this page. I've self-tested and had an LCSW type test me, so I'm certain that I am also an Asperger's type, and it explains a lot about me. I was only aware of the Temple Grandin and Rain Man films, so I am looking to see what else might exist. The content is definitely valuable and appropriate, so maybe there are other types of changes needed. I will try to get back here and spend some time reviewing, but the difficulties I have as a full time caregiver, and the collapsing I continually go thru make it hard for me to be very productive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaRaine Mae (talk • contribs) 21:27, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:13, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:LISTN, article includes references (books) that discuss this grouping. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:29, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP A valid list article. Rename it List of mental disorders in film. Dream Focus 14:30, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Retitling the article to "List of mental disorders in film" seems an excellent idea. That could leave the current title, "Mental disorders in film", available for a new article discussing aspects of such films that are not discussed in this list (some were discussed originally in 2008 and much later). Nihil novi (talk) 00:02, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename List of mental disorders in film per Muboshgu's rationale and Dream Focus's suggestion. Sock (~~tock~~ talk) 01:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to List of mental disorders in film per above suggestions. // Timothy :: talk 14:32, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. With an article this poor, the WP:TNT argument is quite persuasive. There is consensus here that if this article is to exist, it needs to be rewritten entirely. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:59, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ozon.ru[edit]

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

Article fails WP:PROMO. It is also fails WP:COMPANY, with almost all the sources being unacceptable primary source dependant coverage such as press releases. Even if it is considered notable enough, most of the content is fundamentally flawed, failing any semblance of WP:MOS and using WP:PEACOCK. A complete reqrite would be required to bring the article in line with Wikipedia standards. Melmann 17:57, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Melmann 17:57, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete: You beat me to it (though I was procrastinating quite a lot)! What notable content there is should be moved to Rakuten.~~ I sent Melnakxc a message as I'm sure he/she has somthing to say. Darth Flappy ^«Talk» 18:42, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep, nomination is without merit. The nom failed miserably in due diligence. One does not have to work hard to find independent sources, sufficient to open ruwiki article. Ozon is Russia's local equivalent of Amazon.com. And the suggestion to merge to rakuten is totally brainless. Press releases , while insufficient for establishing notability, are sources of facts. Wp:promo is matter of cleanup, not deletion. - Altenmann >talk 22:24, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite The company is quite notable, but it needs to use prose in its history section. I need to take a break from this sort of POV pushing. Darth Flappy ^«Talk» 14:00, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep: improve, could be useful, currently it reads like PR~~ --Devokewater @ 10:22, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the references are to primary, otherwise un-reliable sources, or trivial. If this was really the Russian version of Amazon, there would be enough in-depth reliable secondary sources to establish it's notability and pass WP:NCORP, but there doesn't seem to be. Rewriting the article isn't going to change that either. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:55, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Blow it up and start over. The text is such a horrid mess of blatant promotion, arbitrary assertions, and grandiose citings without merit that any effort to mend & cure would be fruitless. If the subject is indeed worthy of having an article here, someone better start working up a draft. -The Gnome (talk) 09:15, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:05, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I tried to clean up, however my edits were reversed. this article needs cleaned of all PR, POV etc --Devokewater @ 10:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or draft, this article needs rewritten with reliable sources. --Devokewater @10:21, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Goulburn Valley Football Association. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:00, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Goulburn Valley Second Eighteens Football Association[edit]

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

Lacks significant coverage about the Football Association itself needed to meet WP:GNG DannyS712 (talk) 18:06, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. DannyS712 (talk) 18:08, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 05:24, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-07 ✍️ create

Redirect to Goulburn Valley Football Association (which is the competition that succeeded this one). I've incorporated anything that could be salvaged in the other page. Deus et lex (talk) 09:58, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:12, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Willy Parsons[edit]

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

NN actor/comedian, fails the GNG and NACTOR going away. His acting credits are extra parts along the lines of "Punk," "Trucker #2," "TV Store Customer," "Liquor Store Clerk" and "Security Guard." No significant coverage in reliable sources. Notability tagged for over a decade. Ravenswing 17:33, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 17:33, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 17:33, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete articles on living people need realible sources, all this article has is the totally and completely non-notable IMDb.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:17, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable --Devokewater (^{🦉 talk} _talk🦉) 19:39, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and the other comment above. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 20:21, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Edguy#Discography. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:02, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Evil Minded[edit]

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

Non-notable demo. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The first demo album by Edguy. I have seen that this article had an AfD back in 2010 and the result was delete because demos are not notable for WP and no reliable sources are available. The article was then re-created in 2012, it also has a notability tag since that year. Still no reliable sources, only the same old, standard unreliable sites like databases, download sites, lyrics sites, blogs, Youtube videos and forums. If there is a review, they are featured on unreliable sites like Metal Archives, Metal Music Archives and Rate Your Music. No reliable sources whatsoever. I have also nominated their second demo, Children of Steel which suffers from the same problems. Like I said at that demo's AfD, Edguy is a notable band but not everything they release is notable (that goes to any band btw). GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:19, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:19, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:19, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Edguy#Discography, looks more like a database entry than an actual encyclopedic article, not to mention that the only source is unreliable. Btw, both demos could have been jointly nominated, since the reasoning is the same and the topics are closely connected. Victor Lopes ^Fala!•C 21:21, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:10, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rishi S. Kumar[edit]

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

Only seems in any way notable for a big hairstyle, this gentleman is not notable. References are TV style listings, and an interview. This is pure promotional cruft, and UPE Fiddle Faddle 17:14, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 17:14, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable --Devoke water 17:27, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --DannyS712 (talk) 18:10, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable. Nika2020 (talk) 23:17, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 09:04, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ThAFF[edit]

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

Non-notable job hunting project by a government. scope_creep^Talk 17:14, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 18:24, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:51, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since nothing is out there on our subject indicating a level of independent notability high enough for a Wikipedia article about it. This is about a program unertaken by a German state agency and we do not even have an article in Wikipedia in which we could merge this! The fact that the text has been created and curated by a kamikaze account never helps. -The Gnome (talk) 10:42, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:11, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vidhya Vinod[edit]

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

Non notable business exec, with references that in one case refuse to open. One is a directory listing, one an interview.

A piece of poorly crafted UPE Fiddle Faddle 17:11, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 17:11, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG --DannyS712 (talk) 18:12, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable, PR. --Devokewater @ 00:06, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doe not meet WP:GNG, WP:BIO, etc, but I've seen worse. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:28, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, subject fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO.- Akhiljaxxn (talk) 14:38, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above Spiderone 14:11, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per all of the above Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 09:05, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Edguy#Discography. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Children of Steel (album)[edit]

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

Non-notable demo. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:06, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A demo album by Edguy. I think it is not notable. I couldn't find anything besides download sites, blogs, lyrics sites, Youtube videos and databases. No evidence of notability. The article is sourced to the unreliable Metal Archives only. That is never a good sign either. The page also has a notability and an improve references tag since 2013. Non-notable release. Edguy is a notable band but not everything they release is notable. (That goes to any band by the way, not just Edguy.) GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:04, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:04, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:04, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It should be deleted. I did not find any notable source.Ahmetlii (talk) 17:08, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Like I suggested for Evil Minded, redirect to Edguy#Discography since it looks more like a database entry than an actual encyclopedic article, not to mention that the only source is unreliable. And like I also said in the other nomination page, both demos could have been jointly nominated, since the reasoning is the same and the topics are closely connected. Victor Lopes ^Fala!•C 21:24, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 14:33, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comedy Utsavam[edit]

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

A set of TV listings do not make a TV show notable, They make it present. The references are all TV mag listings. They say who is on, when it is on, but nothing in them shows any notability/

This is also a piece of UPE Fiddle Faddle 17:08, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 17:08, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 18:26, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. --Devokewater @ 00:12, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:TVSHOW. -The Gnome (talk) 10:37, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. qedk (t 愛 c) 08:40, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Twentyfour News[edit]

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

The references do not bear out any notability, Fails WP:CORP, and is very poor UPE (can there be good UPE?).

Reference analysis shows one from the channel itself, one 404 error, and otherwise interviews with the principals Fiddle Faddle 16:58, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 16:58, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 16:58, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2018-01 ✗ R2

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) 14:34, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mithilaj Abdul[edit]

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

The references are 404 errors in two cases, passing mentions in others. One is an interview in reported speech. I have not attempted the non English Language reference

UPE and fails all notability criteria Fiddle Faddle 16:53, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 16:53, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 16:53, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 16:53, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 16:53, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable person involved in the creation of television programs.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:36, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:12, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anoop John[edit]

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

I have checked all the references except the non English language one. I see passing mentions or, worse, zero mentions.

I cannot see how the gentleman who is doubtless good at his trade, is different from any other plying his trade. I think he fails on any of our notability criteria

I cannot disregard the UPE here Fiddle Faddle 16:47, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 16:47, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 16:47, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 16:47, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 16:47, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Devokewater @ 00:14, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable TV producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:36, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG, and WP:BLP. -Hatchens (talk) 06:00, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 09:07, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Dumas (economist)[edit]

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

WP:BLP of an economist and journalist, not reliably sourced as passing our notability standards for either role. As always, people are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they're technically verifiable as existing -- the notability test is the amount of media coverage the person has or hasn't received about their work to externally establish its significance. But this article is referenced entirely to primary sources, such as directory entries and his profiles on the self-published websites of directly affiliated organizations and his own company's self-published press releases about itself, which are not support for notability at all. Since his career stretches back to the 1960s, any prospect of salvaging this with better references would almost certainly require digging into archived British media coverage I don't personally have access to, so I'm perfectly willing to withdraw this if somebody can actually find the correct kind of referencing to establish his notability -- but nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced much, much better than this. Bearcat (talk) 16:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have added more sources that I believe to not be primary ones. Please could you let me know if they improve the validity of the page? If not, please could you explain further how I can ensure that this page is not deleted as this is an individual who is very well known in their field and the media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hannahtsl (talk • contribs) 09:11, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have checked many of the references and find them to be unhelpful in an assertion and verification of the gentleman's notability. Hannahtsl asks for guidance. I have given that on the article's talk page. The gentleman has had a decent career. So did I. He is well known in his field. So was I. He has written a book. So have I. But no-one would consider me worthy of an article here because there is nothing showing notability. Nor does he have that. Prove me wrong, ping me, and I will change my mind. Not about me, but about him. I know I'm not notable. Fiddle Faddle 22:17, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I note that Hannahtsl appears likely to be employed by T S Lombard (0.95 probability based upon the suffix tsl). Charles Dumas is an employee of that organisation. I have noted the COI with a warning on their user page against WP:UPE to which we are awaiting a response, and a COI banner on the article. I hope very much that this turns into a formal declaration of paid editing or a credible denial Fiddle Faddle 22:35, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A declaration has been made in discussions on the editor's talk page and directly in their user page, and this now meets our needs Fiddle Faddle 17:57, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Almost all sources cited or found are about the firm our subject's working in or about other issues, and not about him per se: We have a Financial Times article about TS & LSR merging; a New York Times citation that's supposed to impress us but is actually about recession returning to Europe, a text in which Dumas is name-dropped exactly once; an article in Spanish that appeared in Aporrea and is about "Perspectivas de la economía mundial en 2011", which we do not really need to translate in English and in which Dumas is name-dropped also once; and so on. Then, lots of listings (e.g. here or here) of our subject's own writings. (In this conference schedule, which, as a simple list of participants, would not be a significant proof of notability in any case, he is not even mentioned.) This is an effort made by an editor whose contributions so far have been about our subject or TSL, and in a blatantly promotional manner too, which never helps, whether there's a fee involved or not. -The Gnome (talk) 10:36, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of commercial secure mobile companies[edit]

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

Unnecessary list, most of the items on the list are red links as of now - showing that the list is not notable. The title is also vague with no explanation of what a 'commercial secure' mobile company is. I presume.a 'commercial secure' mobile company is one which is secure against hacking? But has no definition.   Kadzi   (talk) 16:18, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.   Kadzi   (talk) 16:18, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.   Kadzi   (talk) 16:18, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All the references are to vice.com, which AFAIK isn't properly WP:RS — thereby defo failing WP:1R, probably also WP:V and hence WP:GNG. Also, the article scope is poorly defined and contexted, resulting in at best a partial list, not to mention being confusing as per nom. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:42, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I take "commercial" secure to mean "commercially available"; not just an open-source project. Secure communications generally means secure from eavesdropping, like httpS. There are plenty of references which talk about companies which produce these types of products, many references in the Encrochat article and otherwise findable. Krebsonsecurity often talks about these. Do we have a list of secure communication apps like Apple's iChat or Whatsapp? ---Avatar317 ^(talk) 22:52, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as majority of the list entries are red-linked and non notable. Ajf773 (talk) 08:58, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater @ 10:54, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. qedk (t 愛 c) 08:38, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ritu Rathee Taneja[edit]

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

Subject clearly fails WP:GNG, not notable. Most of the refs are interviews (some clearly PR thing), failing the need for the sources to be independent. Zoodino (talk) 16:02, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Zoodino (talk) 16:02, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Zoodino (talk) 16:02, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; I thought about nominating as well but I wasn't too sure. GreaterPonce665 ^(TALK) 17:04, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:39, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, All references are in favor of the article. When the article was created, the administrator himself removed the Speedy deletion notice from the article - stating that the references were in favor. Edit History Mr. Wiki Indian (talk) 07:05, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr. Wiki Indian:, Can you elaborate what do you mean by "All references are in favor of the article", because just having some links as references is not sufficient, the sources need to reliable and independent and should have significant coverage of the subject. (in this case, some of the reference source may be reliable but most of them are interviews and PR articles which can't be considered independent) Zoodino (talk) 05:22, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like this account is a sock of LowSlo, I've reported and awaiting admin intervention here

Delete Lack of reliable references that are independent of the subject. fails WP:GNG. DMySon 07:05, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above (ignoring the sock vote) Spiderone 14:12, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Information shared on page is without any proper source and can misguide people Good123321 (talk) 18:46, 31 July 2020 (UTC) (Comment moved here from outside the AfD template by Vanamonde93, as it was breaking the syntax. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:15, 3 August 2020 (UTC) [reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:13, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Super Orb Collector[edit]

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

No references/sources, web search shows this is a flash game on a maths website, with absolutely no media sources or mention in any article ever.   Kadzi   (talk) 15:59, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions.   Kadzi   (talk) 15:59, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for so many reasons, (including but not limited to, lack of sourcing, COI, images for text!) but clearly not notable. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:02, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly non-notable with no significant indepth coverage from reliable secondary coverage. -- ferret (talk) 16:05, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Anemic page with no sources. Fails WP:GNG. KidAd (💬💬) 21:25, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable. Nika2020 (talk) 23:19, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per other comments. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 00:20, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable. --Devokewater (^{🦉 talk} _talk🦉) 19:41, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 04:01, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is simply nothing in the article to even start thinking about a defense. No context, no wikilinks, no information about the subject, no refs, no cats. I'm seen more meat on fossils. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 06:57, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 09:48, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MICRO (organization)[edit]

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

This page possibly doesn't meet WP:ORG, furthermore, it was moved from AFC pipeline to mainspace suddenly by a fishy account. High chance of paid editing. Opinions for discussion are invited. ChayanSen (talk) 15:41, 26 July 2020 (UTC) — ChayanSen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 16:44, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, adequate sourcing in the article indicates meets WP:GNG PainProf (talk) 21:24, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, marginally notable per the in-depth profiles in the Washington Post and Smithsonian Magazine cited in the article, plus others found with a quick Google search including NPR's Science Friday. ----Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 01:29, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable organization, passes GNG. DMySon 07:08, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since there are enough reliable sources supporting our subject's independent notability. The text, however, is in dire need of a major re-write since it now stands more like a pushy brochure rather than a proper lemma. It's right there near the minefield of destruction & resurrection. -The Gnome (talk) 10:47, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:14, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Midnight Black[edit]

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

NN record producer, fails the GNG, WP:MUSICBIO and WP:NOTINHERITED. While I agree that “Midnight Black” is a tough search parameter, no reliable sources satisfying the GNG beyond namedrops were found. Notability tagged for over a decade. Created by a SPA with no other Wikipedia activity. Ravenswing 15:32, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 15:32, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 15:32, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 15:32, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even close to being a notable music producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:01, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete i couldn't find anything other than his photos. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 06:06, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable --Devokewater @ 18:32, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Martini (cocktail)#Variations. [ Insert ironic comment about being neither shaken nor stirred by this subject ] Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:06, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of martini variations[edit]

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

Completely unreferenced article (except for two incidental citations of specific martini variants), fails WP:VERIFY; possibly also WP:ORIGINAL. Fundamentally, the article is trying to do an impossible thing, to create a comprehensive taxonomy of drinks that may or may not be variations of a martini, either in name or nature; at best it is always going to be only a partial list, and almost inevitably include things that shouldn't be there. The article has been around for many years and gone through different incarnations, each with their problems, and I think it's finally time to put it out of its misery. Any genuinely worthwhile content can be merged into the main martini article. DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:14, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are numerous books written entirely about martini cocktails and these naturally list lots of variations. Examples include: The Little Black Book of Martinis; Martini Book: 201 Ways to Mix the Perfect American Cocktail; The Martini Field Guide; 101 Martinis; &c. Finding references is therefore not a problem. See WP:IMPERFECT; WP:NEXIST; WP:SOFIXIT; &c. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:45, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:45, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Partial merge Per nom, anything worth keeping can go at martini, a short article that can certainly incorporate the sources above! Reywas92^Talk 20:02, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Writing a well-referenced article is definitely possible per Andrew's sources, and the current content is not so hopelessly bad that it needs WP:TNT. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:35, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sources are recipe collections, not necessarily substantive content. Wikipedia is not a cookbook cataloguing 200 ways to mix drinks, nor is anything keeping these sources from being used in the main article. Reywas92^Talk 23:10, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect into Martini_(cocktail)#Variations, where there's already a section, with much of the same verbatim text, much better sourced than this. Nom is correct, some of the previous versions were much more convincing in content and format, and arguably worth rescue. Unfortunately none of that was ever sourced. The existing taxonomy is wrongheaded unsourced OR and not worth merging. --Lockley (talk) 09:17, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Lockley. As was stated, no merge is necessary; the information's already there, and well sourced. (And that being said, at the fourteen year mark, we have a reasonable expectation that an article will either be sourced or -- as per WP:V, "any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." This AfD has been going on for a week now, and no one has seen fit to do the simple sourcing that has been claimed is easily done.) Ravenswing 22:06, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indus Media Group[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. The references do not seem to establish the notability of the company rather they discuss WP:BLP1E of Aftab Iqbal. Its presented more like of an WP:PROMOTION of the company. ~ Amkgp 💬 14:11, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 14:12, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 14:12, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 14:12, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion: References have been added and improved. Empire AS ^Talk! 06:00, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:, www.pakpedia.pk, www.advertiseinpakistan.com are unreliable sources. ~ Amkgp 💬 06:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: These two above unreliable sources will be taken out and replaced by tomorrow. The article needs a cleanup which I'll try to do. Thanks Ngrewal1 (talk) 20:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Indus Media Group is a major satellite TV channel provider in Pakistan and runs 3 different TV channels. So it's a notable news media company. Problems with the article can be fixed. Ngrewal1 (talk) 20:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unrelated content and references removed today. Replaced with 3 newspaper references. Ngrewal1 (talk) 16:26, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article looks notable to me per [6] and [7]. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 02:43, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Remove the promotional material and make it more compliant with Wikipedia guidelines. -Hatchens (talk) 05:58, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:09, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of English words of Slovak origin[edit]

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

NN list, fails LISTN and assuredly the GNG. This threadbare "list" (of all of three words) purports to list "English words" of Slovak origin. Of the three, one is the conglomerate name of a sub-subsidiary guitar maker, one is of a Slovakian musical instrument listed in a dictionary of musical instruments, and the third is cited to a Slovakian source. In all three cases I would strongly dispute they are seen as "English" words at all, and certainly there are no sources claiming that they are. Notability tagged for over ten years.

Deprodded with the unhelpful explanation of “How does WP:NLIST feel about List of English words of Slovak origin?” I’m not sure what the guideline itself would think about it, were it sentient, but perhaps live editors will have their own notions. Ravenswing 13:52, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 13:52, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For what it's worth, the Oxford English Dictionary Online attributes the word "dobro" to Czech origin (specifically, "< the name of its Czech-U.S. inventors, the Do(pěra Bro(thers; the coincidence with Czech dobro (the) good, a good thing, may also help to explain the choice of this form") and doesn't list "fujara" or "čačky" as English words at all. I would need better sources to believe that these words are (a) English words and (b) of Slovak origin. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:37, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I think that we do have an English word that corresponds to "čačky", namely, tchotchke. But Merriam-Webster says "tchotchke" came to English from Yiddiah, derived from the obsolete Polish czaczko (and apparently other Slavic languages have similar words), so I don't think we can necessarily give the Slovak language credit for this word. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:12, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:46, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:46, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Sorry for being terse/cheeky in my deprod rationale. I'm refering to this WP:LISTN bit: There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y"). List notability is not easily gaugued so these are not good prod candidates. Especially so here because of the existence of many other English words of x origin articles. If you are making a WP:TNT argument, that is also not a good use of prod. ~Kvng (talk) 15:47, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I very rarely make TNT arguments, and it certainly would not have been appropriate here; the article is neither incomprehensibly written nor flooded with adspam. But my issue is this: whether NN lists make good prod candidates generally is not, and should not have been, the point. At every step of the prod/AfD process, we don't deal with broad categories. We deal with individual articles. Is this list notable? is the only question we should be -- and are -- dealing with. It took me just a few minutes to determine that it was not. I don't think I'm out of line to expect the same level of care in a deprod. Ravenswing 16:29, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've been deprodding where I believe the article shouldn't be deleted or where I would expect some controversy if the deletion were done at AfD. This deprod fell into the latter category for me and I hope I've sufficiently explained why. ~Kvng (talk) 22:12, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Can't believe we have this article here for so many years.--Darwinek (talk) 21:53, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article belongs in a dictionary not an encyclopedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:17, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I prodded this, which was rejected. Agree with nom, little evidence for entries and definitely not a notable topic. Boleyn (talk) 10:39, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:10, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Turiya Hanover[edit]

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

Obscure member of former royal family which was deposed some time ago. The previous nomination in 2013 did not generate significant disussion. PatGallacher (talk) 13:50, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 16:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 16:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:24, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:24, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no demonstration of notability for jug ears cousin. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 10:53, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and the other comment above.Smeat75 (talk) 18:18, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't help myself and had to remove the deprecated source and blogs (all BLP violations). The remaining refs are an article on her husband's death and a link to her self-published "guided meditations". Not notable. JoelleJay (talk) 03:52, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete she was born 82 years after the family she married into was deposed from power.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and the other comment above. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 10:06, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:28, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Star (Pakistan)[edit]

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

Article is not notable not passing WP:GNG no reference found in Google, not passing newspaper or news organization notability Memon KutianaWala (talk) 13:11, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 July 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:31, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per this, this, and this. If I'm reading right: originally called the The Star of India, then changed to The Star after Partition, and operated in Karachi until 2005. Might meet WP:NPERIODICAL; otherwise, meets WP:GNG. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:49, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:52, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- puddleglum^2.0 00:08, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NPERIODICAL and the above. Cheers! -- puddleglum^2.0 00:10, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article already has plenty of reliable Book and Journal references – 15 of them. User:AleatoryPonderings already found 3 additional GoogleBooks references as shown above. Meets both WP:NPERIODICAL and WP:GNG. Ngrewal1 (talk) 19:54, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:12, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Metalheads (film)[edit]

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

Non notable film with no indication found during search that this film was ever completed or released, let alone reviewed. Donaldd23 (talk) 13:14, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 13:14, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 16:46, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFF. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:55, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's no sign that this was ever made. This article from 2015 says that a Kickstarter was launched to create a trailer (that looks to have been created per this tweet) but there's no evidence to show that the film was made. Even if filming had begun for the feature film (as opposed to just the trailer) I don't think that the coverage is heavy enough to really justify it passing NFF. It sounds like it'd be fun to watch if it does get made, but it just doesn't pass notability guidelines at this point in time. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:50, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NFF, the sources I can find relate to plans to make the film, not to a completed film. -Lopifalko (talk) 18:36, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:12, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adelson, Testan, Brundo & Jimenez[edit]

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

This is a semi-procedural nomination. I don't like speedy deleting articles that have sat around for 7 years; if nothing else, it means NPP have reviewed and checked it originally without intending to do so. Nevertheless, I can't find any obvious coverage that would allow me to improve this. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:04, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I did requested the speedy deletion as there no indication of importance in the article for the organization, and I believe my statement still applies. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:11, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 16:47, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 16:47, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Devoke water 17:28, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, borderline speedy, as nothing in this article indicates that it is anything more than an average law firm in its space. BD2412 T 18:01, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom . Nika2020 (talk) 23:21, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 10:08, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Akhiljaxxn (talk) 14:42, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Parasgad (Vidhana Sabha constituency)[edit]

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

Reviewed as a part of new article review process. No indication of wp:notability. No sources except for "stats only" sources. As a result there is no real coverage or even description of what the topic is. Appears to be about a now-defunct political division. North8000 (talk) 11:09, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Creator is currently blocked.North8000 (talk) 19:47, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThere is indication of notability. Every assembly seat in Indian states tends to have a page devoted to it. This page lists results of 5-6 elections in which more than 100,000 voters vote. Yes, the seat is now defunct. Just as Soviet Russia is now not existing. Historical data is found on many a page on wiki. The page should very much stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.33.215.51 (talk) 14:29, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the above commenter said, Indian legislative seats all have articles (even if they are only stubs). Why delete this one? I agree with the above contributor. I-82-I | TALK 20:05, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The big problem is that due to no sources there's no article text that even says what this is. In your two posts you've written more than the article contains. Nowhere does it say that the geographic unit is a state. It's not even clear that the topic is an assembly....it talks about it being a "constituency". Why don't you write a few sentences in the article? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:18, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article does say what it is, namely a former constituency of the lower house of Karnataka's legislative assembly. There were a few grammar errors and a lack of Wikilinks, and I have copyedited it a little for clarity. --bonadea contributions talk 21:41, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: State assembly constituencies in India do get a lot of coverage during elections. I don't see any reason to dispute its notability. As it was last contested in 2004, gathering online English-language sources may be difficult. -- Ab207 (talk) 07:52, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could somebody could write or fix a couple sentences to clarify what the topic of the article is? If so, that could qualify it as a keep even without sources. Is this article about an assembly? Is there a named geographic area / politically defined area that it covered? Does the assembly itself have a name or is it simply the assembly for a named geographic / politically area? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:30, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @North8000: Its an electoral district, like say Massachusetts House of Representatives' 1st Barnstable district. I made a few changes but looks like it may need further improvement. -- Ab207 (talk) 20:39, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm starting to decode this. I thought that, being in English, that "Vidhana Sabha" was a proper noun referring to something specific. Upon further exploration I learned that it is the Indian language term for "assembly". It's beginning to look like this article just needs a lot of work, including translating it's title into English. North8000 (talk) 21:32, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@North8000: Agreed, there should have been a better title. At this point, there is no consensus about how to name electoral districts in India -- Ab207 (talk) 09:24, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - legislative constituencies don't need notability. --Soman (talk) 01:19, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/withdraw Folks have added enough to at least say what the article is about. The title should be translated to English, particularly the "Vidhana Sabha" to "assembly". One that would clear it all up would be "Karnataka (Parasgad assembly electoral district) .North8000 (talk) 21:48, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, you could have googled "Vidhana Sabha" before bringing this to AfD. Whilst "Legislative Assembly" is more common in English, "Vidhan Sabha" is used in English as well, see for example [8], [9], [10], [11], [12] --Soman (talk) 22:55, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What you are saying an implying is not accurate in several respects. There is no policy or guideline that says that this "does not need notability". Perhaps you are referring to the SNG's which defines specific attributes the get presumed notability/ presumed sourcing. But the closest thing in there to this is that individuals serving on national assemblies get that pass. Nothing in there about "all assemblies" much less all election districts of all assemblies. Which leaves this with wp:gng as the only official route]] And this has no gng-suitable coverage, which is the main problem. I tend to let the borderline articles pass, but at AFD time this was such a mess, lacking even the most basic statements that it was unclear what this is really about. The translation of that term was only a small part of the problem. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:30, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but it does seem as if you did not take the time to try to check what the article was about – for instance, above you claim that Nowhere does it say that the geographic unit is a state, but if you look at the article at the time it was nominated, while it was not written in perfect English, the information was all there: a constituency of Vidhana Sabha (which can't simply be translated to "assembly", since it is a specific term referring to the State Legislative Assembly in an Indian state) in Karnataka state. "assembly constituencies" was indeed a confusing phrase, but it is better not to focus too much on that kind of detail. To change the title to "Karnataka (Parasgad assembly electoral district)" would be inaccurate since the topic is not Karnataka state, but the electoral district Parasgad, and "assembly electoral district" would not be sufficiently specific. If you believe that the title is problematic, you would need to address that at a different venue – as it is, this article title conforms to all the others in Template:Assembly constituencies of Karnataka (not getting into the "Vidhan/Vidhana" distinction here since I don't actually speak Kannada). That it "does not need notability" is, I agree, a confusing statement, but I believe the point is that electoral district on the state level are presumed to be notable. --bonadea contributions talk 12:08, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated it due to lack of sources. And nothing in the mess and lack of sources indicated the possibility of a pass under SNG's. I don't believe that "electoral district on the state level are presumed to be notable." exists anywhere. If so, where did you get it from? And, yes, for a topic that fails both GNG and SNG, no clear text, and no sources, where the only possibility left is bending the rules to pass it, I didn't do a lot of further decoding and research work to see if I could come up with enough to bend the rules.North8000 (talk) 14:50, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But either way, thanks for everyone to the info and improving / clarifying the article. North8000 (talk) 17:01, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Information on Legislative assembly constituencies are definitely needed. I will add few more resources to the Article.Vijeth N Bharadwaj 08:23, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:13, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shreeja Chaturvedi[edit]

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

The subject is described as a stand-up comedian active since 2018. Intro is pure puffery, and references are not that impressive. The article was moved from the draft by an editor who was later blocked for, well, moving articles from the draft for financial reimbursement (though we do not know exactly whether this one involved money). Let us discuss whether the article is notable enough for encyclopedia. Ymblanter (talk) 10:43, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 10:43, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 10:43, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without a blinking an eye. Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO. -Hatchens (talk) 15:08, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR.- Akhiljaxxn (talk) 14:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not every stand-up comic is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:35, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above Spiderone 14:13, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per all of the above Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 10:09, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:09, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply All (comic strip)[edit]

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

Not able to find any sources that show notability about this comic strip. James Richards (talk) 09:56, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. James Richards (talk) 09:56, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. James Richards (talk) 09:56, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. James Richards (talk) 09:56, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I was also unable to find any sources that provided substantial coverage, so I agree that it is not shown to be notable. HenryCrun15 (talk) 03:22, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The existing references consist only of two passing mentions of the strip when it came out almost a decade ago. They have more to do with the author and do not show notability of the comic. Similarly, I can find no significant coverage of the strip, only brief mentions in coverage of the author. Unless someone can find in depth coverage this strip is not notable. Meters (talk) 08:37, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I added one reference and an external link which is the official site to the article. Does this help the article? Zoe1013 (talk) 09:33, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- No. A podcast by some guy does not establish notability, and neither do a few lines on social media. It's just more of the same, a decade-old passing mention of a new comic strip coming out. Has anyone published reliable sources about the strip which we can use to show the comic's actual notability? Simply being published is not notable. Meters (talk) 18:23, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The external link for the strip is fine, but it does nothing to establish notability either. It's simply a useful link to have in the article. Meters (talk) 18:27, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- A subject needs at least one source (preferably multiple sources) that is independent of the subject, from a reliable source, and is substantial coverage. Detailed coverage in this vein can demonstrate that the subject is notable. Of the sources in the article now, the Washington Post Live Chat and links to the comic's official websites are not independent, the CBR article and the Daily Cartoonist article are not substantial, and the Philip Taylor / Part-Time Money interview is not reliable. Therefore there is not yet a demonstration that the subject is notable. HenryCrun15 (talk) 01:12, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I added another source. I hope it’s enough to keep the article here. Zoe1013 (talk) 23:44, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- You really don't seem to be getting the point. Your new source https://www.dhs.gov/blog/2011/02/28/homeland-humor-dhs-attorney-lands-her-own-syndicated-comic-strip is just another 2011 passing mention of the strip from when it came out The ref has more to say about the author than the strip. It's not about the number of refs you can add (you now have four 2011 refs that all say the same thing; there's a new strip by Lewis). It's about whether those refs actually show the notability of the comic. Meters (talk) 00:01, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It’s published on GoComics everyday. Zoe1013 (talk) 03:11, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- No-one is saying it isn't published. What i said was Simply being published is not notable. Meters (talk) 05:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don’t understand it. How come Diamond Lil is considered notable on Wikipedia? But Reply All can’t be? Can’t Reply All be a redirect to GoComics? Zoe1013 (talk) 06:58, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. bibliomaniac 1 5 07:23, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Dana Chisholm[edit]

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

Biography of a living person who fails to meet the WP:GNG. Almost all the references cited are primary and not independent of him, the Forbes articles are written by the subject. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 09:46, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 09:46, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 09:46, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 09:46, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 09:46, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Devokewater 11:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Hoary (talk) 12:57, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
i was edited the John Dana Chisholm page for additional information and improved the article-(talk) 23:47, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your good intentions, Apbook, but my opinion of the article is unchanged. -- Hoary (talk) 23:11, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sourcing is not at a level to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:03, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:08, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jaaydaad[edit]

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

An article about a Bollywood film. The one reference is to a listing site which credits IMDb (which is not WP:RS). The external link is IMDb itself. A WP:BEFORE search turned up a one-line plot summary, and that was it. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 09:31, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 10:24, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 10:24, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Donaldd23 (talk) 11:59, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to concerns around WP:GNG and WP:NFILM Spiderone 14:15, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Per SNOW. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:55, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Henry[edit]

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

Disambig with only one bluelink and two redlinks. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 08:57, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 08:57, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A new article has been created which alters my opinion (see below). . *Redirect to O. Henry. Occasionally Oliver was used as pen name. Thincat (talk) 09:01, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater 11:21, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to O. Henry and add a hatnote on that article pointing to Sentinel-class cutter.—ShelfSkewed Talk 13:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, now that one of the articles has been created.—ShelfSkewed Talk 15:28, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the blue link then per Thincat as a WP:CHEAP solution here. I have no objection to a hatnote per ShelfSkewed, but I’m not certain it’s necessary. I presume at least one of the red links is anticipated to become an article once the ship finishes construction. If that happens the page can easily be restored. -2pou (talk) 13:58, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bzzzt! I believe this disambiguation page was completely compliant with Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Primary topic when a disambiguation page lists only one existing article by that name, and that this nomination was completely out of bounds.

I started Oliver Henry (USCG), this morning. Geo Swan (talk) 14:53, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate somehow Now Oliver Henry (USCG) has been created, and it looks good to me, the coastguard is probably the main topic. Yes, the nomination was never good. Thincat (talk) 15:05, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as a clearly proper disambiguation page. I was inclined to close this as a speedy keep on this basis, but will participate in the discussion to make this outcome clearer for the next admin who has the same thought. BD2412 T 18:43, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as per BD and events that have transpired since nom. Cheers! -- puddleglum^2.0 20:14, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:14, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ayodhyapati[edit]

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

An article about a Bollywood film, sourced only to (non-WP:RS) IMDb since creation in 2016. A WP:BEFORE search turned up a one-line plot summary from BFI and some listing sites, and that was it. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 08:55, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 10:25, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 10:25, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No independent sources found during search. Donaldd23 (talk) 12:00, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and above. -Hatchens (talk) 15:04, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to concerns around WP:GNG and WP:NFILM Spiderone 14:14, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per all of the above Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 10:11, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:16, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fouad[edit]

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

The subject of this article is a non notable musician who fails WP:MUSICBIO and already deleted thrice. None of the sources cited in the article are reliable, independent of him, and merely mentions of the subject but no wide coverage. Searches show nothing approaching reliable. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 08:53, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 08:53, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 08:53, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 08:53, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 08:53, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and, in order to have less time wasted in the future, salt. -- Hoary (talk) 13:05, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and create a surname page for the 4 people surnamed Fouad (I don't myself see much point in lists of given-name holders, though there are a lot of them here: add a "look from" listing in the See Also") , or perhaps a dab page as it should also include Fouad (Family Guy), a redirect created 2014 ... ah, I wonder whether the 2017 deleted version of the page had a hatnote we've lost? PamD 08:28, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It turns out that the singer's personal life has been noticed by the Ghana tabloids: [13], [14], but that does not help with his notability. The sources currently used in the article are from promotional sites that merely reprint press releases, which is common in the Ghana music industry. He has nothing significant and reliable as a musician. The same is true of his songs and albums. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:06, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SK1 (non-admin closure) Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 20:27, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Vinograd[edit]

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

Does not meet NBIO or NJOURNALIST. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 08:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 08:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 08:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 08:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 08:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think that she is notable in that she is the national go-to expert for CNN on National Security issues and writes for numerous national publications. I could list all the publications with citations. I tried to start a discussion somewhere on experts in their field and notability but no one replied. If prominent and numerous news sources solicit your expertise on a regular basis (she appears on CNN quite regularly), I think that is sufficient for notability. It would also have the side benefit of allowing the general public find out about who the expert is and I would expect over time, editors could add her opinions. 17:01, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

”keep” I think it’s convenient to have a place to look for a bio of a CNN analyst to understand her background. In this case she’s a child of Holocaust survivors. That’s exactly what I did after watching a CNN news clip entitled This is the scariest thing I’ve seen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.68.98.137 (talk) 06:47, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NJOURNALIST #1 "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." Being National Security Analyst at CNN meets this criterion. HouseOfChange (talk) 14:36, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:43, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So everyone who works for CNN meets NJOURNO 1? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 15:47, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, everyone whose title is "national security analyst" at CNN meets NJOURNO 1, for example Peter Bergen and Juliette Kayyem. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:56, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why? That just means national security analyst. Not every analyst is an expert in their field. For example, she hasn't ever published a book or an article in a peer reviewed journal. She doesn't have a PhD. She's not a professor. Can you point to her being widely cited by her peers? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:00, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If CNN news shows that repeatedly hire her are journalistic peers then she is widely cited by peers. There is nothing in NJOURNO1 that requires us to second-guess her peers whether or not she is an expert in her field. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:14, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what linking to a google search of her name is supposed to demonstrate. Can you provide examples of her being widely cited by her peers? That would mean examples of (1) her peers (2) citing her work (3) a lot. (CNN is her employer not her peer. Her "peers" in this case would be national security experts.) Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:37, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That was a Google NEWS search, to demonstrate her being cited by her peers aka journalists, at CNN and elsewhere. NJOURNO relates to notability as a journalist, not as a national security expert. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:52, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let's say her peers are other journalists. Has she been widely cited by journalists? (A google news search doesn't demonstrate that.) Which of her works have been widely cited by journalists? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:55, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple news stories at CNN and elsewhere that quote SV are examples of SV being "widely cited" by journalistic peers. NJOURNO1 requires that the journalist be widely cited, not that one or more of the journalist's "works" must be widely cited. Her Twitter account rather than her CNN work is also often quoted in news stories. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:45, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

She's CNN's national security analyst. Her being published or quoted by CNN in no way counts as being "widely cited by her peers." You're confusing "being published" with "being cited". And if you're saying she's widely cited because her tweets are cited, well... LMAO. Ping me if you can up with like three examples of her being cited by her peers. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:01, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, some examples of being cited by peers:

Newsweek: article title based on quote from SV, discusses and links to her CNN work^[4]
The Atlantic: piece (titled from quote of Vinograd, and recounting some of her remarks as an invited speaker at 2018 Atlantic Festival)^[5]
WaPo Daniel W. Drezner quotes and links to SV's CNN opinion,^[6]
WaPo quotes Twitter calling her "Obama National Security Council official Samantha Vinograd" in 2019.
NYT quotes Twitter^[7]
Mojo quotes Twitter^[8]
Related, she seems to get respect from security types such as Michael Morell, Michael G. Vickers and Thomas E. Donilon, based on NYT 2016 story^[9]

References

^ "North Korea 'hacked crypto-currency'". BBC News. 2017-12-16. Retrieved 2020-07-28.
^ "Hackers steal funds from Bitcoin traders". BBC News. 2017-07-05. Retrieved 2020-07-28.
^ "South Korea plans to ban cryptocurrency trading, rattles market". Reuters. 2018-01-11. Retrieved 2020-07-28.
^ Lemon, Jason (January 13, 2019). "Trump Was 'Aiding and Abetting' Russian Intelligence By Allegedly Asking His Interpreter to Conceal Notes, National Security Expert Says". Newsweek. Retrieved July 27, 2020. CNN national security analyst Samantha Vinograd has suggested that President Donald Trump aided and abetted Russian intelligence..Discussing the report on CNN's New Day program on Sunday morning, Vinograd, who served as a national security expert within the administration of Trump's predecessor Barack Obama, said special counsel Robert Mueller no doubt took notice of the report and could investigate further.
^ Paschal, Olivia (October 4, 2018). "'We're Still Under Attack'". The Atlantic (magazine). Retrieved July 27, 2020. Samantha Vinograd, a former Obama administration official who is now a senior adviser at the University of Delaware's Biden Institute...Despite the efforts the U.S. has taken—sanctions, indictments, and investigations—'it's not working," Vinograd said. 'We're still under attack.'
^ Drezner, Daniel W (July 1, 2019). "The Trump foreign policy is all hat and no cattle". WaPo. Retrieved July 27, 2020. CNN's Samantha Vinograd notes that by going to the DMZ, Trump has signaled his comfort with the status quo. This puts far less pressure on Kim to make tangible concessions.
^ "Chinese Agents Helped Spread Messages That Sowed Virus Panic in U.S., Officials Say". NY Times. December 7, 2018. Retrieved July 27, 2020. Samantha Vinograd, who was on the National Security Council staff on loan from the Treasury Department during the Obama administration, replied to the council's tweet, recounting her experience with the disinformation.
^ "The Massage Parlor Owner Peddling Access to Trump Has Ties to Chinese Government-Linked Groups". Mother Jones. March 10, 2019. Retrieved July 25, 2020. Samantha Vinograd, a CNN national security analyst who worked for the National Security Council during the Obama administration, noted: "Our intel community has said China poses one of the most significant counterintelligence challenges—my money is on the Chinese Govt having at least picked up on [Yang's] access if they didn't direct it."
^ Haberman, Maggie (September 19, 2016). "Letter From Former Officials Urges Donald Trump to Detail Foreign Dealings". NYT. Retrieved July 25, 2020. Michael J. Morell, a former acting director of the C.I.A., and Michael G. Vickers, a former under secretary of defense for intelligence, put together the letter with input from Samantha Vinograd, a former senior adviser to Thomas E. Donilon, a former national security adviser.

OK, thanks for pulling some examples together, I agree this moves the needle but I'm seeing more WP:NPROF than WP:NJOURN here:

Newsweek is, indeed, citing her work, but Newsweek is junk; yellow at WP:RSP.
The Atlantic isn't citing her work, it's reporting on a panel, on which she was a panelist, and the panel was put together by The Atlantic (The Atlantic Festival). The report is written by a fellow panelist, and quotes what she said at the panel. Because it's written by a fellow panelist, and published by the same organization that put on the panel, it's not really independent, and I don't think it counts as citing Vinograd's work, as opposed to ... well, reporting what she said at a panel. That said, the fact that she was on the panel, if it doesn't count for NJOURN 1, I think would count towards NPROF 7, as it helps establish her as an expert in the area of national security, because The Atlantic is an RS, so being on an Atlantic-sponsored panel suggests impact outside academia.
WaPo/Drezner is a one-sentence mention, "CNN’s Samantha Vinograd notes that by going to the DMZ, Trump has signaled his comfort with the status quo. This puts far less pressure on Kim to make tangible concessions.", but it links to her CNN article, and it's a citation by another expert in a reliable source, so I'd say it counts.
No way that NYT or MJ quoting her tweets (among other people's tweets) counts as citing a journalist's work in the NJOURN 1 sense. In the NYT story, she's being quoted as a witness more than as an expert, in a story about receiving fake messages ("Samantha Vinograd, who was on the National Security Council staff on loan from the Treasury Department during the Obama administration, replied to the council’s tweet, recounting her experience with the disinformation.") The MJ story expressly quotes her as a national security expert, so that shows NPROF 7 again, but even though MJ is green at RSP, the entry there says "Almost all editors consider Mother Jones a biased source, so its statements (particularly on political topics) may need to be attributed. Consider whether content from this publication constitutes due weight before citing it in an article.", and I think that caution should be applied here because MJ is citing her as a former Obama official for an anti-Trump point, so I don't think we should accord it much weight.
The last NYT link about her co-signing a letter doesn't count as citing her work as a journalist but as you said, it shows she gets respect from peers in the national security field and thus in my view would count towards NPROF 7 notability.

In all, based on these, I'm not convinced about GNG or NJOURN 1, but (1) her work being cited by Drezner in a WaPo op-ed, (2) serving on a The Atlantic expert panel, and (3) being a co-signer of a letter signed by a bunch of natsec experts reported in NYT, I think could establish NPROF notability (which doesn't require GNG). Before I felt we had zero substantiation; now I think we have more than zero (we have 3, to be exact; 3.5 if you add MJ

). With there being no delete !votes and if other editors think this is enough for NPROF 7 (or if there's more out there), I would withdraw the nom. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 20:02, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, well Time cites her extensively in this story, likewise The Hill, calling her "a top national security official during the Obama administration"], and both those are green at WP:RSP, so I still think she meets NJOURN1-- but I will be happy if you withdraw your nomination based on NPROF 7 instead. HouseOfChange (talk) 20:22, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, and also her work at CNN and WaPo has been cited three times in opinion columns by David Leonhardt [15] [16] [17], alongside León Krauze, Margaret Sullivan (journalist), Kenneth M. Pollack, Andrew Bacevich, Fred Kaplan, and her sometimes-coauthor Michael Morell, all of whom have articles. So that's enough for me. Thanks for finding the sources HOC! Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 20:26, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ 18:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Raleigh School[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Possible ATD is redirect to Raleigh, North Carolina#Private and religion-based schools. Boleyn (talk) 08:01, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 10:26, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 10:26, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it takes a lot of good sourcing to show a school that is not at the secondary level is notable and we lack that here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:54, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:17, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More of Me[edit]

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

TV movie with some notable actors but doesn't meet WP:NFILM or WP:GNG itself. Boleyn (talk) 07:57, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 10:26, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article lacks any reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:01, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater (^{🦉 talk} _talk🦉) 19:43, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 10:15, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:17, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas King (courtier)[edit]

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

Assistant Private Secretary of the Queen is not inherently notable. Successful but doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. A possible ATD is redirect to Private Secretary to the Sovereign#Assistant Private Secretaries to the Sovereign since 1878. Boleyn (talk) 07:47, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 10:26, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete held a non-notable position, not enough sourcing to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:39, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Field Marshal (talk) 20:31, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alok Industries[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:CORP as it has barely any sources available. Most of the sources are coming from stock trading profiles or the company itself. Independent sources give just a passing mention. The only article which focused on it was this. Field Marshal (talk) 07:31, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 10:27, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 10:27, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 10:27, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Incredibly poor nomination WP:LISTED Editors coming across an article on such a company without such references are encouraged to search (or request that others search) prior to nominating for deletion.... Times of India [18], Business-standard [19], Bloomberg quint [20] [21] [22], Economic Times [23] [24] (all major and reliable sources in India). The company is listed on NSE. Although there is no inherent notability as per our wiki policy (that seems absurd to me especially for listed cos on our country's major exchange), the sources are more than enough for notability here. In my opinion, every single co. listed on a major stock exchange (all 1000+ listed on India's NSE) is notable by the mere fact that millions of people (small traders and retail investors to major FIIs) all have an interest in the company and it doesn't even matter if they have heard of the company, because its performance has an impact on the economy of the country. I could argue on and on, but this is not the venue. Editors need to be careful about nominating listed cos for deletion, especially if they don't have a finance background and are often so dismissive about their notability. - hako9 (talk) 06:49, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hako9: Bar perhaps one of the Economic Times sources, everything you cited is just basic routine coverage and doesn't go towards establishing notability. If you could send my MBA certificate by email that would be great. Thanks Zindor (talk) 15:56, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Zindor: Hahaah basic routine coverage...Allow me to politely give you some free unsolicited advice. Media usually doesn't write a 25 page puff piece for a company unlike celebrities you may read in tabloids. The articles are usually to the point and concise. - hako9 (talk) 19:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep — nomination withdrawn and no !votes to delete XOR'easter (talk) 18:17, 28 July 2020 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Alan Wayne Jones[edit]

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

~~Doesn't meet WP:PROF or WP:GNG. Successful academic but not notable. Has been in CAT:NN for over 11 years, hopefully we can now resolve it one way or the other. Boleyn (talk) 07:24, 26 July 2020 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 10:28, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 10:28, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The citation record on Google Scholar shows 7 publications with over 100 citations each (and another close), enough to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1. And he has three major awards from three different organizations, each of which seems good enough for #C2 to me. I've cleaned up the article, which was written badly in a way that made him look like he was just a minor bureaucrat who retired; instead, he appears to have been a significant researcher whose research contributions have been widely recognized. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:02, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: based on high citations counts, and awards.Earthianyogi (talk) 11:34, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination per excellent arguments above. Boleyn (talk) 12:57, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:55, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest Joseph Boffa[edit]

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

~~Interesting career, but doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Possible WP:ATD is redirect to Canada's Aviation Hall of Fame#Inductees. Boleyn (talk) 07:10, 26 July 2020 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 10:29, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to be better known as Ernie Boffa. There's an entire book about him and he is discussed in plenty of others. [25] Spicy (talk) 18:16, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination you're absolutely right, under that name there is plenty of information. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 18:40, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Fenix down (talk) 07:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Enoch Gilchrist[edit]

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

Footballer who didn't appear at international level or in a fully professional league (all appearances were in old Scottish Second Division), so falls WP:NFOOTY. No indication of significant non-routine coverage to otherwise satisfy WP:GNG. Jellyman (talk) 18:41, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jellyman (talk) 18:41, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Jellyman (talk) 18:41, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Jellyman (talk) 18:41, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Scottish second tier (unless you are reffering to a different league) is listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues. Therefore he has played in what is now a proffessional league (whether or not it was then) and therefore passes WP:NFOOTY. Thanks, AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 21:14, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not abundantly clear from WP:FPL, but Scotland these days has four divisions (top tier of 12, then three tiers of 10), whereas in the 1960s / early 70s, there was only two divisions (top tier of 18, second tier of 19/20). There is generally only around 20 full time clubs, at most. Full time teams in the Second Division then would have been very rare, most would attract only a few hundred spectators. Jellyman (talk) 22:31, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would say Hamilton Academical is a fairly well established team. Playing 94 games for them in the Scottish Second Tier looks like a WP:NFOOTY pass to me. Lets see what other editors think. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 23:40, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:35, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with @Jellyman: that WP:FPL needs updating (and that is a discussion to be had at WT:FPL) because my understanding is that the Scottish 2nd tier only became considered fully pro when the Scottish Premier League was founded in 1998? As such, this player fails NFOOTBALL - and also, importantly, GNG. Giant Snowman 09:35, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NFOOTY as far as I can see. Also there are literally hundreds of articles like this and many of them far less notable then this one. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 11:04, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 18:41, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep lots of late 1960s Scottish media coverage - which should be no surprise with 10-years of second-tier Scottish football. While not everyone who ever walked on the pitch in the second tier might have been notable, a decade of play, and hundreds of matches, is going to get media coverage. I'd assume this is the same Enoch Gilchrist that played for Hamilton Croatia from about 1971 to at least 1973 - but I can't prove it. Nfitz (talk) 22:41, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not really moved closer to consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 07:08, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn--Ymblanter (talk) 21:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mihai Udrea[edit]

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

The footballer has never played in a fully professional league, thereby failing WP:NFOOTY. I do not see correspondence to WP:GNG either. Ymblanter (talk) 20:57, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 20:57, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 20:57, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:59, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:15, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:26, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets NFOOTBALL, apologies, I missed the Cup game when reviewing Soccerway. Giant Snowman 21:11, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – appeared in the Cupa României against FC Dinamo București; since both Dinamo and FCSB are in the Liga I, that appearance is enough to meet NFOOTY. Keskkonnakaitse (talk) 18:40, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NFOOTY as per this .Subject is 19 years and made his debut on 8th July 2020 this month.See little point in deleting it.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:22, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes NFOOTY Spiderone 18:35, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Regardless of nfooty, not seeing concensus here on GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 07:06, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SK#1. The nominator has withdrawn their nomination and there are no other arguments for deletion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:39, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Allee[edit]

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

Successful artist but doesn't meet WP:NARTIST or WP:GNG. It has been in CAT:NN for over 11 years so hopefully we can now resolve this issue one way or the other. Boleyn (talk) 06:57, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 10:31, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 10:31, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I went thru his CV on his website to try to verify the museum collections listed there. I could ~~only~~ verify the Bronx Museum of the Arts [26] (the link shows his name in the list of featured articles.) ~~The other collections failed verifications.~~ The article is poor quality, but there may be notability. Netherzone (talk) 11:28, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment update - ~~I went through every exhibition venue and collection listed in his wikipedia article, and every single one failed verification except the Bronx Museum.~~ I have found three museum collections + one notable corporate collection. Netherzone (talk) 19:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I was able to verify two museum collections: the Bronx Museum and the Santa Barbara Museum of Art. I've added citations for these to the article. I think that two museum collections means he passes our notability criteria. It's really odd not able to find anything on the other institutions' websites re: exhibits or presence in their collections. I could find some things that seemed to be copied from his website or his wikipedia article, so it's really a mystery. Netherzone (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:28, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject easily passes WP:NARTIST, WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. What WP:BEFORE was done? Only going by what is currently in the article, in terms of WP:NARTIST, has had a solo exhition at a major gallery (Knoxville Museum of Art); work held in more than one permanent collection (Bronx Museum of the Arts and Santa Barbara Museum of Art); written about in multiple independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject (The New Yorker, The New York Times, Slate, Village Voice). The subject's site lists more examples as a springboard if we needed to go hunting for more. -Lopifalko (talk) 03:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination per user:Netherzone's great work. Boleyn (talk) 06:49, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Kanye West 2020 presidential campaign. Requests for protection can be made at WP:RFPP if necessary. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:33, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Tidball[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Minor vice presidential candidate is not independently notable outside of her role in Kanye's quixotic political journey, nor is she notable because of it, per WP:BLP1E. I wouldn't be opposed to a Redirect to Kanye West 2020 presidential campaign. KidAd (💬💬) 05:49, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 10:40, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 10:40, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 10:40, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable --Devokewater 11:24, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not remotely notable. Lacking significant coverage in independent sources. Not aversed to restoring the redirect. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:11, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and SALT, Her only basis for notability is her connection to Kanye West’s campaign, and therefore, she is likely to be searched for the meantime.—Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 19:23, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kanye West 2020 presidential campaign. Her only claim to notability is being West's running mate. LefcentrerightDiscuss 20:02, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kanye West 2020 presidential campaign. If she receives greater attention (unlikely) then the page can be restored. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 03:36, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kanye West 2020 presidential campaign and SALT. Not notable at all, only known as a Kanye West's running mate. However, if she ever gets more attention in future, then this page should be recreated. SMB99thx Email! 08:45, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:43, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kanye West 2020 presidential campaign and SALT per nomination. This is a second of an above suggestion.--Mpen320 (talk) 15:43, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kanye West 2020 presidential campaign and SALT per nomination. She is not notable as preacher largely outside of the public eye. Running for VP on the Birthday Party ticket does not make her notable either.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:46, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to Kanye West 2020 presidential campaign, not a notable individual. SecretName101 (talk) 20:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kanye West 2020 presidential campaign. Not independently notable, per nomination. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 21:52, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kanye West 2020 presidential campaign per WP:BLP1E. I don't believe protecting is necessary at this stage it's not been repeatedly recreated. And for those !voting redirect AND SALT it is one or the other, we can redirect and protect but again I think that's premature. Glen 09:48, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My rationale for protection is that Tidball is likely to be searched for, but remain a minor profile, in the coming months because of her connection to the election. I doubt the user who created the redirect's intention was for this to become a standalone article, and the user who removed the redirect and created the standalone article has fewer than 50 edits.--Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 16:48, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Molandfreak, that's fair but WP:SALT typically means protect a deleted page from recreation. In this case we'd be protecting a redirect which whilst nuanced is slightly different. But yes get your point and ultimately I think if (likely when) West's presidential run implodes this will probably be the final outcome. Glen 19:13, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom to Kanye West 2020 presidential campaign. Em-mustapha ^talk 10:41, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep people are wanting to search for this. User: Rushtheeditor 12:21, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

^^^^ WP:LOTSOFGHITS. KidAd (💬💬) 21:06, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and they are likely to find mention of her in the Kanye West 2020 presidential campaign article or the Third-party and independent candidates for the 2020 United States presidential election sub-page. The fact that people will be googling her does not mean she needs a separate article.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and ?maybe? Redirect: I say maybe because subject has not even acknowledged nomination.--Thespasticone

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 deleted as G11. (non-admin closure) — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 09:56, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lori Lee Shemek[edit]

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

Author and life coach. No sign of significant coverage. Does not meet WP:NAUTHOR, WP:ANYBIO, or WP:GNG. Jack Frost (talk) 04:42, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 04:42, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 04:42, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 04:42, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Article was created by a promotion-only account. Jack Frost, I personally would have tagged the article as G11 instead, since it's quicker than AfD. —Unforgettableid (talk) 04:56, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unforgettableid, I was tempted but erred on the side of AfD given it was not blatantly promotional, and you could make some argument given she has published a book and appeared on TV. Although, I have just looked at the article again and I am having second thoughts about the promotional bit.... Jack Frost (talk) 05:01, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Devokewater 11:23, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:42, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable life coach.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:22, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Chess club. bibliomaniac 1 5 07:21, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chess Centres[edit]

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

Unsourced, very little encyclopedic information is given about the topic. Only lists a bunch of places. We are not a dictionary. I am not even sure if this is something that deserves its own topic. Either delete or merge with Chess club. A a s i m 04:30, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. A a s i m 04:30, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I hate to agree with my imposters, merge to chess club - this appears to be an advertising term used for more "upscale" chess clubs or the like. (the real) GeneralNotability (talk) 12:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: unreferenced, fails WP:GNG, looks also a bit spammy. Sophia91 (talk) 16:47, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to chess club- I can't find any reliable sources making such a strange distinction. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 20:04, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to chess club. I don't know that it's suitable for merging since there are no in-text citations at all. Citrivescence (talk) 00:10, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. bibliomaniac 1 5 07:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ram Janma[edit]

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

An article about a Bollywood film, sourced only to (non-WP:RS) IMDb since creation in 2015. A WP:BEFORE search failed to reveal even the plot, which the article lacks. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 04:26, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 10:33, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 10:33, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Searches found nothing of substance. Donaldd23 (talk) 12:07, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to concerns around WP:NFILM and WP:GNG Spiderone 14:13, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ 18:24, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hooper, California[edit]

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

Hooper was a rail stop on the Atchison Topeka and Santa Fe at the crossing with the Pittsburg Railroad.[[27]] Hooper was an industrialist who had a major role in developing the area. Topo maps from 1918 show no buildings at or around the crossing. There is no indication that it was ever a community. Nothing to indicate that it meets basic notability criteria. Glendoremus (talk) 04:23, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 10:33, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 10:33, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete Seems to have been an interlocking which has long since been removed in the middle of an industrial area. Mangoe (talk) 03:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:43, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Children's Home of Pittsburgh[edit]

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

Un-referenced article about an extremely small local hospital that doesn't have cite any references and is written like an advert. I'm not seeing anything about this that would pass the notability standards of WP:GNG or WP:NORG. Adamant1 (talk) 04:17, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 10:33, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:00, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I agree that the article was blatantly promotional (even giving the opening hours!) when it was nominated. I cut the promotional material to a minimum, and added a lot of citations, including the Pittsburgh Press, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Meadville Evening Republican, plus a mention in a Child Welfare journal article. There's a lot more that could be done: the organization started in 1893, and I think there's more that could be found to verify the facts about its growth. Still, I think the existing citations now demonstrate notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:21, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There should at least be regional or national coverage of it. The Child Welfare artice seems like trivial coverage, as does the one about Rick Santorum visiting the hosptial, and the rest are local news outlets. I appreciate the promo cleanup though. The opening hours were pretty ridiculous. Adamant1 (talk) 05:45, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Meadville is regional, about 90 miles away from Pittsburgh. That's about an hour and a half away by car, and (since the source I've used is from 1897) even farther away by horse. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:31, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Meadville Evening Republican is a local newspaper. It doesn't suddenly become a regional news outlet just because its an hours drive away. Just like it doesn't change the nature of my local newspaper, or turn into a regional one, just because every now and then it runs stories about a town 3 hours away from here. Nor did a local newspaper from the other side of the country suddenly become a national news outlet for covering a natural disaster that happened here a few years ago. That's not how it works or what the guidelines say. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:55, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Almost every newspaper in the United States is published in a particular location; I believe the only exception is USA Today. Are you suggesting that every newspaper is local, and therefore it is not possible to use newspapers to demonstrate notability? If so, I would like to see a link to the guideline that supports that view. — Toughpigs (talk) 20:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Toughpigs: Yeah, obviously newspapers are published places. I don't see how that's relevant. As it has nothing to do with it. The important thing is the kind of coverage they have and what demographic "level" they mainly sell to. For instance the New York Times is a national outlet because they cover national news and you can buy in every Starbucks in America. The fact that their office is in New York isn't really relevant. Otherwise, the whole "at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary" thing in WP:AUD wouldn't be a thing. It's not on me that you disagree with it and have some bizarre idea that USA Today is the only national news source since "everything is published somewhere" or whatever the hell your weird argument against WP:AUD is. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you recently said that the Chicago Tribune is "local", and Chicago is the third largest city in the US. Besides The New York Times, can you name two other newspapers that you would consider to be "regional" or "national"? — Toughpigs (talk) 01:04, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Toughpigs, USA Today is probably the only major truly national paper. Even the NYT is a local paper for New York, it covers local stories in much more depth i.e. click on the New York Tab on their website. I don't think the USA really has non-'local; papers in the same way smaller countries like the UK do (TheGuardian, Telegraph). All the major papers cover non-local stories with their own journalists, The Boston Globe definitely covers and breaks stories of national interest, as do the LA times, the Chicago Tribune, Washington Post. But you need to be careful saying because something is regional it isn't notable. Many American states are larger than small European countries, something regional in scale can be quite notable and reach millions of people, some of these papers are much larger than the biggest paper in a given country. PainProf (talk) 01:28, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Wall Street Journal. Maybe that's more international though. Anyway, I don't see how USA Today being a national outlet is really relevant to Meadville Evening Republican being a local newspaper. Which is what the discussion is about. Not me saying something being regional isn't notable, because that's not what I said, or I wouldn't have quoted WP:AUD's whole "at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary" thing. You can have a personal opinion that all American newspapers even local ones are regional or national or whatever, but WP:AUD doesn't make an exception to the one regional source rule for America. It's your prerogative if you want to claim a local newspaper is a national one because there's no such thing as local newspapers or whatever. I don't personally find it a compelling argument or one that fits the guidelines though. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:59, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In practice, I think people generally consider newspapers from big cities as "regional" coverage. The point that WP:AUD is making is about the size of the audience. I would agree that the weekly paper in Tinytown, Arkansas is a "local" newspaper that doesn't confer notability on the Tinytown Junior High fund-raising pancake breakfast. Pittsburgh is a big city. The fact that there's coverage in Meadville means that the Children's Home is known outside Pittsburgh city limits — i.e., in the Pittsburgh region. Dismissing every city newspaper as "local" is not a correct interpretation of policy, as you can see in many recent AfD discussions. — Toughpigs (talk) 05:35, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Meadville isn't a big city though and your the one that brought up the Chicago Tribune. Your also the one that keeps arguing about "cities" and what constitutes a "city" newspaper in all these AfDs when the notability guideline is about "local" newspapers. Which is completely different. As I've said before, I don't think something being covered in two "local" newspapers makes it fit the "regional source" clause in WP:AUD, because it specifically says "source." As in a single, regional, source. I was told repeatedly that sans serious regional or national coverage that the threshold of notability for hospitals is 500 beds. This one is seriously below that because it only has 30 beds and I don't think it's notable enough just because a newspaper from the next town over did an article on it. That's less beds then my local Hotel 6 has and the hotel has more news coverage about it then this does. Otherwise, every hospital in the world is notable. People are free to disagree with me, but I'm not the one that came up with the 500 bed thing, I didn't write WP:AUD, and both exist for a reason. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:04, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as article is transformed into one that fulfills WP:GNG. Much thanks to Toughpigs for adding these sources. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 19:35, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Toughpigs. The nom focuses only on the condition of the article at one point in time, not the actual notability of the subject, and apparently didn't bother to search such associated terms as "Lemieux Family Center", which would produce evidence of significant coverage. Nom's uninformed analysis of the nature of available news coverage is thoroughly unconvincing. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 01:09, 28 July 2020 (UTC):[reply]
Keep per Toughpigs, the article is not only improved but the sources indicate it meets GNG. PainProf (talk) 01:28, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:ORGCRIT with improved sourcing. KidAd (💬💬) 06:39, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets Wikipedia:WikiProject Hospitals/Tutorials#Notability criteria. ----- — Preceding unsigned comment added by G. Moore (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was keep. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:39, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jitegemee[edit]

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

The article has been badly sourced for a while now and all the ones that are currently in it are primary references. I wasn't able to find anything about it that would pass WP:GNG or WP:NORG from a WP:BEFORE either. There was an AfD for it in 2015 that resulted in keep, but the only argument against deleting it seemed to resolve around systemic bias or something. Adamant1 (talk) 03:53, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found [28], [29], [30], [31]. If it survives AfD, I'll add them to the article. // Timothy :: talk 04:53, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@TimothyBlue: Add them now. Quoting from the standard AFD notification, "Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion". Narky Blert (talk) 07:06, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Much safer not to add them now. If you do and the article still gets deleted you'll have to find even more again to avoid WP:G4 if you decide to recreate the article. Reliable sources need to exist, not necessarily be cited in the article. Thincat (talk) 10:11, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:57, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:57, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think much of Thincat's advice. Rathfelder (talk) 13:45, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there. Putting them in the article gives passerby's a much better idea of the sourcing as a whole. Plus, I highly doubt it would matter later on if the article is recreated. Good sources are good sources. Not that I'm saying they are because I haven't checked, but if they were it wouldn't matter to G4 because it covers content, not sourcing. Just don't phrase the article the same and there shouldn't be a problem, but that would be true if the new sources are added to it or not. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:33, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm going to add them to the article, sorry I've been slow in doing so. // Timothy :: talk 19:50, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Follow Up I put some work in ce the article and adding the references. There is still information and work that can improve the article, but it's a start. If for some reason this article does not make it through AfD (I think it should, but just in case), I request the closer Draftify the article so I can continue work on it. Thanks for your patience. // Timothy :: talk 00:50, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article seems to meet WP:GNG.A popular youth project in the country that has been featured in multiple news papers and news site.Best Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 07:03, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY and Timothy's sources. I think The Bright Continent: Breaking Rules and Making Change in Modern Africa looks especially strong. — Toughpigs (talk) 15:46, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. bibliomaniac 1 5 07:20, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lumumba Secondary School[edit]

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

The article is a basic one sentence description of the school, it hasn't cited any sources since at least 2013, and I couldn't find anything about it in a WP:BEFORE that would pass WP:GNG or WP:NORG. Wikipedia isn't a directory. Adamant1 (talk) 03:43, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 10:36, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 10:36, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article has no sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:53, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Our coverage of African topics is appalling. Let's not make it even worse by deleting an article on Zanzibar's largest secondary school, as confirmed by the very first Google Books hit for the title. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:05, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If heard your arguement come up in AfDs a lot. Maybe the coverage of Africa is appalling because the sources on African topics are appalling. While it sucks that's the case, it doesn't mean there should be an exception to the notibility guidelines for Africa or that Wikipedia should have an article on everything even slightly related to Africa "because Africa." Its not like there isn't some pretty well sourced subjects related to Africa in Wikipedia though and the whole thing is sorta akin the soft bigotry of low expections IMO. Likely people in the English wiki just haven't put the time into finding good African sources because they assume their aren't any. Which then circularly leads to talking points similar to yours. Adamant1 (talk) 19:00, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, didn't you just assume that there aren't any sources about this African subject? There are, and they are readily available. Just look for them before nominating articles for deletion, per WP:BEFORE. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The thing about an AfD is that it isn't about sources "existing" WP:SOURCESEXIST and the crystal clear guidelines on what constitutes trivial coverage in WP:NORG. Maybe familiarize yourself with them next time before you vote or criticize a nominator. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:38, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is about sources existing. See WP:NEXIST. — Toughpigs (talk) 21:02, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not really just existing though, because even WP:NEXIST caveats that they have to be "independent and reliable sources. Not to mention it also says "merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive." Which I think is the more relevant thing to AfDs. Since per WP:DISCUSSAFD "AfDs are a place for rational discussion of whether an article is able to meet Wikipedia's article guidelines and policies." At least IMO going on that and WP:NEXIST AfDs aren't a place to just dump a bunch of random indiscriminate sources. So we can call the whole done and keep every article "because sources." It's a little more nuanced then that. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:41, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Phil Bridger added 2 book sources, qualifying as WP:RS under WP:N, and I found 2 other sources that provide significant coverage: one on SCSU's program providing science textbooks, and a case study on teaching Islamic moral values at the school. Beyond those sources, I was struck by the number of international organizations that have provided help to the school over time (the school must have a fairly aggressive fund-raising capability?), which I believe meet WP:SUSTAINED. I was unable to locate more news sources in English, but for those fluent in Swahili, there is a Tanzania news index that may yield more sources. I would just offer that finding sources in another language is always a challenge, and we have seen many AfD's for schools in 3rd world countries. I appreciate Adamant1's role in calling to our attention articles that are unsourced or poorly sourced. This time, I believe we now have enough WP:RS to meet WP:GNG. Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 19:10, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY, thanks to Phil Bridger and Grand'mere Eugene's work. — Toughpigs (talk) 19:34, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:36, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Tralins[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I came across this article when investigating copy/pastes and realized the subject likely isn't notable. Although he's published a lot of works, I don't really see any credible reviews or news coverage that would meet GNG (or any accomplishments that would meet NAUTHOR). Correct me if I'm wrong though Sam-2727 (talk) 03:39, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam-2727 (talk) 03:39, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see that the previous AfD discussion talked about his obituary. But are there any other reliable sources besides that? Sam-2727 (talk) 04:02, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Delete~~ Weak Keep I did some digging and everything I found is in the article at the moment. Basically: pulp fiction author who wrote, among many, many other things, some nasty racist books in the 1970s. His most notable activity was to ghost-write a book (although he was credited on the cover) about prostitution that was labelled obscene and then got to the Supreme Court, which said it wasn't obscene. Doesn't pass WP:AUTHOR, nor is his notability inherited from the court case (which probably wasn't notable either—obscenity cases were a dime a dozen in the old days). On the other hand: he's interesting as an emblem of some of the more sordid trends in mid- to late-20th century American lowbrow fiction. Could live with this article as the stub it seems destined to remain; could also live with tossing it in the garbage. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:25, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also would note the oddly extensive article in dewiki. I don't read German, but the article has a list of mostly English-language sources—none of which turned up in my searches. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:32, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Went through the sources cited in the dewiki article and they check out. He was listed in a few biographical dictionaries of writers at the time. I'm starting to be convinced that he was a known quantity; I changed my !vote above accordingly. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:59, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:32, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 06:04, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I found several more articles on Tralins from The Miami Herald and The Tampa Bay Times, which I added to the article. The racist and prostitution books were in the 60s — in the 70s, he started writing about the supernatural, and some of his stories were adapted for TV in the 90s. There's enough coverage to pass GNG. — Toughpigs (talk) 06:03, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as enough coverage to pass the GNG. Archrogue (talk) 19:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a deceased author with historical value and passes WP:GNG. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:26, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:20, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Krunker.io[edit]

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

Note: Melofors, as the page creator, has not been notified of this AFD as the user is currently blocked indefinitely.

After reviewing the article's five sources listed here, it eventually became clear to me that the game in question does not meet WP:GNG, and most likely won't in the near future. A custom Google search via WP:VG/SE does not help either.

FanBolt, MakeUseOf, ScienceFiction.com, and Tech News Today appears to be blogs, and 3 of the citations from them have the title among the lines like "Top 10 Best Browser Games", so it's not a significant mention anyway. Some more sources I found in regular Google search are GameSpace.com, but it's not reliable as well as it appears to me that you can make an account there and start writing anything you want without editorial oversight.

This leaves us with Koalition, which I'm not sure if it's reliable or not (their about page appears to be convincing, except it has an email for advertising queries), but even if it were, one reliable source is not enough to make it notable. theinstantmatrix (talk) 02:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. theinstantmatrix (talk) 02:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment MakeUseOf is an editor-oversighted site, but that still would leave even just one source - and that being a listicle ,not even a GNG-appropriate source - for this. --Masem (t) 03:21, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough reliable sources to pass WP:GNG._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:55, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 10:39, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet WP:GNG. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 15:55, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article just doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 04:02, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn without any delete proposals. A page move can be discussed on the article talkpage. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 23:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mathis Mootz[edit]

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

Despite the article saying this DJ is prolific there doesn't seem to be anything about him that passes WP:NBIO or WP:NMUSIC. The article only cites two sources. One of which is AllMusic and the other one is a dead link. So, neither of them work for notability. There isn't any sources in his German article either and there doesn't seem to be any reviews of his albums on AllMusic. I wasn't able to find any in-depth coverage of him or his music in a WP:BEFORE either. There does seem to be a lot of stuff about his side project Panacea though. Which doesn't currently seem to have an article in Wikipedia. Maybe the best route would be to create one since it looks to be notable and go with that. Instead of having an article about him. Since he doesn't appear to be notable on his own and neither does his other band. Which appears to take up a lot of the article. Panacea redirects to his article though. Which makes me think maybe it wasn't notable either. Adamant1 (talk) 02:01, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:26, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:26, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

keep The second line of our article reads "Mootz is best known as the Panacea". Panacea is a stage name rather than a side project he has 3 stage names so an article on the person makes more sense. It looks to me like all his albums as Panacea have been reviewed. e.g. https://www.side-line.com/panacea-beyond-all-boundaries-vinyl-12-sonic-groove/. https://www.beatport.com/artist/the-panacea/8804 https://www.allmusic.com/artist/panacea-mn0000002278/biography PainProf (talk) 17:15, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While he might have other side projects, if none of them are notable except for Panacea and he's not known by his real name then I think it could strongly be argued that either an article under Mathis Mootz isn't notable enough, but one under Panacea would be. The problem though is that Panacea was deleted in 2007 in this AfD. So, if Panacea is notable enough for an article now then that AfD should be refunded and the article should be created. That's a different issue then if "Mathis Mootz" is notable or not though. Which is who this article and the AfD is about. I'd like to point out to that most DJs who go under a stage name from what I've seen have articles under their stage name.

For instance DJ Shadow not Joshua Paul Davis, Deadmau5 not Joel Thomas Zimmerman, etc etc. Most have hardly notable side projects to, but it doesn't seem to warrant an article under their full name in most of those cases. The important to notability and what warrants is what they are most commonly referred to as and in this case it's Panacea. So, there should be a Panacea article, but again that's not related to Mathis Mootz not being notable. BTW, I think it's a semi different thing with DJs then it is with say bands where a band member might have an article if they notable enough on their own as part of the band and I think the difference is reflected in the clear precedent for articles about DJ largely being under the name they are popularly known as. Also, my guess is that if a Joshua Paul Davis or Joel Thomas Zimmerman article were created they would likely be forwarded to DJ Shadow and Deadmau5 respectively. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:39, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We can rename this article if you want to but in both those cases it describes the person and their name is before their stage name in the lead. It makes no sense to go back to an 2006 version when there has clearly been significant change since then and as you know that is a weak AfD with limited participation and all rationale as per nom so it isn't relevant in this discussion. PainProf (talk) 20:53, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, change your vote to Rename then. I don't really care. Just keeping it doesn't lead to it being renamed and your the one that thinks it's the best option. I was under the impression that if there was an AfD for an article with the same name that it's better to do a refund instead of just creating a whole new article with the same title. Otherwise, it would have to go to draft space first or whatever. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:58, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, we would just move the page to the new name no need to do anything difficult and I don't really think we need to move, but I couldn't care less. There's already a redirect and it's in the lead so it's pretty clear to me. PainProf (talk) 21:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sounds like PainProf has found significant coverage for the musician. Renaming a page is easy, if we think it's more appropriate. — Toughpigs (talk) 21:33, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw and move to Panacea (DJ) or whatever. Someone else can do the move though. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:40, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:18, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Immaculate Heart Catholic Church[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCHURCH. Of the sources in the article, one is just a photograph and the other does not even mention the church. I searched on the University of Oregon's Historic Oregon Newspapers website and I didn't find anything beyond routine listings for events at the church like this. My Google search also fails to turn up any significant coverage of the building or congregation. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 01:26, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 01:26, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 01:26, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 01:26, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. To reiterate, the majority of the citations in this article are to this page which doesn't even mention the church. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:09, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough sourcing to justify an article for an individual parish.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:12, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one reference is to a directory listing, the other barely mentions. WP:BEFORE reveals only WP:ROUTINE coverage. // Timothy :: talk 19:40, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] "North Korea 'hacked crypto-currency'". BBC News. 2017-12-16. Retrieved 2020-07-28.

[2] "Hackers steal funds from Bitcoin traders". BBC News. 2017-07-05. Retrieved 2020-07-28.

[3] "South Korea plans to ban cryptocurrency trading, rattles market". Reuters. 2018-01-11. Retrieved 2020-07-28.

[Newsweek-4] Lemon, Jason (January 13, 2019). "Trump Was 'Aiding and Abetting' Russian Intelligence By Allegedly Asking His Interpreter to Conceal Notes, National Security Expert Says". Newsweek. Retrieved July 27, 2020. CNN national security analyst Samantha Vinograd has suggested that President Donald Trump aided and abetted Russian intelligence..Discussing the report on CNN's New Day program on Sunday morning, Vinograd, who served as a national security expert within the administration of Trump's predecessor Barack Obama, said special counsel Robert Mueller no doubt took notice of the report and could investigate further.

[Atlantic2018-5] Paschal, Olivia (October 4, 2018). "'We're Still Under Attack'". The Atlantic (magazine). Retrieved July 27, 2020. Samantha Vinograd, a former Obama administration official who is now a senior adviser at the University of Delaware's Biden Institute...Despite the efforts the U.S. has taken—sanctions, indictments, and investigations—'it's not working," Vinograd said. 'We're still under attack.'

[WaPo2019-6] Drezner, Daniel W (July 1, 2019). "The Trump foreign policy is all hat and no cattle". WaPo. Retrieved July 27, 2020. CNN's Samantha Vinograd notes that by going to the DMZ, Trump has signaled his comfort with the status quo. This puts far less pressure on Kim to make tangible concessions.

[NYT2020T-7] "Chinese Agents Helped Spread Messages That Sowed Virus Panic in U.S., Officials Say". NY Times. December 7, 2018. Retrieved July 27, 2020. Samantha Vinograd, who was on the National Security Council staff on loan from the Treasury Department during the Obama administration, replied to the council's tweet, recounting her experience with the disinformation.

[Mojo2019-8] "The Massage Parlor Owner Peddling Access to Trump Has Ties to Chinese Government-Linked Groups". Mother Jones. March 10, 2019. Retrieved July 25, 2020. Samantha Vinograd, a CNN national security analyst who worked for the National Security Council during the Obama administration, noted: "Our intel community has said China poses one of the most significant counterintelligence challenges—my money is on the Chinese Govt having at least picked up on [Yang's] access if they didn't direct it."

[NYT2016-9] Haberman, Maggie (September 19, 2016). "Letter From Former Officials Urges Donald Trump to Detail Foreign Dealings". NYT. Retrieved July 25, 2020. Michael J. Morell, a former acting director of the C.I.A., and Michael G. Vickers, a former under secretary of defense for intelligence, put together the letter with input from Samantha Vinograd, a former senior adviser to Thomas E. Donilon, a former national security adviser.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]