Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 June 2

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 1 June	3 June >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:04, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cresta, California

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

...and here we have yet another spot on the Feather River Route in the middle of nowhere.I can't tell whether there was a siding here or what, but there are again no roads or any other sign of a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 23:48, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: another United States Geological Survey permastub that should never have been created in the first place. --Cornellier (talk) 00:07, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I cannot find anything at all about this online. Earnsthearthrob (talk) 15:59, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:04, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lutz Aengevelt

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

Does not meet WP:ANYBIO by any means. Most of the references are to the subject's personal website (or Wayback Machine copies thereof). Article creator RealEstate55 is a single-purpose account. bender235 (talk) 23:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ANYBIO--Olatunde Brain (talk) 02:16, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:02, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the sourcing is either reliable or independent. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:54, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:05, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EuroCyclingTrips - CMI Pro Cycling

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

Is the team notable? The only external reference (not counting the team website) is to the UCI site, which merely confirms that the team exists. I see three bluelinked members, one of whom probably can be AfDed, but two others are notable since they competed in the Olympics - and accidentally none ever finished an Olympic race. Ymblanter (talk) 07:02, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 07:02, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: because according to WP:CYCLING/N, "A team is presumed notable if it is: A men's road team in the 1st (UCI WorldTeam), 2nd (UCI ProContinental), or 3rd (UCI Continental) tier...". This team is in the 3rd tier, so should be presumed noteable if we're going by that guideline. However, I agree with the concerns about the lack of independent sources. When creating the article, other than the UCI website, I couldn't find much other than this. ~~Perhaps if the article remains, I could add a 'Citation needed' or 'Primary sources' tag?~~[DONE]. Also, please note that there were similar concerns recently with another team in the same tour, Black Spoke Pro Cycling Academy. Cheers, Meticulo (talk) 07:27, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Again, obvious pass. UCI Continental teams are clearly notable.--Seacactus 13 (talk) 15:52, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer: This article has been moved during the course of the AFD. This may mess up closer scripts. Make sure you close correctly. Stifle (talk) 12:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: for the sake of convenient comparison, here are links to articles on other teams in the Oceania Tour: ARA Pro Racing Sunshine Coast, Black Spoke Pro Cycling Academy, Nero Continental, Oliver's Real Food Racing, St George Continental Cycling Team, Team BridgeLane. I suggest either all these articles be deleted, or none of them. If deletions occur, the notability guideline for sports should be rewritten. There might also need to be a rethink of articles about teams in the continental tours of Africa, America, Asia and Europe. Meticulo (talk) 07:54, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There is not a clear consensus either way and the BLPREQ policy says "Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete". Since notability appears to reflect from the scandals, the BLP compliant approach is to delete this and ensure that the scandals are fully covered at the appropriate place. I will make the sources available to anyone that needs them. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:10, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Demery

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

WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE requested by a representative of the subject (Special:Permalink/958743072#https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Demery, verified by the subject at VRTS ticket # 2020052510005286). I think it's a reasonable deletion request - this seems to be a fairly low-profile person, I think it's a case of WP:BLP1E for the Reagan administration court case mentioned in the lead, pretty much all of the coverage is either factual "he's the Assistant Secretary for HUD" or mention of the trial. Didn't turn up any SIGCOV in a BEFORE search other than the outcome of the aforementioned trial. creffett (talk) 14:06, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 14:06, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 14:06, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ - I agree that he probably doesn't need an article, but the scandal was widely covered at the time, and for years after, and was part of the corruption problems during Reagan's second term. Would not a sentence in the HUD article be appropriate? There is a history section. Caro7200 (talk) 14:34, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Caro7200, I wouldn't be opposed, though I'd prefer to see general coverage of the corruption problems and have this as a part so that it gets due weight. creffett (talk) 14:55, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Accept Request Assistant Secretary of HUD is not a position that confers automatic notability. Merge any relevant information to Reagan administration scandals. --Enos733 (talk) 15:22, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That works as well. Caro7200 (talk) 20:58, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, agreed with merge - would have suggested myself if I'd known there was a page for that. creffett (talk) 14:32, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Reagan administration scandals per comments above. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:15, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we need to respect the privacy of living people. The postion held is not high enough to make a person default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Assistant secretary of a government department is not a significant enough role to be "inherently" notable under WP:NPOL, the crime angle is far too minor and unimportant to claim that he would pass WP:PERP as an individual, and he's basically not a high-profile enough person that the need to have an article about him should outweight his personal privacy rights. As noted above, there are other articles where content about scandals in the Reagan administration can be included without needing to maintain a standalone BLP of every individual person who was implicated in one of them. Bearcat (talk) 22:41, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and if there's anything worth merging to Enos733's link, do so without a redirect (which may violate some rule, but IAR.) SportingFlyer T·C 07:16, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised there were a number of keep !votes in this discussion, but this is a low profile WP:BLP1E who received sustained coverage for exactly one event who can be covered elsewhere and who has a privacy concern. A Newspapers.com graph doesn't bring up much coverage apart from the 1989 scandal and a blurp from his guilty plea in the early 1990s. None of the links that are presented below cover him significantly and all link him back to the HUD. I still don't see how he's not a WP:BLP1E. The scandal with African fundraising was directly related to the one event. SportingFlyer T·C 01:57, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. What is going on here? These comments have little to do with reality. The very first reference identifies Demery as "the {HUD]department’s No. 3 executive". The NY Times called him a "key player" at that cabinet-level department and covered his activities extensively, including at least six front-page articles (most of those in 1989). We're not dealing with some low-level bureaucrat. We're dealing with a prominent national figure with extensive coverage in national media. And this is in no way a BLP1E situation; Demery has also been covered in relation to his role in Pat Robertson's "blood diamonds" business [1], his fundraising for presidential campaigns [2], and his fundraising on behalf of RENAMO, a Rhodesian-backed faction in the post-independence Mozambique Civil War [3]. It's evident that none of the delete !voters have done the most minimally adequate WP;BEFORE search (and, frankly, far more caustic comments are justifiable. This is the bio of a notorious white-collar criminal, and his significance shouldn't be minimized because his crimes predate the social media era. It's not Wikipedia's job to sanitize the reputation of politically connected felons. We don't work for Bill Barr. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 05:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wolfowitz. The person is, or at least was, a public figure, and is notable enough and notorious enough to where deleting the article would violate WP:CENSOR. Devonian Wombat (talk) 08:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Updating my comment (see above) after thinking about it for a few days. It's clear, per Wolfowitz, that this is a case of more than just one incident. I don't quite agree that Demery is/was notorious--he just isn't/wasn't as famous as North, Watt, Poindexter, etc. Aside from the ethical and moral aspects of his misdeeds, he also seemed, in a criminal and quasi-criminal sense, to be notable as a consistent screw-up, to put it politely and ironically. Caro7200 (talk) 14:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As some of the sources lack anything about Mr. Demery. Only one of them actually talks about him significantly. Koridas (...Puerto Rico for statehood!) 22:25, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. The subject of the article was quite notable at the time. There are numerous sources testifying as to the subject's independent notability, even though lots of them date from the pre-internet era, e.g.:

Maier, Karl (17 June 1993). "United States policy". Conspicuous Destruction: War, Famine and the Reform Process in Mozambique. Yale University Press. p. 193. ISBN 978-0300056181.
Hays, R. Allen (9 March 1995). The Federal Government and Urban Housing. SUNY Press. p. 254. ISBN 978-0791423264.
Shapiro, Bruce (1998). Keeping Special Counsel. Vol. 266. The Nation. p. 7.
"3rd HUD Official Indicted In Influence3-Peddling Scandal". The Washington Post. 10 June 1992. Retrieved 9 June 2020.
Jackson, Robert L. (10 June 1992). "Ex-Official Pleads Guilty in HUD Corruption Probe". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 9 June 2020.
Kaplan, Joel (27 August 1989). "At HUD, Home Deals Often Begin With Charity At HUD". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved 9 June 2020.
Yancey, Matt (6 January 1993). "Three Convicted in HUD Influence-Peddling Case". Associated Press. Retrieved 9 June 2020.

This article, of course, should be linked to the Reagan administration scandals, as it already is; but not "merged" to it. -The Gnome (talk) 21:27, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wolfowitz and The Gnome. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 23:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Jain temples#Nagaland. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:11, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kohima Jain Temple

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

This article has no sources provided at all. I realize that sources, if there are any, may be in Hindi, a language I can't read. However, a Google search for the temple name in Hindi [4] brought up nothing but Wikipedia, its mirrors, or other wikis. Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:36, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:42, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:44, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources available. Drat8sub (talk) 19:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Place that has historical significance. A) The building was one of the few structures that survived the Battle of Kohima (WW2) per this. B) Also the oldest Jain temple in Kohima (capital of a remote Indian state Nagaland) since 1920 per this. Also listed at List of Jain Temples. The jains were a business community that migrated to remote Kohima in 1920. This temple is an important part of the city's history given very few ethnic groups migrated to Kohima that early. Nagaland has 18 tribes, many of whom continue to retain their traditional ways. C) There is systemic bias in the national print and broadcast media on coverage of the North Eastern part and this limits references in mainstream media. I will continue to look for more reliable sources and references. Arunram (talk) 20:28, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Jain temples#Nagaland. From sources given, I believe it's a real temple, and that its 100 years old (wouldn't bet anything on the latter) but, clearly, there isn't anything to write an article with. My search yielded the same as reported by nom. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:15, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:33, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 15:28, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sinister Violence

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

Non-notable band. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 15:55, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indian metal band. I don't think they are notable enough for Wikipedia. Some of the sources are okay, while some of them (like blogs) are not. Even though some Indian newspapers covered their wins at some (local) talent shows, they don't appear to be notable as this was their only claim for notability. I did a Google search and only these sources that are already presented here were the main results, along with a site named "Hire4event" (do I need to explain?), some blogs, another concert site, and the rest of the sources were not even about Sinister Violence, they were articles with the words "sinister" and "violence" separately. So prove me wrong, but I think this is a non-notable band. Sinister Violence has an article on eswiki too, but it uses the same sources as here, and huwiki has an article on them as well, but that page is also nominated for deletion because it uses the same sources.

GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 15:54, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 15:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 15:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 May 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:09, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable band, I don't even find they had releases other than demos. Earnsthearthrob (talk) 16:04, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable band. Every band that releases demos does not immediately qualify for an article. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:11, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:49, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Jiang

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

Not notable. Fuddle (talk) 16:51, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Fuddle (talk) 16:51, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:16, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:16, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable animator.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:28, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:26, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sources cited, and I haven't found any, fails WP:BIO. Ym2X (talk) 22:46, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unreferenced. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem to be notable, a quick google search revealed no source (though a couple of other people named Jack Jiang do exist). Kj cheetham (talk) 10:55, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:11, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wellwer

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

This was not a notable website. Wikieditor600 (talk) 18:54, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:10, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:10, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't seem to have the reliable in-depth coverage required for notability and everything about it in the article is extremely trivial. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:39, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:40, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elftown

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

This is not a notable website. Wikieditor600 (talk) 19:17, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:05, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:05, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:05, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:06, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:06, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication of notability beyond being an everyday website. At this point at least.BabbaQ (talk) 14:33, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the only source is a humor site. Traffic stats at https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/elftown.com give no indication that the site might notable. Vexations (talk) 14:19, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about the site. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 07:30, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:43, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:12, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shweta Kumar

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

Subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources hence falls short of gng & also does not satisfy WP:NACTOR. Subject appears to be related to numerous notable people but notability isn’t a birthright neither is it inherited. Celestina007 (talk) 22:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

'KEEP' This subject have added enough notable references, yes it definitely lack of content as its not traceable till now and whatever content have cant be put, as it may looklike 'Advert', the references added as per WP:ICTFSOURCES. Still if it dosen't met with Wiki Guidelines you may delete it. But as It passed WP:ICTFSOURCES I vote KEEP. Krishna Murthy DL (talk) 03:33, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — striking out !vote from confirmed sockpuppet. Celestina007 (talk) 11:08, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the multiple significant roles in notable productions threshold for notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:05, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep article have significant coverage in media. इं. हेमंत बोरकर (talk) 14:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — striking out !vote from confirmed sockpuppet. Celestina007 (talk) 11:08, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:NACTOR. Abishe (talk) 19:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --SalmanZ (talk) 17:08, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:13, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mai Minokoshi

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

Non-notable tennis player who fails WP:NTENNIS and WP:GNG Iffy★Chat -- 10:54, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:00, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:00, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:01, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Neutral~~ Keep as article creator. (It was kind of an experiment, as I took the name off the Wikipedia:Most-wanted articles list. Have to admit, I am at a loss to find additional references of note. If anyone else can find anything that would be appreciated, but I'm not holding my breath.) Happy to concur with any decision arrived at here. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 15:45, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my vote, as, thanks to User:Athomeinkobe, there have now (03:57, 28 May 2020 (UTC)) been plenty of refs added to at least cover GNG – they were just hiding in several Japanese publications (see below). Regards, GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 03:58, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, has over 100 incoming links, so seems like a prolific figure within the tennis sport. Geschichte (talk) 18:23, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- This argument is fallacious but it doesn't appear to be anywhere in WP:ATA. Just because there were a lot of redlinks it doesn't presume notability. Iffy★Chat -- 20:07, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it does indicate she's been getting around; I think we just have to find some more refs on her. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 20:33, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:46, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't meet WP:NTENNIS for starters. Can't seem to find enough independent sources that would indicate she meets WP:GNG either. Adamtt9 (talk) 17:09, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as I believe there is enough to satisfy GNG. [This] is a sufficiently detailed report of her signing a contract with Yoshimoto Kogyo, Japan's biggest talent agency. There is also a more recent [interview-style report] about her career, and [another] detailing her early life before turning pro. I've been away from editing for a few years, but from what I remember these sorts of references were usually enough, despite her career not yet reaching the level required to satisfy the specific tennis player criteria. I'll have a quick crack at fleshing out the biography. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:26, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have started expanding the article. I do not have any more time to work on it now, but I hope I have shown that there is enough there. There are more sources I haven't used it too.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Juliette Han (talk) 16:47, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

105 mm

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

Artillery and tank gun calibre. Unsourced since 2017, fails WP:V. I assume this content could be sourced, but per WP:BURDEN that's up to those who are interested in keeping the content. If nobody is, it's got to go.

Another question is whether the topic is notable, either as an article or as a list of 105 mm guns. I have no idea. Google produces any number of hits, but they generally seem to be about specific 105 mm guns, not about the calibre as such. Sandstein 22:01, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 22:01, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This makes a good category, as distinguished from an article; one already exists.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 22:12, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The point of WP:NOTDUP is that lists and categories are complementary. This further already demonstrates that it can be annotated in ways that the category cannot. postdlf (talk) 15:56, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an article - no prejudice against a list or category being created for it. -- puddleglum^2.0 22:59, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:04, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, no valid argument for deletion presented; all comments above are instead about fixable problems or are contra relevant guidelines on lists and categories. Clearly if the individual entries are verifiable, then an index of them together is as well, and it's just a question of migrating sources over from those articles. The nominator even "assume[s] this content could be sourced", which means per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE that deletion for lack of present sourcing is off the table. We're not talking about contentious BLP material so there's no deadline. Most of the entries in Category:105 mm artillery even have the caliber as part of the article title so it seems silly to me to even consider that a problem. postdlf (talk) 15:56, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Perfectly valid list article as it list related items which have their own articles. You can rename it as List of 105 mm if you want, although doesn't make any real difference here. Dream Focus 19:24, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer: This article was moved to 105 mm calibre during the AFD. Please be careful if using an automated script to close, that you edit/delete in the right place. Stifle (talk) 12:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:58, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It appears that the popularity of this calibre is due to the success of a particular gun: Royal Ordnance L7. We could merge but it seems better to keep the more general title as a de facto standard like .22 caliber. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:26, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We have plenty of articles on gun calibres, and as a NATO standard one this certainly merits its own article. My impulse is to re-assess this as a set index article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 2 sources added, this is a standard artillery and tank shell used in many armies including during my own time - I'll try and find sources to my own Irish Armys (and others) use of this ammo and add JW 1961 Talk 20:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:13, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Buurtpoes Bledder

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

fan-page without real notability. The Banner talk 20:05, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is now the third or fourth time this page has been marked for deletion by someone who hasn't taken the time to actually look at the sources involved. Worse yet, no reason beyond a completely false "fan-page without real notability" was provided for why it should be deleted by the nominator. Yes, the page is about a cat, and that might seem silly, but Wikipedia is filled with thousands of even more ridiculous pages with far fewer citations from notable sources. The cat received attention from several national media outlets in the Netherlands that are included in the article and they are right there for the perusual of anyone who doubts the page's legitimacy. Furthermore, this is a topic that has already been debated at length in other deletion nomination discussions. Each time, the decision has been made to keep the page. Why is there the need to now do this all over again, especially after the last one was only a few months ago? Constablequackers (talk) 08:21, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did took time to look at the unknown sources, the blogs, facebook, the dead links etcetera. The link to Omroep West is in fact the only reliable source. The Banner talk 09:25, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did not see the earlier nomination. But to note that: the article was not kept, it was not removed due to lack of consensus. The Banner talk 09:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Okay, in addition to the Omroep West citation, there's also citations from the national paper De Telegraaf, the Leidschdagblad (the daily newspaper for the city), the Leidse Glibber (another publication that covers Leiden), I am Expat (a national website aimed toward expats living in the Nethelands) and at least a mention of coverage from SBS 6. That should be more than enough to merit keeping the article on a website with over 6 million articles, many of which don't have even half as many citations and/or are about subjects that are even more niche. Constablequackers (talk) 09:26, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Every article will be judged on its own merits. So it is useless to compare it with other articles. And Wikipedia is not a memorial. The Banner talk 18:23, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to judge this article on its own merits then. And the six citations listed above from reputable sources. Furthermore, if "Wikipedia is not a memorial," would you care to explain the many thousands of articles about various other dead animals and humans that are on this website? Constablequackers (talk) 12:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously get the idea that Bledder was your cat, seeing that you wrote this article and are now fighting to keep it.

And about the many thousands of articles about various other dead animals and humans... feel free to nominate them for deletion. But be aware of some repercussions. The Banner talk 13:33, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bledder wasn't my cat, nor was I the person who created his Facebook page, wrote all those articles, and so on. I did, however, originally create this Wikipedia page. That much is true. Now then, would you please provide an argument as to why this page should be deleted beyond quips like "it's a fan-page" and "Wikipedia is not a memorial"? Furthermore, if you don't like "memorials," I can only assume you'll be placing deletion notices on the pages for everyone from Winston Churchill to that dog who used to hang around outside the train station in Tokyo while waiting for his owner to get off work. But I suppose doing so might result in you potentially facing "repercussions." Those who start needless/highly subjective/repetitious deletion debates about dead cats on Wikipedia get carte blanche and are above the law, eh? :D Constablequackers (talk) 14:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You were the one complaining about those articles... The Banner talk 15:19, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Afraid not. I have no problem with those articles, whereas you're the one taking aim at "memorials." I have no problem with pretty much the entirety of Wikpedia and am perfectly fine with articles about even the smallest and most obscure of topics, provided they've got citations to back up their inclusion on the site. Now then, do you want to discuss this article and its citations, or should we should go back to hurling sarcastic comments and off-topic digressions at one another? Constablequackers (talk) 13:18, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:32, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not news, just because slow news cycles cause notice to be given to non-notable subjects does not mean we should follow suit.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:34, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- So, by your logic, we'll need to remove half of the articles on Wikipedia; everything ranging from characters in films and books to small businesses that are all equally reliant on stories supposedly created during similarly "slow news cycles." Constablequackers (talk) 12:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, the logic is: every article is judged on its own merits. The Banner talk 15:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - And thus far, the only person here beyond myself who has done so is Cunard. Constablequackers (talk) 11:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not news. scope_creep^Talk 10:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- "Wikipedia is not news." What does that even mean? Could you elaborate? Constablequackers (talk) 10:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:NOTNEWS The Banner talk 11:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for the link. The article clears those bars, so no worries there. Constablequackers (talk) 15:16, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom and everyone above. Let's not compare with other articles (WP:WHATABOUTX). Ifnord (talk) 14:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
This page notes that (translation from Google Translate) "Bledder became known nationally after an article in De Telegraaf because he was the first cat with its own Facebook page." The page includes a photo of a lengthy newspaper article about the subject titled "Buurtpoes Bledder online" that was published in October 2012, 10 months before the subject's death.
SBS6's television program nl:Hart van Nederland covered the subject's August 2013 death in this article as did Algemeen Dagblad here (metadata here), Leidsch Dagblad here, and Omroep West here. This December 2013 article notes that Leidsch Dagblad declared "Buurtpoes" the word of the year in 2013 after the subject's death.
Five years after the subject's death, the subject was covered in this article in Omroep West. The article's first paragraph notes (translation from Google Translate): "Cat Bledder from Leiden has been dead for exactly five years. "Well," you would say. But that is different in Leiden. The cat made the national news before its death and has its own Wikipedia and Facebook page because half of Leiden knew the beast. Bledder has been set up and is being put down for a day in the Velvet record store on the Nieuwe Rijn so that people can stop and talk to him. Students from the house on the Hartesteeg where Bledder still lives, deliver him early Tuesday morning to record store Velvet." The article mentions that the cat made the national news before it died and mentions in passing that he has a Wikipedia page. (I do not consider this passing mention of the cat's having a Wikipedia page to detract from the article's contributing to Buurtpoes Bledder establishing notability since the rest of the article focuses on how the people of Leiden are still remembering the cat.)
That the subject was covered by reliable sources before, at, and after his death demonstrates he has received sustained coverage. That this coverage was in national and regional newspapers and radio stations strongly establishes he is notable.
Cunard (talk) 17:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The Dutch Wikipedia page is removed and a request to reinstate the article was refused... The Banner talk 17:37, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that a lot of the sources were published in August, a period know in the Netherlands as "cucumber-time". In that time newspapers lack normal news so they almost publish everything handed to them. The Banner talk 13:03, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't consider some of the sources' publication in August to detract from their helping establishing notability. The sources are reliable and give the subject serious consideration in their news coverage. Cunard (talk) 10:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - As I said, they accept nearly every press release. I have seen too often that my own (i.e. work related) press releases were nearly verbatim copied and published by newspaper. The Banner talk 14:45, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - The initial versions of many of these articles (before they were moved into online archives) featured original photography in addition to onsite journalism. The report from 2018 even involved a film crew going down to look at the "stuffed cat" who was put on display in a nearby record store. These were hardly just cut/pasted press releases. And it's not the cat's fault that he was killed by a motorist during August/cucumber time. I'm sorry he didn't die during a more lively news cycle. That motorist should have thought more about how all this was going to impact his Wikipedia page 6 years later!!! Constablequackers (talk) 09:25, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom and others. I question how notable this cat was.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 19:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, cited sources indicate WP:GNG is met. Notability is not transient. Stifle (talk) 12:08, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:57, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as above: the sourcing is adequate to establish notability. Notability is not temporary. Ingratis (talk) 00:18, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Tenuous notability, in a fly by night news story that only gained coverage due to social media, the covid virus, and the name, otherwise it would have been totally ignored. Little lasting notability. A 1300 people fan page. Must be the smallest fan page on the planet. No last notability. Single event. scope_creep^Talk 09:46, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The sources were published between 2012 and 2018 so it is not "a fly by night news story" and the coverage is not owing to "the covid virus". Cunard (talk) 10:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What Cunard said, but I must admit that it's been very frustrating to witness editors like Scope Creep vote "delete" without actually looking at the page or its sources. And the "Covid crisis"? Uhhhh...what? Constablequackers (talk) 09:18, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, but you do think it is normal to attack voters that vote different from your preference? Could you please show a neutral attitude? The Banner talk 15:33, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but I'm not the only editor here who is having trouble displaying a neutral attitude. Now then, perhaps you can offer a neutral appraisal of why Scope Creep mentioned the Covid crisis in that comment. Constablequackers (talk) 15:59, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also: it appears that Scope Creep has voted "delete" twice in this discussion. There's this one and another above. Should one of them be removed? Constablequackers (talk) 10:33, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removing: no. Striking the second vote is possible. I shall do that. The Banner talk 11:10, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted completely the 2nd vote, making closer's life easier. -The Gnome (talk) 21:36, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look like it's been struck out. I switched "delete" to "comment." I've never had to field this particular situation on Wikipedia. Is this a reasonable solution or no? Constablequackers (talk) 10:41, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Coverage in national in Dutch media, including in 2018 five years after Bledder's demise.--Eostrix (talk) 06:30, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:14, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Asatrian

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. There's some trivial coverage (particularly in German-language sources), but I wasn't able to find anything both significant and independent. Does not appear to meet WP:NMUSICIAN either. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:37, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:37, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:37, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable jazz musician. Does not pass GNG nor any of the specific guidelines for musician notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:40, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep This is tricky, especially as I don't speak German well (and I strongly suspect there may be many sources in Armenian, which is almost impossible to search unless you speak it) but he has records (at least two that I can find, and Skylark appears to be a Universal imprint too) distributed by Universal and has won an award in the USA that's been going for 20 years. Some things I found; Article in major Austrian paper appearing at a major jazz festival in Tunisia and an event in Italy as well as the ones in the article. It's thin, but I think he squeaks through GNG. Black Kite (talk) 01:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable musician. --SalmanZ (talk) 19:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:37, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jami Tobey

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

Amsterdam Whitney Gallery is a Vanity Gallery and there are insufficient WP:RS to satisfy NARTIST. Theredproject (talk) 21:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 21:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 21:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 21:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete insufficient coverage to meet WP:ARTIST. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:03, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is nothing I can find to substantiate that this artist meets the required standards for notability. GNG and NARTIST fail. Netherzone (talk) 00:10, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable painter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:01, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indication of notability. No exhibition, collections, monographs, articles... Vexations (talk) 15:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:15, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Stutz

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

A preponderance of Vanity Galleries and insufficient WP:RS to satisfy NARTIST. I couldn't verify the claims of inclusion in the Triennale de Paris or 10th St. Petersburg Biennale in Russia. Theredproject (talk) 21:49, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 21:49, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 21:49, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 21:49, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is something bizarre about this article, it does not seem to have been written from an art historical perspective - not that that is a requirement - however it does seem written from an odd perspective that's slightly industrial-economical-promotional. Things that strike me oddly for example: Harald Szeemann name-dropped as a "performer" rather than a curator?? Nevertheless, the exhibitions are unverifiable WP:V, and he does not meet WP:NARTIST nor WP:GNG criteria. Netherzone (talk) 00:01, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable artist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:02, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is a retired amateur artist. Vexations (talk) 15:40, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Cliffside Park, New Jersey. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:17, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mayor of Cliffside Park, New Jersey

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

Does not meet WP:LISTN guidelines for notability. Only two members of this list were deemed notable enough to have articles and lacks reliable sources for this incomplete list. I oppose any type of merge since reliable sources do not exist. Rusf10 (talk) 02:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 02:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 02:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 02:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too small either way. Does not need standalone page. Mohanabhil (talk) 15:26, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (and, if relevant, merge) to Cliffside Park, New_Jersey#Local_government, per WP:ATD. Several pages link to this one; deleting the page would break the links for no good reason. pburka (talk) 15:34, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- ...or keep, now that there's some substantial content, thanks to User:Djflem. ~~No preference between merge and keep.~~ pburka (talk) 19:37, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are only three pages in articlespace that are actually linking to this list, and it's not a critical or essential link in any of them — two of them are, unsurprisingly, the two people listed here who actually have established notability for other reasons, because one was also a state legislator and the other was an NBA player, but just wait for the punchline that makes one of them even more problematic — while the third is just the "deaths in April 2015" entry for one of those same two people. So none of them have a contextual need for this link to exist — it can easily just be unlinked in all three uses.
Now, to be fair, strictly speaking the value of a list of mayors does not necessarily vest in how many of them do or don't already have articles to link to — it's more important that a list of mayors of a town or city be complete than it is that the list comprise exclusively blue links. So the real problem here isn't the number of red links — it's the fact that the list is incomplete. The first mayor took office in 1901, with no indication of when his term ended. He's then followed by the state legislator, who — time for the punchline — is listed as an unsuccessful three-time candidate for mayor in the 1920s with no indication given in either the list or his biographical article that he ever actually won a mayoral election or served as the actual mayor at all. Then we skip to the 1950s for a person who served as mayor in 1950 and 1951, and then we skip one or more other mayors to land in 1958 — and then the list is complete from then on, but even then only because one of the next two mayors served for 50 years before dying in office literally just a few years ago.
So what we have here is an incomplete list, with just two notable people in it — and one of those two notable people isn't reliably sourced as belonging in it at all, while the other one is notable far more for other reasons separate from the mayoralty than he is as a mayor per se. Gerald Calabrese can certainly be mentioned in Cliffside Park's city article — and indeed he already is — but this is mostly unsourced information about mostly non-notable people, along with one additional person who may not even properly belong here at all, which is not a recipe for a list that we need to retain either by keeping or merging. Bearcat (talk) 16:19, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article's problems as described above are surmountable since deletion is not cleanup.Djflem (talk) 20:20, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satifies Wikipedia:SALAT, Wikipedia:LISTPURP, Wikipedia:CSC, Wikipedia:LISTCRITERIA, doesn't contravene Wikipedia:NOTDIR, (and because Wikipedia:Other stuff exists).Djflem (talk) 09:48, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm very dubious of the nominator's claim that "reliable sources do not exist." Historical governance in the Northeastern States is famously well studied and documented. Surely paper sources could be found. pburka (talk) 14:26, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSTBESOURCES. If sources surely exist, where are they?--Rusf10 (talk) 16:53, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can accurately say that your search for sources was not fruitful. You might even be able to claim all sources are simply routine coverage. But the idea that no reliable sources exist for 130 years of mayoral elections in a New Jersey city is an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence. pburka (talk) 20:38, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So attack me rather than prove notability? Giving me links to Google searches is not helpful, see WP:GOOGLEHITS. Your three actual sources don't establish notability. The first is nothing more than a list of alumni of New York University, it doesn't even provide biographical information, we're not a directory. Second source is a local history book written about the town, it may satisfy WP:V, but not notability, I probably can find a book like that for every small town in America. Third source also appears to be a directory, just like the first one.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:00, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've got a reasonable claim that the topic fails notability... thus my !vote above. However, claiming that it's also unverifiable is a reach. Clearly reliable sources exist which document the existence of historical mayors of New Jersey towns. pburka (talk) 23:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Pburka: May I suggest you consider Wikipedia:LISTN, a nom rationale which is dubious, since it clearly states (bold mine): One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources and There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability ... or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists...Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability...Also, as stated above by another editor:the value of a list of mayors does not necessarily vest in how many of them do or don't already have articles to link to . In other words, a list does not require that its entries be independently notable or "blue-linked" (a nom rationale that appears to be flawed). With such a finite list, as mentioned, it should be complete, which it now is. Given Category:Lists of mayors of places in the United States it is clear that the community consensus is is to keep this type of list.Djflem (talk) 07:14, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:HEY: concerns have been addressed & article has been significantly improved since it was nominated for deletion: version 11 May and version 22 May

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I closed this as delete but looks like I missed an improvement at the end so relisting the discussion to test whether the improved article has addressed the delete arguments. There is a discussion on my talk page if anyone is interested
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:44, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and move content to Cliffside Park, New Jersey --Cornellier (talk) 00:05, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying merge? Djflem (talk) 06:58, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The article's an oversourced mess at the moment. I don't think the topic itself is notable, but the information in the article has been improved and would be a valid list... I think the best solution here would be to clean this up into a table and move it over to the Cliffside Park article. What information there is on each mayor can be included in the article somehow. A mayor of the town isn't really all that notable, but there's no reason to delete this information now (it was expanded from when it was nominated.) SportingFlyer T·C 06:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No policy-grounded reason for deletion of this content has been advanced. The only legitimate question is whether the content should be included in the article on the municipality or spun out into a discrete list. That is noy an appropriate discussion for this forum. I also echo the concerns about the nominator's absurd claims that no reliable sources exist as to the mayoralty of a New Jersey city established in 1895, since both municipal records and newspapers from the entire time period exist. Statements like this, and the nominator's doubling down on them, indicate the nominator lacks the skills required to research and present deletion proposals. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 21:15, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Typical WP:IDONTLIKETHENOMINATOR WP:PERSONALATTACK. Even, though more sources have been discovered it only provides WP:V, not notability. The sources are nothing more than a collection of obituaries and the local town history book. If you search hard enough these sources can be found for almost any town in American and do not create notability.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:41, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:15, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Manoj Pillai

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

Sources don't establish notability. A Google search turned up a few results for a cinematographer of the same name. The article tone is too promotional. M4DU7 (talk) 20:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 20:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 20:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 20:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE Very well said @M4DU7: sometimes Sources don't establish notability this article purly sound paid edit. you should tag it with 'Advert' as well. I vote for Delete.Krishna Murthy DL (talk) 10:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear M4DU7 - Could you please elaborate the elements on this page (Manoj Pillai) that require clarification? Will be happy to furnish the necessary links / material to support them. Manoj Pillai is a notable writer and ad-film maker from Bangalore. There is a cinematographer by the same name, but the two have no connection with each other.106.51.28.60 (talk) 12:41, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Krithikamanohar: Please sign the messages by using delt 4 times i.e. ~ 4 times after writing your message. Feel free to ping me for help. Krishna Murthy DL (talk) 11:26, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Krishna Murthy DL: Have added delt 4 times after my earlier message 106.51.28.60 (talk) 12:46, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Krithikamanohar: @106.51.28.60: Kindly login into account and reply. @M4DU7: I think as you mentioned, the tone is promotional.

Delete a non-notable filmmaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:51, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Adverts and promotions not allowed here. इं. हेमंत बोरकर (talk) 14:03, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotion aside the sourcing falls way short of what is necessary to pass WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:31, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:15, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mark L. Rockefeller

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. Lots of paid advertising, name drop, mentions in relationship to company. No secondary sources present. Highly promotional spam. scope_creep^Talk 20:31, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:32, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:49, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely refbombed and once you peel away the non-reliable, non-independent sources there isn't much left and not enough to pass WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:07, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:16, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Kis-Lev

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

Non-notable artist. Appears to be an elaborate promotional/vanity page. Searching for this person on Google, I find mostly self-created promotional websites: Facebook, Youtube, etc, and some marketplace websites where I assume his art is for sale. No Google News articles discussing him. Google Books reveals a bunch of books written by him, but every single one is self-published on CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. Going through the References section, every link is either dead, or something published by the subject of the article himself, or a live link that doesn't mention Kis-Lev. Two major contributors to the article: one is Forever Art, who created the article and spent most of his other editing time adding Kis-Lev's artwork to other articles (most of that has been removed from those articles). The other is the similarly-named Psychology Forever, whose other edits are mostly adding Kis-Lev's self-published books to other articles as references. Seems likely that's the subject of the article doing the editing in both cases. JimKaatFan (talk) 20:22, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable individual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:41, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:41, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:41, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:41, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is just a big puffery job. I have to say it is pretty well put together for a subject that has no notability based on available sourcing. (Not really related to deletion, but this looks like an autobiography, along with the graffiti works The_Peace_Kids_(mural) 27_Club_graffiti_in_Tel_Aviv. The original author of this little WP:walled garden had not logged in for two years until a few days ago, so maybe we will hear from them.)ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

sock !votes

Keep I wrote the original article, having found out about this artist in Israel. In my view he is more than notable, given his work in Israel, especially peace work. There is much info about him in Hebrew and Arabic. However, if you think I did a bad job, feel free to delete this one. Forever Art (talk) 03:57, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable Jewish activist and artist. See an entire article about him on Israel's Xnet here ^[1], or in English in Zeek here ^[2]. Apparently his graffiti art is considered a must see in Israel according to "Forward" here. ^[3]. While I do not support graffiti, I see the merit of keeping this article.Art Lover 03:52, 8 June 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Art Lover (talk • contribs)

The two eight year old accounts above (Forever Art and Art Lover) were confirmed by checkuser to be same user. See this SPI. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:27, 8 June 2020 (UTC) [reply]

References

keep Israeli dude, mediocre notability, but meets WP:ARTIST:

→Authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals:

→1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. →2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique. →3. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. →4. The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. אמנות או נמות (talk) 04:06, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note for whoever ends up making the decision on this deletion: Users Art Lover, Forever Art and אמנות או נמות all participated in the creation of the Kis-Lev article back in 2012. אמנות או נמות has only 6 contributions to Wikipedia in over 8 years. Art Lover had not made an edit since 2015, and just reappeared to comment on this deletion. JimKaatFan (talk) 16:11, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with what you are saying. I believe this is plainly a case of long-term promotion across numerous subjects and articles. Art Lover actually created the first draft for the Kis-Lev article in their sandbox. They deleted the draft, and six minutes later Forever Art published it under their account. This is all back in 2012. Anyway, it should all unravel shortly, just waiting for checkuser. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:20, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The SPI confirmed that Art Lover and Forever Art were the same user. Art Lover's original account name was User:Jonathan Kis-Lev, so this is 8 years of self-promotion.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:16, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gamera 4: Truth

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

Non-notable fan film; previously deleted: 1 2 - Flori4nKT A L K 19:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. - Flori4nKT A L K 19:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. - Flori4nKT A L K 19:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This fanfilm has had articles created, and then deleted via AFD, twice already, and nothing has changed this time around. This fanfilm just does not have sources that allow it to pass the WP:GNG. The director seems to have gone on to get a modicum of notability since this fanfilm, and there are a few sources mentioning him and the original films he went on to make. But the only coverage in those sources of this fanfilm are just brief mentions as something he had made in the past. Rorshacma (talk) 20:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the only sources covering this film are one line passing mentions in articles about the other films the director has made. Fails WP:GNG. Ym2X (talk) 21:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon Vyff

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

No evidence of notability per WP:GNG, WP:NSCIENTIST or even WP:FRINGE. Reliable Sources are a couple of news articles about her diet; the rest is inside-fringe. Notability claims raised on talk, not addressed in years; previously PRODed in 2015 (after two A7 speedies in 2010). David Gerard (talk) 18:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 18:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 18:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 18:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails our notability guidelines on fringe figures.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:44, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Diddy laugh

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

Per WP:N. Topic is not notable, and the only reference is based on a personal blog. Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 18:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 18:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 18:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not even remotely notable, and too trivial to be featured anywhere as a redirect. Delete per WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 18:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass WP:GNG imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:56, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice against creation of a "List of..." for this sort of list. Primefac (talk) 18:33, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of file verification software

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

this list fails WP:NOT as original research. There are a handful of notable software but it's been nothing but a spam target for years and I would suggest only the notable (ie. existing articles) entries be moved to List of file verification software as "comparison" is original research. Praxidicae (talk) 18:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Pi (Talk to me!) 18:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is problematic for a few reasons. Firstly, as Praxidicae mentions, the overwhelming majority of the software listed in the article are not notable and improperly include external links to places where you can purchase or download said software. As a result, this has made the page a very attractive target for people who wish to promote a particular product. This, of course, is not a reason to delete the article in itself, since we could simply just clean up the article to remove any non-notable software. This leads me to the second issue. After reviewing the few entries on this list that are bluelinks to Wikipedia articles, I discovered that for several of the programs, "file verification" is not their primary purpose: e.g. 7-Zip (file compression), TeraCopy (copying files between drives), Total Commander (file manager). As a result, it seems much of this list is a conglomeration of divergent pieces of software that just happen to have file verification as a side-feature, which makes this toe close to the line of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. What's left are programs that are able to calculate cryptographic hashes or checksums as their primary purpose, e.g. md5deep, sha3sum, and cksum. However, I am skeptical that these relatively esoteric pieces of software are sufficient to sustain the notability of this kind of comparison article per WP:LISTN. Mz7 (talk) 19:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Mz7 (talk) 19:21, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTCATALOGUE, WP:NOTLINKFARM and WP:NOR. The function of Wikipedia is not to be a product comparison site. Ajf773 (talk) 20:15, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One option is to trim the tables to notable examples only and merge to File verification; we have kept plenty of similar comparison tables/lists but there's probably not a need for it to be standalone here. I'm noting FWIW that there is no corresponding category for Category:File verification software. postdlf (talk) 20:37, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Postdlf ftr, I did try trimming it but was repeatedly called a vandal, so seemed like AFD was the only logical option. Praxidicae (talk) 14:04, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AFD is not for resolving content disputes. I see you posted this AFD not even a half hour after first posting to the talk page, rather than seeing how discussion proceeded or seeking additional editor input. You also could have reported the inexperienced editor reverting you for edit warring. postdlf (talk) 18:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not using it to solve a dispute and I'm well acquainted with proper venues. Ideally I would have just been able to be bold and clean it up and do what I suggested but given the opposition, it seemed AFD is the best venue since it should be deleted in it's current form. This is the norm for AFD. Praxidicae (talk) 19:19, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are a few hundred software comparison articles on Wikipedia (see Category:Software_comparisons). I know that "other stuff exists" is a bad argument to make at AfD, but it would be great if we could deal with these articles systematically. Obviously notability and policies like WP:NOTDIR are factors here. But is there an overall consensus on this type of article? BenKuykendall (talk) 01:08, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BenKuykendall I am for the nuclear option here and think Comparison of ... articles for the most part should be deleted per WP:NOT, since by their nature they almost all rely on original research. But in this particular case, I don't see any value for this article, hence my single AFD. Praxidicae (talk) 14:02, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If this is being used as a test case then it is appropriate to noifity appropriate WikiProjects as that is a WikiProject level interest beyond normal alerts Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:25, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Comparison of XYZ articles are often deleted, particularly if they are badly sourced. This one seems to be nothing but a directory of software, most entries of which are not notable. Reyk _YO! 11:36, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Collis St Hill

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

Seems to have been a standard soldier, who did not do anything very significant except live in an upper-middle-class family. Notability, however, is not inherited. Otherwise, a fail of WP:NSOLDIER as a lieutenant colonel and a mention in despatches isn't significant enough by itself. A google search indicates no in-depth coverage to meet WP:NPERSON independently. In the article, sourcing is either unreliable (i.e. self-published genealogy sites) or not in-depth (like the CWGC source) Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:09, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:15, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:15, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:SOLDIER, nothing notable about him or his service. Mztourist (talk) 06:27, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:SOLDIER, no evidence that he did anything noteworthy. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:06, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:33, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

William Dixon (MYP)

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

WP:BLP (actually likely WP:AUTOBIO based on the creator's username) of a youth politician, not properly referenced as passing Wikipedia's inclusion standards. A youth parliament is not an WP:NPOL-passing office, so he's not automatically entitled to have an article just because he exists -- his includability would depend on showing that he's been the subject of enough reliable source coverage in real media to clear WP:GNG. But the footnotes here are entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability at all, such as his own self-published website about himself and the self-published website of the youth parliament. This is not how you make a person at this level of prominence notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Bearcat (talk) 17:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Probably a good idea to remove this and have a separate page for the Wakefield Youth Council itself, as it has been covered in local and national press. There are a few non suitable articles available on local press, I believe, but they represent the Youth Council rather than a specific. It is therefore difficult to justify why this article should be allowed on Wikipedia. Will d601 (talk) 10:18, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete youth politicians are not notable for such and there are no other signs of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:07, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Youth politicians" are not notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:47, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Why the scare quotes, Necrothesp? RobinCarmody (talk) 00:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because the whole concept of youth politics, like student politics, is divorced from the real world. What exactly is a "youth politician"? Any idea that they may be notable just adds to their self-importance. Particularly when the article was likely written by the gentleman himself. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close. Duplicate nomination, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Oake (2nd nomination) (non-admin closure) Dps04 (talk) 17:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Oake

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

NN local radio personality. No achievements that rise to the level of WP:NCREATIVE. Entire career in one market, and not a major market locale either. Fails WP:ANYBIO. John from Idegon (talk) 17:31, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:32, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Oake

AfDs for this article:

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

NN local radio personality. No achievements that rise to the level of WP:NCREATIVE. Entire career in one market, and not a major market locale either. Fails WP:ANYBIO. John from Idegon (talk) 17:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. John from Idegon (talk) 17:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Single market radio hosts are almost never notable. Back in 2008 we would keep all sorts of articles we have since come to realize were on people who clearly were not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- We need an essay: WP:WEUSEDTONOTCAREBUTNOWWEDO. What JPL says is absolutely correct. John from Idegon (talk) 20:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:32, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sono Khan Lashari

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

I can't find enough sources to figure out which (if any) of the potentially existing places with the name this article is trying to be about. The articles says it's a town (city?) in Hyderabad District, Sindh, Pakistan. The version of the article until earlier today [5] had a population figure that was sourced to a webpage that doesn't seem to have any mention of the place. The article listed coordinates that were right in the middle of the city of Hyderabad (presumably an artefact of a copy-and-paste from Hyderabad (Pakistan)), but the article's text mentions different coordinates, which seem to place the town instead in Tando Muhammad Khan District (which was part of Hyderabad District before 2005). Wikimapia has an entry too, but for a place in yet another part of Tando Muhammad Khan [6]. Google maps has an entry for a Sono Khan Lashari village, but that's in a different direction from the city of Hyderabad. There's nothing in Geonames, and I can't find anything reliable on google (though I've only searched in English, not Urdu).

Maybe there is a place, or maybe more than one place, with the name that's notable, but until reliable sources are found, we can't keep this article. WP:TNT applies to a large extent: the only content in the article history is two sentences about the languages (probably alright, but unsourced), a list of generic links that was probably copied from another article, and a few small sections about a local "notable family" that were puffery through and through. – Uanfala (talk) 17:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 17:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional bio coatracked in a geo article. Gotitbro (talk) 00:14, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep, and sanctions for disruption will be imposed if you make more nominations that are so grossly erroneous. Nyttend (talk) 00:30, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Myxter

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

Micro stub which does not appear to reach the WP:NPOL requirement for Significant coverage. References at this time consist of Legislature directory page, An "independent" directory page, and a trivial mention in a list of many election returns. This was page was created by an editor who is currently subject to editing restrictions regarding creation of pages. Hasteur (talk) 17:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hasteur (talk) 17:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Hasteur (talk) 17:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. Hasteur (talk) 17:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: this is ridiculous. You cite NPOL, but have you actually read it? Lee Myxter held a "state/province–wide office" as proven by a government website. That means he's clearly notable. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:38, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NPOL is a guideline, not a rule. Per the top of the section that includes NPOL: meeting one or more [additional criteria] does not guarantee that a subject should be included. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 17:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my stated rationale. It is also irrelevant that the article creator is under a restriction, since it is that very restriction which forces them through the AfC process; still, since WP:BMB does not apply, an editor's restrictions are a distraction at best. ——Serial^# 17:42, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly meets NPOL. I will emphasize that NPOL is not just any old SNG. I point to footnote 12 linked from there, which reads "this criterion ensures that our coverage of major political offices, incorporating all of the present and past holders of that office, will be complete regardless." So, this goes above and beyond just "a claim to notability that hints at a strong possibility that GNG can be met with a deep enough dig". Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep per TryKid, not really sure any way that one can swing delete here. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 18:08, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to pass WP:POLITICIAN easily as he has been a member of a legislative body. Theroadislong (talk) 18:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. State legislators have a straight pass of WP:NPOL #1. The current quality of the article is not relevant to their keepability at all — state legislators always have media coverage, and we're just not always on the ball about actually finding and using all of it, which is not the same thing as coverage not existing in the first place. And since the creator used the AFC process, and the article was approved by an AFC reviewer who isn't under any similar restrictions, the original creator's restriction on creating articles is not a problem either since external oversight was involved. And yes, when it comes to state legislators our goal is to be as complete as feasibly possible a reference for all of them, not to pick and choose that some are more notable than others for some arbitrary reason outside of their having being covered by the media in the context of holding a notable political office — so precisely because better sourcing does exist to repair an inadequate article about a state legislator with, articles about state legislators are not deleted just for not already being in better shape than they are. Plus the AFC reviewer has personally already done some work on improving the sourcing here, so this article is already in better shape than it was at the time of nomination. Bearcat (talk) 21:35, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Straight pass of WP:NPOL. The goal is to have biographies of all federal and statewide elected officials. Whether or not the current state of an article is a stub, there will be sources available to improve the article. --Enos733 (talk) 22:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:31, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gurudath Musuri

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

Reviewed under new article curation process. No indication of wp:notability. No wp:GNG-suitable coverage, no claims relevant to SNG. The references only mention him as the cinematographer for the movie that they are discussing. Two of the films that he was cinematographer for have wikipedia articles. Has been tagged for notability since December. North8000 (talk) 21:50, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:11, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:59, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:59, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:00, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't seem notable. Especially since the couple of films he worked on hardly are themselves. It's hard to be notable in the film industry, let alone in Wikipedia, that way. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable as either an actor or filmmaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:27, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NBIO. Drat8sub (talk) 19:37, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The subject's name seem to be misspelt. "Gurudutt Musuri" yields some results. Dflaw4 (talk) 07:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Only relisting to allow further investigation on possible mis-spelling. Otherwise consensus is clearly delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:22, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:31, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kramm, California

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

An extremely isolated passing siding, in a wilderness with nothing else for miles. It's not even served by a road. Searching is a problem because of a common last name but the one good hit I got was in a gazetteer of railroad placenames. Mangoe (talk) 17:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a community, not notable, another United States Geological Survey stub that should never have been created. --Cornellier (talk) 17:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:38, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Renee Michelle

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

Fails WP:PWBIO. No indication of notability in reliable, independent sources. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:43, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:43, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:43, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not very much coverage on reliable sources. [7] Most of them are talking about his husband. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:21, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable professional wrestler.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:36, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:35, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a handful of WWE appearances, and being married to James doesn't make notability. Fails GNG Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:22, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:PWBIO and even WP:GNG. The fact that the article has been created and curated by a kamikaze account only worsens its credentials. -The Gnome (talk) 20:38, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero characters (H–L)#Hardtop. Sandstein 19:21, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Defiant (G.I. Joe)

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

More G.I. Joe action figure cruft. Sourced to comics, an "official" G.I. Joe book (primary source), and a book claiming to be a comprehensive guide of every G.I. Joe action figure or toy ever created ("including all of the easy to lose parts"). A WP:BEFORE search turns up mostly unreliable fansites and personal websites, action figure/toy databases (user-generated), and sales sites. WP:GNG fail. Hog Farm (talk) 16:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 16:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 16:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero characters (H–L)#Hardtop. Since this is sourced entirely to primary sources, with the exception of one book, published by the same company that published the “official” primary source books, that would not be enough to pass GNG even if it was a reliable source and provided significant coverage. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:35, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero vehicles per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 04:17, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:19, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Triibe

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

Triibe does not exist (any longer!?), website forwards to a Japanese spam advertiser CommanderWaterford (talk) 13:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - you beat me to the AfD nomination. However, the fact that a product is no longer made is not a cause to delete it from Wikipedia. I would argue the deletion reason is that this is very definitely a non-notable product. A Google search does not suggest this is a product that the world has taken much notice of. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:32, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable source exists.Drat8sub (talk) 13:36, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: nn; found no sigcov. - Flori4nKT A L K 16:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The lack of reliable, secondary sources shows that this product was never notable, and the fact that it appears to now be long defunct means that its highly unlikely it ever will become notable in the future. Rorshacma (talk) 16:13, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There is consensus to not keep this. Most "keep" opinions do not make much sense in the context of our policies and guidelines. Less clear is how to not keep it. "Keep & Merge" and "Delete & Merge" are both mutually exclusive and are therefore disregarded. There is some support for merging, but it is not clear what could or should be merged where to. Redirect isn't really advocated here, probably because the title isn't an obvious search term. As a result, plain "delete" is probably the most consensual option. Sandstein 19:17, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Entertainment industry response to George Floyd protests

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

Whilst it maybe sourced we do not have to have page (and certainly something that is not much more than a list) on every view on every subject. Slatersteven (talk) 13:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ Delete or Weak redirect to George_Floyd_protests   Kadzi   (talk) 13:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather we did not add a huge list of random celelbs to this article.Slatersteven (talk) 13:26, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting to change my mind to agree with you, having seen (and proposed for deletion) other similar articles to do with the riots etc, any credible celebrity actions will automatically be included into the actual articles. Changed views accordingly.   Kadzi   (talk) 14:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

I do not believe this should be deleted, as it captures the individual reactions to these protests, which is something that is not often captured or paid much attention to during large historical events. It's not crucially important, but I believe it has value and especially should not be deleted. Uelly (talk) 20:41, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This practice is very common when it comes to endorsements of political candidates, and this in fact goes into more detail. The movement that is presently going on is important to report on, and this support is part of that. I would not have spent so long on the page if I didn't believe that.

I specifically created this new page because I did not want to have specific names fill too much of the original. Instead, I wanted it to have its own space in order to discuss how the entertainment industry as a whole -- not only celebrities -- has been responding to this pivotal time. It's also why I have tried to add details on each figure's stance, and not merely their name, which is in fact more detailed than presidential endorsement list pages.

I additionally plan to expand this page in the coming days to include more total content about what is happening. There is controversy over certain facets of the responses, and I have yet to see much in the way of opposition to the protests within the entertainment industry. I will be curious to see more in the coming days. Making a page for any currently occurring event is difficult. Hopefully we can make this page even better as a community. PickleG13 (talk) 14:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a political candidate.Slatersteven (talk) 14:14, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are, in many ways, more arguments to be made for having a social movement and the support given (which here is totaling in the hundreds of thousands of dollars and many protests) than for a political candidate generally. It is a similar issue. PickleG13 (talk) 14:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative of new Response page

While I think and will continue to defend this page as being a valid one that contributes well to Wikipedia's mission as well as the public interest, there could also be a possibility of creating a new page titled Response to George Floyd protests, which could include this plus various commentators and politicians. Responses by high profile figures, verified by reputable sources, are rather crammed into the original. Creating a new page of this kind could also solve the problem. I wish to work with the community to find the best solution that puts this work to use! PickleG13 (talk) 14:14, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Any comments by high profile figures go in the main article, the problem is "and here is what the cast of this years America's version of TOWIE thinks".Slatersteven (talk) 14:19, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unencyclopedic trivia; WP:INDISCRIMINATE applies. There's no indication of why these individuals have any particular credibility in the field or qualifications that make them an authority whose opinions we should report for their value.
This discussion is pretty clear on the nil-value of such an article; as Slatersteven noted, why is what some celeb thinks is ever relevant...except to their fans, of course. For the record: Do not merge; anything salvageable will make its way to the parent article. ——Serial^# 14:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject fails WP:GNG, WP:LISTN, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. This is a current event and Wikipedia is not here to host this sort of slacktivism. Let's wait twenty years for responsible history to be written upon the statements of celebrities and then this article can be developed. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:35, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right lets wait to see who and what is actually high profile rather than "get my fizog in the news for a bit of free publicity".Slatersteven (talk) 14:37, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What is this, a stan list? We already have a page for Blackout Tuesday, which is already closely linked. As I said earlier on the talk page of the protests, if we want to add responses from the entertainment industry, it must be someone of considerable following who has done something substantial, like Cole Sprouse getting arrested, Halsey joining the protests and Taylor Swift criticising Trump. If we are going to add every celebrity who has like, posted, about it, the page is gonna be long as hell. Nahnah4 (talk | contribs) 16:13, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is all a bit crufty.Slatersteven (talk) 16:19, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is merely about celebrities saying things or donating money. This article would only be valid if it were about things like concerts being cancelled & filming being stopped because of the protests. Jim Michael (talk) 16:28, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I concede that cruft arguments have a point, but in the current situation where people are locked at home paying disproportionate attention to "public opinion leaders" which for better or worse, include the cultural elite (also known as "entertainment industry" -- I know some will cringe at Taylor Swift being called a "cultural elite" but her influence on certain demographics is indeed relevant). Additionally, this is a nice way to keep the info, but move it off the main page. I would also support a merge to include other public opinion leaders, including politicians, other public figures such as famous scientists, philosophers, columnists, et cetera. --Calthinus (talk) 16:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why would we want it on any WP article? It's trivia. Many celebs are using it as an opportunity to look good & gain media coverage for themselves. Jim Michael (talk) 17:07, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All culture is political and all politics is culture. The "irrelevance" argument is hinged on this idea that public figures do not matter. Loads of research suggests the opposite. Of course some selectiveness is warranted, but when people underestimate the influence of even low-brow pop singers to effect politics, they do so at their own , etc [8]. --Calthinus (talk) 17:15, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You mentioned Swift, but Swift is just one of the many celebrities out there. This can easily be added into the initial article itself, without the need of this article which is almost just like a stan list. Nahnah4 (talk | contribs) 17:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nahnah4: absolutely agree about the need for selectiveness -- hence why I started the thread over at Talk:George Floyd protests. But deletion is WP:NOTCLEANUP -- the topic is notable, though, as I've said, it should be expanded to include all impactful public figures, not just those in the so-called "entertainment industry". The discussion about which celebrities should not be on a "stan list" (don't really know what this means tbh) is one for establishing inclusion criteria, not deleting a whole page. One good criterion would be if there is independent RS coverage of the celebrity's statements -- if is adequately covered by significant RS, then it is warranted, exactly in line with WP:DUE. --Calthinus (talk) 17:21, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per Jim Michael. There is no denying that public figures like celebrities are incredibly influential, and that Taylor Swift can make a Tweet about Trump and get 2 million likes from it, but there really has no encyclopedic value to listing every celebrity who have responded to this. There has been an influx of celebrities who have supported the movement, are you going to name every single artist who has a Wikipedia page? From the initial article, we have already mentioned that the support from the entertainment industry has been overwhelming, so it should already give readers a sense of how positive the response was, without needing to list out everything. If we really want to mention celebrities, mention the ones that have done more than what other people had done. But the thing about this is also that we can't really define who did what that is considered more "impactful". Nahnah4 (talk | contribs) 17:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. There is a criterion for notability if not "impact": WP:RS coverage. If the celeb in question is not deemed by any RS to matter, they won't cover it. For example, this means we'd keep Trevor Noah, but remove Hardwick... Noah is covered by RS, Hardwick is sourced only to Instagram. --Calthinus (talk) 17:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What notability is there from celebs saying things? That doesn't do anything. Jim Michael (talk) 19:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A personal opinion. Personally I find the obsession with celebs annoying as well. But this is not our place. RS determine notability. Not Wikipedia editors. --Calthinus (talk) 20:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge - Keep, or merge to Blackout Tuesday. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:03, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:LISTN and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Such a list is destined to grow to unreasonable size, and convey little to no meaningful info. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - are we also going to need to start an article for the response from the sports industry? What about the hospitality business? This article's only purpose seems to be for keeping tabs on which celebrities have responded and which haven't. If any of their responses were particularly notable, then perhaps this article would approach being encyclopedic. But as it is, it's just an indiscriminate list. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 21:04, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The sports industry is entertainment. Perhaps we can add a section on that on this page. Won't even have to change the title of the article. Kire1975 (talk) 02:09, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was being sarcastic. A list of reactions is not inherently notable unless the reactions themselves are notable or have received significant attention from reliable sources. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 03:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, if presented with sources on this page that have received significant attention from reliable sources, that would change your position then? --Calthinus (talk) 04:01, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any salvageable content (such as coverage to be had on a few select celebrities supporting BLM) to George Floyd protests under a subsection, Delete the rest, with a reminder to the article creator that Wikipedia is not a news reporter, it is not an indiscriminate repository of information, it is an encyclopedia first and foremost. Topic does not pass WP:LISTN at this point in time. --letcreate123 (talk) 22:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge Most of the article of composed of inessential, miscellaneous responses that are of little interest or importance to anyone outside of the fanbases of the individuals and organisations making those responses. How Queen's lead guitarist or Cartoon Network responded to this uprising has no correlation to the uprising itself. However, specific elements of it (especially significant responses from prominent African American entertainment figures such as Jamie Foxx and Tessa Thompson) can be merged into other articles about the protests, where necessary. PlanetDeadwing (talk) 23:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to George Floyd protests, while this is just a list of people and organisations vaguely related to the entertainment industry who have commented on the ongoing events, there are several very significant people here whose comments have received a lot of attention, and that is worth covering at the main article to a greater degree than it is already. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Merge a lot of these pages are already huge and unwieldy. Dividing it up into multiple pages is standard practices hence the Category:Death of George floyd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kire1975 (talk • contribs)

Keep It's notable and can only be improved. Deleting it is censorship and prevents any possibilty of improving it. Merging it is unneccesary. Kire1975 (talk) 02:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kire1975, how is deleting this article censorship? —valereee (talk) 15:16, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Trivial unencyclopedic WP:NOTNEWS. None of the responses by the celebrities are notable, and if by chance one or two were, they can go in the main article. The page adds precisely zero to the project. Black Kite (talk) 08:36, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just a collection of soundbites. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or soft merge As per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Trivial and redundant lists of random celebrities joining protests and giving money isn't notable on its own and does not warrant an entire article dedicated to it. It can be summed up in one sentence in the main George Floyd protests page that a number of celebrities supported the cause, if it's even notable enough to mention. RopeTricks (talk) 11:36, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and don't merge. This is all trivia. —valereee (talk) 17:44, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & Merge into a new page only for reactions as is done with major international events. Idan (talk) 17:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Celebrity trivia doesn't warrant its own page, nor does a repository of Twitter/Instagram support. KidAd (talk) 18:29, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & Merge: This entire list doesn't provide meaningful information, and it can be summarized on the main page if needed. 9gfg06w2 ✉ 18:44, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This could be a worthwile spin-off article but there would have to be more stuff here. Its a bit too small for now.★Trekker (talk) 21:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:54, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:54, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is not encyclopedia worthy. WP:IAR or as a WP:ATD-M selective merge. No need for a standalone. Lightburst (talk) 13:55, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This can be covered in one of the main articles, and probably doesn't merit a list of every celebrity who has tweeted support or attended an event (hence not !voting to merge). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:57, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & Merge into a new page only for Reactions to the George Floyd protests as is precedented: Reactions to the 2019–20 Hong Kong protests. However, list may need to be edited down or the formatting may need to be changed. --Xicanx (talk) 07:19, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & Merge, are you saying we keep this page, and add the material into a new one as well?Slatersteven (talk) 18:32, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - we do not need a list of random celeberties that have to chime in to controversy. This happens in every event. Can easily be covered in the main article, and is a clear violation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Inter&anthro (talk) 03:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/partial merge Fully agree with description of this being mere "chiming in". It baffles me why anyone thought attendance at a protest or tweets in support is encyclopedic content that needs to be catalogued like this. If they had an impact on specific protests such a speaking at them, that should be listed at the respective [Protests in Location] article, not listed with other unrelated musicians or actors or whatever at celebrity trivia. Reywas92^Talk 22:00, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I understand the passion behind this list, but to put it politely, Wikipedia is not the place for this kind of list. It's a clear violation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The list can be useful, but it's better suited for a blog or something else. Songwaters (talk) 02:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:11, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ECPlaza

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

Not notable or enough reliable sources Wikieditor600 (talk) 13:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not finding significant RS coverage to satisfy WP:NWEB or WP:CORP. After the copyvio spam was removed from this "leading" B2B's article, the remaining stub is left with superlative claims sourced to the subject and event participation fluff. An independent search for coverage only got trivial mentions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about the portal. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 03:27, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Qype. Sandstein 19:11, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stephan Uhrenbacher

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

He's got a lot of money, but is he notable? References are not really about him. Rathfelder (talk) 12:19, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 12:19, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 12:19, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Qype, the company he founded. Doesn't independently meet WP:GNG or WP:NPERSON. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:14, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:48, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:10, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michelangelo Azzariti

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

Not a notable photographer. No professional accomplishments to note. Becoming a photographer for fashion bloggers Giulia Gaudino, Frank Gallucci, Nicole Pizzato does not meet the requirements of the WP:NARTIST Vexations (talk) 12:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:51, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:51, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:51, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete because I don't think you can vote Speedy Delete here. Promotional article with no RS - just blogs and content farm promocruft. Total GNG and NARTIST fail.Theredproject (talk) 17:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable photographer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:31, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:10, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick van Ypersele de Strihou

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

Nothing explaining why this person is notable. The only thing I could find is that he was a member of a think-tank (where this article is linked), and related to a king’s private secretary. RedBulbBlueBlood9911Talk 11:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. RedBulbBlueBlood9911Talk 11:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. RedBulbBlueBlood9911Talk 11:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article isn't even attempting to claim that he's ever held any WP:NPOL-passing office, and it's not referenced to any reliable sources whatsoever for the purposes of getting him over WP:GNG as a thinktanker per se. Bearcat (talk) 17:19, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable politician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:36, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close. As a draft, this is not eligible for AfD. Further, this was self-requested by the article author and is WP:CSD#G7-eligible. I will change the tag accordingly. (non-admin closure) --Finngall ^talk 14:51, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Gian maurizio fercioni

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

Reason Eliza Beatriz Herrera (talk) 09:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 June 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 19:10, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sámi Dieđalaš Áigečála

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

PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." DePRODded by article creator who added an in-passing mention and claims notability because this is the first journal publishing in this language. However, that is not a claim for notability. Neither does a GScholar search unearth any evidence for this being "widely cited" as claimed on the article talk page. PROD reason still stands, hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 19:12, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this topic appears to fall below our notability threshold but given its unusual status as a minority language publication there’s a case for keeping it anyway. Mccapra (talk) 19:43, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:49, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:49, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Gbooks search shows multiple English-language titles that cite articles from Sámi Dieđalaš Áigečála. The added citation is not a "passing reference"; it's an article on where scholars at Sámi University publish in the context of the school's mission to support Sámi languages; that SDÁ is the most frequent outlet for articles written in Northern Sámi is relevant and indicative of the journal's value. It also demonstrates that, within the context of the Northern Sámi language, that the journal is "known for its publishing of scholarly research" (per WP:NJournals over the past 26 years. I'd also point to this quote from the Research Council of Norway's Evaluation of the Humanities in Norway: Report from Panel 2 – Nordic Languages and Linguistics: "The Sámi-language journal Sámi dieđalaš áigečála plays an important role. Although its dissemination is limited by its language, the fact that an exclusively Sámi-language linguistic journal of high quality exists is necessary for Sámi to be considered a fully-fledged language." Northern Sámi is a small language and therefore will not have hundreds of citations, particularly in English. Clearly SDÁ meets criteria 1 and criteria 3 of WP:NJournals, and it meets criteria 2 if one takes into consideration the size of the language community involved. Carter (talk) 19:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:39, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per the reasoning of Carter. Mccapra (talk) 10:23, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The reasoning of Carter is incorrect, this journal misses all three criteria of NJournals. Even predatory journals (which this isn't) will collect a smattering of citations; that this journal hasn't gathered more in 26 years of existence is testimony to it being not notable. The Norwegian evaluation is done by the very people who publish in this journal. The size of the language community is irrelevant, of course. As Carter says, " its dissemination is limited". If this journal had even minimal notability, it would have been picked up by at least a few specialized databases, such as the MLA International Bibliography. --Randykitty (talk) 10:36, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Research Council of Norway is not the publisher of Sámi Dieđalaš Áigečála, although it does provide funding to the universities that publish it, and the panel who wrote the report (listed on page 77) does not (in an admittedly quick spot check) appear to include anyone who has been published in it. SDÁ is a Level 2 publication in the Norwegian Scientific Index, which is "reserved for the internationally most prestigious publication channels". This alone should meet criteria 1 ("influential in its subject area"). It is clear from Google Scholar that SDÁ is frequently cited in papers that publish in Sámi languages and articles about Sámi language and culture; without access to MLA International Bibliography, it's hard to say how frequently such topics are even covered in that resource, which is why the size of the language community and the corresponding academic interest in it matters in assessing criteria 2. As for criteria 3, the establishment of SDÁ is historically relevant and notable for Sámi scholarship, as noted in the Research Council of Norway report. Carter (talk) 14:36, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I'm not at all convinced. Norway is a small country (population-wise) and the two universities that sponsor this journal are prominently represented in the RCN. --Randykitty (talk) 14:53, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you think the RCN report's process was a self-evaluation. It was not. Each panel consisted of "independent Humanities scholars from a range of European countries." Panel 2 (the one cited above) was made up of scholars from England, Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland. This was part of a major, multi-year effort to critically assess and benchmark Norwegian scholarship and research. Carter (talk) 15:52, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep - though I'm not sure whether comments on a closed discussion are acceptable. In my opinion, the article is sufficiently notable on the basis of the sources quoted. Any additional sources are likely to be in Sami or other Nordic languages which are not easily accessible to the English-speaking community. I therefore think the article to be kept in its present form.--Ipigott (talk) 10:09, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 St. Cloud Technical and Community College#Athletics. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 09:18, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SCTCC Cyclones Men's Basketball

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

A article about a non-notable team, sourced only by non-independent sources, competing in a non-notable league, which is also sourced entirely by its own website. None of the other teams in this league have an article. Cabayi (talk) 09:38, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The notability guidelines say "All teams that have played in the national level of the league structure are assumed to meet WP:N criteria"......This team did play in the national tournament of their level (the NJCAA) this past season. Souptowndude2009 (talk) 11:43, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added another source: why is this being flagged? And "non-notable" is a very subjective criteria. The team is notable enough that I took the time to make this page and research the information that I included on it. Souptowndude2009 (talk) 11:09, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 09:38, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 09:38, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 09:38, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. This does not belong here unless independent sources exist. – Sabbatino (talk) 15:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to St. Cloud Technical and Community College#Athletics. It's a possible search term, and redirects are WP:CHEAP, anyways. Ejgreen77 (talk) 20:57, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect - per Ejgreen77 and ATD. John from Idegon (talk) 09:19, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. WP:EFFORT applies here in the case of the page creator; although SNGs can be useful in guiding page creation, all are intended as compliments to WP:GNG. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 14:00, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 18:43, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abduvohid Nematov

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

Didn't have a fruitful search on Google, asked at WT:FOOTBALL, but as far as I can see, player fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Govvy (talk) 08:49, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Govvy (talk) 08:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Govvy (talk) 08:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom; not played in a fully professional league or a top-tier international. No WP:GNG coverage. Eagleash (talk) 14:26, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:14, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:35, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment :Subjact has played for Uzbek National team during the Olyumpic qualifiers including the match against Australia here.There is coverage in the Uzbek language.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:03, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SNOW. The article has already been moved, and the name should probably be discussed elsewhere in any case. Bishonen | tålk 15:02, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trump bible controversy

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

Non notable as an event, should be included within main event page of the protests?   Kadzi   (talk) 08:41, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions.   Kadzi   (talk) 08:41, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.   Kadzi   (talk) 08:41, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to protests article, not notable. This isn't a news site. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
merge per above. As appalling as this incident was, it's only a paragraph in the larger story.Mangoe (talk) 13:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect Seems highly trivial even know this type of story will annoy loads of people. Govvy (talk) 13:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without leaving a redirect and merge any useful content to an appropriate article. WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENTISM. Mangoe is right that this is just part of the larger story, and not a story on its own. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:31, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: Not quite noteworthy enough for a separate article. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 17:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, not independently notable. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Striking my own comment because the article has been moved and expanded. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 04:52, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I change my vote to KEEP ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:36, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Page has been merged to George Floyd protests in Washington, D.C. Reywas92^Talk 19:43, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Muboshgu. Love of Corey (talk) 20:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the problem with news, is that it develops, and while 30 seconds later, nothing is notable ... things change. Now that Trump has been denounced by both the Anglican Bishop of Washington, and the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Washington (in the name of Pope John Paul II for the June 1 (and now June 2) visits), has this since become independently notable? I added two references to the article. Nfitz (talk) 20:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but rename ~~and rewrite~~. No merge.. This is a notable event. However, it is not really about using the Bible, but about the Photo op session by Donald Trump. Or maybe it should be something like 2020 St. John's Church incident (someone already created it in talk page space). To make the session he ordered to attack people who demonstrated peacefully in DC. That must be emphasized here, although the misuse of the Bible to justify evil actions is also notable. My very best wishes (talk) 20:49, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, here is the actual story as described in sources [9]. "The President of the United States delivered a speech about the need to "dominate" the streets in the wake of protests that have arisen following the death of George Floyd, a black man who was held down and killed while in Minneapolis police custody. Then the President, in a transparent attempt to push back on the storyline that he had to be whisked to a bunker below the White House to protect him from protesters in DC last Friday [10], strolled across H Street to St. John's Church and held a Bible aloft shortly after police had forcefully cleared peaceful protesters from Lafayette Park." My very best wishes (talk) 00:26, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with George Floyd protests as a non-independently notable subject at best. This is footnote-worthy at best. --letcreate123 (talk) 22:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing vote to Keep in light of the numerous coverage that the subject has received independently of the George Floyd incident, and the fact that the article has since been expanded to include this coverage. IMO, this was a case of WP:TOOSOON for the article to have been created, but it now meets general notability guidelines. --letcreate123 (talk) 01:55, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep content somewhere. It's relevant content, and should either be part of its own page on the controversial photo op, or merge the content to the "George Floyd protests in Washington, D.C." article. Paintspot Infez (talk) 23:42, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move -- to Photo op sessions by Donald Trump (plural now, two different religious institutions) or something more specific. I would have agree with the deletion yesterday--but the continung news suggests to me that this might well be a major issue. abovee.it's a bad title anyway, because the controversy is about his using the church, not specifically about his holding up the bible. DGG ( talk ) 00:03, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Donald Trump photo op sessions controversy, perhaps, unless you want to bring every photo op he's done into scope. There's likely thousands of verifiable ones. —Cryptic 00:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Photo-op" may be perceived as editorializing the event. While it was inarguably a photo-op, it also may have represented something much more significant to Trump. We should remain objective and not include that phrase in the title. The topic also more broadly covers law enforcement actions separate from the actual photo op. - Wikmoz (talk) 01:15, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's a considerable expansion of this subject currently outlined at Talk:George Floyd protests/Archive 1#2020 St. John's Church incident. It very plainly meets the WP:GNG, if you're into that. —Cryptic 00:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~and rename~~ This topic has been merged with an expanded draft on the same topic. Please see the revised content. I'd propose 2020 St. John's Church incident as a new name for the topic as the event relates to actions well beyond Trump holding up a bible. - Wikmoz (talk) 01:01, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is much better now. No doubts, this event deserves separate page. A significant part of this is the calling for military intervention by Trump. Trudeau dodged the question about it [11]. Biden criticized it [12], etc. My very best wishes (talk) 01:20, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Striking "rename" following renaming of topic. - Wikmoz (talk) 08:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename given recent additions to the article. $ɱ$ (talk) 01:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable on its on, as it was a unique event within a larger event. Plus, there is enough content that it clearly be a sub article of George Floyd protests.Casprings (talk) 01:45, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename Historians are saying this could be one of the most iconic moments of Donald Trump's presidency. I would suggest changing the name to Donald Trump visit to St. John The lorax (talk) 02:21, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree I like Donald Trump visit to St. John Church as a new title. It descriptive and non-editorialized. - Wikmoz (talk) 02:32, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename Since the photo op was in response to the fire the night before, and since the events surrounding the photo op were significant, I propose changing the name of the article to 2020 St. John's Church fire, with the photo op being a section of the article.Bartholomite (talk) 02:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree - Good idea, focusing on Trump's role alone is giving him too much coverage. HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 11:52, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree - Ridiculous. That would be like calling the 9/11 attacks "2001 World Trade Center fires." -Jordgette [talk] 14:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ under Donald Trump visit to St. John Church or similarly neutral name. Feoffer (talk) 02:37, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We've now crossed into Speedy Keep Feoffer (talk) 03:52, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as named Donald Trump visit to St. John's Church. Responses from Joe Biden and the Australian government launching an investigation into the treatment of the Channel 7 news reporters give further validity/further content for the article. — IVORK _Talk 03:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Numerous reliable sources worldwide are devoting significant coverage to this particular event, and it seems quite clear that historians will describe this as a very significant episode in Trump's presidency. This article needs normal editing as time goes by, not deletion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:40, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that "Donald Trump visit to St. John's Church" is a better title than the original. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:44, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a better title exists, but to call this a visit to a church is just wrong. Something like "Trump photo op while waving a bible after his thugs violently suppress a peaceful assembly" would be far more appropriate. - MrX 🖋 12:32, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nerge! It is not very significant, and most of the outrage comes from the protests. It should be merged into the main article. RBolton123 (talk) 03:43, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - for now. It's way too early to delete this. There's already been a massive amount of coverage in reliable sources about this, it continues to be discussed in reliable sources, and will probably only grow over time. It's arguably one of the biggest single events related to the George Floyd protests and as such, having its own article is appropriate. JimKaatFan (talk) 03:47, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's distinct from the protests, and content has been moved out from the protest articles. WP:GNG passed. starship .paint (talk) 03:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I must say, if you merge this back to George Floyd protests in Washington, D.C. - this would overwhelm the other article in terms of WP:WEIGHT. This article is significantly longer. starship .paint (talk) 14:02, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a major event. If it is renamed the new name should reflect that neither the rector nor the archbishop was consulted. Given that church staff were forced off of the pavilion, I don't believe that invasion would be too strong, and visit falsely suggests that he was invited.. A merge would be acceptable. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 03:54, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how many rectors this church has, but at least two have been named in sources which have been used in the page about the church: one "Rev. Robert Fisher" (Fox News tv interview and article), the other "Rector Gini Gerbasi" (post on Axios). – Athaenara ✉ 12:07, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Rector Gini Gerbasi, who previously worked at St. John's on Lafayette Square and now works at the St. John's in nearby Georgetown..." Capewearer (talk) 12:13, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the many requests above. It was a significant event in the sense where despite being a photo op, involved the dispersal of many protestors and shifted the tide of the protests for a short while. Its involvement of many high-ranking officials such as the archbishop, as well as the sharp criticisms it lashed also indicates the significance of this move as a major event. Azurevanilla ash (talk) 05:44, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (in some form) - The content should be kept either as a stand alone article or merged into the main article. Given the size of the content on this matter and the size of the main article would suggest that these are kept separate to avoid creating an excessively large article.Tracland (talk) 06:15, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Move any useful content into the appropriate article. Otherwise, WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. KidAd (talk) 06:36, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Koridas (...Puerto Rico for statehood!) 08:10, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - While this may prove to be a moment of great significance, it's too soon to state such authoritatively. Merge until history proves it's worthy of its own article. Thmazing (talk) 09:02, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it is notable enough just because of how random it was and how the peaceful protesters where dispersed with flash bangs and tear gas. — RealFakeKim T 09:12, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now per Cullen and Starship.paint above, with no prejudice against another rename, should this turn out to be part of a larger sequence of events. Easily meets WP:COVERAGE, WP:DEPTH, and WP:DIVERSE in coverage that focuses on this event and not the protest as a whole, and it's too early to judge WP:LASTING. Capewearer (talk) 09:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Lafayette Square Park ambush seeing as police moved in thirty minutes before curfew without warning protestors. This was a significant event in the protests timeline. There's also widespread condemnation around the world regarding this event. This is also a key event in our history regarding freedom of assembly and freedom of the press in the United States. Many historians agree this was a defining moment for the protests and Donald Trump's presidency. Miss HollyJ (talk) 12:16, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Y'all will try to censor anything that doesn't lick Trump's boots. Kire1975 (talk) 12:20, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SIGCOV, WP:10YT, and WP:PURPOSE. History is being made right before our eyes. It's important not to lose meaningful content that documents a major nation's rapid descent into fascism. - MrX 🖋 12:21, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no redirect, as WP:NOTNEWS,WP:RECENTISM. You all have gone mental. I fully expect soon that we'll have articles on every single one of Trump's tweets. -- Netoholic @ 12:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're arguing for the existence of ghosts, and you're calling other editors "mental"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:29, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This has become a topic of debate and discussion for scholars and historians. An essential component in providing an overall perspective of the George Floyd protests. PenulisHantu (talk) 14:04, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the Protests article. This incident deserves a report there, maybe a paragraph, at most a subsection. It currently has two sentences which could be expanded a little. There is no way we should elevate this one incident to a standalone article, complete with a minute-by-minute timeline for heavens sake. This is an encyclopedia, not a liveblog. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:38, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (but rename). As the sources reflect, this is hugely important. See, e.g., New York Times: "And when the history of the Trump presidency is written, the clash at Lafayette Square may be remembered as one of its defining moments." As of now, the use of violence against the lawfully assembled protesters at Lafayette Park has caused a rift between Trump and the Secretary of Defense (see CNN, Defense chief breaks with Trump on response to protests). This is not a "routine" or ordinary event. This is extraordinary, perhaps unprecedented in recent decades. Neutrality^talk 15:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Those who think this is not notable should count the number of votes here... presently over thirty, which speaks to the notability in itself. Please also check Special:NewPages for a refresher in what's truly not notable...I won't point any examples out, but they're very easy to find there. Cellodont (talk) 15:17, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
further comment The article as it stands is a perfect example of one the several characteristic kinds of bad WP writing. In this case, it's bloat. When it comes down to it, this is one episode in the larger narrative of the protests, and it should be presented that way. Instead, because of the abundance of writing about the incident, and also, if I may be quite rude about it, because of the propensity of WP authors (I cannot bring myself to say "editors" because editing is the antithesis of what is happening here) to solve all issues by simply writing more, There are way too many words and way too much detail and way too many references; if any actual editing were going on, two-thirds of it would go away as excessive elaboration. And if it were pruned back to that, it would fit in an article on the protests without a problem. But it seems to me that any attempt to do any of this would be met with stiff opposition. Mangoe (talk) 15:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. There are no excessive details. As currently written, this page is MUCH better than most pages on scientific subjects or history/politics in other countries. This is probably because we have a lot more participants contributing to US politics. My very best wishes (talk) 16:02, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now per Capewearer's reasons. If this turns out to become just part of a bigger event that would supersede this visit, then it should be merged. But if not, this article should stay. Vida0007 (talk) 15:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Enough reliable sources for this incident to merit own article. I would be ok with merging it if it becomes part of a larger series of Trump visits or the like.Found5dollar (talk) 16:52, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article is clearly pretty well sourced and has a lot of depth (more than I expected to be honest), enough for it to be its own article. Maybe it made sense when this requested was started, but currently it's the same size as George Floyd protests in Washington, D.C., even though there's not really any extraneous information, so a merge doesn't make sense. -Xbony2 (talk) 17:03, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Content deserves to exist somewhere, and it's too far out of the scope to include in George Floyd protests, which is already 170kB and likely to get longer. userdude 18:07, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per UserDude. This event specifically has had far to much public reaction and outcry to not be included somewhere and there doesn't seem to be a suitable place to merge it. - Aza24 (talk) 18:13, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Lafayette Square Park ambush or something like that. The event is certainly notable at this point but I don't think the most important part was the church visit itself. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 18:29, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Many sources indicating this is a major, pivotal event of historic importance.It has united Episcopalian clergy in furious denunciation [13], the participation of the Defense Secretary in the photo op resulted in "A former top official at the Pentagon, James Miller, resign(ing)... from his position on a Defense Advisory Board.... his decision was made over Secretary of Defense Mark Esper’s participation in President Donald Trump’s photo op in front of St. John’s Church" [14] and is even splitting his conservative evangelical base the photo op was intended to appeal to[15]. Smeat75 (talk) 19:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Donald Trump visit to St. John's Church, this is significant as a major and deliberate escalation of conflict, with international implications as well. . . . dave souza, talk 19:55, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Allow a couple months for the events to settle out, and if it no longer seems notable enough to warrant a separate article, merge it into the page on George Floyd protests in Washington, D.C. Coffeespoons (talk) 20:12, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as now entitled, "Donald Trump visit to St. John's Church", as it is about the actions of President Trump and some in his administration attempting to assert a political position and to persuade public opinion about him, it is not not about the killing or the protesters and, as more is revealed, potentially may reveal significant abuse of power to achieve that objective, so consider it worthy of being a separate article. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 20:52, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The dealings of the President of the United States is not just random "news", this stuff has major impact on the whole country and the world.★Trekker (talk) 21:09, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm usually a little more WP:DELAY than WP:RAPID (i.e. I want to see lasting significance/coverage first), but I may exceptions when there's a reallllly good indication the coverage will continue. That seems to be the case here. No objection to renomination if, somehow, the coverage drops off in favor of the next terrible thing. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:20, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: this is a sterling example of WP:NOTNEWS. Ergo Sum 00:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: So obviously not trivial. Bangabandhu. It's unfortunate that new editors can propose articles for deletion.(talk) 01:31, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, without prejudice for future changes once things settle. Has every indication at the moment of being an inflection point of public opinion. - Featous (talk) 02:04, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like this is in speedy keep territory now. Meets WP:NEVENT and the parent article is way too long already. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I thought about a merge but changed my mind. Even though it was a blip in time, it's very significant due to how bizarre it is. And that bizarreness has been widely covered in the news. You can't fit the insanity of what happened into another article. Buffaboy ^talk 02:50, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this event clearly documents a pivotal moment in American history where a sitting United State President abuses his/her authority of the military and federal agents to attack and violate the rights of American citizens excercising peaceful and lawful protest before curfew. And why? For a one minute photo-op in front of St. John's church. The DC Police Department were caught unaware and barely notified; and they would have never deployed the kind of tactics the agents used to clear out the protestors, the kind historically proven to escalate, and not de-escalate confronations. The DC Mayor was caught unaware. The church priest were evicted from the premise. This kind of insanity is normally commited by dictatorial regimes in banana republics. --Atvica (talk) 03:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or possibly merge into George Floyd protests in Washington, D.C.. I think that this instantly became a major part of his Presidency, no matter who looks at it.conman33 (. . .talk) 04:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep due to length of George Floyd protests article. Meets WP:NEVENT. --AlexKitfox (talk) 04:16, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Extraordinary event in U.S. history. This article has long-term encyclopedic value. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 05:08, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: likely speedy keep territory given that the merge option was almost exclusively supported by people commenting earlier, while later coverage led almost all people commenting since to support a distinct article on the topic. — Bilorv (Black Lives Matter) 07:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Donald Trump visit to St. John's Church or something very similar. It is not necessary to have "photo-op" mentioned in the title. Keep the needless editorializing out of the article title at the very least, please. Can we at least try to have a neutral, actually encyclopedic title? RopeTricks (talk) 09:27, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This seems to be Much Ado About Nothing per Not News; this will be forgotten in a month, and, in the meantime, the culture wars will sap our time and efforts away from neutral encyclopedia building. I realise I am going against the grain here, but, this is quite trivial. Regards, GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 09:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The real story is not so much the Bible thing, but that he had peaceful protestors treated like rioters just so he could get his photo-op. That is NOT trivial. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:15, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It certainly seems as if it will be a significant event in the Trump presidency, and that alone ought justify its inclusion. I think merging into George Floyd protests in Washington, D.C. is acceptable, but really, there's enough content here to more than justify its separate existence. Rob (talk) 10:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a watershed moment in modern American history. James Mattis also mentioned the event in his scathing critique. FunkMonk (talk) 11:57, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly a notable topic. P-K3 (talk) 11:58, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename — clearly notable by now, but the bible is not the point, and "photo-op" in the title is not neutral. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 12:15, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- In any case "Bible" should be capitalized. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:26, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is a highly significant event in US history, it is the US' equivalent of Tiananmen Square. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.48.163.78 (talk • contribs)
Comment: the article has been renamed twice during the AFD, so it's difficult to parse what some of the posts above mean: Wikmoz, for example struck out their request "and rename", but which rename did they agree with? Capewearer (talk) 13:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Not only a highly notable event, but a singular one if the context of the larger protests, so it should not be merged. "Photo op" in the title is appropriate as that is how most RS's describe it. -Jordgette [talk] 14:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Jesus Is King. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:02, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Every Hour

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

Fails WP:NSONG. "Charting indicates only that a song may be notable, not that it is notable" There is no significant individual coverage for this song outside of album reviews and interviews about its parent album Jesus Is King, therefore it should be redirected to its parent album Jesus Is King. Cool Marc ✉ 08:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Cool Marc ✉ 08:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Cool Marc ✉ 08:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I understand where you are coming from somewhat, but the article has notability potential though I had not got round to expanded it after creation. However, have now added live performances that were covered by reliable sources, also background info but could include more too at a later date like the formation of Sunday Service Choir plus the director info is notable since he spoke of it directly; believe this article passes notability now but is nowhere near a GA status yet. --Kyle Peake (talk) 09:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Kyle Peake, not every track from an album requires an article. There is no significant coverage outside of album reviews and interviews about the album. For it to be notable, there should be individual coverage of the song "Every Hour", not the album Jesus Is King. Cool Marc ✉ 10:21, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am aware of that, I never once stated that reviews of the album show notability and as for the interview bit, I know it's about the album but he directly mentions the song and I just added this] which is definitely notable in the context of the song's placement. --Kyle Peake (talk) 10:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jesus Is King: It's not necessary for every song in the album to have its own article. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 05:26, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to parent album. No independent reliable sources about the song itself. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:36, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Dua Lipa (album). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Room for 2

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

Fails WP:NSONGS. No individual notability and should be redirected to its parent album Dua Lipa. Cool Marc ✉ 07:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC) Cool Marc ✉ 07:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Cool Marc ✉ 07:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Cool Marc ✉ 07:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:NSONGS. Individual songs from an album do not need their own article unless there is substantial information that cannot be included on the parent album page. ≫ (Lil-Unique1) -{ Talk }- 09:33, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dua Lipa (album). Coverage of this song specifically is only to be found in unreliable sources. Also contains no information that can not be found in the album article. Fails NSONGS. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dua Lipa (album): It's not necessary for every song in the album to have its own article. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 05:26, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it fails WP:NSONGS. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to When We All Fall Asleep, Where Do We Go?. (non-admin closure) Juliette Han (talk) 12:47, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

8 (Billie Eilish song)

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

Fails WP:NSONGS. No individual notability and should be redirected to its parent album When We All Fall Asleep, Where Do We Go? Cool Marc ✉ 07:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Cool Marc ✉ 07:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Cool Marc ✉ 07:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is a classic music inclusionist-redirectionist debate between a classic inclusionist, User:DarklyShadows, and a classic redirectionist, User:Coolmarc. I wrote an essay for a previous debate outlining the conflict between the mostly clear special notability guidelines and the amorphous general notability guideline, User:Robert McClenon/Music Disputes. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If we agree that the song will be mentioned in the album track listing, and we agree that the song charted, why not use the relatively clear special notability guideline saying that the song charted?
Comment - If we agree that the song will be mentioned in the album track listing, and we agree that the song charted, why not increase the nominal size of the encyclopedia by having a title rather than just a redirect?
Keep based on the above reasons. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Robert McClenon, I am not a "classic redirectionist". I would appreciate you stop making these remarks about me. How many times has it been said to you and the editor that canvassed you here that WP:NSONG does NOT say charting makes a song notable. Cool Marc ✉ 06:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to When We All Fall Asleep, Where Do We Go?: It's not necessary for every song in the album to have its own article. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 05:26, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to parent article. No third party reliable souces about the song itself. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 12:21, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The song has charted In multiple countries and has earned multiple certifications. DarklyShadows (talk) 17:41, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect- The problem with the keep argument here is that the special notability guideline specifically says If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created. The only ref that passed that is ref 3, which is a self-published source, not a reliable one. The first sentence specifically says that Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent. The problem is that there is only one self-published source, which is excluded for being trivial. Username⁶⁸⁹² 18:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:NSONGS. Without other independent and significant coverage, the song's chart performance can simply be captured in the discography page. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:46, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:NSONGS. Chart performance does not indicate notability alone. Notability should be determined by whether or not the subject has received significant coverage in third-party, reliable sources (i.e. more than just album reviews). Aoba47 (talk) 03:30, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - per failure to meet notability standards, and all other comments above. Also propose I Love You (Billie Eilish song) as a potential deletion candidate in the future.--N Ø 12:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Already deleted. [16] [17] (non-admin closure) - Flori4nKT A L K 09:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Technical 0812 (website)

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

This is not notable as per WP:CORP. A pure case of WP:COI and a blatant WP:PROMOTION case. Evident from User:Shobhit0812 and details from (https://www.technical0812.com/aboutus) that says Shobhit Sharma Founder, Writer & Executive Producer; Shobhit Sharma is the Founder of Technical 0812. Shobhit Sharma known online as "ScriptKKiddie". ~ Amkgp ✉ 06:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp ✉ 06:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp ✉ 06:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp ✉ 06:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:@Celestina007, Shashank5988, AllyD, Drat8sub, Goldsztajn, Guliolopez, I dream of horses, Johnpacklambert, Mccapra, PJvanMill, and Koridas: Request for help and review if interested. Thank you.

Update: The editor to evade his violation, has moved to draft-space. Already tagged with WP:G11 and reported at WP:AIV ~ Amkgp ✉ 06:36, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:08, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pine Telephone System

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

This article does not meet WP:ORGCRITE. All citations are primary sources and there are no secondary sources to establish notability. cookie monster (2020) 755 05:34, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. cookie monster (2020) 755 05:34, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Non notable organization. Celestina007 (talk) 06:26, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:08, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eagle Telephone System

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

This article does not meet WP:ORGCRITE. All citations are primary sources and there are no secondary sources to establish notability. cookie monster (2020) 755 05:34, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. cookie monster (2020) 755 05:34, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:55, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Barely found anything about the company aside from being one of the bidders of Mobility Fund. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 03:18, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Flag officers are typically held to pass WP:NSOLDIER and thus AfDs. Consensus backs this. (non-admin closure) Sulfurboy (talk) 05:00, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arne Söderlund

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

Unnotable author/former sailor. Cannot find any reputable sources anywhere, any coverage of this book doesn't meet notability guidelines and is trivial. Serhatserhatserhat (talk) 04:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He meets WP:SOLDIER Gbawden (talk) 06:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Which of the criterium does he meet? Serhatserhatserhat (talk) 14:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:55, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no RS provided that he was a RADM that would be necessary to satisfy #2 of WP:SOLDIER and even so that is just a presumption of notability, but he lacks WP:SIGCOV in multiple WP:RS. Mztourist (talk) 15:15, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As a rear admiral he quite clearly meets WP:SOLDIER #2. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:41, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets no. 2 of WP:SOLDIER. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 11:22, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Rank meets SOLDIER criteria; article contains sourcing verifying retirement rank.--Goldsztajn (talk) 21:39, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:SOLDIER#2 .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:19, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy redirect to Mobile Legends: Bang Bang#Characters. The creator of the article himself removed all the content already, and the WP:ATD solution was mentioned. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:21, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mobile Legends characters

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

Sending to AFD after the page creator removed the PROD notice with the following edit summary:

This article page is still new. I need some time to find a suitable web for more citation before its ready for notability.

And the reason for the PROD is:

Per WP:NOT, this is unambiguous gamecruft and game guide material.

I agree with Axem Titanium's reason - as per WP:VGSCOPE, numbers 5 through 7, this isn't a place for excessive gameplay details, nor is a place for any unsourced or poorly sourced character lists of any kind, especially when that list is placed on a newly created standalone article. Plus the use of YouTube videos, an official website, and 3 websites (GamingonPhone & Micky isn't even listed on WP:VG/S; VPEsports is) as sources is another red flag as well.

The page creator should've just removed the inappropriate content and that's it - no need to move that content into another article. See also WP:OSE based on the edit summary of that diff. theinstantmatrix (talk) 03:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend just redirecting this back to the game article itself, though total deletion is fine too. theinstantmatrix (talk) 03:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. theinstantmatrix (talk) 03:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 02:47, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sibley-Monroe checklist 2

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

Wikipedia:LISTCRUFT. I'd also suggest moving Sibley-Monroe checklist 1 to Sibley–Monroe checklist. Therapyisgood (talk) 02:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:12, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:12, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. Cavalryman (talk) 01:15, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the lot, including #1. Really pointless - excessive duplication of off-line content at best, of Wikipedia content at worst (to the extent that it mirrors current accepted taxonomy, which we have well documented). Possibly there could be a short article on the importance of the list in its historical context, if the requisite sourcing is available, but that would certainly not consist of 18 pages of links. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:33, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree they're pointless. But reducing Sibley-Monroe checklist 1 to just the text and calling it "Sibley-Monroe checklist" or "Sibley-Monroe taxonomy" (analogous to The Clements Checklist of Birds of the World) would be good. Craigthebirder (talk) 13:16, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 02:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hermione Plumptre

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

I don't think that this athlete satisfies GNG or WP:NTRACK

The races she has competed in are not at a high enough level to satisfy WP:NTRACK. The only race she is mentioned to have won was the Ergebnisse Women's Run Berlin, which given the times of the leading finishers suggests that this was not a "major senior-level international competition". The results on Google don't indicate any additional notability either Pi (Talk to me!) 02:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Pi (Talk to me!) 02:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Pi (Talk to me!) 02:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:57, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Plumptre’s achievements can be found on the following two links:

https://www.thepowerof10.info/athletes/profile.aspx?athleteid=36931

https://www.worldathletics.org/athletes/great-britain-ni/hermione-plumptre-14711690

She’s participated in some very well known events and has appeared on TV.

Also, she is regarded as being a hurdler on a national level, see the following link: https://profeet.co.uk/hurdler-hermione-plumptre/EsotericJoe (talk) 14:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable hurdler.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete has made one British final, and finished last. Not competing at a notable level of the sport. More notable as a fitness model on Instagram, but also not at a high level there. SFB 18:29, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:09, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shackled (magazine)

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

Fails WP:MEDIA. Sources provide only incidental mention, no SIGCOV at all. Rogermx (talk) 02:07, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 02:07, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 02:07, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 02:07, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Rogermx, can you explain how you came to that conclusion? The snippet from Prostitution and Pornography only shows four and a half sentences, and it looks like it's going into some detail, but I can't tell how long the passage goes on for. I'm not sure how to see the other three sources, but you seem positive that they only provide incidental mention. If you have more information about those sources, can you share what you've learned? — Toughpigs (talk) 02:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- You are right about the last three sources - I could not read them. However, none of the titles are about the magazine - they are all serious pieces on pornography. In addition, ff you search Google, there is nothing about the magazine. I suggest you provide us with some proof that we can all see that this subject is notable. Rogermx (talk) 15:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking at the later Russell source, I can free preview about 18 pages in the section this citation says this magazine is mentioned in. Likely, the magazine is mentioned as the source of something close to the hundredth photo examined. The section itself is about the photos and any accompanying texts, with sources mentioned as part of academic rigour and proof that they are appearing in circulated magazines. Actually, control-F lets me find any mentions of 'Shackled' even on pages that can't be previewed. This is in fact the case. The discussion is about how real violence is endorsed from the likely fact that no makeup artist would take the time to fake the bruises depicted in the image. Shackled is mentioned exactly one time in listing the source of the imagine. (Well, the magazine is listed one time, the word comes up twice more in the context of images of shackled women, and once more in the books index to find where the term is mentioned should one have only access to the physical copy.) And, notably, the magazine is not mentioned in the earlier section "Circulation Rates for Selected Pornographic Magazines", and even a mention there wouldn't demonstrate notability so much as common circulation.Nic T R (talk) 08:13, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. From the comments above and my read-through of the Prostitution and Pornography, it seems that this magazine is not notable, and in fact has garnered discussion (if it can even be said to have "garnered discussion") only for being an ordinary example of a widespread phenomenon. The description in Prostitution and Pornography seems particularly telling: it is introduced as being "one of roughly thirty-five such magazines distributed by Lyndon Distributors" (p. 267). In order words, nothing sets it apart except that it happened to have a catchy name or a relevant headline for this author's commentary on pornography. ~ oulfis 🌸(talk) 05:59, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify -- I was able to access the entirety of Prostitution and Pornography and read both sections where the author discusses Shackled at some length (p. 267-8 and p. 287). In both cases the actual discussion is focused on how to interpret pornographic images of sexual submission, for which Shackled provides an "illustrative" (p. 286) example, but nothing about the magazine itself is presented as noteworthy. ~ oulfis 🌸(talk) 06:08, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Juliette Han (talk) 13:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The closure was overturned at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 July 5 and replaced by a closure of no consensus. Stifle (talk) 08:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jo Rae Perkins

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. A candidate nominated for office by a party does not meet NPOL. This candidate did get a little bit of outsized attention due to her embrace of QAnon, but 24 hours later she walked it back. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:51, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:51, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:51, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to pass WP:BASIC with local coverage on an old arrest published in 2013, a few hundred words on her by AP News regarding her 2018 senate run, local coverage in January of her entry into the race, and national/international coverage more recently in a slew of articles on her winning the primary. Jlevi (talk) 17:06, 23 May 2020 (UTC) Edit: Cleaning up the statement a little. Jlevi (talk) 21:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- One article from 2013 plus the coverage of her winning the nomination this past week isn't "significant coverage" over time IMO. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:10, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Muboshgu, would you be willing to comment based on the additional sourcing that was found, and has either been integrated into the article or is collected on the talk page? There has been quite regular local coverage throughout her entire political career (since at least ~2010), and this coverage expanded to the state level during the 2016/2018 elections and more recently to the national level with her primary win. For this reason, the subject seems to easily pass BASIC. Is there a reason that standard wouldn't apply? Am I misinterpreting the BASIC standard? Thanks for your thoughts--I'm fairly new to deletion discussions, and so a fuller discussion would be useful in helping me evaluate this sort of thing in the future. Jlevi (talk) 21:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jlevi, I think you have done an admirable job in expanding this article. We disagree about the notability in this case, though. A lot of the sources in the article, like this one, aren't about her in a significant fashion. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:07, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2020 United States Senate election in Oregon as a usual and appropriate outcome for candidates running for U.S. Senate. No prejudice against recreation if the subject wins in November or if there is sustained international/national coverage of the subject's embrace of QAnon, which would push her to the Christine O'Donnell territory of notability. --Enos733 (talk) 21:09, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2020 United States Senate election in Oregon, there is significant coverage not in local media, but that coverage mostly just seems to be a brief flurry around her being an insane conspiracy theorist, meaning that she fails WP:BLP1E. There is no indication that it will be lasting. If she continues to get coverage to the same degree she has recently, the article can always be recreated. Also, the nominating statement is incorrect, she did not walk back her comments and is still clearly a QAnon cultist. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:54, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If this needs to be revisited in a year or two, fine. But she made national attention for her beliefs. Definitely more than the average losing Senate candidate will get. I also don't really agree with the deletion of losing candidate articles in the first place - all it does is remove a valuable source of information for politics geeks like myself. Kingofthedead (talk) 01:15, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Also I'll note that she didn't walk back her comments - her staff did, and she actually doubled down on them. Kingofthedead (talk) 01:16, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
" If this needs to be revisited in a year or two, fine." Notability is not temporary. She's notable now, or she isn't. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:15, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Muboshgu, your point is the exact reason we have the political test we have, especially for fresh candidates, who often pop up, run, lose, and then slink back into obscurity. I still don't see any reason why this can't be a redirect to the election page just because the election has generated coverage, especially because this is a particularly US-centric problem. SportingFlyer T·C 17:19, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Two years ago I created an article for Steve Watkins who had narrowly won the Republican congressional primary in KS-2. He had considerably more notability and vastly more campaign funding than perennial Oregon candidate Perkins, but the article about him was deleted. After Watkins narrowly won the general election, a new article was created with considerably less reliably sourced material. The article here contains numerous errors of fact, and it's not worth fixing. There's absolutely nothing notable about Perkins. Many others hold to the same conspiracy theory that she does, although they are more than those who claim they were abducted by space aliens. She got about 175,00 votes running against other nobodies in the U.S. Senate primary, a statewide race of course, up from the less-than-3% she got in the 2014 Senate primary. Only about 330,000 total votes were cast in the 2020 Republican primary for the nomination. In another simultaneous statewide primary, the Oregon Democratic 2020 presidential primary, had about 600,000 voters cast ballots and about the same in the hotly contested Democratic race for Secretary of State.[18] Merkley, the uncontested nominee for reelection in 2020, is immensely popular. He won the 2014 contest by about 250,000 votes. Perkins will cascade back into obscurity on November 3rd. Activist (talk) 08:11, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Jlevi and Kingofthedead. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 11:33, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, without prejudice against recreation in the future if circumstances change. As always, candidates are not automatically entitled to keep Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates — and the test that makes one particular candidate more special than other candidates is not just the ability to show that extralocal coverage has started to exist, it is that the extralocal coverage has exploded to the point that she already passes the ten year test for enduring significance.
Basically, the way to demonstrate that a candidate is a special case who deserves an article just for being a candidate is to perform the following thought experiment: assume that she loses the election, and then dies the very next day so that she never has any chance to accomplish anything more notable than running for office and losing. Then ask yourself the question, "given those assumptions, has her candidacy already made her so highly famous that she will still be a household name in 2030?" If you can't convincingly answer "yes" to that question, then what you have is not a candidate who has become permanently notable, but a temporarily newsy WP:BLP1E. Bearcat (talk) 15:11, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- It’s interesting to draw the line there. Is Vivian Davis Figures or Roxanne Conlin still a household name? Not really, no. And honestly very very few people in politics are big enough that they’ll still be talked about a lot outside their home state in 10 years. State representatives are often pretty anonymous yet they still get an article by default while someone who’s a major party candidate for a very high office who’s received a lot of national media attention isn’t? I just don’t quite get the rationale here. Kingofthedead (talk) 19:11, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  Kingofthedead, Vivian Davis Figures is a ~~former~~ current state legislator. Roxanne Conlin is a former U.S. Attorney. Both of those positions meet WP:NPOL. Perkins was a county party chair. That is not covered in NPOL. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:12, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  
  You're raising actual NPOL-passing officeholders as evidence that our position on unelected candidates is somehow unreasonable? One of these things is not like the others, as they used to sing on Sesame Street. Bearcat (talk) 22:06, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. WP:NOTNEWS isn't a reason to delete the article. The point of NOTNEWS can be summed up by this: "However, not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia." Or, in other words, judgment is required. So let's use judgment here. Perkins isn't just a "candidate" for a local office or even for a Congressional seat. She is the nominated candidate (having won a contested primary) of a major U.S. political party for the office of United States Senator. And if you do a Google search on her name, restricted to news sites, there are 14,500 results; she is getting huge media coverage. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 18:54, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
John Broughton, She is the nominated candidate (having won a contested primary) of a major U.S. political party for the office of United States Senator. That still fails NPOL. And see WP:GHITS as well. This is the coverage a candidate for office gets, and candidates are not notable for being candidates. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:06, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Muboshgu,WP:GHITS is an essay. And even that says "... searches using Google's specialty tools, such as Google Books, Google Scholar, and Google News, are more likely to return reliable sources that can be useful in improving articles than the default Google web search." That's why I used a Google News search rather than searching all of the web. As for WP:NPOL, that includes this: "The following are presumed to be notable: ... Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." Perkins has received significant press coverage. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:21, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Every candidate in every election can always claim to have received "significant press coverage" for the purposes of claiming that they pass WP:GNG and are therefore "exempted" from having to pass NPOL. So the test that an unelected candidate has to pass to get a Wikipedia article is not just "does press coverage of the campaign exist?" — it is "since every candidate can always show some evidence of press coverage without necessarily being of enduring public interest, does this candidate's press coverage establish her as much more special than every other candidate, in some way that passes the ten year test for enduring significance?" Bearcat (talk) 22:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough substantive coverage to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:36, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- She's got substantive coverage from NY Times, CNN, National Review, even foreign sources such as The Guardian. And not to mention countless amounts of local coverage. Not sure how you can justify that. Kingofthedead (talk) 06:50, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - The test that a candidate has to clear, in order to earn a special exemption from our normal consensus on the non-notability of candidates, is not "does coverage of the candidacy exist" — every candidate in every election can always answer that question in the affirmative, so our normal consensus would be inherently meaningless if the existence of campaign coverage were all it took to get a candidate around it. Rather, the question that has to be answered is "does her coverage demonstrate a credible reason to believe that people will still care about this in 2030?" — and a reason to answer that question in the affirmative has yet to be shown. Bearcat (talk) 17:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG WP:BASIC. As per policy, additional NPOL considerations not applicable.Djflem (talk) 16:20, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the senate race article - if she loses, she's not notable, which violates our theory of notability and WP:BLP1E. SportingFlyer T·C 07:13, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 00:36, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:BASIC. If she was only a political candidate or unsuccessful primary candidate, I would vote delete. As her party's nominee for a major election, she is notable. KidAd (talk) 01:48, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Her party's nominee for a major election" is not a notability claim that gets a person into Wikipedia. The notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable office, not just running for one — even presidential candidates aren't exempted from having to satisfy NPOL just because they happen to be candidates. Bearcat (talk) 17:04, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

not sure your obsession with AfDing articles for nominees especially ones that have received enough national attention. People are gonna want to know who Jo Rae Perkins is. Deleting this article just removes a very valuable resource for them. Kingofthedead (talk) 21:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not our job to be a "resource" database of every single person whose name happens to pop up in the current news cycle — we even have a rule that explicitly says we are WP:NOTNEWS. Our job is to look past the daily news and figure out what information people are still going to need ten years from now. Literally every candidate in every election everywhere can always show campaign coverage, and thus claim that he or she passes GNG and is thus exempted from actually having to pass NPOL — so if that were how it worked, NPOL itself would be inherently meaningless, we would always have to keep an article about every single person who was ever a candidate for any political office regardless of whether they won or lost, and then we're not an encyclopedia anymore but just a worthless advertorial database of campaign brochures for unsuccessful candidates. So the test for whether or not a candidate warrants an article just for being a candidate is not "does she have campaign coverage in the here and now?" — it is "will anything we can write about her right now still matter to anybody in 2030?" Bearcat (talk) 21:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A couple responses - first, there is a lot of value assumptions in "her party's nominee for a major election" that our community has frequently rejected. It is not our role to attempt to define what is a "major election" or even a "major political party nominee." And, if the question is whether people want to know who a candidate is, there are other sources for that information (and importantly the basic information about a candidate for the U.S. Senate can always be incorporated into the page about the election (or perhaps at QAnon). The second concern about political candidates is that there is a tendency for the page to fall into a state of promotional material. This is often because editors are often supporters of the candidate (especially the less known they are) and can turn quickly into repositories of political positions or endorsements and may violate WP:NPOV, because there are few people watching the page to patrol against those violations of policy. --Enos733 (talk) 22:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems enough to me to pass WP:GNG. Govvy (talk) 13:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Govvy. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 20:00, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG/BASIC. No good reason to delete/merge/redirect for editorial reasons. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 03:03, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So you all think she passes WP:BLP1E and will be notable even if she loses the election? SportingFlyer T·C 03:10, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plainly already meets GNG requirements. The arguments advanced by deletion proponents are fundamentally inconsistent with Wikipedia's basic encyclopedic purpose. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 05:08, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttps://xnet.ynet.co.il/design/articles/0,14563,L-3107132,00.html

[2] ttp://zeek.forward.com/articles/117212/

[3] ttps://forward.com/slideshow/365364/12-must-see-works-of-israeli-street-art/#slide-9

[1]

[2]

[3]