Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 July 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 27 July 29 July >

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 redirect to C-Tec. Randykitty (talk) 22:31, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let Your Body Die[edit]

Let Your Body Die (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable album that doesn't pass WP:NMUSIC since there aren't sources in the article and I couldn't find multiple in-depth reviews on it when I looked. AllMusic doesn't even seem to have a page about it. Adamant1 (talk) 23:51, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Concurr with User:Adamant1.Knox490 (talk) 13:52, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:08, 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. BD2412 T 00:37, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Martyn Jones[edit]

David Martyn Jones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A non notable classical musician. Does not meet criteria of WP:NMUSIC. Created and edited substantially by a single-purpose account that could indicate WP:COI. No evidence of sources that could be added to help verify claims. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:39, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:39, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:39, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:39, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:39, 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 delete. Noting that the sources offered by Sv72 are about places in Italy and not the organisation in Chicago that is the topic of the article. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:14, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chiesa Nuova (Chicago)[edit]

Chiesa Nuova (Chicago) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
NN ministry, fails the GNG and WP:ORG. Zero coverage in reliable, independent sources found (the ones that are out there pertain to the parish in Italy). Notability tagged for over a decade.

Deprodded with the rationale "I am going to WP:AGF on the offline sources presented." Of the two in the article, one is the official newspaper of the archdiocese, and therefore a primary source ineligible to support notability, and the second is a monthly neighborhood newspaper where the subject does not turn up on their website searches. Ravenswing 22:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 22:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 22:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 22:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article lacks the depth of sources for notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The sourcing in the article, although offline and not accessible to me, is not sufficient to establish notability. As pointed out by the nominator, the official newspaper of the archdicoese is not independent. And an article in a community newspaper is not going to be useful for contributing to notability. My own searches do not turn up coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 13:43, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- Have sufficient sources available on google, should not be deleted.Sv72 (talk) 00:44, 4 August 2020 (UTC) — Sv72 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Reply: Glad to hear it. Would you care to identify which specific sources you believe gives the subject the "significant coverage" required by the GNG? Ravenswing 00:53, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you actually read these sources you offered up? They have nothing to do with the topic of this article. -- Whpq (talk) 01:49, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep. That's why I pointed out the similarly named parish in Italy in my nomination. One might reasonably imagine that a parish in Chicago is extremely unlikely to receive coverage in Italian sources. Ravenswing 12:50, 4 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 Antiziganism. Sandstein 07:02, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dacianos[edit]

Dacianos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

NN "caste," fails the GNG. Only coverage found (examining the sources in the article included) are casual mentions and namedrops; no significant coverage in reliable sources found. Notability tagged for over a decade. Deprodded without a rationale. Ravenswing 22:38, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I'd reject either merge option. In the case of Comprachicos, I don't see any connection between the two other than both being somewhat generic groups of alleged child-stealers that Hugo linked in a fictional work. In the case of Romani subgroups, this isn't a real Rom clan -- it's an outright and vicious ethnic slur, somewhat akin to merging "Christ-killers" in with an article/section about Jewish ethnic subgroups. That being said, it remains the case that the subject doesn't have coverage beyond casual mentions and namedrops, and requires deletion per WP:DON'T PRESERVE. Ravenswing 00:40, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Comprachicos article is probably best as a merge target as there are plenty of sources which associate the names and it says that it's about "several groups". My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:13, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:53, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:53, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:53, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Antiziganism. It's fun and interesting to try to track this down as authentic folklore prior to Victor Hugo. Kaiser's paper demonstrated that Hugo's named sources for his information on Comprachicos, "Dr. Conquest" and the monk "Avonmore" and "Dr. Chicklaukus", were all fabricated. More than that Hugo playfully dared other scholars to prove him wrong. I don't see responsible sources here and I believe it's unverifiable even as folklore. But @Ravenswing:'s point is far more important: this article DOES blame systematic kidnapping, child torture and mutilation, on the Roma, without a scrap of factual evidence, and without any editorial distance from the accusation. The best place in wikipedia for this content is among other ethnic slurs against the Roma, which is Antiziganism. --Lockley (talk) 22:54, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can buy that, and good work on the Hugo research; I figured that "Dacianos" was fictional, but didn't look into Comprachicos that deeply. Ravenswing 01:43, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Antiziganism which is where such hateful stuff belongs. Bear in mind such feelings are still very current in France.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:35, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as this is not an article on BLP, so the reference which are there are sufficient enough. Sv72 (talk) 01:10, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Antiziganism. I was going to close and merge it, but I wanted to show clear consensus that this stub does not appear to meet WP:GNG on its own as there must be more than simply passing references. Just having references doesn't reach the bar. Ifnord (talk) 15:25, 5 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. Randykitty (talk) 22:34, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Infogain[edit]

Infogain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The company promotes its business and built a wiki article for the sake of online presence. the only thing they did is Blue Star Infortech acquisition. Apart from that, the company writes only about typical media-related information. Light2021 (talk) 22:34, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:35, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:35, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:35, 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. But please use less colorful language in future nominations. Haukur (talk) 10:35, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Traffline[edit]

Traffline (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

another startup baby crying with funding. funding and more funding. there is nothing to write about this one and non-notable enough for now. Intentions and purpose are clearly to make wiki presence. Light2021 (talk) 22:28, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:27, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:27, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. fails NCORP. DMySon 18:56, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak delete Few references are there which are notable, but as of now seems a case of too soon Sv72 (talk) 01:35, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Devokewater @ 15:41, 4 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) 20:12, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harbinger Systems[edit]

Harbinger Systems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Usual Corporate blog is written in Wikipedia. non-notable enough for the encyclopedia. The intention is clearly promotional and nothing else. Light2021 (talk) 22:26, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:40, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:40, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:40, 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) 00:21, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wingify[edit]

Wingify (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing notable about this company. this is only created for Digital marketing purposes and nothing much. typical wiki spam made by these companies citing few media coverage and online blogs. Light2021 (talk) 22:19, 28

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:06, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:03, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, PR --Devokewater @ 10:04, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 13:53, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. Company trying to earn online coverage. Nika2020 (talk) 21:11, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- the refs in the article are majorly promotional, so delete it as per Nomination Sv72 (talk) 08:45, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NCORP, WP:MILL,and WP:SIGCOV. Yet another ordinary, private company without significant coverage on independent sources. It cites several of their own offerings, blogs, social media, and a four-paragraph announcement about their CEO in the India Times. If this were innovative or publicly traded, we would see more news coverage, but it isn't, so we don't. Bearian (talk) 19:27, 4 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. Randykitty (talk) 22:40, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Cute Lepers[edit]

The Cute Lepers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This band doesn't seem to be notable. The only sources in the article are primary except for a music blog and I didn't find anything in-depth about them in a search. AllMusic has a page about them, but there doesn't seem to be any reviews of their music. One of their albums apparently won "The 8th Annual Independent Music Awards for Best Punk Album." Whatever that's worth to notability. IMO nothing. So, I don't see anything here that passes WP:NBIO or WP:NMUSIC. Adamant1 (talk) 22:15, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:37, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Note that the band is known under two different names and both come up in searches: Steve E. Nix and the Cute Lepers, or simply Cute Lepers. For notability, it's a close call. The nominator is correct about AllMusic, where the band has a brief biography but no critical reviews of any of their albums. They did win the Independent Music Award, but that is only ever mentioned at the award organization's own websites, indicating that the award is non-notable with no outside media coverage. They also have some pretty robust record company promotional sites, indicating support from the industry, but those are not independent of the band. Otherwise they can only be found in the usual streaming and retail services. Unfortunately, I must conclude that they're close to notability but not quite. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- per above. Sv72 (talk) 08:49, 4 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. BD2412 T 00:39, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Line of succession to the former throne of Jammu and Kashmir[edit]

Line of succession to the former throne of Jammu and Kashmir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This 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) 22:13, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Norden1990 (talk) 22:13, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Norden1990 (talk) 22:13, 28 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) 23:25, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and TompaDompa. The article does not cite RS and I don't believe this could be verifiably sourced and not contain substantial WP:OR | WP:SYNTH.   // Timothy :: talk  07:15, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and the other comments above. Smeat75 (talk) 15:32, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The line of succession to this abolished throne has four non-notable people supported by zero references. JoelleJay (talk) 23:11, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Per above,does not attribute to reliable sources. Alex-h (talk) 08:40, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and the other comment above. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 13:56, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are no "lines of succession" for defunct monarchies. Individual descendants can be notable because they claim a title, but without a government there is no legitimacy to claims.★Trekker (talk) 14:06, 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) 22:26, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Line of succession to the former Tunisian throne[edit]

Line of succession to the former Tunisian throne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This kingdom has been defunct since 1957. This technically 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) 22:10, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Norden1990 (talk) 22:10, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Norden1990 (talk) 22:10, 28 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 the Tunisian throne to WP:RELIABLE sources, because there is no current line of succession, because the monarchy doesn't exist anymore. TompaDompa (talk) 23:25, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and TompaDompa. The article does not cite RS and I don't believe this could be verifiably sourced and not contain substantial WP:OR | WP:SYNTH.   // Timothy :: talk  07:17, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not supposed to be a genealogical database for deposed royal families.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:59, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. At least this article doesn't seem to insert all the potential successors born after 1957; on the other hand, since it states the succession rules are currently being observed, it implies information on more recent heirs couldn't even be found by Christopher Buyers. JoelleJay (talk) 23:15, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and the other comment above. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 13:57, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- per above all. Sv72 (talk) 09:05, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Devokewater @ 11:32, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, WP:SNOW, and WP:LIST. I want to add in that not only is Tunisia extremely unlikely to become a monarchy again, all of the heirs in the article are elderly and the succession might die out soon. More remote heirs might not be notable. Bearian (talk) 19:31, 4 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) 22:27, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Line of succession to the former throne of Vadodara (Baroda)[edit]

Line of succession to the former throne of Vadodara (Baroda) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This 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) 22:08, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Norden1990 (talk) 22:08, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Norden1990 (talk) 22:08, 28 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) 23:25, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and TompaDompa. The article does not cite RS and I don't believe this could be verifiably sourced and not contain substantial WP:OR | WP:SYNTH.   // Timothy :: talk  07:18, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing to suggest any of these people even exist. JoelleJay (talk) 23:23, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and the other comment above. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 13:58, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the reasons and comments above. Futurist110 (talk) 06:48, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Devokewater @ 11:32, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, WP:SNOW, and WP:OUTCOMES. The consensus developed has been that heirs of defunct states, especially non-sovereign one, are not notable. It's ultra-unlikely that this will ever become independent, re-create its monarchy, and find the missing heirs. Bearian (talk) 19:34, 4 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) 22:28, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Line of succession to the former throne of Travancore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This 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) 22:06, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Norden1990 (talk) 22:06, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Norden1990 (talk) 22:06, 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 keep. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:29, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Māoriness[edit]

Māoriness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't see a reason to have this as a separate article from the Māori article or Māori identity Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:01, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:01, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:01, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:01, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think this article should stand because many reliable sources use this term, mostly in a negative way. Since Wikipedia is supposed to discuss all sides, this is not a reason for deletion. Interstellarity (talk) 23:33, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The article has many good-quality references. — Toughpigs (talk) 00:52, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Meets GNG as a standalone article. Schwede66 08:39, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Certainly this can be kept, meets WP:GNG per above. Bingobro (Chat) 10:01, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Appears to be well sourced, but Māori identity should be merged into it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:31, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The above Keep vote is from the nominator, which amounts to a withdrawal. The nominator added a merge template to the top of the page. This discussion should be closed. — Toughpigs (talk) 19:56, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearian: per WP:WAX none of those articles have ever come up for a deletion discussion and are therefore irrelevant. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:53, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ahem. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sisu and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sisu_(2nd_nomination). Bearian (talk) 19:57, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I also found Nihonjinron. These articles are valid because they discuss the culture's self concept and are well sourced. Bearian (talk) 20:01, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For another similar precedent, see Bogan (discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bogan). Bearian (talk) 20:06, 4 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. Canley (talk) 11:27, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Aboriginal identity[edit]

Australian Aboriginal identity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be WP:OR I don't see a reason for this to be separate from the Aboriginal Australians article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:59, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:59, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:59, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:59, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I'm looking at a lengthy article with almost fifty references, including newspapers, journal articles, books and legal documents. You're going to need more than "appears to be OR" as the rationale for deletion. — Toughpigs (talk) 00:50, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a significant issue, heavily covered by experts and a range of other reliable sources, and the article seems OK. Nick-D (talk) 09:46, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep appears not to be. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 12:39, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow Keep - it is simply not true that this is original research. Deus et lex (talk) 12:47, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep no reason to be up for deletion JarrahTree 13:23, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Withdraw no reason for this to be up for deletion, and I regret calling it in retrospect. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:15, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Super-Sargasso Sea[edit]

Super-Sargasso Sea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There's some mentions of this but it seems to be mostly a WP:NEOLOGISM that can never be written as more than a WP:DICTIONARY definition, which is what Wikipedia is not. Even the examples don't actually reference this, and seems to be original research. There just isn't enough third party coverage to create an article that can meet the WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:14, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:14, 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. Randykitty (talk) 22:42, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Emilian people[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Emilian people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was previously nominated and "soft-deleted" for lack of participation, but restored on request of original author. Original reason for deletion still holds: This is an entirely unsourced POV essay trying to pass off the regional population of a part of Italy as a separate "ethnic group" . This claim has no basis in any of the sources. Without that basic premise, there's nothing to have an article about. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:58, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:58, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:58, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence that this is an ethnic group Spiderone 19:46, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete clearly an invention of the article creator. Mccapra (talk) 05:01, 4 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 LMS Turbomotive. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:47, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LMS Class 8P 46202 Princess Anne[edit]

LMS Class 8P 46202 Princess Anne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable subject - as is. Loco scrapped after two months in service, previously an experiment named LMS Turbomotive which has its own article. Nightfury 20:45, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 20:45, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 20:45, 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 Tunnel of Love (album). Vanamonde (Talk) 17:50, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All That Heaven Will Allow[edit]

All That Heaven Will Allow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Spectacularly uninformative article that only comes vaguely close to passing WP:NSONG in one aspect, a minor charting position on Billboard's Hot Country Songs. I'm familiar with the song, originally a Bruce Springsteen album track, but there doesn't seem to be any possibility of expanding the article beyond its current pitiful state – the Rolling Stone reference is one of those list articles that amounts to all of three lines about the song, telling us it's about a couple's relationship (wow, profound), and I can't find anything at all about the Mavericks' version beyond their unremarkable chart position. A search hasn't turned up any other reliable sources on either version, so if this is all there is to say about a combined two versions of the song, it's not worthy of an independent article. This has been redirected several times and an IP keeps reverting it, but as two notable artists have covered the song, it's questionable as to whether even a redirect is the right idea, given WP:XY. Richard3120 (talk) 19:51, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 19:51, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 19:51, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate Given that it is a Springsteen song and a "hit" for the Mavericks, someone searching for the song might be looking for one and not the other. So, if there is Disamb page, with the Springsteen song linked to his "Tunnel of Love" album and the Mavericks song linked to their "What a Crying Shame" album, I think this would solve the issue. Deleting or redirecting doesn't seem to be the answer. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:11, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neither album article mentions the song apart from in the track listings, so anyone looking for the song would find no details about the song in either case. Richard3120 (talk) 20:17, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just offering another option as if it is deleted I am sure whoever keeps recreating it will do it again. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:41, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are? They must be in books then, because I can't find anything online. Richard3120 (talk) 20:56, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. There are several books that provide non-trivial coverage of this song (and none of the books I am referring to overlap the examples ASTIG found on Google Books). Rlendog (talk) 17:18, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Tunnel of Love (album): Changed my vote, per reasons above. Barely found anything about the song online, but it has found some coverage in books, notably [1], [2], [3], [4] and [5]. Since it's not notable enough to have a standalone article, it's best to briefly discuss it in the album. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 00:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Tunnel of Love (album). There are different possibilities here -- redirecting to the Springsteen album, redirecting to the Mavericks album, creating a new disambig page, or deleting altogether -- and none of them are perfect. To try to build a working consensus, I will throw in with the idea of redirecting to Springsteen's album. That's because he wrote the song and this gives his version priority in the event of lackluster coverage all around. The cover version by the Mavericks was indeed a minor hit single but that seems to have fallen into the hazy past with no significant media coverage. There's no coverage of Springsteen's version either, but it's his song so he is the more likely focus for someone who searches for the title. And finally, Tunnel of Love (album) can include a statement that this particular track was covered by the Mavericks. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: as nominator, I am quite happy if the consensus is redirect to the Tunnel of Love album. However, this is where it was redirected several times before, and the IP insisted on reverting each time, hence my reasons for bringing it to AfD to achieve a definitive consensus... I've just had to reinstate the AfD notice which they removed from the article with the message "leave it alone, please". Given that they are unlikely to let it rest if the article is redirected, I'd like to make the closing admin aware that salting may be necessary. Richard3120 (talk) 23:13, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Richard3120, since unregistered users get in the way of editing the page, I suggest that it should be semi-protected indefinitely. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 03:18, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not standard procedure, but you can request protection against reversion of the redirect. I think the Admin who closes the AfD can do it. I requested and got this a few times for my own AfD nominations. I recommend the same for this one. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:48, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Tunnel of Love (album) and request protection from further overwriting. The refs described above can easily be used at the target. Jalen Folf (talk) 18:21, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and semiprotect the page per above. Sv72 (talk) 09:42, 4 August 2020 (UTC) — Sv72 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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 06:14, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ICD-10 Chapter I: Certain infectious and parasitic diseases[edit]

ICD-10 Chapter I: Certain infectious and parasitic diseases (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Copyright violation - ICD-10 is licensed as CC BY-SA-NC, NC being incompatible with Wikipedia. This is a batch nomination which will include other articles below, as well as some potentially related ones that may also be copyvios. Using AFD instead of speedy to form community discussion and have a record of said discussion, per prior discussion on WT:MED bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:45, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:45, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Batch contents[edit]

Potential other pages that may host copyrighted material from ICD/DSM[edit]

Struck these as per Colin probably best that DSM and non-list ICD related articles are handled separately bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:14, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • Delete at least batch 1, undecided on other two articles - these articles are straight from a work that is copyrighted, is not available under a free licence, and thus are ineligible for Wikipedia. There is no way that an entire copying of ICD is encyclopedic (even if it was available under a free licence), and it would fail multiple parts of the requirements to host non free content. These have been articles forever, attribution in the history is all kinds of funky because of multiple combinations/splits, and thus bringing them to AFD to have record of the reasons for deletion. bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:04, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Someone claiming to be Robert Jakob commented on Arcadian's talk page back in 2006 that WHO has given permission to present ICD-10 in wikipedia. This was then copied to Talk:ICD-10. If it could be confirmed that it was in fact Dr Jacob (not that I would have anyway of doing so); would that address the copyright issue, or would the change in licence to CC BY-SA-NC 3.0 in 2016 override the 2006 "declaration"? (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) Little pob (talk) 20:45, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Little pob: The full quote with context is: WHO has given permission to present ICD-10 in wikipedia. However no publisher may change content or structure of the classifcation - this is akin to a "you can republish, but you cannot make any changes [i.e. no derivatives]" - so it's actually a more restrictive license than it is available under now (that declaration would be akin to a CC BY-SA-NC-ND, i.e. no commercial, no derivatives). Wikipedia cannot host material as "free" based on a "you can present ICD-10 in Wikipedia" - the material must be eligible to copy and license under the CC BY-SA 3.0 license, or meet our non-free rules, neither of which seems to be the case here. bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:56, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, per Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources and Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials, When you contribute material to Wikipedia, you are not giving us exclusive use of it. You still retain any rights you previously held, but you are giving non-exclusive license under Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA) and the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts). These licenses allow anyone—not just Wikipedia—to share, distribute, transmit, and adapt your work, provided that you are attributed as the author. There is no way to say "you can use this in Wikipedia, but not anywhere else or in derivative works." Also, because some derivative works may be commercial, we cannot accept materials that are licensed only for educational use or even for general non-commercial use. The bolding is present in the original quote, the italics were added by me to point out relevant parts. Thus, while that declaration was likely made in good faith, and the users took it in good faith when they copied the material into WP, that declaration has never been a valid declaration per current policy. Furthermore, there would need to be a clear indication the material is not under the license as the rest of the material on the page, which there isn't on any of these. But again, don't think they are encyclopedic to begin with, so... bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:02, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Berchanhimez: thanks for pinging. My understanding of the However no publisher may change content or structure of the classifcation part of "Dr Jakob's" comment is that it's referencing that Wikipedia originally listed the chapter numbers using Arabic numbers rather than Roman numerals. I doubt anyone who needed codes would come to Wikipedia rather than WHO's online browser anyway (will cast a !vote below). (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) Little pob (talk) 18:15, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleté Unlikely to be resolvable, the WHO have their reasons for the specific license and keeping would require a wholesale change to Wikipedia's license. We can just link to the WHO's site for this it is likely to remain there indefinitely and is organised in the same way. PainProf (talk) 00:28, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ICD10 CDC version comment the CDC says on their website they have licensed it for Government use only, not in Public domain either. PainProf (talk) 00:52, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment DSM5 The sections in the DSM 5 article for deletion may need be expanded. I found the change descriptions quite curiously phrased, they look like they are directly taken from the APA source which is says its copyright APA? Seems to affect entire changes section in that article. PainProf (talk) 03:33, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because they are a copyright violation. Additionally, we are WP:NOTDIRECTORY and really shouldn't be mirroring this content if it is available at an authoritative central location (which is the WHO), whereas our list can be reworded, tinkered with and potentially fall out of date more easily. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:44, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete them all (first batch and the rest). DSM has already come after us once, and are very strict about their copyright. The WHO conditions are not compatible with Wikipedia licensing, and we've duplicated the entire ICD_10 ... and also, all the reasons given by Tom (LT). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:12, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think the DSM articles/lists/templates should be covered by a separate AfD because they are a different organisation with different licence (or none?). I also think the following need discussed too as they are included along with ICD-10 by WHO as requiring payment for commercial use. While, the ICD-O article shouldn't be deleted, it needs trimmed of the list and to be written more like the ICF article.
-- Colin°Talk 07:28, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OPS-301 may need adding to the list, as it is based on WHO's International Classification of Procedures in Medicine. It's worth mentioning that, despite having "ICD-10" in its name, ICD-10 Procedure Coding System is owned (by which I mean developed and maintained) by CMS rather than WHO. I've no idea as to ICD-10-PCS's copyright compatibility with Wikipedia though... (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) Little pob (talk) 19:04, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Little pob: I've struck everything other than the ICD-10 lists themselves (and the US list which is a copyvio as it's not licensed either per above) from this AFD. I think the recommendation that DSM be covered by a separate AFD, as well as non-list ICD articles by a separate AFD, is a good suggestion. The PCS seems to me like it's a derivative work of the ICD itself, thus if ICD-10 is not permissible on Wikipedia, by definition any derivative would not be (as the ICD is not licensed under anything other than a "share alike", meaning that the derivative would have to be shared under an equally restrictive license). I'm happy to work with you, Colin, and others to form lists of related articles if you guys want to - happy to work on wiki, or communicate via email/another method if you guys prefer. I'm very sporadic as to what time I have to edit right now, and many times it's just fixing things I come across when browsing WP for other reasons, so I don't want to commit to further AFD batching for this at this moment - but I'll certainly try. bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:14, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck the DSM and agree those should be covered separately after more investigation to complete. I also agree that some of the other ICD-10 related articles need cleaning up as well, so I've struck everything except the ICD-10 copies and the US adaptation page so we can focus on the other ICD-10, DSM, and ICD-11 related articles in a separate batch AFD for each. I'm happy to work with you to create lists to start that process, but it may be slower for me as this investigation itself was made easier based on the linking of each chapter from the main ICD-10 page. bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:14, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per licencing incompatibility arguments made above. Little pob (talk) 18:27, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete That these are a copyvio overrides any other arguments for or against. No prejudice to creating summary articles for describing the history, impact, etc., of the various chapters, if there are sources for it. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 20:42, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see any other option. - Amousey (they/them pronouns) (talk) 15:44, 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 redirect to Groupe M6#France. (non-admin closure) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 19:08, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Best of Shopping (TV channel)[edit]

Best of Shopping (TV channel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I tagged this TV station as CSD:A7. The reviewing admin suggested instead a redirect to Groupe M6 [6]. I created the redirect, but the redirect was reverted. So I am bringing this here for discussion. Redirect, Delete or Keep? I believe either Redirect or Delete would be fine.   // Timothy :: talk  19:40, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  19:40, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  19:40, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Groupe M6#France, as I did with M6 Boutique (TV channel), and please WP:TROUT BFM Lyon Ado (talk · contribs), who has attempted to create these same two articles over and over again throughout July (see M6 Boutique & Co and Best of Shopping) under multiple names to swerve past consensus, only to get redirected each time; they have been oddly creating articles about defunct French networks which are mainly sub-feeds of Euro channels since starting to edit. The actual article content is 10%, with the infobox and cats being 90% of what are now defunct unexceptional shopping channels (the rd target states the start/end dates of the network in grid form, but leaves out the now-useless channel lists and technical information). Enough is enough, BFM. Stop it. Nate • (chatter) 22:51, 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 keep. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:08, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nohra, Thuringia[edit]

Nohra, Thuringia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No references. Fails WP:GNG -- does this town actually exist? P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 19:31, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 19:31, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly meets GEOLAND as a former incorporated municipality. Did you see all the articles in other wikis? I added some refs and content. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 20:44, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It certainly exists, until recently as a standalone village, now as a district that merged in to a neighboring "city" along with other villages. Not that this necessarily matters for notability here on en.wiki, but it does have its own articles on several other wikis, including de, fr, it. Crikey, it even has its own menhir, which itself has standalone articles on de and fr!: de:Menhir von Nohra. Eric talk 21:37, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:15, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets WP:NGEO, WP:BEFORE anyone? gmaps shows it as a distinct village with houses and everything! as noted above, german wp has a lot more info on it (here) ps. they also have a "Ortsteile der Stadt Bleicherode" template at the bottom that shows the english wp is missing some others... Coolabahapple (talk) 08:31, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Appears to meet WP:NGEO, per all above. Ejgreen77 (talk) 10:44, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The village exists and meets the applicable notability guidelines. Markussep Talk 18:23, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all of the above. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 14:11, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The village does exist and meets WP:NGEO. Nika2020 (talk) 21:12, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 19:44, 4 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 Runni Saidpur#Education. Sandstein 07:13, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

D.A.V Public School, Runnisaidpur, Sitamarhi[edit]

D.A.V Public School, Runnisaidpur, Sitamarhi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article was proded as not notable but it was removed. An editor suggested AfD. So, I’m following through to see if others agree with the other editor about the wiki worthiness of this School. BostonMensa (talk) 18:12, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 18:33, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 18:33, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Going with the sourcing the two references in the article are primary. For some weird reason the only Google Books result is to their about page. There's one article in Google News about them being used for a quarantine center which just says their name and nothing else. So it doesn't pass WP:ORG. Newspapers results in nothing. Neither does Google Scholar. A Google search isn't any better. So, I'm going with delete. I'm sure one of the inclusionists will come along with a bunch of Sitamarhi phone book listings of the place that "prove" it's one of the most notable schools in India because "there's no such thing as a local phone book" or some such similar nonsense; And they will also probably claim that whoever votes delete is just an incompetent moron or something along those lines, but whatever. I don't think the school is notable based on the current evidence. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:47, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Runni Saidpur#Education where it's already mentioned.--Pontificalibus 09:58, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect - fails WP:ORG (WP:NSCHOOL) KylieTastic (talk) 11:38, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as above Spiderone 21:01, 5 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) 21:09, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Santalo[edit]

Albert Santalo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article created by subject or someone with a conflict of interest. His companies might not be notable under the limited geographic audience of WP:ORG and the limited RS coverage of Santalo [7] focuses mostly on his companies. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:03, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:03, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:03, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:03, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:03, 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 keep. Topic shown to be notable per article improvement subsequent to nomination. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:21, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Hurst[edit]

Richard Hurst (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article on a writer and director has been tagged for notability since 2016. There are no footnotes and the external links are IMDB and the subject's homepage. I have carried out WP:BEFORE but not found anything to add. Tacyarg (talk) 17:32, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 17:32, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 17:32, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 17:32, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 17:32, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 17:32, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Was he actually nominated for an Olivier Award, Hobson award or Goodbody award? These assertions in the article are completely unreferenced. And being a co-writer of TV episodes does not make you notable, even if it is true, which we can't tell in most of the cases, due to the lack of referencing. Your first citation claims that something is scheduled to happen. Did it actually happen? Your second ref is a review of a short-running pantomime production, apparently with no notable cast members, of which there are hundreds (thousands?) in the UK every Christmas. The third ref is an interview, not a review. The last ref is from a deprecated source, the Daily Mail, so we can't even cite it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:54, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, he was nominated for an Olivier for Potted Panto verified here. I have not been able to find a complete list of National Student Drama Festival Awards, as he won in the mid 1990s such information may not be online. His website says he won for the play Violent Night. You say being a co-writer of TV episodes does not make you notable but that's not how I read Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals, which I have already linked above. It specifically says "television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series" and Hurst has co-written 17 episodes of Miranda, three episodes of Secret Diary of a Call Girl, and three series of Bluestone 42, which he also co-created. Such information is easily verifible, the credits of the episodes themselves serve as a reference. I am aware that the Daily Mail is a deprecated source but I was responding to your assertion that his work has received "no reviews" which is plainly not the case. Here's one from The Guardian, where he is indirectly referred to as the "Miranda writing team."-- P-K3 (talk) 13:10, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You ought to add the best cites to the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:50, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:52, 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 keep. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:13, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of minor recurring characters in Star Trek: Enterprise[edit]

List of minor recurring characters in Star Trek: Enterprise (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A list article dedicated to acknowledged minor characters with little real-world context provided. Almost all of the sources aren't independent. Citations have been requested since 2011. For those looking for this level of information about minor characters, there are Wikias dedicated to such discussions. DonIago (talk) 17:19, 28 July 2020 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn per subsequent comments. I think the article has a lot of room for improvement, but I'm willing to concede that it is salvageable. DonIago (talk) 17:33, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. DonIago (talk) 17:19, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The title isn't quite right. What it means is these were not the primary cast that appeared in every episode. The fact that they were recurring makes them more than minor.
  • Keep/merge We're not here to facilitate Wikia, which exists to sell advertising as a commercial, profit-making business. Instead we should look to preserve this within our overall coverage of the Enterprise series which, like the rest of Star Trek, is quite notable. There's details about each character to be found in various sources and the worst case would be merger into another page such as List of Star Trek: Enterprise cast members. Applicable policies include WP:ATD; WP:IMPERFECT; WP:NEXIST; WP:NOTPAPER and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:19, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you provide some ideas for independent sources that have discussed these characters? DonIago (talk) 20:30, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:14, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as valid WP:SPLIT from our coverage of a notable series. If these characters were individually notable, they'd have their own separate articles, so merging and organizing this material in lists of this kind has long been consensus-supported. Just looking at all of the pages pointing to redirects to this list as seen here shows that this is providing a valuable cross-referencing and indexing function to this area of content, particularly since this is limited to recurring characters, and there would otherwise be no way to connect references to them from one article or episode description to another. The tiresome argument that "site X can handle this" really needs to be retired because it contributes nothing. postdlf (talk) 14:51, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert: Do you still feel that deletion is appropriate at this time? I'm considering withdrawing my nomination (not without reservations), but WP:AFD indicates that withdrawing isn't an option while other editors support deletion. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 17:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can withdraw your nomination just by stating that in a comment and/or striking it out, but the AFD would have to remain open if there are any delete !votes. postdlf (talk) 17:47, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and possibly rename. As "minor characters" in the title is a thing of nomenclature, I do not find John Pack Lambert's deletion argument convincing. I agree with postdlf's argumentation. In addition, I did an exemplary search at Google Scholar for one of the listed characters, Arik Soong, and have found a number of occurences of varying length in secondary sources: [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]. Perhaps not enough for a separate article, but surely for a section in a list. If this one example is any indication, this list is warranted on that grounds also. Daranios (talk) 11:12, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per identified sources. Lists like this are often constructed from pages previously put up for AfD and merged; putting the list up for deletion feels like an unfair overturning of those prior discussions. — Toughpigs (talk) 15:30, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to 100 Gecs. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:55, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Les[edit]

Laura Les (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reviewed through NPP. Unlike Dylan Brady (producer), whose solo projects have gotten some coverage, I'm unable to find any coverage of Laura Les that isn't in the context of her band, 100 gecs. Per WP:MUSICBIO, Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases. Spicy (talk) 17:02, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spicy (talk) 17:02, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spicy (talk) 17:02, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Spicy (talk) 17:02, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no notability sperate from the band she is in.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:19, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.Agree with User:Johnpacklambert.Knox490 (talk) 02:44, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article might be brief, but due to her growing popularity, it has tons of plausible potential for growth.
  • Keep. Laura's solo work (mostly as her former stage name, osno1) has gotten coverage in Vice, BBC Radio 1, Underground Underdogs, The Sun Star, and more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naomigt (talk • contribs) 22:02, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Naomigt, can you provide links to these sources? I searched for sources covering her solo work, including under her former name, but I wasn't able to find any. I found this BBC Radio 1 link, but it's just a playlist of her songs; there's no actual coverage of her. This from Vice does cover her, but it's an interview, which isn't usually considered to be an independent source, and thus doesn't contribute to notability (WP:INTERVIEW.) The Sun Star is a student paper, generally not considered to be the sort of source that demonstrates that a subject is notable. Spicy (talk) 22:09, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Spicy, here is the Undeground Underdogs article which does cover her solo work, but also has interview components which, as you mentioned, may lead to it not counting as an independent source. This Lyrical Lemonade article covers her solo music. Although this article does mention Les amongst other artists and mentions her work with Brady in 100 Gecs, it does also cover rather extensively the progression of Les' solo music as osno1 (including a deconstruction of her production style, her voice, her status as a queer artist— and, importantly, her notability within the community). Important to note that this last source appears to be on a blog, which may count as it being "self-published" per WP:MUSICBIO. Naomigt (talk • contribs) 00:00, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I appreciate your taking the time to look for sources and analyze their coverage. Unfortunately, I don't think any of these would be considered reliable. As you note, the last source is a blog; Lyrical Lemonade apparently is a one-person operation, verging on WP:SPS and doesn't seem to have any editorial policy; and according to their contact page, Underground Underdogs is an amateur publication with no real editorial control. There's no doubt that her solo work is popular in the underground scene and has been covered on blogs and such, but I'm just not seeing the sort of in-depth coverage in major, reliable publications that is needed to prove notability, especially for biographies of living persons. Spicy (talk) 02:47, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into the 100 gecs article including the list of her solo works and then redirect.Not enough ccoverage for a seperate article in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:02, 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 merge to Yeti. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:02, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chuchuna[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Chuchuna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Apparently "Chuchuna" is the Russian version of the Yeti, which supposedly lives in Siberia. There are plenty of WP:FRINGE cryptozoology sources, but no coverage outside of this bubble. There is a lack of any serious in-depth coverage in WP:FRIND sources to justify (or even create) an NPOV standalone article, but it may deserve a mention at Yeti. LuckyLouie (talk) 20:30, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. LuckyLouie (talk) 20:30, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. LuckyLouie (talk) 20:30, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. LuckyLouie (talk) 20:30, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. LuckyLouie (talk) 20:30, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A quick look did not reveal any non-fringe sources. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:45, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is interesting, suggesting that "chuchuna" means "outcast", simply being people who have been cast out. Still, nowhere near enough to justify an article. Ah, and here's the newspaper article it was talking about. --tronvillain (talk) 03:26, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If the topic is primarily ethnographic and can be well-sourced, it might be better situated as a paragraph at Indigenous_peoples_of_Siberia...or better yet Chukchi people, with appropriate mention of the associated legend. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:45, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It turns out that the book being referenced was deleted from the article by Bloodofox here.[1] Probably an accident, though you might think that with a title like "Mysterious Chuchuna" it would be some credulous cryptozoology, but looking through the text, it seems to mostly be an an ethnographic collection of folklore and anecdotes, which concludes (Google translated) "The ethnographic search for the origins of the legend is over. Information about the existence of a wild man in the north of Yakutia was not confirmed. Under the cover of folk fantasy, there was a story about real events, customs and tragic delusions caused by a misconception about the surrounding nature. The investigation was not conducted in vain: yet another, perhaps small, page of the ancient history of the peoples of the Far North was revealed." --tronvillain (talk) 13:10, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yep—good catch! :bloodofox: (talk) 15:55, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Yeti for now as suggested in the nomination. In the See also section there, subsection "Similar alleged creatures," revise the entry to be an interlanguage link to the lengthier Russian article to read as "Chuchuna (ru)" ([[:ru:Chuchuna|ru]]). There are five foreign language versions of the article. The Spanish one has this ref with a mainstream English publisher: Newton, Michael (2005). Chuchunaa. Encyclopedia of Cryptozoology: A Global Guide. McFarland & Company, Inc. p. 102. ISBN 0-7864-2036-7. This Engish language version was started without references, which is never a good idea for a controversial subject. Come back later for another try with a more complete article and references. 5Q5|✉ 11:54, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Though that Russian link doesn't seem to work like that? Presumably it needs something like "Chuchuna(ru)". --tronvillain (talk) 12:18, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a suggested revised code for the Yetti See also list (copy and paste):   * Chuchunya ([[:ru:Чучуна|ru]]) – Russia   which creates:
  • Chuchunya (ru) – Russia
cont'd... I think Chuchuna is an incorrect spelling, little in Google, plenty for Chuchunya or Chuchunaa. The template coding ([[:ru:Chuchuna|ru]]) would have worked only if the foreign language article also spelled it that way, per WP:ILL 5Q5|✉ 12:04, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Gurvich, I.S. (1975). Гурвич И.С. Таинственный чучуна (история одного этнографического поиска) [Mysterious Chuchun (the story of an ethnographic search)]. Moscow: Thought.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:38, 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. After three weeks of discussion (with no discussion in a week) it's clear that discussion has stopped. Despite widespread speculation that there would be sources present, no amount of BEFORE/other research has produced them. There is thus a consensus to delete by participating editors. I will note for future editors, that because of that consensus, I will honor (and would ask other administrators to honor) a REFUND to user/draftspace if the requesting user has sources they believe demonstrate notability. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:00, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OneOTT Intertainment[edit]

OneOTT Intertainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails NCORP. Created directly in article space. Sources are press releases, internal documents, and routine financial announcements. BEFORE search by a couple of editors have turned up nothing (in English) that looks like a notability reference. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 08:32, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 08:32, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 08:32, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment There's reason to believe that OIL is a big deal ISP in India, so it seems strange that we've been unable to find suitable coverage. This is definitely a situation where the 'D' in AfD should be seen as 'Discussion'. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 08:34, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is my default position, having been one of the users who helped with the BEFORE (String: "OneOTT Intertainment"). The main issue we have is that if there are any usable sources, they're likely to be in the native Subcontinental languages, and automated translation just plain does not work for them, making it impossible for us to assess them. We need users who can competently read the language to help search for sources. —A little blue Bori v^_^v 2020's a bust; thanks SARS-CoV-2 09:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edit - Since OIL is a big Internet Service Provider in India, instead of deleting the page we can edit the page and and add relevant sources, content to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srilekha selva (talk • contribs) 09:19, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do you think jmcgnh started this AfD? If there are any reliable sources, they're going to be ones neither he or I can read. Automated translation for languages from the Subcontinent is generally illegible, so this AfD is partly to get some help from editors who can read those languages and thus assess sources. —A little blue Bori v^_^v 2020's a bust; thanks SARS-CoV-2 10:18, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree to you point but as far as I went through the brand OneOTT is a well known Internet Service Provider. Our editors can help us find the reliable sources for the company. We don't have to delete them instead we can edit and update them with the reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srilekha selva (talk • contribs) 10:42, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue with that is that citing reliable sources is our entire notability criteria. If there are no sources cited, then the article hasn't shown its subject meets notability. —A little blue Bori v^_^v 2020's a bust; thanks SARS-CoV-2 23:26, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the basis that the organisation itself passes the threshold of notability despite references that are questionable at best. We do not delete articles about notable entities. We edit them. Note that there is a strong suspicion of paid editing by at least one editor whose edits to this article have been reverted, and that the probable status is logged on the article talk page. Note, too, that there is a desire by that editor to have the article deleted so that they can re-create it with some other facts and references. Note as well that there is a very good semblance of a legal threat (0.9 probability) and that the editor has been warned over it. Fiddle Faddle 10:14, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    We must be operating on different definitions of "notability" then. Absent better sources, keeping it is out of the question. Again, please read jmcgnh's note. —A little blue Bori v^_^v 2020's a bust; thanks SARS-CoV-2 10:18, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That sources may not be in English, and that we are unable to read them does not mean they do not exist. Fiddle Faddle 10:21, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you read jmcgnh's note at all? —A little blue Bori v^_^v 2020's a bust; thanks SARS-CoV-2 10:28, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kj cheetham (talk) 20:39, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepBlocked, not allowed to participate at AfD a part of Hinduja Group. It is business and economically significant company. it needs improvements not deletion. Light2021 (talk) 23:22, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is part of Publicly Listed company - it passes Notability criteria. there are filth of startups with non-notability (2 employee counts) and few press mentioned (Eg, Tech crunch or Mashable/ Forbes blog) are covered in Wikipedia. just because they are from USA or covered by American media does not make anything notable. (No offense to anyone or any media, it's a different topic anyways). It is significant company based in India (over 100000 Employee count). and easy google search will give you coverage from major media outlets. as well as this if it helps to understand - https://www.bloomberg.com/profile/company/NXTD:IN & this https://www1.nseindia.com/live_market/dynaContent/live_watch/get_quote/GetQuote.jsp?symbol=NXTDIGITAL Light2021 (talk) 13:23, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As a subsidiary of the notable company it must meet NCORP on its own, doesn't it? Otherwise it's just a redirect to the parent. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 16:31, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Company is notable and various references have been added since the original AfD. Retswerb (talk) 23:43, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retswerb, The recently added sources are in the same vein as the existing ones - press releases. I've seen nothing yet that I would consider a notability reference. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 20:02, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:36, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is simple. NCORP states there must be multiple sources that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Nobody has located any sources and I have also been unable to locate any. None of the other arguments matter a jot until that first requirement has been fulfilled. It would make sense to merge this article with an article on the parent company, NXT Digital Ltd, except the immediate parent doesn't have an article. That leaves the Hinduja Group article which is the ultimate parent. Seeing as NXT Digital just gets a mention in a bullet list of companies, I don't see any need to merge this information either. At most, this company can also get listed in a bullet list if required. Topic fails NCORP, none of the references meet the required criteria. HighKing++ 12:44, 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) 19:16, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unilatina International College[edit]

Unilatina International College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NORG. Cannot find any SIGCOV. One source listing for profit schools notes that the subject had only 50 students in 2019. 

https://cis.org/North/List-54-Compromised-Colleges-F1-Students-Shrinks-16 Rogermx (talk) 15:55, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 15:55, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 15:55, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 15:55, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article has existed for 6 years. Private, for-profit entities need 3rd party sources for us to justify keeping article on them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:58, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article has nothing to prove its notability. Nika2020 (talk) 21:12, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and the other comment above. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 12:34, 4 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. As accurately noted by a participant this is indeed an edge case of notability. Those who suggest that Bechly is notable advance several arguments for this position including GNG coverage and his academic achievements being enough to meet one (or more) notability of academics criteria. Particular attention and emphasis was paid to Bechly's contribution to the identification of various species in regards to his academic notability. However, the evidence and reasoning of those suggesting Bechly is notable did not resonate with editors. These editors offer their own policy and guideline supported reasons for deletion and for why the evidence of notability is not enough to satisfy our guidelines and policies.
While consensus on Wikipedia is not found by counting votes, neither can the roughly 70% of editors who feel deletion is merited be ignored, especially when those participants base their reasoning in our practices, guidelines, and policies. To ignore, even for a no consensus close, such an overwhelming consensus of editors would require an extraordinary level of support from policies. One such claim was made: accusations of a failure to keep a neutral point of view by those who do not find Bechly notable. While there may, or may not, be bias towards academics who believe in Intelligent Design, such a consensus will not be reached here where the focus is on Bechly. Those who support deletion of this article offer their own evidence to refute this accusation of bias. As such there is no policy basis to weight keep participants in such a way to override those editors who favored deletion.
On altering this discussion after closing

As an uninvolved administrator, I am aware of no policy or guideline that would support moving the statement after closing. Further, I think the clerking which moved it there was entirely appropriate. This is a discussion about whether Bechly should or should not have a Wikipedia article; that is the core discussion at hand. Discussions and meta analysis about this discussion belong appropriately on the talk page. As such, as closer, I believe that discussion should stay where it is and would ask it not be moved post closing.

Barkeep49 (talk) 02:20, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Günter Bechly[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Günter Bechly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BIO1E applies. The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NPROF, as evidenced by the over-reliance of this article on the subject's website. In the media coverage about the fossils, the subject is a mere mention. Most of the independent sources discuss the deletion of the last article. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:47, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:47, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:47, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the prior deletion nominations and failure to meet notability standards.--Kevmin § 16:37, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the article is significantly different from the prior version with new sources. Valoem talk contrib 18:29, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll grant that you cleaned up the junk that you should've addressed before moving this back into the main namespace. The issue remains that there's no claim to notability and you can't sell GNG with these sources. I'd like to know if you have a conflict of interest regarding this subject, as this effort to generate and keep the article seems very rushed for a long-term editor like you. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:28, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Notability was never in question there is no reason to delete this person. I have provided new sources. The COI accusation is simply ridiculous he passes WP:PROF.Valoem talk contrib 20:15, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Notability was always in question since the last AfD. Clearly, you haven't made a case that the subject is notable and with seven days for this AfD, I have doubts consensus will change here. Please don't see my question as an accusation. I've edited for pay before and I encourage everyone to do so. My last article was done with a CoI. I simply assume that scrambling to rewrite the article only after I nom'd it indicates the sort of priority not given to hobby projects that you could've kept in your userspace for another month. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:20, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the consensus of the last go-around, which the deletion review affirmed as a good close. The "coverage" of the deletion of his Wikipedia article in reliable sources — outside the creationist bubble — was minimal. Brief blurbs about a paper he co-authored don't amount to significant coverage. In short, nothing has changed. XOR'easter (talk) 18:34, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The last time around, we looked at his citation record to see if he passed WP:PROF#C1, and (obviously, given the outcome) there wasn't a consensus that he did. Nothing's changed on that score, either. One well-cited paper, a co-edited volume (much less of an achievement than writing or even co-writing a book), being one of many authors on an appendix that's basically a table with footnotes, and then a steep drop-off in citation counts... there's nothing remarkable about that, and no indication that whatever professional success he's had adds up to a case for wiki-notability. XOR'easter (talk) 22:47, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see one source that might pass muster, and that is about him losing his Wikipedia page.Slatersteven (talk) 18:43, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I just went over the sources again, and I could not find anything that meets the criteria found in Wikipedia:Notability (academics). He appears to be most notable for having his Wikipedia page deleted and having a bunch of creationists attack Wikipedia because of this, but that just leave me with Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People notable for only one event. The previous AfD got it right, and nothing has happened since to change his lack of notability. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:12, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing major has changed since the last AFD. I don't see any sources here that puts his coverage above the average YouTube channel/Instagram influencer that we routinely have to delete. I do feel a little bad about this, it feels a little mean to have to delete a scientists article again, but I'm sorry, he just doesn't appear to meat GNG. If he personally wants a Wikipedia article (not sure if he does or if its other people that keeps trying to force one) he needs to make more of a noice in the field.★Trekker (talk) 21:13, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Getting his Wikipedia article deleted isn't enough for notability. Shouldn't this have needed a (positive) deletion review anyway before it can become an article again? --mfb (talk) 21:35, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. The result if the deletion review was "Endorse original close, no consensus on recreation." This left open the possibility of recreating it with sources that establish notability. Followed by the inevitable 2nd AfD to determine how successful that effort was. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:56, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep at present. Seems to be some high citations for WP:Prof#C1 but I would be more certain if there were a GS profile for this person. His alleged fringe views make him more interesting. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:29, 28 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]
At least from what I could see here, their GS citations were pretty run of the mill for this field. I'm always wary about citation counts for notability as even in academia, citation counts are difficult territory to traverse. That's even moreso when we're anonymous editors here on Wikipedia. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:40, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Editor hat off for a moment and speaking as an entomologist, there is nothing in the article to establish notability over any average entomologist (or paleontologist) in terms of the "average professor test". Editor hat focus back on, and the last AfD was clear on delete. The small addition recently on "controversy" over having his article deleted isn't really anything of significance to change notability. Even if it was more significant, it would be a case of WP:1E since he isn't particularly notable as a researcher. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:35, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    So few scientists embrace creationism, the creationist community richly rewards those that do, and try to make them seem as notable as possible. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:06, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep basicly using WP:OTHERSTUFF about 50% of accademics pages should be deleted if this one is deleted. So I would like to see all those others deleted first before this one. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:27, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you ever invoke WP:OTHERSTUFF? That does nothing but make your opinion look unfounded.★Trekker (talk) 00:20, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Before voting based on prior AfDs please look at the person in question, he passes our guidelines for inclusion based on GNG and WP:PROF, he was notable to the point the encyclopedia was criticized for his deletion. Valoem talk contrib 00:46, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • But the problem is, as already noted in this page and the prior deletion discussion, which was upheld in two deletion review. He does NOT meet the criteria.--Kevmin § 01:42, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Valoem is correct in asking those of us the !voted in the last AfD to look at this one fresh, rechecking the new page and looking at the sources again, rather than just !voting the same way assuming without checking that nothing has changed. I was careful to give all of the evidence a fresh look and to do a new search for evidence of notability. Where Valoem is mistaken is in his claim "he passes our guidelines for inclusion". After looking closely at the available evidence, my conclusion was that he does not -- but that conclusion could have changed if there had been new evidence of notability. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:21, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have difficulty with the unsourced claim that he expressed doubts about Darwinism. Can a source and explanation of what he said be given? It looks only too easy to sabotage the BLP of any scientist by putting in such claims. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:26, 29 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]
    Here is a direct quote from Günter Bechly's website, in the section he titled "Anti-Darwinism":
    "My Anti-Darwinian views: Neo-Darwinian macroevolution has been decisively refuted by modern science and is demonstrably failing to be a feasible explanation. Furthermore, phenomena like the origin of life and of complex biological novelties, the origin and fine-tuning of the universe, and the origin and nature of consciousness all suggest that mechanistic and materialistic theories fail to explain the evidence, which is better explained by an intelligent cause or at least an influx of information from outside the system."[17]
    That seem pretty clear to me. --05:10, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for this. It should go in the article. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:22, 29 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Self-published so lacks context, but that source and the front page of his website is informative about his career change in December 2016 to employment by the Discovery Institute and one of its spin-off ID promoting efforts. . . dave souza, talk 08:46, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is what it says in the title. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:33, 29 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Hmm, I thought it had been deleted twice already, but I may have been thinking of deletion reviews. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:17, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - After checking the sources where there are only mentions (Vrsansky is also usually mentioned and there's no article about him but from a few searches may be notable), I see only one that really is about Bechly (but even more about Wikipedia), the one relating to the previous deletion. One could argue that the event increased notability although the article's author writes a lot about Wikipedia because of the encyclopedia's own notability. The nominator hits the spot with WP:BIO1E. —PaleoNeonate – 16:46, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per PaleoNeonate. But there's a few days left, perhaps some bone/insect people will turn up with some brilliant refs. For the history interested, besides the Afd, there was also Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 February 3 and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 April 17. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:59, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all the delete votes here, and the last time, including my own. He does not appear notable. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 21:10, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh. I was one of the delete opinions in the original AfD, but his citation counts are borderline. It would be reasonable to argue for a keep based on his citation record if the article was focused around his academic contributions, stating only that he left academia. The reason I am not making this argument is that the article is clearly not focused on that, and in fairness to his changed beliefs cannot be. I'm not convinced that creationists having an online tantrum because one of their own did not make the cut makes Bechly notable, either. If the article is kept, the part about his rejection of one of the basic tenets of modern biology needs to be rewritten to make clear that that is what he has done, per WP:FRINGE, with none of this mealy-mouthed "expressed doubts" and "his stance", but at this point that looks unlikely. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:53, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I like this comment as these ideas also crossed my mind when evaluating notability. For most apologists we have articles about (there are a number), we usually have things to write based on independent sources that cover them and their arguments, their story, positions, etc. —PaleoNeonate – 08:38, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Two Anthony Walsh books that contain roughly the same content about Günter Bechly but say it in different ways:
      1. Walsh, Anthony (2020). God, Science, and Society: The Origin of the Universe, Intelligent Life, and Free Societies. Wilmington, Delaware: Vernon Press. p. 182. ISBN 978-1-62273-955-4. Retrieved 2020-07-30.

        According to https://vernonpress.com/contact, "Vernon Press is an independent publisher of bilingual scholarly books in the humanities and social sciences."

      2. Walsh, Anthony (2019). Answering the New Atheists: How Science Points to God and to the Benefits of Christianity. Wilmington, Delaware: Vernon Press. p. 139. ISBN 978-1-62273-514-3. Retrieved 2020-07-30.
    2. Langdon, Lynde (2018-05-10). "Providential discoveries". World. Archived from the original on 2020-07-30. Retrieved 2020-07-30.
    3. Roller, Timo (2018-02-03). "«Ich folgte den Beweisen» Bis er eine Evolutionsausstellung zu kuratieren hatte und sich mit den Gegenargumenten befasste" ["I followed the evidence". The German paleontologist Dr. Günter Bechly was a staunch representative of Neo-Darwinism. Until he had to curate an evolution exhibition and dealt with the counter-arguments.]. factum (in German). Schwengeler Verlag. Archived from the original on 2020-07-30. Retrieved 2020-07-30.
    4. Benjakob, Omer (2017-11-17). "A Respected Scientist Comes Out Against Evolution – and Loses His Wikipedia Page". Haaretz. Archived from the original on 2018-03-19. Retrieved 2020-07-30.
    5. Schmitt, Jenny Lind (2019-02-08). "If rocks could talk". World. Archived from the original on 2020-07-30. Retrieved 2020-07-30.
    Sources with quotes
    1. Two Anthony Walsh books that contain roughly the same content about Günter Bechly but say it in different ways:
      1. Walsh, Anthony (2020). God, Science, and Society: The Origin of the Universe, Intelligent Life, and Free Societies. Wilmington, Delaware: Vernon Press. p. 182. ISBN 978-1-62273-955-4. Retrieved 2020-07-30.

        According to https://vernonpress.com/contact, "Vernon Press is an independent publisher of bilingual scholarly books in the humanities and social sciences."

        The book notes:

        ID's powerful arguments have attracted many former Darwinists, including Gunter Bechly, a German paleontological biologist. As the leading evolutionist in Germany, Bechly was invited in 2009 to organize a museum exhibit in Stuttgart to celebrate the bicentennial of Darwin's birth. Among the exhibits on display, Bechly featured an old-fashioned weight scale showing a number of anti-Darwinian books in one pan and Darwin's Origin of Species in the other. Naturally, Darwin's book left the combined weight of the other books dangling in the air. This powerful visual symbol was designed to show that all contrary evidence is impotent against the weight of Darwin's theory.

        However, Bechly decided to read those dangling books and began to have gnawing doubts about his commitment to Darwinism. The upshot was that he rejected Darwinism and became a Christian. Bechly proclaims that he is a theist who strongly rejects atheism and ontological materialism/naturalism, and that: "[quote from Bechly]." Bechly is a scientist who follows the data where they lead instead of blindly adhering to ideology. Perhaps other critics of ID should approach ID books with similar open-mindedness.

      2. Walsh, Anthony (2019). Answering the New Atheists: How Science Points to God and to the Benefits of Christianity. Wilmington, Delaware: Vernon Press. p. 139. ISBN 978-1-62273-514-3. Retrieved 2020-07-30.

        The book notes:

        ID's powerful arguments have attracted many former Darwinists, such as Gunter Bechly, an eminent German paleontological evolutionary biologist. Because of his standing as the leading evolutionist in Germany, Bechly was chosen to organize as museum exhibit to celebrate the bicentennial of Darwin's birth in 2009. Among the many exhibits, Bechly had a weight scale erected showing a dozen anti-Darwinian books in one pan, and Darwin's Origin of Species in the other. Naturally, Darwin's book left the combined weight of the other books dangling in the air. This was a powerful visual symbol; all contrary evidence is impotent against the weight of Darwin's theory. However, Bechly decided to read those dangling books and began to have gnawing doubts about his commitment to Darwinism. The upshot was that he rejected Darwinism and became a Christian. Bechly is an example of a scientist who follows the data to where they lead instead of blindly sticking with ideological orthodoxy. As he put it [quote]

    2. Langdon, Lynde (2018-05-10). "Providential discoveries". World. Archived from the original on 2020-07-30. Retrieved 2020-07-30.

      The article notes:

      A German paleontologist recently announced the discovery of a new species of dragonfly with ties to intelligent design, a providential discovery he highlighted by naming the insect for one of ID’s longtime champions.

      Gunter Bechly discovered the species in 2011 but had to delay publishing the finding until last month because of other obligations, he wrote on the Discovery Institute’s blog. Until 2009, Bechly accepted neo-Darwinism as settled science. In preparing an exhibit for the museum where he worked in Stuttgart, Germany, he gathered books on intelligent design, intending to discredit them. Instead, he realized they made some good points and adopted their worldview as his own.

      The story of how he discovered the new species of dragonfly is equally unlikely. While looking at a website for fossil collectors, he realized one of the specimens came from an early Jurassic dragonfly no one had previously identified among about 6,500 species of fossilized and living dragonflies and damselflies. He contacted the owner to ask if he could borrow and study the well-preserved fossil. What he saw led him to identify detailed characteristics of the insect, some of which it shared with other similar dragonflies from the same time period. Those characteristics met the definition of “homoplasy,” features shared between species but not with any identified common ancestor.

    3. Roller, Timo (2018-02-03). "«Ich folgte den Beweisen» Bis er eine Evolutionsausstellung zu kuratieren hatte und sich mit den Gegenargumenten befasste" ["I followed the evidence". The German paleontologist Dr. Günter Bechly was a staunch representative of Neo-Darwinism. Until he had to curate an evolution exhibition and dealt with the counter-arguments.]. factum (in German). Schwengeler Verlag. Archived from the original on 2020-07-30. Retrieved 2020-07-30.

      Factum is a German-language Christian magazine from Switzerland.

      From Google Translate:

      “Bechlya ericrobinsoni” is the scientific name of a small dragonfly species from ancient times. "Gorgopsidis bechlyi" is the name of a jumping spider made from Baltic amber. These two and four other fossil insect species are named after Günter Bechly, a German paleontologist and specialist for amber and insects. "Bechlyidae" is even the scientific name for a family of small dragonflies from the Upper Carboniferous. In total, Bechly has described over 160 new species.

      ...

      [Discussion about Günter Bechly and Wikipedia]

      Some of his scientific works, which were previously linked on the website of his former employer, the Natural History Museum in Stuttgart, have also disappeared almost without a trace.

      Günter Bechly worked there as a curator for amber and fossil insects for 17 years until he lost his job at the end of 2016. The reason: he had committed a kind of mortal sin in science and publicly expressed doubts about the theory of evolution. He presented his worldview on his private website and confessed himself to the biblical creator god as an intelligent designer of life. At the same time, however, he also made it clear that his professional work at the museum would be strictly separated from his conclusions and that he would continue to adhere to all scientific demands on his work.

      ...

      Of course, it is particularly interesting: How did Günter Bechly change his mind? He first studied in Stuttgart, then in Tübingen, where he finally did his doctorate on the history of the dragonflies. In 1999 he started working at the State Museum of Natural History in Stuttgart. In Darwin year 2009 he had a special task as curator: he was appointed project manager for the special exhibition "Evolution - The River of Life".

    4. Benjakob, Omer (2017-11-17). "A Respected Scientist Comes Out Against Evolution – and Loses His Wikipedia Page". Haaretz. Archived from the original on 2018-03-19. Retrieved 2020-07-30.

      The article notes:

      Günter Bechly, a devout Catholic from Germany, had a promising academic career as a paleontologist. He had published numerous papers in prestigious, peer-review journals – including groundbreaking studies he conducted into the evolution of dragonfly wings – and was even a curator at Stuttgarts State Museum of Natural History. At least until 2016. That's when he first came out against evolution and in favor of intelligent design. He found himself embraced by the religious right in the United States, becoming a pawn in their political struggle over the world's origin story.

      ...

      Bechly's objection to what scientists call the modern evolutionary synthesis began to make waves after he joined the Discovery Institute, a conservative, self-styled think tank promoting intelligent design – the pseudoscience rehash of creationism and the idea that modern science alone cannot explain the existence or diversity of life on Earth.

      Bechly even participated in a movie, Revolutionary, produced by the Discovery Institute, that presented testimonies of scientists dubious of evolution.

    5. Schmitt, Jenny Lind (2019-02-08). "If rocks could talk". World. Archived from the original on 2020-07-30. Retrieved 2020-07-30.

      The article notes:

      German paleontologist Günter Bechly, former curator of the Stuttgart State Museum of Natural History, is a world expert on fossilized dragonflies. He has discovered more than 170 new species, and eight species, two genera, and one family of organisms have been named after him. To prepare for an exhibit celebrating Charles Darwin’s 200th birthday, Bechly read intelligent design books—and became an ID proponent. He is now a fellow at the Discovery Institute and a senior research scientist at Biologic Institute. He now lives in Austria, but I interviewed him in Seattle, Wash. Here’s an edited Q&A.

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

    Cunard (talk) 09:39, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • From World about Günter Bechly, "He has discovered more than 170 new species, and eight species, two genera, and one family of organisms have been named after him."

    From Anthony Walsh, "ID's [intelligent design's] powerful arguments have attracted many former Darwinists, such as Gunter Bechly, an eminent German paleontological evolutionary biologist. Because of his standing as the leading evolutionist in Germany, Bechly was chosen to organize as museum exhibit to celebrate the bicentennial of Darwin's birth in 2009."

    From Haaretz, "Günter Bechly, a devout Catholic from Germany, had a promising academic career as a paleontologist. He had published numerous papers in prestigious, peer-review journals – including groundbreaking studies he conducted into the evolution of dragonfly wings – and was even a curator at Stuttgarts State Museum of Natural History. At least until 2016. That's when he first came out against evolution and in favor of intelligent design. He found himself embraced by the religious right in the United States, becoming a pawn in their political struggle over the world's origin story."

    Cunard (talk) 09:39, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Vernon press books are WP:SPS: [18]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:32, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't consider the Vernon Press books to be self-published sources. From https://vernonpress.com/faq:

        Q. What role does peer-review play in the publication process?

        A. All our books are peer-reviewed by suitably qualified experts and until peer review concludes successfully publication cannot be guaranteed. Peer review helps us select only works of a high academic standard and ensures that your book sits alongside other high quality publications. It also helps you receive constructive feedback so that you may improve your work. ...

        ...

        Q. What happens if reviewers do not recommend publication and you decide not to publish my book, even though we've signed a contract early on?

        A. Offering a contract before peer review signals our confidence in your work and provides a measure of reassurance to encourage you to develop and finalize your manuscript (see more information here). Before offering a contract, we have a reasonable expectation that the manuscript will be publishable, even if it takes extensive revisions to bring it up to publishable standard. However, in the event that we have to outright reject the publication following peer review, we will cancel the contract to allow you to pursue alternative publication arrangements.

        Cunard (talk) 04:58, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Several of these sources are evangelical Christian publications (the two World sources and Factum). World is one of the better in that category (I'm not so familiar with Factum), but it's still hard to !vote keep about someone pushing a fringe theory that's most associated with evangelical christianity based largely on evangelical christian sources... — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:50, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. In addition, the Haaretz item is already in the article, and is basically the only decent source anybody has turned up. Moreover, I'd say that anyone saying ID's [intelligent design's] powerful arguments have attracted many former Darwinists is ipso facto not reliable.... XOR'easter (talk) 16:21, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ID's [intelligent design's] powerful arguments have attracted many former Darwinists is an exceptional claim that the author has not substantiated by providing examples of those former Darwinists. I don't consider that unsubstantiated exceptional claim to be sufficient to make the book unreliable for establishing notability. Even if the book source were discounted, the Haartez and World sources provide enough significant coverage to establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.

Cunard (talk) 04:58, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Was likely already notable enough for Wikipedia as a scientist before his controversial deletion, but it can only be ascertained for certain if/when a German comments on relevant matters/details which only a native German speaker (and ideally resident) would properly understand. If that doesn't happen, deletion will likely merely be a case of Wikipedia's long standing systemic bias problem in action yet again. Commenting as a usually only lurking journalist, who was nonetheless wholly offended by the suggestion below that I am probably too stupid to even have an opinion on this matter.
My full original reasoning, which was collapsed for length (against my wishes), but still stands in full as my compete argument, showing as it hopefully does, that I understand all the issues in play. Go Into The Light (talk) 18:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
— Go Into The Light (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The fact that he has a long standing biography in German Wikipedia seems to be pretty strong evidence he is notable, and just as much for his career before he became a creationist, as after. Since it stands to reason most of the reliable independent secondary coverage of this man will be in German language sources. I that regard, it is surely significant in of itself that his man is even known to non-German scientific media such as New Scientist and ScienceDaily as an "expert" in his field (ScienceDaily) for his discoveries of multiple extinct species.

  • I think it would be an example of systemic bias to delete this biography without, for example, a German speaker having even commented on aspects like what exactly are the nature of these claimed appearances on German TV and interviews in the German press that appear in his German biography, and which certainly seem to predate the creationism controversy. Absent any other details of his life, it has to be assumed these were because either he or his work transcended the barrier from niche science to popular interest.
  • A German speaker could also probably shed more light on the probable significance of this man being interviewed by "Ernst Probst" for "GTIN Verlag", since that could definitely be indicative that they pass the test for having "had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by reliable independent sources".
  • All of this information, which only a German speaker (and ideally, a native German) can really speak to with any authority, could be highly significant to this debate. To this non-German this all certainly seems to point us in the direction of this man having done something important in his field, over and above run of the mill science, where the mere act of discovering new things, is (or should be if you're doing it right) your stock in trade. What matters, as reflected by the relevant Wikipedia guidance pages, is assessing the importance/significance of their discoveries.
  • A German speaker, for example, could also probably shed more light on how important it might be for this man to have been the project manager of an exhibition that won an award from the Volkswagen Evolution Foundation, or that he was a curator at the Stuttgart Museum of Natural History. Since these may or may not also be relevant regarding the tests for a notable scientist having significant awards or positions, reflecting their significant impact in their scholarly discipline.
  • His German Wikipedia page mentions that at least one his discoveries identified a "missing link" in the fossil record, which to the lay person is always indicative of a leap forward in scientific understanding, rather than an incremental step. That key phrase is a notable omission from this English page. Similarly, I certainly know enough about academia to know "summa cum laude" is a pretty big deal, but this is also ommitted from this page. Why? If the reason for these omissions is simply because nobody here speaks German (bar one person, "mfb", who hasn't said anything in that regard either way) and therefore isn't capable of properly conveying this man's career as it is reflected in independent reliable sources, which of course do not have to be written in English to be cited in English Wikipedia, that is an error.
  • Last but by no means least, why would the fact that this person later disavowed science to become a believer in Magic Man theories have even made it into independent sources, if he were not a significant scientist? Again, this is where it would seem to be important to know the views of German speakers, because it doesn't seem to be the case that this aspect of his life is even considered significant in Germany, judging by its ommission from his German Wikipedia entry. And if it isn't, it does rather suggest that the fate of his biography in English Wikipedia is not being decided by factors that relate to his established record as a German scientist, and therefore it might very well be true that a notable German scientist previously had, and might again have, his English Wikipedia biography deleted, simply because he later disavowed science. As a punishment for his heresy, if you will.
  • I normally wouldn't even comment on an internal Wikipedia debate, being a mere lurker in these back office areas, but as a journalist myself, I was highly offended by the suggestion below that we might be somehow missing crucial aspects of this debate, that we might just be too stupid even to understand the mystical ways of the wiki. This isn't rocket science, believe me. It probably would serve that person well to appreciate that there are lots of things that Wikipedia tries to do, but just does them very badly. Factoring out systemic biases in decisions about who and who has not done enough to merit a Wikipedia biography, being one of them.
  • You would not believe from comments like that, that it was only because of recent research into Wikipedia's language barrier problem, that we even realise just how little crossover there is between the different language editions, most notably, English and German. Barely 100,000 pages common to each "encyclopedia". Which suggests that if Wikipedia editors genuinely want to build a compendium of noteworthy human knowledge (such as a collection of biographies for scientists who have made significant discoveries) where language alone isn't a barrier to inclusion, they should pay the utmost heed to cases where they might be creating an odd disconnect between what German Wikipedia decides regarding the notability of a German scientist, and what English Wikipedia decides.
  • It certainly should not be beyond the wit of man to appreciate that there is absolutely no equivalence whatsoever between seeing a German scientist who gets mentioned in international science media for his apparently noteworthy discoveries as being worthy of an article in English Wikipedia, to making that case that it should have an article for "every garage band, everyone with a YouTube channel, and every actor in every commercial ever aired", and therefore refuse to endorse any statement or view made in their name that is predicated on such, well, unscientific nonsense.
  • Systemic bias is real (of which world view is just one such bias), a scientifically proven flaw of Wikipedia. It has already been determined on this very page that when looking at citation metrics alone, which you would hope (but also cannot rely on) are not affected by the language barrier, there is no agreement among Wikipedia editors as to whether this man's work is outstanding in his field, or just everyday worker-bee science.
  • The precautionary principle would therefore seem to apply, especially given the presence of the clear temptation of some to want to simply erase a heretic from existence insofar as recorded human history goes. Erase them, rather than let the children of our children reflect on the somewhat uncomfortable fact that in the early 21st Century, sometimes even formerly noteworthy scientists fell under the spell of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. And we just couldn't do anything to pray the gay away, as it were. That they just had to be burned at the stake. It was the only way. They quite rightly wouldn't thank us for that lack of foresight, especially if it does, as I suspect it will, merely hasten the day pur descendants are all card carrying Flying Spaghetti Monster Party adherents, because to be anything else, is treason.
  • Exercise caution. If it feels like you might be about to make a mistake, stop, take a step back, reflect on what you do and don't know for certain, and adjust or reaffirm your conclusion. In other words, take a scientific approach. Treat this as if it were an evaluation of evidence, but where the most significant evidence, that which will tip the scales one way or the other, is likely only to be discovered if you find a German speaker who is willing to help you locate and interpret it. Ideally as a neutral party, merely as a translator of sources and explainer of uncontroversial facts about German cultural institutions, such as their universities, museums and media. There must be at least one German on English Wikipedia, surely? Go Into The Light (talk) 11:22, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
— Go Into The Light (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • Question What does "pur" mean? -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 11:27, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedias in different languages have different standards for inclusion. Making inferences from one to another is always problematic. In addition, sometimes articles exist simply because nobody has noticed them and nominated them for deletion yet. WP:WAX. XOR'easter (talk) 16:21, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do you have any evidence that German Wikipedia applies a lower bar to scientist notability? If not, it seems safe to assume that they would be broadly the same, i.e., requiring evidence of substantial contributions to their field. And as I thought I had made clear, my argument is not simply "keep, currently exists on German Wikipedia". My argument is that since he is considered notable in German Wikipedia and there is much German language material and context to digest that would seem to be clearly relevant to the English Wikipedia tests of academic notability (awards, coverage, positions), the English Wikipedia editors who deem him non-notable are probably not fully taking into account their limitations when it comes to assessing the notability of German scientists. I have seen no evidence either that German Wikipedia editors have simply not noticed they have a biography of this man on their Wikipedia, indeed there is evidence on their talk page to suggest the opposite. In the event the German biography is deleted at some future time, then of course I would be perfectly happy to reconsider my position. But the mere possibility that might one day happen, is not really relevant to the matter at hand here, because my vote was based largely on what I was able to glean from the German biography. Go Into The Light (talk) 19:02, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I did not say that the German article had gone unnoticed; I wrote that ometimes articles exist simply because nobody has noticed them and nominated them for deletion yet (emphasis added). Taking the trouble to nominate a page for deletion is a non-negligible effort, which not everyone bothers to do. In any case, nothing in the German Wikipedia article specifically contributes to our standards for notability. We can't base an argument on hypothetical sources that might exist. XOR'easter (talk) 19:38, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
long reply self-collapsed only as a courtesy, I advise everyone not to view that as a valid reason to ignore it Go Into The Light (talk) 00:49, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • I doubt you seriously believe that German Wikipedia editors are just that lazy/stupid when compared to English Wikipedia editors. If the second largest Wikipedia is effectively non-functional, then you might as well stop even trying to pretend Wikipedia is a global effort. I wonder how many German Wikipedia editors would be appalled to hear their English counterparts think so little of them. I suspect you are just trying to grasp at any excuse to ignore the basic fact that it really is going to be hard to explain to curious journalists, if this article is deleted, why English Wikipedia editors completely ignored the fact that this man has a long standing biography in German Wikipedia, and there is absolutely no reason to believe as you claim, that they are either unaware of this controversy, or have lower inclusion standards. If you know different, if this was more than just a hypothetical, the time to present your evidence would be now. Contrary to your claim, I have already gone to great lengths to detail what there is in that German Wikipedia biography that would be relevant to this debate, specifically the claims he discovered a "missing link" in the fossil record, that he won an award from the Volkswagen Evolution Foundation, that he has been a guest and been interviewed on various German print and broadcast media, and that he graduated summa cum laude. These all speak to the English language tests for academic notability, even if the German bar is lower, which I seriously doubt. If you want to claim it's fine for English Wikipedia to ignore these claims because the references they appear in are in a foreign language and/or on a different Wikipedia, so their true worth to this debate cannot yet be fully known, that is your right. But if you want to claim they don't exist, you do not have a very good case, because they're right there in black and white. I am a journalist, so I don't tend to write about things that I haven't seen with my own eyes. You are also conveniently ignoring that I have also referred to the German language sources that are used in this article, specifically this interview by Ernst Probst. Again, you can argue it should be ignored because it's in German, but you can't deny it exists, because it is right there, in black and white. It has been there all along as far as I can see, even when people have been claiming on this very page, including you, that this man has not received "significant coverage" for his work as a scientist. Profile level coverage. Well, would you like to revise that statement, given that to a non-German speaker, that looks like it could be one of the claimed interviews by German media arising from his important discoveries (plural) in the fossil record? Ernst Probst has no English Wikipedia article, but according to German Wikipedia, he is a science journalist and author with numerous works to his name. Are you seriously going to suggest this information is not relevant to this debate? Indeed, that systemic bias might not be a risk factor here at all? That by sheer coincidence, it is two for two here, or so it seems. That English Wikipedia not only fail to acknowledge the existence of notable German scientists, they fail to acknowledge the notable authors that interview them? Are you honestly going to suggest that it might not be useful to get a German speaker to confirm my suspicion that this is an in depth interview by an independent reliable source, which would probably be enough, alongside the mentions of his name in reliable news sources like Science Daiy and New Scientist in a non-trivial fashion, to call this a pass under even the English Wikipedia test of general notability, factoring how difficult that is to pass for persons outside the Anglosphere, never mind the test for academics (which theoretically should be even easier to assess from across a language barrier given science is a topic where cultural factors matter less than testable achievements, but not if you refuse to even look at foreign language sources). I am only expending this many words on this issue, I am only enduring the smears (the COI accusation), insults ("n00b") and general disrespect ("wall of text", typo picking) that I have been met with already, to prove that it is not journalists who are the problem here. If English Wikipedia editors choose to ignore inconvenient facts, if they leave people no choice but to wonder, did they really delete his biography as revenge for the heresy of converting to the Dark Side, it is entirely their fault. I am giving you (collectively) every chance to prove that, as was claimed, "we really are trying to do the right thing here". The right thing to do here would be to find a German to examine these sources and explain their contents and context, preferably as a neutral party. The wrong thing to do here, would be to pretend like you (as a collective) don't even hear me saying that, or worse, want to accuse me of having an ulterior motive for saying it. If Chris Troutman has good reason to believe I have an "external relationship" to this man, now would be the time for him to demonstrate that he hears and understands my request that I might be allowed to know on what grounds he has made that accusation (via a warning on my talk page). Other than the mere fact I disagree with his attempt to delete this article. Go Into The Light (talk) 00:45, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only thing that's relevant here are links to reliable source coverage that responds to the various objections on notability and fringe grounds. Nothing on other language Wikipedias is relevant to this discussion except insofar as there's in-depth reliable source coverage there that you can link to here. They're all separate projects with different standards, and it's not necessary to draw direct comparisons because it doesn't matter if we're talking about German, Spanish, Tagalog, or Latin (yes, there's a Latin Wikipedia for some reason). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:02, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is a link to the interview by Probst. It looks to be the place where the claims regarding graduation and positions will be found. This appears to be the link where "missing link" is referred to. This appears to be the confirmation of the Volkswagen award, albeit a non-independent source. You can find lots of information with which to verify media appearances at the bottom of this link. But as I have already said, you are not likely to be able to judge these properly without a German speaker/resident to interpret them, especially when it comes to the significance of those media appearances. There are likely other links to be found too, and it is regrettable that it appears to be your attitude to have assumed that they simply didn't exist, that I had perhaps imagined them, or worse. Because you could have located all of these quite easily for yourself if you were properly following what I had said, rather than assuming I was merely babbling on about stuff that isn't "relevant". As for this claim that German Wikipedia has different (i.e. lower) standards or that it is not relevant at all that there is a long standing biography there other than what links can be farmed from it, I will not repeat what I have already said - if you had something relevant to say on that matter, I assume you would have said it. I have said what I have said, because I believe it is necessary to draw those comparisons. If you disagree, fine, but first make sure that, like this issue of relevant links, you haven't merely assumed I don't know what I am talking about. Go Into The Light (talk) 03:40, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing has actually changed since last time. And people don't become notable as a result of freakouts over our deletion of biographies, we should probably include that as a specific disqualifying criterion for notability. Guy (help!) 13:20, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I feel compelled to comment following the note below from DGG, whose opinion I greatly respect. My main issue with this article is that, far from being dleeted solely because he is a creationist, it appears to have been created solely for that reason. The opriginal creator is Paläontologe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has exactly one edit to Wikipedia, creating this aerticle. Most of the content was written by Dr. Günter Bechly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I note that DGG was WP:CANVASSed here by Valoem with a deceptive statement that he "recently" re-created the article based on his researches. Actually Valoem had it undeleted and userfied in February 2018, not long after the last DRV. So yes I do think a POV-push is going on, and I think it is the exact opposite of the one being claimed. Meanwhile, there has been no substantive change in the subject since deletion. Guy (help!) 10:00, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I note that DGG was WP:CANVASSed here by Valoem with a deceptive statement that he "recently" re-created the article based on his researches. I did not ever say I recreated the article show me where I said that. I restore the article added new sources and removed all cruft, the only one being deceptive here is you. You don't like the subject I get that you hate "fringe" that is not in dispute. But as per WP:CANVASS under Appropriate notification: Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics), therefore this was not canvassing. Also DGG, who is an ArbCom member, made a statement on his talk page where he said I think I am well-known to be interested in the topic, and notifying one or two people who have expressed prior interest are is not canvassing. I think the people who need to explain their motivation are not those who would include this article, but those who would delete it. An ordinary article on a taxonomist of his standing would not have been listed for deletion except for the non-evolutionist aspect., what you are doing here is highly inappropriate. Valoem talk contrib 16:59, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think my interest in this topic was well-known, though I participated in only some of the discussions. It's part of my general interest in people notable in their field who sometimes do not get due coverage here for their unorthodox views. DGG ( talk ) 17:14, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But it was still contacting a person known to favourt inclusion of this specific article, and the notice was still deceptive in pretty much every material respect. Guy (help!) 22:17, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do you not think it is equally deceptive to claim that the subject of this article created it, without noting that he is already on record as having denied this (irrespective of whether you believe him). It's not like that denial was hard to find, so you just have been aware of it. Similarly, your claim that he likely created it precisely because he was already a creationist and was therefore planning all along to abuse Wikipedia by making them host his CV as a non-notable scientist, without explaining what your evidence for that for actually is. I had thought your proof for this claim was his conversion to Catholism circa 2003, but you denied that. So on what basis did you make that claim? Do you still stand by it, given it doesn't really seem to fit the basic facts at all, such as the fact he apparently waited quite a few years into his religious life before creating it (in 2012), but then waited a further four years before adding to it himself, that he now believed in ID. It was a very strange theory all round, less believable than Wikipedia deletes notable scientist as revenge for coming out for ID certainly is. Would you care to summarise it here, in a place that will remain publicly visible in the even of a deletion? Go Into The Light (talk) 17:15, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You need to read WP:MEATPUPPET. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:21, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was contacted by a person who wants to delete the BLP. You will note that I voted Keep. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:36, 2 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete per WP:FRINGEBLP. There are people who are notable for their fringe positions. This person is not. As WP:ACADEMIC, he seems to fail as well. jps (talk) 18:33, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep @Guy Macon:, I am pinging Guy Macon because I appreciate the due diligence you have done and would like to respond to your comment. I am ambivalent toward the idea or concept that Wikipedia is trying to delete creationists, however the media has noticed Bechly's deletion from Wikipedia which is a tremendously rare event regarding deletion of articles. I am entirely unaware and have not seen any evidence of a creationist push on this encyclopedia for lower standards of inclusion. I will highlight some sources which are reliable and based from a scientific and secular viewpoint.
    1. Tatalović, Mićo (2020-07-28). "Predatory cockroach from dinosaur era found trapped in amber". New Scientist. Retrieved 28 July 2020.

      The article notes:

      Peter Vršanský from the Geological Institute in Bratislava, Slovakia, and Günter Bechly from the State Museum of Natural History in Stuttgart, Germany, who examined the insect, say its long neck, which allows the head to rotate freely, and unusually long legs, suggest that it actively pursued prey. The fossilised insect, called Manipulator modificaputis, was discovered at a mine in Noije Bum, Myanmar.

    2. Owano, Nancy (2015-05-01). "Dinosaur-times cockroach caught in amber, from Myanmar". phys.org. Retrieved 28 July 2020.

      The article notes:

      Geologica Carpathica has a paper on a new family of predatory cockroaches. Predatory? The authors, Peter Vrsansky and Günter Bechly, from the Slovak Republic and Germany, respectively, said that "unique adaptations such as strongly elongated extremities and freely movable head on a long neck suggest that these animals were pursuit predators."

    3. Benjakob, Omer (2017-11-17). "A respected scientist comes out against evolution – and loses his Wikipedia page". Haaretz.com. Retrieved 28 July 2020.

      The article notes:

      Günter Bechly, a devout Catholic from Germany, had a promising academic career as a paleontologist. He had published numerous papers in prestigious, peer-review journals – including groundbreaking studies he conducted into the evolution of dragonfly wings – and was even a curator at Stuttgart’s State Museum of Natural History. At least until 2016. That’s when he first came out against evolution and in favor of intelligent design. He found himself embraced by the religious right in the United States, becoming a pawn in their political struggle over the world’s origin story.

    4. Berezow, Alex (2018-02-02). "Wikipedia Erases Scientist from History". American Council on Science and Health. Retrieved 30 July 2020.

      The article notes:

      If a respected scientist endorses a controversial view, should he or she be erased from history? The editors at Wikipedia think so, but only if the controversial opinion is one they personally dislike.

      That's precisely what happened to a respected German paleontologist, Günter Bechly. His biography on Wikipedia has been deleted. Poof. Gone. It's like he never existed.

      According to German Wikipedia, where a version of Dr. Bechly's page (which appears to have been created in 2012) still exists, he was once an atheist and supporter of Richard Dawkins. Now, he is a devoted Catholic and, as of 2016, an outspoken proponent of Intelligent Design. For that crime, the English version of Wikipedia erased him from history1.

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Bechly to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The first two sources include New Scientist and Phys.org which highlight accomplishments he achieved in the scientific community. But the two ladder sources directly criticize his deletion from Wikipedia. Haaretz is an Israeli newspaper founded in 1918 and the second is the American Council on Science and Health. None of these are related to Christian websites attempting to lower inclusion criteria, they are academic sources. But most importantly is this source which says

    [Bechly] has authored or co-authored about 150 scientific publications, including a co-edited book published by Cambridge University Press and a popular science book on evolution. He has discovered and named more than 160 new species, and has 10 biological groups named in his honor. He has served on the editorial boards of two scientific journals, and has organized five large public exhibitions on Earth history and evolution. He has been interviewed widely in German media and served as a science advisor for two natural history documentaries on the BBC.

    The 4 source above clearly indicates he passes WP:N and WP:GNG, but having discovered 160 new species and having 10 biological groups named in his honor indicates he also passes WP:NACADEMICS particularly #1: The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. The articles regarding other creationists shows that this encyclopedia does include creationists. My question is why are those creationists more notable than this one? Based on the sources I've provided, he appears to be equally notable to most of the creationists you have listed.

    Valoem talk contrib 01:28, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note, the American Council on Science and Health is a lobbying group known for seeking funding from manufacturers, not a reliable source. . . dave souza, talk 08:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The first two sources you outline cite an expert. I have also been cited in these websites giving my expert opinion. That is nothing on which to base a biographical article. The third source documents the WP:ONEEVENT controversy we're dealing with. The fourth source is a polemic written from what I would charitably call a "motivated" position (ACSH, for example, endorsed climate change denial among other positions). jps (talk) 01:37, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing you said is based in policy, these are reliable sources, if a publication has a writer who endorse climate change denial does that remove the publication as a reliable source entirely including other authors? The main issues is does discovering 160 species and having "10 biological groups named in his honor" not add to notability? Perhaps he is a quack now, but his prior work in the field is certainly notable, but none of this is relevant in the debate of notability. Valoem talk contrib 01:48, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, dear. Seems I hit a nerve. I assure you, what I wrote deals with many policies. To name a few: WP:BLP, WP:SIGCOV, WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV, WP:PROF, WP:ONEEVENT.... Ironically, while I think it's perfectly fine in the course of discussion to argue that someone who discovers 160 species is automatically notable, until WP:160SPECIES is a policy that has consensus, I'm going to say that this really isn't a good argument. jps (talk) 02:00, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Self-publication is not reliable we know that, can you provide the same level of coverage for yourself? If you can perhaps I'll write one on you if you'd like. Valoem talk contrib 02:03, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
YIKES! Please, no. I don't want a Wikipedia biography of myself. jps (talk) 02:06, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We are the old guards now I think, but I remember a quote you had on the old user name about "their livers need de-yellowing", I liked that one if you could send me that quote, I'd appreciate it. I do agree with you quite often, but not in this case. Valoem talk contrib 02:09, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rings a bell, but I do not have access to that quote at my fingertips. If I come across it, I'll be sure to pass it along. jps (talk) 02:27, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The first two sources you outline cite an expert. I have also been cited in these websites giving my expert opinion. That is nothing on which to base a biographical article. I concur. I've also been cited here and there for the same reasons, and I'm not wiki-notable either. XOR'easter (talk) 03:21, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Journalists were specifically told to expect this process was about giving a "lot of thought" to whether or not the general or academic tests for notability are passed here. You "co-signed" that message. You would expect, therefore, that the debate would not be misdirected down the quite frankly irrelevant issue of what you or anyone else think of whether or not you would pass. It is also not helpful to merely wave away the reason why this person got mentioned in these sources, or their specific word choices in doing so, as if it just doesn't matter, or ignore the rather obvious fact that it is not expected that you should be able to base a full biography on them, only that they be used to indicate the significance of the person's contributions to their field as regards the notability test. All of this is available in the links that journalists were told in that message are the standards Wikipedia editors are using here to help them decide "what to retain and what to delete". Go Into The Light (talk) 04:03, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just consider for the moment as an entomologist, he has done sufficient work to show him an authority on his subject. In the past, all other people whose articles have been taken to afd and have discovered even a single species have been considered notable enough for Wikipedia (as I explained at he 2nd DRV, "This was an example of an afd where a scientist with an orthodox and notable record in their field, was held to a much higher standard because they were also a creationist. It has always with everyone else here where the question was raised at AfD, that discovering new species is an indication of notability (not having a species merely named after oneself, because the discoverer can name it after anyone or anything they please.) And he did discover quite a number of new species and also described at least one high classification. That in particular is expertise amount to recognition by ones peers."). He is also secondarily notable for the controversy, for which there are excellent references from Science Daiy and New Scientist on the usual nature of a respected and orthodox biologist have divergent views on evolution. (he apparently does not deny it took place, but think it has been divinely directed). The actual though usually not conscious reason for deletion that must lie behind this is the view, expressed frankly in some of the remarks above, that we should not be giving publicity to non-standard views about evolution; and particularly, as has been the case with other scientists with other views we do not approve of on other subjects, that we must especially avoid giving anyone the idea that someone holding fringe views on a topic, could possibly be a notable scientist in his own area. This is about as complete of misunderstanding of NPOV and FRINGE as can be imagined, and is counterproductive even on its own terms. Here's why:
If someone who does not yet understand the correctness of evolution comes here, and finds that we do not include information about those current scientists who are opposed tot he orthodox views on evolution, they would naturally conclude that we are deliberately presented a biased view, just as we would say are to to find an resource that does the opposite. We can only convince people who are in doubt by remaining absolutely neutral, and judging everyone in a field on equal terms, purely on the basis of their own importance as judged by the sources regardless of their views on other topics. We cannot pretend they don't exist. Of course it puzzles me that one can be a notable entomologist and still misunderstand the key theoretical basis of all of biological science, but so it is, and there's nothing to gain from trying to hide from it. As JzG said recently on a related issue on my talk page at [19] I am as fundamentalist anti-fringe as they come, but you are absolutely on the nail here. The process needs to be robust, fair and repeatable, and not favour those who are loudest or most committed. The fact is, some bullshit has significant minority support, and it's not our job to fix that.
As an biologist myself, I want to know about those who think there is insufficient support for it. I want to know their views because I would consider my own understanding deficient if I did not find myself able to refute them. DGG ( talk ) 03:19, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak for anybody else, but I'd !vote to delete an article on a non-creationist with the same citation record and smattering of press mentions, had the deletion of a prior Wikipedia article about them been a similar flash-in-the-pan. Giving publicity to creationism does not enter my calculation at all, one way or the other. ScienceDaily is a news aggregator with no standards, and New Scientist is a sensationalist rag; if anyone evaluated my life's work by what they wrote of me, I'd be a little sad. XOR'easter (talk) 03:30, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DGG is something of a (radical?) inclusionist when it comes to academics. At one point he argued that we should have articles on all full professors (or those with equivalent academic rank). When I pointed out that it might not be possible to move much beyond a stub phase for such an article, he seemed okay with that. My concern here is actually that the WP:FRINGE controversy is making it seem like the person is more notable than he is. But if someone wants to start a WP:SPECIESDISCOVERER policy, I guess that would make things simpler. I note that Wikipedia now has articles on many secondary schools when in the past they were summarily deleted. jps (talk) 03:55, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
it remains not a written guideline, but I have for at least 10 years almost never seen an article on a full professor at a major university deleted for lack of notability unless there is some degree of prejudice against the field or the individual, as there used to be about some fields dominated by women. I've !voted against or deleted thousands of articles on academics who don't meet the standards for WP:PROF or for other reasons. It's hard to count, but I may have removed or helped remove more articles in this field than anyone here. The usual complaint is that I don't support articles on beginning academics who might become notable some day. People do not actually become full professors at a major research university unless their true peers judge them influential enough in their field to attract other scholars. DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not complaining. It's good to have many thoughtful sides in these discussions. jps (talk) 04:50, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When reliable sources cover the deletion of an article it is a huge deal. But even if we discard articles written about his deletion from the encyclopdiea, he would still pass WP:N, WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMICS. The discovery of 160 species is not a trivial matter, this person far surpasses a standard academic professor. Valoem talk contrib 04:02, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've heard the argument before that all species discoverers are notable. I don't understand how that can possibly be. The problem is that simply discovering a species (or even 160 species) does not mean that there are sources that exist which would let us write a biography. jps (talk) 04:10, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The sources will be in the citations. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:45, 31 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Color me unconvinced. If I cite a colleague, I rarely give enough information for someone to write even a single sentence in a biography about them. jps (talk) 04:51, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
the relevant key biographical content of an article on a scientist is their scientific work, which is documented in their publications and proved influential by the citations to them. As for the discoverer of a species, their name and their work is attached to that organism forever, and will be recorded in all further work and all reference books that cover not just that species, but the entire group of organisms. DGG ( talk ) 04:56, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. We can make mention of a discoverer at wikispecies, even. That doesn't exactly tell us how to write a standalone biography. I suppose there's a Wikipedia model where we simply list all the species. That makes for many kB of text, but it hardly seems WP:ENCy to me! jps (talk) 05:00, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In my recollection, determining the wiki-notability of taxonomists has been particularly difficult. What seems significant from one perspective may pale to near triviality when evaluated from another. The Paleobiology Database contains, at the moment, 423,762 taxa. Quoting Insect biodiversity: Estimates of the total number of insect species or those within specific orders are often highly variable. Globally, averages of these predictions estimate there are around 1.5 million beetle species and 5.5 million insect species with around 1 million insect species currently found and described. Thousands of insect species are discovered every year [20]. To identify, from among all the contributors to that dizzying amount of data, the individuals who should have Wikipedia articles, requires documented signifiers that just don't exist here. XOR'easter (talk) 06:18, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
what makes it feasible is that is is common for one person to discover many species--even many thousands of species, if they're studying beetles in the Amazon. DGG ( talk ) 17:09, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All it takes is choosing to work with a fossil site or insect group that doesnt have much/any modern study. What makes you think its hard to find new species?--Kevmin § 17:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"finding a species" involves knowing the details of the entire group of relevant related species, and knowing them well enough to recognize when the differences amount to a species. With fossils, it involves doing this with fragmentary material. (I am not a taxonomist, but I've worked with some as a science librarian.) It bears somewhat the same relationship as part of evolutionary biology as writing an article here is to making an encyclopedia. The best introduction I know to all that this implies is The Beak Of The Finch a wonderful book, and readable, based on the work of two of the most fascinating people I have ever known. And I have followed (as an amateur) the work of discovering and reclassifying the small number of species in one particular genus all my life, and seen how it changes, and will change, and the hundreds of books it has inspired. DGG ( talk ) 00:12, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As the 2011 interview makes clear, it is significant that this man was chosen as the curator of the amber collection in the Stuttgart Museum, because it is one of the largest in academic hands, it being more common that these important fossil records are often spirited away into private collections. You need a large collection because only a tiny fraction of all insect in amber specimens might even be a new species, let alone a "missing link", which are rather obviously the highest value objects. This brings us to why it might be important for a German speaker to tell us if there is any reason to believe it was this man's excellent performance in his academic training, that secured him this apparently significant post in this field. At the moment, it seems rather obvious he didn't arrive there by dumb luck, and his work is likely harder than just rocking up in the Amazon with a smoke machine and some jars. Go Into The Light (talk) 18:07, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As an actual entomologist, I will chime in that it isn't normal to consider someone notable here for merely discovering/naming species. That is generally well within the bounds of the "average professor test" over at WP:NPROF. In this field, it's common to describe new species if you are a taxonomist of some sort. We'd need something above the norm, which hasn't really been established here yet. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:15, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As this Nature paper confirms, this man did more than merely discover lots of new species ....... when I see phrases like missing link, key innovation and main event as it pertains to evolution in the fossil record, even I know as a lay person, that there is more to this man's career than run of the mill science, where merely discovering new things is your job description. It speaks of someone who is making significant contributions to their field. Someone who would definitely deserve to be called an "expert" by a publication whose stock in trade is to report on what scientists have done that week. Go Into The Light (talk) 04:58, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't know whether to laugh or cry at this. Just a tip: When trying to claim that someone is a giant in science, maybe don't go on and on about how a paper in Scientific Reports where they are second author is the same as some sort of breakthrough published in Nature (journal)? jps (talk) 05:02, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Other than your straw men and general mockery, are you making a specific point here? One that pertains to the academic test for notability. Yes, Nature and nature.com are not the same, but it is still a peer reviewed journal, published by the Nature group. So what exactly are you alleging? That the second author just cleans the beakers or something? That these phrases are not accurate? Fraudulent, even? Or this is just not some sort of a breakthrough in your eyes, as a person who may (or may not) have relevant expertise. You are a scientist, but your field appears to be Astronomy, which I would have thought offers not much more insight into this area than a layman could infer. Go Into The Light (talk) 06:11, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • "[A]s a lay person" you may not have known the difference between Scientific Reports and Nature. Now you do. jps (talk) 06:32, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • You have not answered my questions. Go Into The Light (talk) 17:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • I am under no obligation to answer your questions and don't see much point in answering them. jps (talk) 21:36, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • Well, this is what irritated me about that "message to journalists", because I know for a fact that in this venue, you are under an obligation to answer legitimate concerns if you have an expectation of being heard (or of this process in general being seen as an exercise in deep thinking as regards the application of things like the academic notability test). In this case, I have the legitimate concern that your strawman arguments and general mockery are cover for the fact you don't actually have any reason to believe that the claims in that paper are unreliable, and therefore you're not actually offering any (relevant) arguments regarding the test of academic notability. The point of doing the latter would seem obvious, at least as far as what journalists were told this process is all about. In short, with this talk to the hand arrogant attitude you're displaying now, it is likely your intent with your first mocking reply was simply to insult me, simply because you don't agree with my interpretation of the evidence as it pertains to the significance of this man's contribution to his field. I leave it to you to ponder what your obligations are with regard to not insulting people, and what this all means for the likelihood of anyone being persuaded that there is any reason to think Wikipedia editors were unfairly treated in the critical commentary that followed the first deletion. In summary, journalists are not half as stupid as some Wikipedia editors seem to think they are. They might not know the difference between Nature and nature.com, but they can tell when someone is being elitist and arrogant and generally unhelpful in how they go about offering their claimed expertise in this matter. I will ask you again, just so that the significance of any refusal to answer is understood - was the purpose of your mockery to highlight that the statements in that paper regarding the significance of the discovery, are unreliable for the purposes of Wikipedia, specifically the academic notability test? Go Into The Light (talk) 09:18, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • The reasons to look askance at Scientific Reports include, but are not limited to, those described in our article. That aside, see WP:SECONDARY and WP:INDY; we do not rely upon people's description of their own work. Doubtless it would be easier to do so — everything would be a breakthrough, and we could go home early and have jam for tea. XOR'easter (talk) 07:03, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, unless Scientific Reports has been formally deemed an unreliable source by Wikipedia, I shall assume it is still seen as a peer reviewed journal, with all that implies. I fear you may be otherwise confused about the concepts in play here - to quote INDY, "Secondary does not mean independent, and primary does not mean non-independent." The academic notability test, criteria 1, only requires an independent source for assessing claims of significant impact, and a paper submitted to a peer reviewed journal is an independent source, by virtue of the editorial process and the lack of a conflict of interest. I would imagine this is because it is going to be quite rare for key developments in certain academic subjects to be picked up by the New York Times et al. He gets coverage in Science Daily and New Scientist, but apparently this is not considered enough by some here. Not really sure why. Perhaps you were misled by the strawmen arguments introduced above - at no time have I claimed that what this man has done, is some kind of "breakthrough" or that he is a "giant in science" such that you would expect lots of secondary coverage of his work. But unless it is being alleged that the paper is fraudulent or that he played no significant part in the work as second author, it is no stretch at all to describe the identification of a missing link in the fossil record which led to a better understanding of precisely when insects evolved from the apparently rather unsuccessful strategy of chewing, to the rather more successful piercing, as a means to eat your chosen dish of the day, which led to a huge proliferation in the number of species, does represent a significant impact in paleoentomology. And as regards criteria 1, it is important to note that this paper is only something like the fourth or fifth highest cited paper by this scientist, which suggests he has even more significant discoveries under his belt. It is dissappointing that the scientists in this debate don't seem to want to help us laymen better understand where this man's achievements might sit in the pantheon of great paleoentomologists, but it seems to already be the case that it is accepted that there is no Hall of Fame, this is not a rockstar field, so it would be wise to pay attention to any reliable claim to significance in the field. Go Into The Light (talk) 17:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, when I see the phrase missing link that implies someone doesn't appreciate the modern understanding of transitional fossil, but that may be a translation thing. Similarly, "run of the mill science, where merely discovering new things is your job description" describes pre-1859 listing species, suggesting the narrow field of taxonomy rather than evolutionary biology. One thing the paper doesn't seem to do is give any credence to ID, presumably it was before him seeing the ID light. . . dave souza, talk 18:31, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • If you're trying to suggest this man wouldn't have known what a transitional fossil is, and is not offering insights into evolutionary biology with his work, and crucially, this is because he later became an advocate of ID and was therefore likely always a bit of an eejit when it came to this science stuff, I doubt anyone will find that a convincing argument. Certainly not if it is merely your personal opinion lacking any evidentiary basis. The opinion of someone who is apparently a vehement critic of Creationism, someone who has apparently not considered the evidence I have been referring to regarding his education and career attainment. In case you get the wrong idea, I am probably even more of a critic of ID than you are (people with even an amateur interest in evolutionary biology and the biology of the human brain, are probably still the best placed people to convincingly denounce religion in its entirety, for a whole host of reasons, but especially their ability not to talk down to non-scientists). My only concern in this matter is whether or not Wikipedia editors who also absolutely hate Creationism, quite deliberately reassessed their view of this man's scientific achievements in light of their realisation this man had defected to the Dark Side, and deemed him non-notable, where previously he was notable, as a (former) scientist. Comments like yours, which offer an opinion not backed by evidence but absolutely do seem to be a case of reassessing the significance of his career in light of his later heresy, do not seem to give anyone any reason to suspect that is not what happened. I could be swayed if, for example, you had any evidence of reliable sources going back over his previous work and finding fault with it, finding retracted papers perhaps, or even just definitively stating with confidence after his defection, that he was an insignificant scientist doing every day worker-bee stuff. We do not appear to have any of that, otherwise I am sure this debate would have seen it quoted ad nauseam. Absent any hard evidence he was indeed a run of the mill scientist, much less a total chancer faking his way through a science career, well, why would anyone deliberately set aside the admittedly weak evidence that he was a significant scientist in his chosen field, which is a broad enough field to be considered relevant for the purposes of the academic notability test? Other than, of course, bias, both personal and collective. I think I stand with DGG - it's going to be incredibly important for Wikipedia not to hide the fact that converts to Creationism can include even notable former scientists. It does appear to be a fact, albeit an uncomfortable one. It is enough to show that post-conversion, certainly as far as the scientific community is concerned as it is reflected in the peer review process, his work ceases to be relevant after his conversion. An evidence based rejection of Creationism as a science, no bias required. If he even is still doing any scientific work and submitting it for peer review, I literally haven't even checked. Go Into The Light (talk) 09:24, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think I need to say that I do not support all the points in the above paragraph, especially the few sentences. The purpose of this article is supposed to be a neutral presentation, not a proof of anything. DGG ( talk ) 05:12, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That an ID believing scientist can't get his work published on a peer reviewed journal after he declared he believes in Magic Man theories, would be the neutral presentation of events, no? As opposed to arguing a formerly notable scientist ceases to be notable after he says he believes in ID. I am with you in the sense that I think we both think he was Wikipedia notable as a scientist before he even declared for ID. I just think he passes that bar because he has done even more than merely discover new species, or even lots of new species, and it is precisely because of that, there is not even really any need to argue he is notable for the deletion controversy related attention, or any other reason, even though there are some others out there, like appearances on German television, which are presumably related to his work as a scientist. It doesn't hurt to factor it in though, the controversy, since it does at least suggest there are some out there who believe this was definitely a case of (English) Wikipedia trying to punish a notable scientist for declaring for ID. Clearly others disagree, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating, insofar as how little engagement I am getting on the academic notability / systemic bias angle. It remains the case that people who profess to be far more experienced with Wikipedia than me, genuinely seem to think they're going to fool journalists into thinking this man was never notable, because the New York Times never detailed his breakfast cereal preferences. An exaggeration, but hopefully one that makes the point. It matters not that he doesn't seem to have significant coverage in secondary sources that would prove he is generally notable, it suffices to explain that thus far nobody seems interested in the argument that these sources don't necessarily have to be in English, that this level of fame if you will, is rare for even the most well known in this field, and for all those reasons, Wikipedia has, or at least claims to have, different methods for measuring how significant an academic is. This debate is about testing the evidence against them. Rather than, for example, asking what "pur" means, twice, like I'm the sort of idiot who gives trolls the attention they so clearly crave. I mean, people can do that, it's a free website, but when others start claiming their side of the story isn't being told, well, that's when it's time to start highlighting what actually passes muster here as far as trying to "do the right thing". Go Into The Light (talk) 14:58, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that he wording you use indicates inadequate understanding of the varieties of ID: theories of ID can be very subtle. They can agree withe standard evolutionary interpretation of all the events in the evolution of life--and of the universe, and accept the standard ways of evaluating theories . The contribution of actual Darwinism as distinct for ID, is that we Darwinists hold that these natural events alone are sufficient to have caused the present word; A believer in ID thinks otherwise, but they may well place the divine role as far back as the events before the first definable time at the beginning of the universe.. It Is very easy to refute young earth creationists, it is much harder to refute those who, when we try to deal with what we cannot yet actually explain, propose an equally unexplainable alternative. My conviction they are wrong rests on the knowledge that they have had to retreat further and further into the past to find such a point. Something unknown is equally evidence for anything. DGG ( talk ) 10:01, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the relevant piece of information is what Dave has now latched onto (as opposed to answering relevant points about his pre-2016 career) and I happen to agree with - a scientists who leaves a respected institution to join the Discovery Institute, isn't likely to be the sort of scientist whose ID beliefs are confined to before the Big Bang. Or is going to be content on just keep doing unbiased science, especially in the field of evolution, without trying to insert ID crankery in there somewhere. That is the whole point of ID after all, some desperate hope of proving the existence of God, through science. It's nonsense. And that's the neutral view for Wikipedia, which is rightfully pro-science, I would say. None of that affects whether or not he was a real scientist doing significant work before his conversion (unless JzG comes through with his claimed proof he was a cuckoo in the nest all along), and Wikipedia should reflect that. Rather than trying to cover it up by some creative reinterpretaion of their academic notability test and/or a knowing exploitation of systemic bias. Go Into The Light (talk) 17:36, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The question is whether his scientific work is notable, and since he claims to have continued publishing in mainstream journals there may be post 2016 work that is worthy, but good reliable independent sources are needed for notability. Oddly enough, he's now working for various DI "research" outfits including the Biologic Institute which has so far failed to produce any science, or much of anything. If he gets prominent mainstream coverage for his creationist stuff then that would show notability and he could, like his favourite scientist Stephen C. Meyer, have a Wikipedia article. Either way, it doesn't affect my !vote. . . . dave souza, talk 18:18, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you say "claims to" there? It's an easily testable statement. He either has or hasn't. I haven't looked, and I don't care, because when I looked, there was more than enough proof that he had made a significant impact before he left the museum to go work on the kook farm. Is there indeed anything from before 2016 that is going to affect your vote? If not, why not? Because that doesn't really make sense as far as Wikipedia notabiltiy goes. It does make sense if you are judging his work in light of his conversion. As I think I may have already said, is there any evidence that his prior work has been called into question because of it? The more people focus on the ID angle here, the less likely anyone will believe it wasn't relevant. And given the timeline, it clearly isn't relevant to why he obtained, and retained, a Wikipedia biography. It was only apparently relevant to why he lost one. Go Into The Light (talk) 18:58, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, DGG, well said. Just a refinement: as the second of Walsh's books (which google categorises as religion) discusses, Kenneth R. Miller places the divine role outwith science, and as a devout Catholic he robustly defends both mainstream science and theistic evolution, while opposing ID. As noted below, Bechly has worked for the DI since 2016, if he manages to produce scientific research at the DI's Biologic Institute that would be a first for that organisation, and no doubt would get extensive coverage. . . dave souza, talk 11:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[@ Go Into The Light] That's a typical ID conspiracy theory, but irrelevant to the significance or otherwise of his inclusion on teams studying transitional fossils before he joined the DI. Reliable independent sources needed. . dave souza, talk 15:47, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have provided at least one independent reliable source, and I have made a convincing argument that others will exist, if people only made the effort to locate a German speaker/resident to help find and interpret them, rather than continuing this fantasy that more English speaking people doing the same cursory Google searches is going to yield different results. It is the very fact you thought I was referring to a conspiracy theory, rather than the simple fact that the bias of an ID believing scientist would be evident in any peer review post conversion, is showing your bias here. You don't see significant work here because it goes against your bias. You're already convinced he was just an unremarkable "team member" in a team whose work was unremarkable anyway. Because he later converted to ID. Go Into The Light (talk) 07:54, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, DGG. Just to clarify, my comment referred to several remarks by Go Into The Light, for example "a 'missing link', which are rather obviously the highest value objects." From my amateur understanding, transitional fossils can be commonplace. In some instances such as Tiktaalik and Darwinius they get a lot of (sometimes undue) publicity, which doesn't seem to have happened with Bechly. . . . dave souza, talk 14:27, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Highest value there referred to monetary, not scientific, value. If you had read the interview, you might have understood that point. It is all about how hard it is for museums to even get their hands on amber specimens that would be more important than whatever you might understand is a commonplace transitional fossil. The source I linked to gives everyone every chance to understand why the phrase "missing link" was used there, such as to convey rarity/importance of the find, and what it meant for advancing the scientific understanding of the "tree of life" (insect branch). Go Into The Light (talk) 14:58, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If it meant much, puffery about "missing links" wouldn't be relevant. What reliable independent sources published assessments of its significance, and show notability of its second author? . . dave souza, talk 15:47, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I have already explained above, just because that is his paper, does not mean it is not independent for the purposes of the academic notability test. It is your bias that makes you believe it is unreliable and therefore contains "puffery" rather than a factual description of the significance of the work, or that its second author merely cleaned the beakers. And as I have already said before, that is only something like his fifth most cited paper, which also speaks to his likely academic notability. Go Into The Light (talk) 07:54, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let me make this clear, I was not even aware he was a creationist until I read it in this AFD, hell I did not even read the article, just checked the sources out. Stop trying to imply some bias here.Slatersteven (talk) 12:14, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • At what point is it reasonable to request an admin ban a new account WP:SPA who is derailing a discussion and contributing nothing else to Wikipedia per WP:NOTHERE? Asking for a friend. jps (talk) 15:09, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm guessing it would be the point that someone makes the case that I am not engaging in good faith, and/or that I am not making arguments that are reasonable interpretations of policy, and/or that my singular interest in this topic is explained by some nefarious motive (I note Chris Troutman never got back to me on that score), or indeed outlined any reason at all to ban me that would actually be justifiable. I'm sorry to have upset you by reminding you of your obligations up above, but I didn't write the rules. My ears did prick up when a "message to journalists" was written here that implied a dunderhead like me couldn't possibly understand the complex intricacies of this place. Well, how am I doing thus far? Asking for myself. Go Into The Light (talk) 14:58, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still want to know what "pur" means. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 15:31, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    https://www.buttersafe.com/2020/07/30/the-ocean-if-full-of-fish/ --Guy Macon (talk) 16:52, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He is a notable person. For better understanding I have included his publication list from the German article in this article. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 15:27, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • As WP:PROF says, Having published work does not, in itself, make an academic notable, no matter how many publications there are. XOR'easter (talk) 16:29, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I do mean this honestly, why is it always the psuedosciency 'academics' which generate the most controversy/canvassing when they're nominated for deletion? (on a smaller scale this AfD reminds me of this and this pre major page refactoring). The same doesn't seem to happen with 'regular' academics. Anyway, doesn't seem like a particularly notable academic, or a particularly notable 'fringe theorist'. The existing sources aren't quite it, a quick search shows coverage on him being dominated by Discovery Institute (I haven't checked, but guessing it's not an RS). To avoid making this long AfD longer, the rest of my opinion concurs with David Eppstein and XOR'easter. The Haaretz article is the closest to notability here, and that article is about his article being deleted, not really about him inherently. I don't think that leads to notability for his own biography. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:37, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete based purely on WP:NPROF considerations (the popular coverage cited is not substantially about him, and the Haaretz thing should be discounted for obvious reasons - we don't generate our own notability). No substantial awards/honors, as a non-university-affiliated scientist he misses out on the named chair/high institutional position options, the citation record is good but not great (I'm getting on to match these numbers, and I'm a lazy postdoc), having described species is not and has never been an automatic shoo-in (contrary to what DGG surprisingly claims), and the impact on the discipline as presented in the article and sources is not extraordinary. Don't care about the creationist angle in particular; if it generates sufficient friction that the general press starts writing about it at length, then it feeds into GNG, but absent that it doesn't make him more or less notable as an academic or a General Person. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:57, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The academic notability test only requires significant impact, not "extraordinary". And it is not being argued by me at least that he is entitled to an automatic pass simply for having discovered speicies, or even a lot of them. Regarding specific honors/awards/positions, have you any comment in what I have said on those things, specifically the relevance of this being a German scientist working in Germany, and the standing if the Stuttgart museum in the field? It is not relevant where you personally think your work would land you on the Wikipedia scales, especially if by your own admission, you only "dabble" in the field. Go Into The Light (talk) 08:08, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please give examples of scientists with orthodox views who have discovered multiple species and have been deleted? Valoem talk contrib 23:28, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of scientists with orthodox views who have discovered multiple species who don't have Wikipedia pages. They haven't had their pages deleted because they didn't have one of their buddies try to create a page about them:

"The article was created by a colleague at our museum and subsequently expanded by myself"[21] --Dr. Günter Bechly 11:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Here is a partial list of scientists with orthodox views who have discovered multiple species who don't have Wikipedia pages:

I can easily come up with a couple of hundred more if you wish.

Let's just look at Cédric d'Udekem d'Acoz: "Biologists Cédric d'Udekem d'Acoz and Marie Verheye of the Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences have discovered no less than 28 new amphipod species in Antarctica."[22] --Guy Macon (talk) 00:00, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Hit 0:00 on the nose! Do I get a prize? --Guy Macon (talk) 00:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You showed me scientist who never had articles, if I created one on any of them they would not be deleted. I'll create one on Cédric d'Udekem d'Acoz when I get the chance. I want to see an example scientist who had discovered multiple species and had their articles deleted. Your argument is nullified by WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. Just because something does not have an article does not mean they can't have one. Hey! Hit 0:12 on the nose! Do I get a prize? Valoem talk contrib 00:12, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No prize for 12 minutes after 0:00... :( --Guy Macon (talk) 00:33, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, I put in the wrong time. :) Valoem talk contrib 00:36, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, really, you've got it the wrong way round: you will have to show that having described a species was a successful Keep argument (in isolation, I might add - because that's what you seem to claim). I could demonstrate the problem here in an entirely pointy way: by creating an article each about the three guys I share an office with. They are postdocs at the beginning of their career, they have a dozen papers to their name of which none reaches triple citation digits, and as avid field entomologists they each have between 2 and 5 descriptions of coleoptera, thrips, and similar small fry to their name. These guys are, by any of our criteria, a long way from notable, and their articles would not last a minute here. Them having multiple species descriptions to their name is not an exceptional thing, because describing species is easy when that's your profession. I'm not sure whether paleo-entomologists have it harder or easier; worse preservation but good chance of hoeing a furrow that no-one else has worked yet. - So, as most academic achievements, it's a factor, but it's a not a free ticket to notability. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 00:26, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, but Bechly achievements are not trivial he has been covered by reliable sources for discovering 160 species with 10 named in his honor. This is not a free ticket, but an earned ticket per WP:GNG. Valoem talk contrib 00:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:PROF, fails WP:GNG. Read those two pages and quote the part where discovering insect species or choosing to name some of them ad=fter yourself automaticly confers notability. Exact quoute from the guideline, please. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:25, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cédric d'Udekem d'Acoz: 131 publications on researchgate:[23]
Günter Bechly: 107 publications on researchgate:[24]
Cédric d'Udekem d'Acoz: 344 results on Google Scholar, highest-cited publication cited 2109 times:[25]
Günter Bechly: 376 results on Google Scholar, highest-cited publication cited 411 times:[26]
I hope this helps... --Guy Macon (talk) 00:28, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Does that mean they are equally notable, I'll write very poor stub on Cédric d'Udekem d'Acoz and see if it gets nominated. So the issue here with Bechly is COI not nobility? Valoem talk contrib 00:39, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Cédric d'Udekem d'Acoz, I hope you understand I am someone you want to work with. I am always willing to help, and as per @DGG: these people are notable. Whenever I run into someone who is notable I make an article of the person regardless of field. I think Bechly is more notable than Cédric d'Udekem d'Acoz please let me know how you feel. I made an article on both. Valoem talk contrib 04:47, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds wp:pointy. More constructively, for paleobeasties in amber, Jens Franzen has an article at Jens Lorenz Franzen – that would be a good start for a useful contribution. . dave souza, talk 00:50, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dave souza: It's not pointy these people are notable. I transwikied it please correct any errors. Valoem talk contrib 04:15, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Looks to me like it needs more sources, but pretty sure they can be found so it's a good start. . . dave souza, talk 09:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You think that creating a Wikipedia page for a non-notable biologist just because he was used as an example of a non-notable biologist in an AfD isn't disrupting the encyclopedia to prove a WP:POINT? If you create pages for every non-notable biologist I listed I will simply nominate them all for deletion, the community will once again decide that simply discovering some species or publishing some papers does not make you notable (This is explained at Wikipedia:Notability (academics)) and -- unless you find some evidence of notability for some of them that Günter Bechly lacks -- they will be deleted. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:19, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Because he is a notable biologist having reliable sources which shows him to have discovered over 28 species. AfD it, I would love to see that outcome. Your list was a point in itself so please don't try to reverse this. Valoem talk contrib 05:34, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The nom's argument is not only persuasive, I don't feel the various sources presented here are persuasive. "Significant coverage" = significant coverage, and namedrops and casual mentions don't transform into sigcov merely because they're wrapped inside an otherwise-reliable source. Beyond that, while the position's chief proponent has been indeffed, the existence of an article on the German Wikipedia is quite irrelevant. That Wikipedia has its standards; we have ours. Ravenswing 06:08, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails NPROF, I just don't see a major publication, seems very average for this time in his career. Mind, if this deletion discussion gets in the news and gets SIGCOV it might be back here in a week or so. I'd reconsider if this was shown to be a particularly good record for this field, or evidence that he was a tenured professor etc. PainProf (talk) 06:42, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Signfiicant coverage is not required by the academic notability test, only evidence of significant impact. There are already good reasons to suspect that their specific museum position is what someone with a particularly good record in this field could/would obtain. The same can be said of being selected to organise the exhibition for which he was given an award (now only mentioned in his German Wikipedia biography, for whatever reason). Which neatly brings us back to secondary coverage - most of it appears to be in German language sources, or indeed just via German popular culture (TV media etc). There appears to be a concerted effort here on the part of English Wikipedia, to just pretend like it doesn't exist. I've done what is required, and what apparently one person thought wasn't even possible, and provided the links which show this coverage exists. Go Into The Light (talk) 17:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the nomination makes good argument. Graywalls (talk) 09:14, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not to get all WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS on y'all, but it seems worthwhile to point out that there has been at least one other discussion where the keep-ing of an article was due at least partially to species discovery: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nike_Doggart. Whether discovery of an extant frog species is more notable than identification of ancient bug species, I'll leave it to others to hash out. Makes me think we have reached a sort of interesting point of notability edge-cases in any case. jps (talk) 13:44, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There certainly are a lot of comments at that AfD saying that the frog alone was not e reason to keep the article. I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:33, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I would tend to agree that merely discovering something should not be a standard of notability. Seems like this issue is coming up enough that it would be worthwhile to spell it out clearly somewhere. jps (talk) 14:37, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We gave it a try a while ago, at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(academics)/Archive_10#Notability_of_taxonomists, but without a clear result :/ --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:25, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I have already pointed out, it is already implicit in the academic notability test - just discovering new things is by definition, not going to be a significant contribution to science, that's basically your job. What was significant about that frog discovery, for example? Was it, like this man did, a new species that filled in a major gap on the evolutionary record? Bridging the gap between poisonous frogs and ones that merely look poisonous, for example? One that is brightly coloured but merely makes your tongue tingle when you lick it, for example. Or was it just another frog? If so, the yes, it would appear to be unfair that just discovering a frog makes one notable, but this man isn't, and there is likely a reason for that. Go Into The Light (talk) 16:48, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, It should be noted that this debate now contains at least one contradictory claim on the delete side regarding the relevance of German Wikipedia. On the one hand, it has been said that the fact the subject has had a biography on German Wikipedia all this time, is considered irrelevant. In part because it has been speculated they have different inclusion standards to English Wikipedia. And yet on the other, an example of an existing biography on German Wikipedia of a similar scientist, Jens Franzen, who like this man, was based in a German museum not a university, has been highlighted in this debate. Apparently this has only been done because the delete side thinks he has a more impressive record/career. Perhaps he does, but the differences aren't so obvious, and may mean nothing if we do not know what the precise German Wikiepdia notability tests are, or are not absolutely certain we have all the pertinent details of this man's career as they may be reflected in German sources. I do note significant differences in the coverage each man has, certainly as regards popular media, and I am not sure if the ID controversy accounts for that at all. The irony of an example of English Wikipedia failing to have an article on a notable German paleontologist based at a German museum (until today, as a result of this debate), even when there already was a German Wikipedia biography on them, as if it somehow proves English Wikipedia had correctly deleted this subject from English Wikipedia, was too choice not to highlight. Systemic bias absolutely, definitely, is in play here, and that is perhaps all that actually proved. The rest arguably being entirely irrelevant, per OTHERSTUFF (as in, test content against the standards, not other content). Go Into The Light (talk) 16:50, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm grateful for the effort to turn a longstanding redlink blue with a translated article for Jens Franzen, whose work has been much more prominent in international news media. Rather to my surprise, when I had a search for sources about his personal life rather than his main achievements didn't find much so far – maybe I'm bad looking? Very interesting finds have made the news, not without controversy. He won the first Friedrich von Alberti Award in 1998, and has written at least one book, though it got a rather dismissive review from National Geographic. Will be sad if that article has to be deleted, so hope someone is better than me at finding good sources, but that's no reason to reduce criteria. . . dave souza, talk 18:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not my position that the criteria need to be reduced, I am not arguing that all he has done is merely discover species, even lots of species, he has done more, and that is verified with independent reliable sources. If Franzen has even more international coverage than Bechly, the proof of which, as you have just shown, does rather depend on anyone here having genuinely tried to chase down the leads I have mentioned (such as, as with Franzen, work with BBC "Walkign with" series), then Wikipedia's shame for not having had an article on him until now, is all the greater. Go Into The Light (talk) 18:49, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm glad you finally pinpointed the real cause here: we all hate Germans. Not sure we'd have gotten there without your insight. Now, pipe down a little with the fuming accusations, please? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:59, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wait...what? I thought we were supposed to hate the Belgians this week. [27] --Guy Macon (talk) 17:12, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh, look, it's so useful to actually check on stuff before making pronouncements. The German WP's notability criteria for scientists are here. They include this: Erstbeschreiber oder (wissenschaftlicher) Namensgeber einer rezenten oder fossilen Organismengruppe oder Art (Pflanzen, Tiere, Bakterien, Viren usw.) oder eines Minerals oder Gesteins [sind]. I.e., they expressly state that having described a species is sufficient to demonstrate notability. We don't have that criterion, as may have penetrated by now. How about that? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:09, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why not actually read the entirety of my contributions, before you start slagging me off? It has been me who has said all along that we needed a German speaker here. You are a German speaker, right? You didn't do something daft like try to interpet German Wikipedia's standards using auto-translate? If so, the time to say it would be now, because who knows what subtlety you might have missed. If you are a German speaker and you do read the rest of my comments, you might hopefully realise there is much more work you coule be doing. That is, if you want people to think you are the sort of person who thinks it is super important to actually check stuff before making pronouncements. Go Into The Light (talk) 17:50, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. You might want to reconsider your approach of backpedalling by going on the attack on another front. Well, we'll take the point as read. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:53, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, what has to be taken as read is that you didn't know and frankly didn't care that I had asked "Do you have any evidence that German Wikipedia applies a lower bar to scientist notability?" on this very page, some days ago. I only said what I did above, when it appeared we had moved past the point where people apparently didn't care about details like that, into bizarre territory. It is only because of what I said, that a point of clarity has emerged where there was previously an apparent contradiction. You are welcome. Go Into The Light (talk) 18:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Asked and answered. Go Into The Light has been indefititely blocked. Elmidae answered the question: The German Wikipedia's notability criteria for scientists expressly states that having described a species is sufficient to demonstrate notability. The English Wikipedia does not have that criterion (per WP:NPROF), and thus inclusion in the German Wikipedia does not automaticly confer notability on the English Wikipedia. We can stop discussiong this now and move on the the next argument that creationists are using to attempt to bully Wikipedia to change our notability standards so that non-notable creationists are included. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:40, 5 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:29, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robert T. Westbrook[edit]

Robert T. Westbrook (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not enough sources provided to demonstrate notability Dexxtrall (talk) 22:13, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:18, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:25, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - author of the Torch Singer Trilogy (not to be confused with Torch Song Trilogy) and other well-known works. See WP:BEFORE. AfD is not for clean-up. He;s not famous famous, but is probably notable. Bearian (talk) 20:17, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable, his books plus one of his books was made into a film which we do have an extensive article on... PainProf (talk) 02:11, 5 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:54, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy Campbell (singer)[edit]

Sandy Campbell (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Totally unsourced, not notable Dexxtrall (talk) 22:16, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:18, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:18, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as exercising WP:AGF that the quoted but unreferenced reviews of her performances by the LA Times and others in the article are genuine, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:41, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:25, 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:54, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Red Apple, California[edit]

Red Apple, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It's a store. The Red Apple has been there a very long time, but but I'm not seeing notice beyond that of any long established local business. Mangoe (talk) 15:03, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 15:13, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:26, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yep, looking at this map, it's most definitely that store, shown above. SmartyPants22 (talk) 23:22, 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) 14:43, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew L. Murray[edit]

Andrew L. Murray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable businessman. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. Coverage seem all about him moving job. scope_creepTalk 14:26, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 14:32, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 14:58, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 14:58, 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 2020 RFL League 1. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:04, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 RFL League 1 results[edit]

2020 RFL League 1 results (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a list of sporting results. As the season has been abandoned after only two of the planned 22 rounds, the relevant sections have been incorporated into the parent article on the league season. Nthep (talk) 21:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Nthep (talk) 21:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect In this case, the WP:CRYSTALBALL seems to have been dropped and smashed. Nothing worth keeping, but if the sections were directly lifted from this article to the parent, a redirect seems necessary. Newshunter12 (talk) 02:16, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - Flori4nK t • c 14:24, 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. Pinging @DannyS712: as requested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:06, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Creditninja[edit]

Creditninja (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable company, almost certainly UPE, promotional garbage. Most source are black-hat SEO sites or otherwise are not reliable, none establish notability. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:20, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:20, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:20, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:20, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:20, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:20, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. An excessively promotional page for an unremarkable company, falls far short of WP:CORPDEPTH. One of the two editors of this page bas been perma-banned for undisclosed paid editing of this and related pages. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 15:43, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:GNG. If the closing admin would be so kind, please ping me when this is closed so that I can delete the wikidata item (came here after the item was listed at wikidata's requests for deletion, where the deletion is on hold given that it currently has a valid site link) --DannyS712 (talk) 22:11, 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) 14:45, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PageTiger[edit]

PageTiger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not able to find enough coverage from notable sources about this company. James Richards (talk) 10:19, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete from all the glory, only founders knows his childhood :) definitely influenced, non-notable promotional blog written as wiki artcle. and Really? who cares? "1999 - PageTiger founder Henry Weston formed Communikator Publishing Limited to produce a consumer magazine (Vivid) for haircare brand Wella. Vivid featured interviews with fashion icons including Jennifer Love Kewitt and Heidi Klum". Light2021 (talk) 21:43, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. James Richards (talk) 10:19, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. James Richards (talk) 10:19, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. James Richards (talk) 10:19, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. James Richards (talk) 10:19, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. James Richards (talk) 10:19, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - Flori4nK t • c 14:19, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I’m not seeing anything here to indicate notability. Mccapra (talk) 14:40, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definetly non-encyclopedia and non notable. --James Richards (talk) 15:00, 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. Pinging @DannyS712: as requested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:47, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lyann Nguyen[edit]

Lyann Nguyen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

UPE, non-notable subject, promotional SEO garbage. The only source that might establish any sort of notability is the ibtimes.sg article, and that has no byline and looks to me like an advertorial/press release disguised as an article, the rest are either lists of patents, interviews, or are entirely unrelated to her. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:17, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:17, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:17, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:17, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:17, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non of the sources are authorative look like small blogs or paid articles. --James Richards (talk) 15:02, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. As with the current AfD for Creditninja, there's clearly some kind of Coi editing going on here. The page's creator has been perma-banned and I can't find anything that would pass WP:NBIO. This is precisely why WP:NOTLINKEDIN was created. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 15:54, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable businesswoman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:23, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:GNG. If the closing admin would be so kind, please ping me when this is closed so that I can delete the wikidata item (came here after the item was listed at wikidata's requests for deletion, where the deletion is on hold given that it currently has a valid site link) --DannyS712 (talk) 22:07, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 15:56, 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:02, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Newton[edit]

Joel Newton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only passing mentions in BI, Variety, ft, Wired - WP:BASIC. The subject's business projects and company seems more notable than the subject. - Harsh (talk) 12:38, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. - Harsh (talk) 12:38, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. - Harsh (talk) 12:38, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. - Harsh (talk) 12:38, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. - Harsh (talk) 12:38, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kj cheetham (talk) 20:36, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It might be worth noting that a disclosed paid/COI editor has edited this article. Also, a likely COI editor contributed to this article and created all of the articles for Newton's wiki-linked projects (Spheres: Songs of Spacetime and Tutankhamun: Enter the Tomb).
    Either way, Newton might meet #3 for WP:PRODUCER notability, since it seems like he's worked on a few notable projects, but I'm not sure if his roles were large enough in those projects or not. I'm tending towards not, since the one role he's had that seems major was his "directorial debut", and one is not enough. - Whisperjanes (talk) 00:47, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - Flori4nK t • c 14:15, 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) 14:49, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Friederike of Hanover[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Princess Friederike of Hanover (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject is not a public person. The sole reason we have this article is genealogy, yet Wikipedia is not a genealogical database. She lives a private life in Canada, not as a "princess" but as someone of little interest to the media and the general public. Surtsicna (talk) 14:14, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 14:14, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 14:14, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 14:14, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as "deposed monarchy cruft". She is not even a proper princess, her claims to these titles are not recognised by either Britain or Germany, it could be a BLP violation to say that she claims them without proper sourcing. If the article is retained then we might need to re-write it to remove these titles. Loads of people might have been speculated about as a bride for Prince Charles, he did have several girlfriends in his younger days but not aware that she was one of them, not sure that they ever even met. PatGallacher (talk) 18:09, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Looking into this further, the only online source for her as a potential bride for Prince Charles is from the Ottowa Citizen, a brief article quoting the News of the World, a defunct British newspaper regarded as a deprecated source, see WP:RSP. PatGallacher (talk) 18:21, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and the other comments above. Smeat75 (talk) 13:43, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The family has had zero power for over a century and a half.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Can we just have an RfC already to formally censure using royalty genealogy books as GNG claims for modern people? Clearly they do not demonstrate notability by themselves, since if they did there wouldn't be so many pages sourced only to them. JoelleJay (talk) 21:10, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would that help with dealing with all these articles? I think we would still have to go through them one by one. Surtsicna (talk) 21:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • We would, but at least it would make the process more straightforward and would possibly preempt creation of further such articles. JoelleJay (talk) 21:34, 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) 14:50, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

InfoSTEP[edit]

InfoSTEP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable software company. Zero independent reliable sources that cover the company in detail. M4DU7 (talk) 14:05, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 14:05, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 14:05, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 14:05, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 14:05, 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) 14:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chantal, Princess of Hanover[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Chantal, Princess of Hanover (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable, deleted before. PatGallacher (talk) 13:46, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for deletion An article about this person was deleted back in 2013 after a discussion, but it has since been re-created without discussion. An admin declined a call for speedy deletion on the grounds that the article has been significantly improved since the earlier version. The main grounds for deletion remains, viz. that the Kingdom of Hanover ceased to exist when it was annexed by Prussia back in 1866. A pretender to the throne might be notable, but simply being married to one is a very weak claim to notability, see WP:NOTINHERITED. Some of the references look like trivial gossip. PatGallacher (talk) 13:54, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 14:34, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:43, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.Smeat75 (talk) 15:34, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete marriage into a family that has not held any actual power in over a century is not a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:45, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 18:36, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 18:37, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fully agree with nominator's rationale. Dunarc (talk) 20:38, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just removed the deprecated sources and blogs (BLP violations), now all that's left is...tabloids covering her ex-husband. JoelleJay (talk) 04:05, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:27, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ashish A. Chanchlani[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Ashish A. Chanchlani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article was earlier deleted after a general consensus in AfD. The creator added the middle name which conceals the article deletion history. Neurofreak (talk) 13:28, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The speedy is recently declined by Sjakkalle. and i clearly mentioned in article's talk page that the current version is completely different from previous version. Still Neurofreak tagged it for deletion. The reason provided by the nominator is completely baseless specially when G4 speedy is declined recently. Moreover, i used his middle name in article's title that i already explained my reason before creating the article. I have also cited the the significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and clearly passes WP:GNG. Without reading the article's talk Neurofreak nominated it for deletion. I would suggest you before doing so in future first check the article's history and read carefully article's talk.DMySon 14:45, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Most of the references are from unreliable sources. Since, the article was earlier deleted through AfD (Ashish Chanchlani), admins should prevent it from recreating by tagging WP:SALT. Following is a list of unreliable/blogs/spam/gossip sources used in the article:

Unreliable

Gossip/blogposts

Uncategorized/spam?

Comment on reliable sources Most of the reliable sources are trivial mentions and others like, Hindustan Times are paid 'BRAND-POST' as per the website.[1][2] Deccan Herald reference is an interview.[3] The Times of India (TOI) reference[4] is a one-liner "news" about the subject's casting in a web series, and another TOI reference is just a picture of him with a popular music composer.[5] Neurofreak (talk) 14:01, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ https://www.hindustantimes.com/brand-post/bhuvan-bam-or-ashish-chanchlani-fans-can-vote-to-decide-the-vmate-asli-holibaaz/story-KkhuegzVmdbheIheDOowPP.html
  2. ^ https://www.hindustantimes.com/brand-post/top-youtubers-bhuvan-bam-and-ashish-chanchlani-collaborate-for-the-first-time-for-vmate/story-eY12hriNBNHWMNdn6pMX2J.html
  3. ^ https://www.deccanherald.com/metrolife/metrolife-lifestyle/comedy-should-come-from-heart-says-youtuber-814007.html
  4. ^ https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tv/news/hindi/youtuber-ashish-chanchlani-roped-in-for-alt-balajis-next/articleshow/59338670.cms
  5. ^ https://photogallery.indiatimes.com/yearendershow/68719848.cms
All the resources you mentioned above, are significant, reliable and independent of the subject. Clearly passes the WP:RS. DMySon 14:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A notable subject clearly passes WP:GNG. The article have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The current version is completely different from previously deleted.DMySon 14:53, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 15:14, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 15:14, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Better sourced article after a re-write. His web series "Class of 2017" (if I remember correctly) has its own article and is notable, which makes him notable. His appearance as a cameo in "MIB:International" lends some support for his notability, as does his win at Cannes. Oaktree b (talk) 17:50, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Suspected hoax coverage! The subject tweeted about his cameo in MIB:International. [28] I just watched the movie, the frame appears at 22:10, and shows a different person on the screen. His association with MIB could be a hoax marketing strategy. The article claim of his cameo seems to be a hoax, unless MIB released a different version of the same film. Also, the credibility of the websites which covers it as "news" is now questionable. Neurofreak (talk) 19:07, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You must watch the hindi version of MIB:International. For each country that cameo role has been changed. For India this role is assigned to Ashish Chanchlani.DMySon 14:54, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If this is the case, I would change my decision above. I have not seen the movie so can't say if it is or isn't him... I suspect the win at Cannes would also be a hoax. Both of which lower his notability. Oaktree b (talk) 19:46, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have verified the MIB claim. Moreover, the career section of the article reads like resume, my tags were reverted by the creator, violating 3 revert-rule. The user DMySon also threatened me to block my editing rights (LMAO) for placing the tags. I suspect undisclosed payment editing. The subject's blogger award at Cannes could be true. On a second thought, if that makes him notable (I disagree because the Forbes coverage is a guest blogpost, frivolous), the article can be kept after removing spam, unreliable gossip/blog post sources. Neurofreak (talk) 20:02, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b: You must check the hindi version of MIB International. Explained above in my comment.DMySon 14:59, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentAbsolutely coverage is not hoax. Cannes award is not fake that clearly makes him notable, you must check these Forbes, Dumkhum apart from cannes you can see his Philanthropy section that is also covered with multiple reliable resources Amar Ujala, Jagran, DNA India. There are multiple coverage independent and reliable news websites. His role in Class of 2017 webseries also justified notability.DMySon 04:01, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:27, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete we just had this discussion TWO WEEKS AGO. This is disruptive attempting to get around past deletions and salting by changing the name. The "coverage" here is utter garbage - paid for publications and spam. Praxidicae (talk) 13:32, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And to stop it before it starts, the attempt to use this and this as a source to prove that the high profile Cannes award is legitimate is laughably disruptive. I do not for a second believe that no actual reliable sources would fail to report on this given the nature of Cannes awards. Praxidicae (talk) 13:36, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if I removed all the unreliable sources and black hat SEO spam and press releases, we'd be left with a near identical article to the last AFD. Praxidicae (talk) 13:44, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
this is what the article would look like if I removed all the unsourced content and deceptive sources and editing by DMySon. Praxidicae (talk) 13:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:BIO. And, I totally agree with Praxidicae's comment. -Hatchens (talk) 14:59, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I declined the speedy delete because some of the new claims needed more than a cursory review. Winning a Cannes award would be very notable, but reading the cited Forbes article I don’t think the claim is really supported. That leaves the foundations too weak to support the article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:59, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: With reliable sources indicated by DMySon, the article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 16:12, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per Praxidicae --Dtt1Talk 09:08, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Devokewater @ 11:35, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—Praxidicae speaks for me on this—and regarding the keep 1votes, The current version is completely different from previously deleted (maybe, but that's hardly a claim to notability in itself; having "different" sources != "better" sources), notices of HOAX material and wild claims as to "DMySon"'s better sources, are all arguments to avoid. G4 may not in its strictest sense apply, but the [last AfD] was SNOWclosed and I can see why. Since they have the right to know their previous !votes are being circumvented, pinging those who commented ther but haven't yet commented here—whichever way they !voted, per WP:CANVAS—User:Ab207, User:Pharaoh of the Wizards, User:Bonadea, User:Bmf 051, User:Aguy777 and User:hako9. ——Serial 13:41, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Spiderone 19:00, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt – this is not even slightly different from the previously deleted article in terms of what is relevant, namely the fact that notability is not shown. The desperate additions of multiple trivial mentions show very clearly that the person is not notable. If he were, there would be significant coverage in independent sources. The "world bloggers award" is not notable and has nothing to do with the Cannes Film Festival, other than the fact that the organisers chose to hold their (one and only) awards function in Cannes during the film festival 2019. --bonadea contributions talk 19:01, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the following reasons:
    • Looking at Neurofreak's "Comment on reliable sources" DMySon writes in response: "All the resources you mentioned above, are significant, reliable and independent of the subject. Clearly passes the WP:RS" That's absolute not accurate. Two of them are Hindustan Times "Brand-Post", which are press releases. Open the page source and search for "brand-post" and you'll see the other PR buzzwords. Press releases are not articles, and they are not independent of the subject. The Deccan Herald source is an interview, which I'm sure DMySon knows, would also not be independent of the subject, since it obviously involves him, and would be a primary source. This appears to be another press-release style "article". It certainly has no depth of coverage about the subject, merely just announcing a project he's going to do. The last one, a slideshow says nothing of substance about the subject. I also dislike slideshows, because we never know if it was assembled by a journalist or an intern, or something else.
    • Oaktree b says "His web series "Class of 2017" (if I remember correctly) has its own article and is notable, which makes him notable." This conflicts with the community's general attitude that notability is not inherited.
    • Superastig's comment "With reliable sources indicated by DMySon, the article is good enough to pass WP:GNG" lacks any substantive argument about which sources meet which qualifications.
    • And as for the sources DMySon includes, "Forbes" is a Forbes contributor, i.e. a blogger. If you hover over the little "i" next to the contributor's name, there is a disclaimer that Forbes takes no responsibility for that person's opinions. Dumkhum is not a reliable source, and we don't care about first-year award events like World Blogger Awards. We don't even include these in biographies per WP:FILMCRITICLIST. So, the bulk of DMySon's arguments seem to focus on the "multiple" requirement of GNG, but not the "reliable sources", "significant coverage" or "independent" aspects that are far more important.
Oh, and looking through DMySon's edit history (set to 500 results/page) I notice that amidst their edits at this AfD, they reached out to Oaktree here with a request for Oaktree's "unbiased comment", but this is clearly a form of vote stacking, since Oaktree was the only one who !voted keep at the prior AFD, and DMySon didn't bother reaching out to any of the people who !voted delete. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:36, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Praxidicae and Cyphoidbomb said it far better than I can. Aguy777 (talk) 01:05, 5 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) 14:55, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Aronov[edit]

David Aronov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Political candidate for city council, does not have SIGCOV. Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 12:21, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 12:30, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 12:30, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 12:30, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Subject fails both WP:BASIC and WP:POLITICIAN. There is negligible coverage of the subject in news sources with only 2 article I could find that too very localised.--Deepak G Goswami (talk) 12:51, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unelected candidates for city council are just plain not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:37, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:NPOL. Being a candidate for local office does not warrant notability. LefcentrerightDiscuss 21:31, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. People do not qualify for Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates for political offices they have not won, but this (a) makes no credible claim that he has preexisting notability for other reasons independent of the candidacy, (b) makes no credible claim that his candidacy is markedly more special than everybody else's candidacies in any way that would pass the ten year test, and (c) is referenced entirely to primary sources and neighbourhood hyperlocals that don't clinch a WP:GNG pass. Even if he had a strong notability claim, it would still have to be referenced better than this. Obviously no prejudice against recreation if he actually wins, but nothing here already justifies an article today. Bearcat (talk) 11:16, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NPOL....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:09, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable politician. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 16:12, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable --Devokewater @ 11:23, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:26, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orange Publishers[edit]

Orange Publishers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable "self book publisher" stub. Very minimal description of the company and list of published works. Does not satisfy WP:GNG or WP:CORP. Has no sources (after I removed inappropriate sources). A WP:BEFORE Web search brings up no independent reliable sources. I tried moving it to draft on 7 July but 1 minute later it was recreated in article space. I tried CSD but the inclusion of "is an Award-winning Publishing House" caused it to be rejected (I mistakenly tried CSD again, having not noticed I had already used that route). Lopifalko (talk) 11:08, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Lopifalko (talk) 11:08, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Lopifalko (talk) 11:08, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lopifalko (talk) 11:08, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lopifalko (talk) 11:08, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - zero evidence of any notability Spiderone 18:59, 4 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) 14:58, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rzee Purplehaze[edit]

Rzee Purplehaze (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable, sources are just passing mentions Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:05, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:05, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree I am not able to find any sources that determine notability. --James Richards (talk) 14:47, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The article currently has several citations to newspaper sources, but the stories are all about works by other people, in which this guy merely made a guest appearance or is only listed briefly as a sideman or songwriter. In his own right he has no notice beyond self-created promotional sites and the usual streaming services. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:12, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note - The main contributor to the article, IP user 86.98.213.148, has tried to meddle in this debate. See [29]. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:32, 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) 14:58, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Steve "Big Man" Clayton[edit]

Steve "Big Man" Clayton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

NN musician, fails the GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. While the usual Facebook, Spotify, YouTube, Wiki mirrors, iTunes, Pinterest and other such sites turn up, no reliable sources satisfying the GNG beyond namedrops were found, and the awards claimed fall far short of notability (never mind, in some cases, verifiability). Notability tagged for over a decade. Created by a SPA with no other Wikipedia activity. Ravenswing 11:00, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 11:00, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 11:00, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 11:00, 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) 01:57, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinian terminology guide[edit]

Palestinian terminology guide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does this book exist? I cannot find information about it such as author, publisher or isbn. There is not a lot of sources mentioning this book. ImTheIP (talk) 09:11, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The discussion page was malformed and did not properly appear in the daily log. It is fixed now but the discussion will need seven days from today.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:32, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 12:34, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 12:34, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 12:34, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Books-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 12:34, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A Google search only leads to sources that eventually cite the PMW report[30], which states that "The book is currently available for reading on the PA Ministry of Information's website", citing the link [http://www.minfo.ps, accessed June 18, 2012] as URL. With Wayback Machine, this should be open for veri-/falsification. –Austronesier (talk) 13:43, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I cannot find any notable coverage. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:44, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - zero evidence of notability Spiderone 21:07, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:MILL and WP:SIGCOV. There's some mentions of this textbook, but not a lot. This is a borderline coat rack to include a glossary of English translations of Anti-Zionist terminology. We are not a glossary. Bearian (talk) 20:21, 4 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:25, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Baril[edit]

Marc Baril (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

NN composer, fails the GNG, meets none of the criteria of WP:MUSICBIO. The article makes a number of assertions that are wholly sourced either to (a) his own website or (b) an interview on "crashmania.net," which apparently is a fan site for a video game for which he wrote music. IMDB shows that he's written for several video games and short features, but what's conspicuously missing is significant coverage in reliable sources. A previous iteration of the article may have been deleted, since the article creator had "Recreating article" as an edit summary. Notability tagged for over ten years. Ravenswing 09:59, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 09:59, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 09:59, 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 keep. Following good work by Yngvadottir! Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:46, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Allerseelen (band)[edit]

Allerseelen (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page has been tagged as problematic for over ten years, and it's had a PROD declined once, and an A7 declined twice (most recently by me just now). I missed the first declined PROD, which means the second one can't happen, so we'll need to discuss this. Anyway, I'm not convinced there are sufficient sources to write an article about this. There is a far more substantial article on the German Wikipedia, but it is largely unsourced so that's not much help. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:36, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: as the fellow who just tried to A7 it. Fails the GNG, fails WP:BAND; there's just no significant coverage in reliable sources out there, save for namedrops and "Playing at X on Friday night" casual mentions. Top hits are (revealingly) the Facebook page, the Bandcamp page, the Discogs page, the last.fm page, the rateyourmusic.com page, Amazon, bandsintown.com ... Ravenswing 09:50, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I'm all for the refocus. Outstanding work on Yngvadottir's part. Ravenswing 13:11, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:07, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:07, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ritchie333: howabout pulling your nomination? Not that it was a bad nom, but now the article has been refocussed, you effectively nominated a note non-existent page. ——Serial 10:20, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Serial Number 54129: I don't believe he can, except as a gesture; there are still 2 delete !votes. He thanked me for the initial expansion edit. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:07, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Yngvadottir: Of course Ritchie333 can withdraw his nomination, that's not the same as closing the discussion. The latter may continue until it reaches 7 days, but the former is a useful indicator to the closer everyone that there is one less delete !vote than otherwise might appear (and, to put it baldly, that even the nom isn't defending his own position. Meh, what do I care?—it looks fucking ungracious to me. ——Serial 18:16, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ravenswing. Unfortunately these unreliable crap sites are always at the top of a Google search. <GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:24, 28 July 2020 (UTC) Fine now, I vote keep. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 19:24, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with all due respect to Bbb23 I fail to see why the first A7 was declined. I don't see any claims of notability in that version and certainly in the current. Understand due process but fails GNG. Glen 18:40, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per great work by Yngvadottir. Appreciate your effort in sourcing especially factoring non English sources. Glen 13:16, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails GNG, BAND, etc. No external links signifying notability. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 18:42, 28 July 2020 (UTC) Fine now. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 00:11, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite to focus on Gerhard Petak/Kadmon (so far as I can determine there was never a German Wikipedia article on him; there was here, but it was deleted in 2014 as a redirect to a deleted page—not this one, which dates to 2006. The deleted page(s) may provide useful references, but I am finding what I consider enough material critiquing his neopagan rightwing views as expressed in his music to meet GNG. For example the German Wikipedia article has references to a news article touching on his admiration for and use of works by Julius Evola and Karl Maria Wiligut, ([31]) and a dissertation warning article published by an anti-right-wing group on that aspect of Allerseelen ([32]), there's an academic essay in which the album Gotos=Kalanda, using lyrics by Wiligut, is used as an example (JSTOR, p. 40, may be more), and there has been press coverage such as this opinion in a Die Zeit blog ahead of an Allerseelen concert; probably a few more such articles have been published. See also this article at The Wild Hunt pagan newsletter using Allerseelen as an example, although from there we go into the wilds of anti-Nazi pressure groups and blogs. I see continuing coverage over several years of his music from that point of view, so I believe this could be rescued. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:26, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I went ahead and expanded it from sources, some drawn from the German Wikipedia article, including a lengthy section in a book on neo-folk music. I'm sure there's newspaper coverage I was unable to find, but the German Wikipedia article includes an extensive investigation looking for Nazism in his writings as well as his music, and there are a lot of mentions in other books as well as the JSTOR article. I've also restored the discography and added more recent albums, although I didn't hunt down descriptions of those albums. With apologies, I'm going to bother the nominator and all the above !voters at this point, to see whether the version I've put together establishes notability in anyone's view. @Ritchie333, Ravenswing, Devokewater, Serial Number 54129, GhostDestroyer100, Glen, and Royal Autumn Crest: Yngvadottir (talk) 08:53, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per GNG after Yngvadottir's excellent expansion. Ffranc (talk) 09:28, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the article has been significantly improved particularly in the sourcing as per WP:HEY so that deletion is no longer necessary, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Switch to Keep - nice work from Yngvadottir again! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:17, 4 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) 14:59, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Armin J Jezari[edit]

Armin J Jezari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:GNG - sourced primarily to his own website, WP:MILL content for a lawyer; created by potentially WP:COI editor Melcous (talk) 09:30, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:08, 28 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📧) 11:08, 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 per WP:CSK #1. Nomination withdrawn by the nominator. (non-admin closure) Dps04 (talk) 18:15, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Budlong Pickle Company[edit]

Budlong Pickle Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant English-language coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. PROD removed by User:Ritchie333 with an edit summary "verified as being the largest pickle farm in the world as of 1903" who also added this claim to the article. Setting aside the 'so what' (largest foo in a given country/year is not automatically notable), that claim is not very reliable (sourced to a blog at [33] and based,I guess, on an included picture of a 1903? newspaper). I am sorry to say I don't consider any newspaper from 1903 to be particularly reliable for claims of 'largest in the world' (though the claim could stay if attributed and properly sourced to the Chicago Tribune 1903 edition, at least, and not a blog). Anyway, the main problem remains - the coverage of this entity is almost non-existent, and as such, this entity seems to fail GNG/NCOMPANY. Can anyone find anything to help salvage this? (I tried GBooks and GScholar and got nothing except few mentions in passing)... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:54, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:54, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:54, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I added some content. Plus, it's fun! (And I know WP:INTERESTING applies to that statement—just couldn't help myself). Also a nice example of Chicago's early pickle industry, which based on my quick research was pretty significant in the 19th/early 20th centuries. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:39, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:HEY and AleatoryPonderings' improvements. -- Toughpigs (talk) 15:25, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. AleatoryPonderings has added info from quite a few sources, with cites.—msh210℠ 20:57, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems to be a decent amount of coverage.--Surv1v4l1st ▌Talk|Contribs▌ 23:45, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw. While one could nitpick whether there is in-depth coverage, it would be a shame to waste the effort. The entry looks nice, useful and is not spammy. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:57, 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 keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:24, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neville Lancelot Goddard[edit]

Neville Lancelot Goddard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This author appears to only have notice among believers who share his mystical outlook. As he is a proponent of certain WP:FRINGE beliefs, to establish his notability per WP:NFRINGE we would need to have some independent sources that identified his works or biography as particularly notable. I do not think we have that. Instead, we have a niche author whose ideas are so obscure and lack regard that only those who are in that particular community find his writings at all relevant... at least it appears that way to me when I look for independent assertions of notability. jps (talk) 13:50, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 13:50, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 13:50, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 13:50, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neville Goddard which I believe is still relevant to this page in spite of the fact that the speedy was declined. jps (talk) 13:52, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The book Magician of the Beautiful: An Introduction to Neville Goddard was published in 2019 by Gildan Media: i.e. not self-published. StAnselm (talk) 17:08, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The book above seems to be in-universe, along with that author's other publications, which does not establish notability. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 18:04, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agreed. Anything written by Mitch Horowitz needs to be considered only reliable for what Mitch Horowitz believes. It cannot establish independent notability of a claim about New Thought supernatural mumbo jumbo. jps (talk) 18:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • That isn't actually what "in universe" means, though. StAnselm (talk) 21:08, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • WP:INUNIVERSE is usually reserved for fiction, but it's not hard to see how it would apply to a cult of likeminded believers who behave much-like a fanclub creating WP:CRUFT. The text of the article is written "in universe", and if all the sources are also written "in universe", generally we don't use such sources. An interesting point may be had, however, that we might want to have an essay on the synergy between "in universe" and "independence". jps (talk) 21:46, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • I suppose I should have wroten "true believer" and I still could if y'all wouldn't mind me re-jigging the letters a little bit? -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 22:42, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • Mitch Horowitz is an interesting fellow, however. He's the kind of true believer who really hates most conspiracy theories. He also seems to take the Forteana approach that all occult ideas are worth entertaining -- as long as they aren't hateful. jps (talk) 03:25, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 18:05, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because reliable sources are lacking. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:34, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:NAUTHOR, and useful for historical reference. I did a few searches and don't think this is a non-notable author. Ambrosiawater (talk) 23:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: does not meet WP:NAUTHOR nor WP:NFRINGE, for lack of reliable, independent sources that discuss the topic directly and in detail. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:28, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 03:34, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I found these sources in peer-reviewed journals about Goddard:
Mitch Horowitz seems like a possibly fringey source because he publishes both in real journals like the one above and some more questionable venues. But I'd say Gnosis is an RS, given that it's peer-reviewed. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 06:13, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:09, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the reasons stated by AleatoryPonderings and ToughPigs. The 1943 New Yorker article by Robert M. Coates occupies about 9 full columns spread across 8 pages of the original text edition of the magazine. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:38, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there are topics I personally think are complete nonsense - like Iridology. But I recognize WP:NPOV requires me to ignore my personal conclusions when evaluating a topic's notability. When good faith contributors find and neutrally cite genuine reliable sources about Iridology, and other topics from my least favourite topics list, I will defend the articles on those topics at AFD. It doesn't matter if I think Godard sounds like a kook, or if other contributors here think he sounds like a kook, since it looks like good faith contributors found and neutrally cited genuine reliable sources that establish he measures up to GNG. Geo Swan (talk) 14:55, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to {{ping}} @Roxy the dog, Psychologist Guy, and K.e.coffman:, as it seems their deletes may have been made before more RS were added to the article. Geo Swan (talk) 15:03, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I have been studying Neville's work and teaching for over five years. I also am a writer and teacher with two masters degrees, so I know a little about vetting sources. Sadly, one thing I have noticed around the "culture" of his teaching is that it is misinterpreted, misrepresented, misunderstood, and that there are very few solid fact-based articles about him online which don't "spin the facts" by integrating his teachings. While I've found experiential validity in those teachings, nonetheless, what has been needed is a Wikipedia or similar article with precisely the tone and authority of this entry. Those who draw conculsions from Neville's teachings or use them for other means will do so regardless of the content of this article, but an article like this is needed to at least ground the teachings in fact. From this, others may proceed as they wish, and they will, but at least this clear, concise, vetted and cited, fact-based article is a grounding point for any ridiculous misrepresentation, misunderstanding, or misinterpretation that may (and will) follow. 64.25.212.202 (talk) 12:58, 31 July 2020 (UTC)Max Shenk[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. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:51, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Businessmen's Educational Fund[edit]

Businessmen's Educational Fund (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (organizations) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant English-language coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. And yes, I looked for sources that would describe him in relation to the Nixon issue, and I couldn't find much beyond a few passing mentions here and there, mostly in transcripts (so, WP:PRIMARY). The PROD was removed with no useful rationale despite my explicit request to add one or comment on talk :( Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:08, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:08, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:32, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Business Executives Move for Vietnam Peace as it was part of that organisation. Applicable policies include WP:ATD-M and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:14, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • No referenced content to merge, unfortunately. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:07, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • The nomination says "I looked for sources that would describe him". But this is an organisation. The error arises because this is a cookie-cutter nomination – one of several. When I search for references myself, I have no difficulty finding them. Now that I understand the topic better, my !vote is changing. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:16, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Huh, I guess I did mess up the pronoun. Anyway, thank you for adding references. Now there is content to merge. It does not seem enough to keep it (all we have is that they send a letter and annoyed the government based on few mentions in passing), but the content is worth preserving. I am fine with merge at this point (previously, there was nothing to merge, now there is). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:45, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:47, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found two things that mention both of these organizations: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1660323/posts?page=15 CDI had emerged from a predecessor called the Businessmen’s Educational Fund, formed in the 1960s by Harold Willens. and https://www.heritage.org/node/22907/print-display Willens, in addition to his affiliation with CDI, has been listed as a member of the Board of Trustees of the Fund for Peace and as a principal leader in the anti-Vietnam war Business Executives Move for Vietnam Peace and in BEM's Businessmen's Educational Fund, all of which have been among significant beneficiaries of Mott's financial largesse. Are there any government websites that have records of when each organization was created and by who? Dream Focus 00:05, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 03:40, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:08, 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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:23, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Goumaz, California[edit]

Goumaz, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence that this remote location was ever anything more than a water stop on the railroad. I could find no evidence of town-ness. Mangoe (talk) 03:22, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:20, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:20, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 04:56, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No significant coverage in secondary sources. Fails WP:STATION. asnac (talk) 12:18, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep": Formerly populated place. Current campground. No benefit to be gained from deletion.--Milowent • hasspoken 12:32, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:05, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Appears to have been an actual settlement and is decently referenced. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 00:07, 31 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:14, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Acting (law)[edit]

Acting (law) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has no sources and honestly isn't encyclopedic - it's more suited for Wikitionary. It also assumes that "acting" exclusively refers to legal contexts (acting prime minister etc), where it could actually also refer to business - acting CEO etc ItsPugle (talk) 04:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:25, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per this massive article in one of the most prominent US law reviews:
O'Connell, Anne Joseph (2020). "Actings". Columbia Law Review. 120 (3): 613–728. doi:10.2307/26910475. ISSN 0010-1958. JSTOR 26910475.
See also:
Agree that this article is in quite poor shape, but that's not in itself a reason for deletion. As for the fact that it doesn't address "acting" status in other contexts, I would note that the title is "Acting (law)", so the article is restricted by its terms to discussion of the legal context—which is a distinctive and noteworthy context in its own right. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 13:33, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 03:39, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It's true that Wikipedia isn't a dictionary, but "acting" positions in politics are pretty common and, per Aleatory's sources, is independently covered. HumanxAnthro (talk) 11:18, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: All very interesting but this is a definition, pure and simple, and has no place here. asnac (talk) 13:00, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you use the sources such as the ones brought up by Aleatory, it'll be far more than just a definition article. HumanxAnthro (talk) 06:17, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't think this is merely a dictionary definition; the article attempts to describe/explain a concept (currently a legal one, but this could/should be expanded to operational etc. areas), or at least has the potential to be developed in that direction. And adding the sources mentioned by AleatoryPonderings could take care of the other problem, of being unreferenced. All in all, quite a useful little article IMO, and it would be a pity to get rid of it just because it ATM may be borderline dictionary-ish. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:45, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per AleatoryPonderings, this is a notable topic and a proper version of the article would have a lot more than just a dictionary definition. Umimmak (talk) 19:00, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The nomination reflects a misapprehension that an "acting" CEO or the like is not covered by this article, but the legal sense of "acting" covers all positions for which a person can have "acting" authority. BD2412 T 02:26, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have added some content. BD2412 T 04:37, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • As have I—hopefully these contribs address some of the concerns raised above. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:53, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:HEYMAN and WP:GNG. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:29, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:01, 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) 15:01, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dhruv Vikram (actor)[edit]

Dhruv Vikram (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Actor who has only acted in one film. Fails WP:Notability and is WP:Too soon. TamilMirchi (talk) 05:28, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 05:28, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 05:28, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 05:28, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a quick google will demonstrate this actor passes WP:GNG and the BLP guidelines.   Kadzi   (talk) 09:18, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: He has acted in only one film. The article fails WP:NACTOR, and notability is not inherited even if one's father is a superstar. --Kailash29792 (talk) 11:05, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The one incident of coverage we have, which under no circumstances would be enough to pass GNG, is too focused on his father and highlighting him as his father's son to constitute independent coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 11:51, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Notability is not inherited; The subject must play significant role in at least two notable films to qualify WP:NACTOR -- Ab207 (talk) 15:20, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: He only has one film that was released and as per WP:NACTOR he needs at least two films where he plays a significant role so hence the article should be deleted. SP013 (talk) 17:05, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: non notable --Devokewater @ 19:33, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect with history to Vikram_(actor)#Personal_life. Right now he may only be known for the single film, however according to this news article he and his father will be starring together in an upcoming film, the tentatively titled Chiyaan 60. Filming was supposed to start around the end of this month, so there's a reasonable chance that this will get made and gain coverage, given the coverage it's received so far. However even if the film doesn't get made and Dhruv Vikram vanishes off the media radar, this would still be a reasonable redirect to the parent's article. It is likely that someone will be curious about the son of a well-known and celebrated actor, particularly one that has starred in a fairly successful film. The redirect would help point them towards the father's article, where he's mentioned, and if/when he stars in another film we will have the article history to pull from. I think outright deleting the article history would be too hasty in this situation, as it looks to be more "when" and not "if" given the acclaim he received for Adithya Varma and the publicity for the upcoming father/son picture. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:07, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't mean for this to sound like crystal balling, it's just that at the very least people would expect for there to be something on this actor and while it's not ideal for it to just be a redirect, at least it's something. Leaving the history intact would help for when there's more coverage, which seems to be likely given that Chiyaan 60 already has quite a bit of coverage and would likely pass WP:NFF once there's confirmation of filming - which would then make this actor pass NACTOR given that his role in the movie looks to be a significant role. (He's on the teaser film poster, for example.) ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:11, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the film never gets made and he ends up not starring in anything again, then there's nothing lost by having the article history. If it's recreated too soon and too often, we can always protect it against further edits/reverts. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:20, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    ReaderofthePack, that's why we have Dhruv Vikram. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:19, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ReaderofthePack Also if you read some of the recent articles, the director has even said that he has not completed the script (which could mean the film is shelved) and without clear concise information that filming has started we can not add it to the page so I agree with your delete statement. SP013 (talk) 15:58, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Actor's credits don't reach WP:BIO. --Lockley (talk) 19:20, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all of the above Spiderone 13:09, 4 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) 18:13, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Usersnap[edit]

Usersnap (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a non-notable startup, created by an undisclosed paid editor. Of the cited sources:

  • SpeedInvest is an investor in Usersnap.
  • Trending Topics is another startup in which SpeedInvest invests, so not as arms length as it might appear.
  • Inventures's cofounder says: "There is already a high demand for content marketing in the international startup scene and the trend is upwards. Startups as well as their supporters often don't have the time to look into proper PR and media coverage - that's where we come in".[34]
  • The review via Business 2 Community says it's a republished GetApp review from October 25, 2013. The only review on the GetApp website on that date was posted by Thomas Peham. Finding their connection to Usersnap is left as an exercise for the reader. (The next review on the site, also 5 stars, is by Josef Trauner, one of the founders of Usersnap). Based on an archived snapshot, the text of the review was actually posted on GetApp on October 17, 2013 by Stephanie Miles.[35] Her LinkedIn profile describes her as a freelancer and content creator/consultant, "Consulting on content marketing, content strategies, and brand development; interviewing, reporting, writing, and editing cross-category digital content". Nothing in her background suggests she would know a bug tracking system from a hole in the ground, let alone be qualified to review one.[36] Presumably Usersnap fed her what they wanted the public to read.

The only legitimately independent source is the piece in Wirtschaftswoche. Searches of the usual Google types found no other significant coverage in independent sources. Fails WP:NCORP. -- Worldbruce (talk) 04:55, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 04:55, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 04:55, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 04:55, 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:12, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Zietz[edit]

Rachel Zietz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There's a lot of fresh but all of it is publicity more like night more than likely because human interest .she has not yet done anything to be notable about so there's no real encyclopedia content possible. Note that newspaper and magazine lists of prominent young people usually amount to list of people who might possibly be notable someday -- though there are exceptions DGG ( talk ) 04:55, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:37, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:37, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:37, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable businesswoman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:45, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 16:31, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete how is she not notable as per Wikipedia:Notability? She has been covered by outlets independent of the subject, and has created something of note. Surely if you delete this article, then you should delete every other businessperson-related wikipedia page2A00:23C6:3305:6F00:5490:12AD:1E2E:C6FD (talk) 20:15, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete Whilst I don't necessarily agree with the tone of my anonymous Wikipedia editor above, I do agree with his sentiment- You wouldn't delete Sir Alan Sugar's Wikipedia page or Steve Jobs' Wikipedia page. But then again, I did work on the page...Morigal (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 delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:05, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Junction, Contra Costa County, California[edit]

Junction, Contra Costa County, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Durham says there was a post office from 1850 to 1853. He infers that it had something to do with Antioch. That's literally all I can find about this locality. If it was a community, there is no mention of it anywhere. As we've seen many times, a post office does not necessarily imply there was a community. A one-sentence statement about the existence of a post office is not notable and there is no evidence that it was anything more than a short-lived PO. Glendoremus (talk) 03:55, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:09, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Glendoremus (talk) 15:54, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Post offices are not notable, and there's no evidence this is anything else. Reywas92Talk 18:50, 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) 04:12, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Palermo Airport (disambiguation)[edit]

Palermo Airport (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't see any evidence that Newbery Airport in Buenos Aires, albeit alongside the Palermo neighborhood of that city, is ever referred to as "Palermo Airport". Unless it is, the entry should naturally be removed. That would leave a disambiguation page with one entry. Largoplazo (talk) 03:51, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 03:51, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 03:51, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 03:51, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unnecessay dab page - and useless, too, as there were no incoming links or redirects to it. Have added a "redirect" hatnote at Falcone Borsellino Airport which is the primary topic, because it's reasonable to expect that the reader looking for an airport in a place called Palermo might look for "Palermo Airport". No need for a dab page. PamD 08:27, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @PamD: I disagree with your addition to the hatnote at Falcone Borsellino Airport, as it implies that "Palermo Airport" is a name by which the Argentine airport is known, which I believe is untrue. If no one is coming across any reference to the Argentine airport by that name, then there won't be instances of people looking under that name here and expecting information on the Argentine airport. Largoplazo (talk) 02:30, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is reasonable to think that a reader looking for an airport in a place called Palermo might look for it as "Palermo Airport". We would have a redirect if there wasn't ambiguity. The airport on Sicily is clearly the Primary Topic, but we should help the minority reader too: the hatnote serves them. PamD 10:00, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete At least regarding Jorge Newbery Airport's link, agreed with Largoplazo, I live in Argentina and never heard this terminal being referred other than "Jorge Newbery Airport" or simply "Aeroparque". Unsourced and untrue.---Darius (talk) 01:19, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per PamD and above. Nightfury 07:22, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Devokewater @ 20:42, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 16:41, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete does not fulfill the purposes outlined in WP:D Lightburst (talk) 03:29, 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) 04:13, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kristen Dawodu[edit]

Kristen Dawodu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Dubious notability. Sources given are puff pieces from sites that are basically promotional vehicles. Articles about him have popped up in various other Wiki sites in the past few days, which gives the impression of a PR blitz. ... discospinster talk 03:04, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster talk 03:04, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster talk 03:04, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources.Celestina007 08:37, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Does not satisfy general notability or special notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:33, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am quiet Confused as the coverages like This and This have discussed about him which seems to be in depth coverage but I am not aware about the reliability of these sources, so anyone knows more about Nigerian publications would be able to help more in adding the spotlight to the credibility of the sources. Dtt1Talk 17:46, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Devokewater  (🦉 talk talk🦉) 19:47, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:15, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete little bit confused! why this should be here?. Em-mustapha talk 12:20, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 16:45, 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 Narnia (world)#Archenland. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:21, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Archenland[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Archenland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Minor part of the Narnia setting, I can't find anything in the sources outside a plot summary (ex. in Lewis life encyclopedia: [37]), the best I did was in [38] where there is one sentence speculating that the name of this place might be related to Ireland. While some aspects of Narnia have been analyzed (particularly in relation to Christianity), this fictional location does not seem to have attracted any serious discussion outside plot-like summaries and therefore seems to fail WP:NFICTION/WP:GNG. There is no referenced content to merge but the entry could be just soft-deleted by redirecting to Narnia_(world)#Archenland. Thoughts?PS. Prior AfD from 2008 was not linked on the current's article talk page, but note that even in those old days where things were very inclusionist the discussion concluded in Merge/redirect. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:09, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:09, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:09, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I just added the first AfD to the article's talk page. LadyofShalott 02:39, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Narnia_(world)#Archenland. The target can use a bit more of the content of the article, which is supported by secondary sources. At the very least the references should not be lost by deletion, soft or otherwise, when they can improve the target article. The source no. 2 found by the nominator does not only compare the names, but also the relationship of England/Ireland to Narnia/Archenland + extrapolation. Space and Place in Children’s Literature, 1789 to the Present, interestingly, compares Archenland to continental Europe rather than Ireland. Representations of home, the orient and the other “other” in selected children's fantasy literature does an evaluation of Archenland as "idealized space...", but I cannot see if and how much more there is. So for the time being, the non-plot treatment found can probably fit reasonably within the suggested target article. I have by no means combed through all the multitude of hits in Google Scholar or other engines, so if someone should find more I will be happy to reconsider my opinion. Daranios (talk) 14:54, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. This is not really worth having a seperate article, but the sourced stuff is worth keeping.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:06, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to a lack of reliable third party sources with real world context. There's no way for this article to meet the WP:GNG and WP:NOT#PLOT and there's already sufficient detail about Narnia in other articles, particularly the article about Narnia as a world. I would consent to a merge if that's where the consensus is going, though I don't see much material that would need to be expanded. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:20, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Narnia (world)#Archenland. I have already added the sources, since the information was already there, and there is nothing else worth merging. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:51, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Narnia (world)#Archenland. There's no substantive coverage of this fictional region that I am aware of, but enough passing mentions that the references and such are worth preserving, and the title is a reasonable search term. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:01, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and/or redirect as a reasonable search term with some sourced passing mentions. Could help improve the main narnia universe article. Jontesta (talk) 18:50, 4 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. Eagles 24/7 (C) 13:20, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of National Football League records (team)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of National Football League records (team) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A large list of non-notable, unreferenced "team records". I assume most of these are original research. WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. Natg 19 (talk) 02:03, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 02:03, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 02:03, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just noticed that there was a previous AfD for this article in 2015. While I agree that a "list of records" is usually notable, I still believe that this particular list is unsourced and does not pass GNG. Natg 19 (talk) 02:20, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep no new reason given to delete since last AFD, reasons to keep still stand. WP:NOTSTATSBOOK was discussed last time.—-Paul McDonald (talk) 03:33, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The prior AfD was closed as a Snow Keep. It's disappointing that, five years later, the article still has many unsourced assertions. The article should remain tagged for improvement, but the points previously raised in favor of keeping remain persuasive. Cbl62 (talk) 19:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree there needs to be some editing on the list. But as you say, editing and deletion are not the same thing.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:46, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all above and the arguments brought forth in the first AfD. Ejgreen77 (talk) 07:12, 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) 02:32, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of top 10 singles in 2017 (Philippines)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of top 10 singles in 2017 (Philippines) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Also included in the nomination:

List of Philippine Hot 100 number-one singles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Philippine Top 20 number-one singles of 2017 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Philippine Top 20 number-one singles of 2018 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I nominated this for deletion when it was relatively new three years ago. The charts here barely lasted 6 months before being discontinued and never received independent coverage. There is nothing significant about songs reaching the top ten, much less number one, on these charts. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 01:25, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:16, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:16, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all of them. Wikipedia isn't a directory and that's what these articles are. Nothing in any of them is referenced by secondary sources. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:34, 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 are. Ajf773 (talk) 08:56, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom Spiderone 18:18, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 17:52, 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) 17:59, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Porter, California[edit]

Porter, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A name on a map in the middle of the woods with one house nearby. The house is still there, and that is all I can find out about Porter. Mangoe (talk) 01:23, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:18, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:18, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Random name on a map. No indication of what it is/was and no signs of notability. Glendoremus (talk) 15:21, 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) 17:59, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Toyon, California[edit]

Toyon, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A siding on a now-abandoned SP line which served a large sawmill, since replaced by an industrial park and a Board of Education depot. I get hits on a Toyon settlement but context indicates this place was associated with Shasta Dam, which is way off to the northwest. I see no sign of a settlement here. Mangoe (talk) 01:03, 28 July 2020 (UTC) {{[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:20, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:20, 28 July 2020 (UTC)}}[reply]
  • Delete Another case of GNIS mistaking a rail facility for a community. Not notable. Glendoremus (talk) 15:13, 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 keep. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:56, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10 Foot Ganja Plant[edit]

10 Foot Ganja Plant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. See Talk:10 Foot Ganja Plant for more discussion on its notability. Haven't charted in a chart that meets notability criteria. Boleyn (talk) 22:21, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:32, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:32, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom, and per talk page discussion. (Alas, that the editor who led that discussion didn't file an AfD ... a year ago.) Ravenswing 23:57, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets criterion Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable). Geschichte (talk) 11:24, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per GNG. Under WP:BAND, a band "may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria." (emphasis added). Ultimately, I can't find anything establishing notability and I can't say I agree that being signed to ROIR makes a band noteworthy. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 12:50, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Multiple albums have charted in the top 15 on the Billboard Reggae Albums Chart ([39]), Allmusic has a bio and 8 album reviews, and there are print magazine review in GBooks from The Beat and The Wire. --Michig (talk) 15:00, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as has significant coverage outlined above in The Beat, The Wire and AllMusic as well as charting so passes WP:GNG in my view and should be included, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:54, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can those arguing to keep the article please present links to coverage here (or add them to the article)?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:11, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep They seem to have reviews in enough sources to be notable. Plus, they have multiple albums that charted on Billboard. Although someone might argue that it's a sub chart and therefore not valid, but I'm not the one to do it. Even if I was, they still have the multiple album reviews to pass WP:NBAND anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:07, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2020_July_28&oldid=971753764"